Is Psychology a Science?

[Alaric593]

I view it in this way, when done properly by those with the aptitude for the requirements in the need for rigor, it can be viewed as a science. But much like economics, even with the best mind studying a problem, it's still only going to produce a range which is why everything in it is a gradient.

But through grade inflation, it has become filled with minds not suited for rigorous application leading to less than optimal work product that fails replication more times than not.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

The scientific method,...create a specific set of conditions,...then compare one variable against a control. Then, can one demonstrate repeatability within this context and provide sufficient statistical power? If done well,...the results are ONLY true within this specific context. It is then up to other investigators to either repeat these experiments, or change another variable and come up with another set of results. "Rinse and repeat" until sufficient level of "gaps in the knowledge" have been satisfied. This can take many years.

Now, with psychology,...with everyone being unique,...it is difficult to establish a single variable and a control for the experiment. As a result, a lot more study is needed to fill in the gaps in the knowledge. To suggest that psychology isn't a science is an error in thinking,...in fact, it may actually be one of the more difficult sciences to study,...as compared to math and physics, because trying to change one variable and establishing a control is inherently more difficult.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

In statistics it's called design of experiments, I doubt many psychologists take any advanced statistics courses other than basic, ones required to get their degrees. Astronomers use small sample sizes.

 

[Jonn]

What I do sugest is that many people who dislike psycologysts have good reasons to do so and should not be tagged as stupids/ignorants so ligthly.

I was speaking from personal experience.
I was involved with a toxic culture and they were ignorant about the benefits of psychotherapy. It was another case of groupthink where their premise was wrong but because it was supported by the power group, it was accepted as fact.
And yes, there are good an bad psychologists out there. People have to shop around.

Regarding psychiatrists.
It took me 3 attempts to find a good one.
The first two were governed by the medical/political narrative that the best way to treat mental illness/difficulties was through drugging people out if the minds.
The last one actually talked me through it and he changed my life for the better, enormously.
It was a case of: "The Truth shall set you free."

BTW, If you meet one psychologist/psychiatrist, you have met one psychologist/psychiatrist.
Not all are the same quality or have the same degree of professionalism.
There are some who lack integrity and simply follow the official narrative.
But this doesn't mean there are problems with the discipline.
The problem is some of the people who join the profession.

Unlike politicians, some on the medical fraternity lack a high degree of integrity.
Whereas *most* politician lack professionalism.

N.B.
I never said people who have a problem with psychologists are "stupid".
You misquoted me.
I said it was "shown to be evidence of ignorance/bias/irrationality."

 

[Atrapa Almas]

You misquoted me.

Yes, I missquoted you on purpose to try to show you that your general claim about people who distrust psycologysts may be offensive.

Invariably, this has shown to be evidence of ignorance/bias/irrationality.

Lets say a person named Jhon have had a very bad personal experience with psycologysts and then I say:

Hey Jhon, Invariably (which includes you), this way of thinking of you is an evidence (almost a scientific proff) of your ignorance, bias and irrationality.

Jhon would probably feel insulted by me, because I said that he is an ignorant, an irrational person and that cant think without bias. And that is almost the definition of being stupid.

Now, ¿How many people of this forum may have had bad experiences with psycologysts? How many of them may have good reasons to think badly about psycologysts?

How will they feel when they look to your post?

But yes, I quoted you wrongly. I must probably pay more attention to the way I quote others.

Sorry for closing the door loudly after you drop an atomic bomb on the town.

 

[Matthias]

Psychology is a major people choose when they're not smart enough to get a degree in the hard sciences. I believe it's considered a soft science but since it tends to attract the mentally ill (the mentally well often don't see any need for psychology) and emotional thinkers who don't have the logical thinking skills of people who get majors in the hard sciences, I'd say it's more of an art given the poor quality research and practice of it.

Poor quality research resulting from emotional reasoning, incompetence and bias due to political ideology has resulted in psychologists accepting theories that contradict basic scientific facts such as a belief that men can get pregnant and embracing people's delusions about their identity instead of helping them embrace reality.

The current state of psychology is so bad that psychologists had a better understanding of autism and other mental health problems 60 years ago than they do today when most psychologists knew mental problems resulted from bad parenting.

 

[Atrapa Almas]

Talking about how to hurt others...

 

[Thinx]

@Matthias, wow your posts are getting more offensive and unpleasant again, you have bigoted views and you have trouble taking feedback so I expect you will justify yourself rather than tone it down. I will start reporting your posts next, because this way of dismissing ideas and views is pretty inappropriate and not what I come here to read. This is a discussion not a chance to say unsupported unpleasant comments.

 

[Thinx]

I think for psychology research to be effective, it does need to use both quantitive and qualitative methods, and understand both. It's a great step forward that research sometimes focusses on the quality of people's experience of issues they are up against. However I think some trainees do not understand quantitive methods as well as they need to, this is both a gatekeeping and training issue.

1. Some need more education in stats and how they work prior to entry. 2. Training in this area needs to improve. Bring in some specialists initially to offer it, but they also have to be good at putting it over and explaining what the point is for people who may have been totally put off back in the day by scary maths teachers! Seen that effect a lot in training mature students in therapy or counselling. But we have to read and understand relevant research for our discipline. I'm not a psychologist but counsellors and therapists need to address the same issues, for sure.

