Is Psychology a Science?

[Ronald Zeeman]

He was one of the few millwrights with a post secondary education. It was a hospital union, province wide all the support staff. Keep in mind he is a Mensa member. This was probably the greatest help. The guys a walking encyclopedia. When I was in the hospital with my stroke, some of the staff knew who he was. Were both retired.

 

[Jonn]

However I think some trainees do not understand quantitive methods as well as they need to, this is both a gatekeeping and training issue.

Could you explain what "quantitive methods" are?

 

[Jonn]

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

There are some very fundamental requirements to be good at psychology/psychiatry.
A number come to mind:
1. An objective mindset studiously embraced.
2. A profound understanding of yourself and your own biases.

And a third:
3. The integrity not to be coward by social or political expectations.
"Integrity" is not an option, imo.

 

[Jonn]

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.

"Something else" is the biggest issue with psychiatry and psychology.
There are things that are essentially forbidden to be talked about.
Those who do could be intimidated in various ways to dissuade them from commenting further.
I am referring to electronic harassment.

The establishment will gaslight people about this topic and I find that reprehensible, since to an extreme degree, "The Truth shall set you free."

In essence, those who have been ritually abused through electronic harassment are "thrown to the wolves".
An obscenity, but such is life.

 

[Jordy]

The brain is obviously an enormously more complex system than anything that is studied in the hard sciences, and understanding the tiny elements that make it up (neurons) doesn't help much. The internal structure of a complex system that is made by humans and made up of simple elements studied in physics (say electric components) is much easier for us to understand, because the way we build is with use of many abstractions at diffirent levels in a way that is intuitive to humans.

A brain doesn't neccesarily have any kind of internal structure that is easy for us to categorize parts of by dedicated function and their respective subsystems. To us it is just a blackbox where we push some buttons or throw in some chemicals and see what happens, but we cannot obtain predictable model of the internal workings, that is what sets psychology apart from hard sciences and engineering disciplines.

We can understand a computer program that has been created by humans simply by looking at the thousands ones and zero that its binary consists of, its not an easy task but it's possible. However attempting to understand even the "readable" code generated by an ai that is developing trough trial and error becomes near impossible, the same way understanding a brain developed trough the trial and error of evolution would be near impossible.

 

[Fino]

One thing that can be said for psychology is that it is more immediately relevant than any other subject because it concerns the very things we do and say even as we discuss psychology itself.

 

[Jonn]

The brain is obviously an enormously more complex system than anything that is studied in the hard sciences, and understanding the tiny elements that make it up (neurons) doesn't help much. The internal structure of a complex system that is made by humans and made up of simple elements studied in physics (say electric components) is much easier for us to understand, because the way we build is with use of many abstractions at diffirent levels in a way that is intuitive to humans.

A brain doesn't neccesarily have any kind of internal structure that is easy for us to categorize parts of by dedicated function and their respective subsystems. To us it is just a blackbox where we push some buttons or throw in some chemicals and see what happens, but we cannot obtain predictable model of the internal workings, that is what sets psychology apart from hard sciences and engineering disciplines.

We can understand a computer program that has been created by humans simply by looking at the thousands ones and zero that its binary consists of, its not an easy task but it's possible. However attempting to understand even the "readable" code generated by an ai that is developing trough trial and error becomes near impossible, the same way understanding a brain developed trough the trial and error of evolution would be near impossible.

We don't need to fully comprehend the mechanism of the brain.
Simple observation of what drives human behaviour is exceedingly helpful.

My understanding about human psychology incorporates the evolutionary process and the factors that created evolutionary success.
Realising that the belief in an omnipotent being was only possible after an evolutionary development of a certain part of the cerebral cortex, as an example, puts things in perspective nicely and elicits enormous insight.
Reasoning can skip over many of the "nuts and bolts" of the human enigma.

 

[Jordy]

We don't need to fully comprehend the mechanism of the brain.
Simple observation of what drives human behaviour is exceedingly helpful.

My understanding about human psychology incorporates the evolutionary process and the factors that created evolutionary success.
Realising that the belief in an omnipotent being was only possible after an evolutionary development of a certain part of the cerebral cortex, as an example, puts things in perspective nicely and elicits enormous insight.
Reasoning can skip over many of the "nuts and bolts" of the human enigma.

To make an anology, this more like understanding a computer trough it's instruction set architecture, which is fine for programming it but won't help you repair hardware bugs.

 

[Jonn]

I mentioned how discussions about ritual abuse (and mind control) are actively discouraged. The following might give people some insight into how this is done to prevent professionals from speaking out about the subject.

7. Misrepresentation of Psychotherapists as Witch-hunters, Satan-hunters, Zealots, and Religious Crusaders​

Psychotherapists who publicly state that they treat trauma for ritual abuse or mind control or who educate on the subject are often depicted as religious zealots hunting down witches or Satan himself, are charged with fostering moral panic, urban legends, and mass hysteria, and are accused of trying to find histories of ritual abuse and mind control in all of their psychotherapy clients. These kinds of misrepresentations are so ubiquitous on the Internet that they can easily be mistaken as fact.


It is my experience that psychotherapists who treat clients reporting such trauma are generally very cautious about what they say about ritual abuse or mind control and that many psychotherapists who previously publicly shared their opinions that these forms of abuse exist are now silent on these issues.


This is largely because of the effective use of the kinds of disinformation tactics described on this webpage to ridicule such beliefs, to slander therapists who profess them, and to sway public opinion, etc., and the sharp rise in lawsuits against psychotherapists alleging induction or implantation of false memories of abuse in the 1990s.


Of the many therapists I know who have treated clients with ritual abuse or mind control trauma, all of these therapists, including pastoral counselors and Christian therapists, deeply hope that their clients have never suffered these devastating kinds of abuse. These forms of abuse leave clients with stores of pain that are hard for most people to imagine, and that emotionally grieve anyone who bears witness to accounts of them, including therapists.


Victims and survivors of these atrocities are also among the most challenging clients to treat, because they are often highly suicidal, terrified, may still be suffering the abuse, require more crisis intervention and out-of-therapy contact than other clients, often have little or no funding for therapy, and usually require long-term treatment.


Yet, the hope that clients did not suffer these abuses does not justify a clinical failure to correctly assess and treat trauma originating in ritual abuse or mind control, no matter how harshly therapists may be criticized for this.

https://strengthtoheal.org/common-m...out-psychotherapy-treatment-for-ritual-abuse/

 

[Jonn]

Yet, the hope that clients did not suffer these abuses does not justify a clinical failure to correctly assess and treat trauma originating in ritual abuse or mind control, no matter how harshly therapists may be criticized for this. The costs of such errors include:

(a) lack of treatment for this trauma, causing people to believe themselves defiled and evil at their core rather than understanding that these feelings and beliefs originated in their ritual abuse and mind control
(b) reinforcement of victims’ fears that they are hopelessly crazy and untreatable
(c) mis-diagnosis, often for Schizophrenia or Delusional Disorder, that often leads to incorrect and excessive use of medications and possible long-term hospitalization or involuntary hospital commitment

https://strengthtoheal.org/common-m...out-psychotherapy-treatment-for-ritual-abuse/
Need I say more?

 

[Jonn]

Psychotherapists commonly diagnose DID in clients who report histories of ritual abuse and mind control. And these clients commonly report that their abusers used torture, hypnosis and conditioning to intentionally induce their psyches to form dissociated self-states that their abusers could then exploit for nefarious purposes.

https://strengthtoheal.org/common-m...out-psychotherapy-treatment-for-ritual-abuse/
Which brings me to "Hypnotic Trance Induction".

A dissociated state is actually a type of hypnotic trance that doesn't have to be D.I.D. related.
A simple "Dissociated Disorder" can actually do the job quite nicely in mind manipulation.
And there are things people should know about some of the myths and disinformation related to hypnosis.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Watching U-tube videos , noticed I am getting more into psychology, seeing the best practitioners still consider it a weak science. I would rather watch Curt Janmungal, Brian Keating, or Lex Fridman interview guests than Jordan Peterson, through interesting are not as rigorous. logic is good but if logic was the ideal quantum mechanics and general relativity would have been reconciled years ago. I personally think their is a quantum basis for psychology.

 

[Jonn]

Watching U-tube videos , noticed I am getting more into psychology, seeing the best practitioners still consider it a weak science.

For me, there is enjoyment in learning about psychology due to applying that knowledge to personal experiences to gain insight and personal growth.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

The only insight I'm concerned with is how does the universe work. Personal grown happens organically having a person with a Phd telling me how to do it has no traction.

 

[Cryptid]

Is Psychology a Science? It is, at best, what is referred to as a "Soft Science" -- a social science under the HASS umbrella, rather than a "Hard Science" under the STEM umbrella.

"Hard Science" features include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, reliance on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method. While "Soft Science" may display some of these features, they are all too often clouded by subjectivity and subject-experimenter interactions.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Is Psychology a Science? It is, at best, what is referred to as a "Soft Science" -- a social science under the HASS umbrella, rather than a "Hard Science" under the STEM umbrella.

"Hard Science" features include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, reliance on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method. While "Soft Science" may display some of these features, they are all too often clouded by subjectivity and subject-experimenter interactions.

You nailed it exactly why I'm not a fan. why I enjoy talking to my sister a geologist, Hard science and concurrently a economist a soft science, Also my brother has a under graduate degree in psychology. he told me he once wrote a paper for his professor that the subject matter was crap. fortunately my brother should have taken chemistry in university so I instead took chemistry in college.

 

[Jonn]

Is Psychology a Science? It is, at best, what is referred to as a "Soft Science"

<snip>

While "Soft Science" may display some of these features, they are all too often clouded by subjectivity and subject-experimenter interactions.

A soft science is still a science. <shrug>

 

[Cryptid]

A soft science is still a science. <shrug>

That's like saying a sponge cake is still food.

 

[Jonn]

That's like saying a sponge cake is still food.

Well, according to what someone said above, Psychology incorporates some aspects of the hard sciences.

I understand you have little interest in psychology.
I find it fascinating.
To each their own.

Pax...

 

[Cryptid]

I understand you have little interest in psychology.

I used to have a great deal of interest, which would explain my Psych Minor (EE Major). My current lack of interest in psychology is based on two things: (1) I rely on definitive quanta to make decisions; and (2) Psychology can provide only vague qualia, and only after action has been taken.

Psychology is useful for manipulating people, but to get things done requires physical action regardless of emotions, feelings, or motivations.