It's no good being kind and accepting if you are too scared of maths to study quantitive research. But it's a rare skills set that embraces both sides of what's needed, currently I have found, when recruiting.

 

[Matthias]

@Matthias, wow your posts are getting more offensive and unpleasant again, you have bigoted views

In your opinion.

I will start reporting your posts next, because this way of dismissing ideas and views is pretty inappropriate and not what I come here to read. This is a discussion not a chance to say unsupported unpleasant comments.

Are you saying you want to censor and silence me because you are intolerant of people who disagree with your ideas? I hope not because dismissing my ideas while complaining about other people disagreeing with your ideas sounds like hypocrisy to me.

This is a discussion not a chance to say unsupported unpleasant comments.

A discussion involves hearing all sides. I don't desire to censor your unsupported unpleasant comments such as your accusation that I am a bigot because I believe in free speech and have no problem tolerating views that disagree with my own.

 

[tree]

REMINDER

If you come across something you find offensive or believe breaks the rules, report it to a member of staff using the report button. Do not reply to the thread. If you are having a problem with another member of the forums, you may contact a member of staff via Private Message about it.

https://www.autismforums.com/threads/general-rules-guidelines.3/

 

[Jonn]

Yes, I missquoted you on purpose to try to show you that your general claim about people who distrust psycologysts may be offensive.

Please don't do that. It is misleading.

 

[Jonn]

Lets say a person named Jhon have had a very bad personal experience with psycologysts and then I say:

Hey Jhon, Invariably (which includes you), this way of thinking of you is an evidence (almost a scientific proff) of your ignorance, bias and irrationality.

This is where communication often breaks down. People taking a comment out of context.

I don't blame you for misunderstanding where I was coming from, but I am surprised you rejected my explanation that I was talking from personal experience involving a toxic segment of a community I was engaged with at another website.

In addition, I have mentioned explicitly that I too have had problems with some in the medical fraternity.
I stated that it took me 3 attempts in finding a good psychiatrist.

The other thing that needs to be mentioned is that there is a degree of crossed purposes in evidence.
I am talking about the psychological discipline and how some reject the benefits as a result of ignorance, bias, or irrationality.

When people become very emotional, perhaps as a result of trauma, there is a danger they become emotionalistic and lose their objectivity, hence my use of the term "irrational".
This is what I encountered elsewhere, and this was the motivation for my creating this discussion here.
Consider it being cathartic for me.
Rather ironic, I know.

Jhon would probably feel insulted by me, because I said that he is an ignorant, an irrational person and that cant think without bias. And that is almost the definition of being stupid

I personally wouldn't have been insulted.
Rather, I would have asked for the author to clarify that statement.
(Recall how I asked you if you considered all psychiatrists/psychologists the same)

I did mention to you that there was a misunderstanding of the context I was using.

 

[Jonn]

Psychology is a major people choose when they're not smart enough to get a degree in the hard sciences.

My experience differs.
I have found most people engage with psychology because they are fascinated by the subject matter.
I am one of "those".

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that "Statistics" is a required course to achieve qualification.
This requirement is notoriously difficult.

While I have never been involved in a formal course in psychology, I have benefited enormously as a result of this discipline. It has literally changed my life for the better.
I think it a shame that some haven't gained from seeing a competent practitioner.

 

[Fino]

Yes, statistics is evil. But yes, it's common for people who study certain subjects to develop an ego as if thousands upon thousands haven't done it before them and will do it after them, all the while struggling to understand that intelligence is far more complicated than what one studies in a school.

 

[Jonn]

Yes, statistics is evil. But yes, it's common for people who study certain subjects to develop an ego as if thousands upon thousands haven't done it before them and will do it after them, all the while struggling to understand that intelligence is far more complicated than what one studies in a school.

O/T
For some, simply having gone to university gives them the "right" to be supercilious.
I find that sort of thinking amusing.

 

[Swansong]

I do believe it is a science, just a woefully inadequate one given the current needs of humanity.

Ultimately a science is a process by which we strive to achieve greater, objective understanding about the functioning of some aspect of our reality. I believe psychology fits that criteria.

The issue is that, for whatever reason, it's extremely behind in its development. Perhaps the issue of human psychology is far too complex, maybe there's not enough money/resources going into it, maybe both, maybe something else. But the scientific process is still there, trying to advance our knowledge, even if the current methods and presumptions seem so woefully inadequate.

 

[Thinx]

In statistics it's called design of experiments, I doubt many psychologists take any advanced statistics courses other than basic, ones required to get their degrees. Astronomers use small sample sizes.

I think one of the problems both in therapy trainings and trainings for psychology in UK, is that people are asked to do a piece of research, rather than having more training that helps them to critically examine research papers. They would likely be better off using the time currently used on doing bits of research that are not usually based on a full understanding of the basics, on looking at more actual published research relating to their discipline and working towards a fuller understanding of it, and a critical examination of it's methodology, results and conclusions.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

When my Brother got his undergraduate degee in psychology I remember him telling me he wrote a paper stating how useless his degree would be he got a b plus on the paper. Worked his career as a millwright. Just wanted an education. He got voted in as vice president of his local at the end of his career.

 

[Crossbreed]

Did his psych training, at least, help him with the socio-political aspects of his job (like being a VP)?