Is Psychology science? Reflections and thoughts.

[B5B7]

There are different types or branches of psychology.
What can be called therapeutic psychology has a lot of bogus stuff in it.
But there are fields such as perceptual psychology that are more objective and based on proper experiment and hypotheses.

[Mobiboros]

There are different types or branches of psychology.
What can be called therapeutic psychology has a lot of bogus stuff in it.
But there are fields such as perceptual psychology that are more objective and based on proper experiment and hypotheses.

I was going to mention this. I got my degree in Psych and you really can't base your views on psychology from the 100 level courses. You don't even start to specialize until 200 level and often not till 300 or even grad level coursework.

There's a major division is psych. Therapy - Research.

The research end is a lot more rigorous in it's approach, deals almost exclusively with labwork and large volume case studies. Parts of the research branch also include a lot of neurology and neuro-psych.

The therapy side actually is also subdivided into 2 major groups. Medicine - non-medicine.
The Medicine side is also very rigorous in their approach and treat most disorders in the same way any doctor would treat a disease, with medications. Which require a fairly stringent level of evaluation and testing as some of the meds have toxic doses that can easily be reached (Lithium for example).
The non-med side is where psych receives a lot of it's bad reputation. And, quite honestly is deserved. When you have people like "Dr." Phil on TV giving terrible advice. Or when you have radio "Psychologists" giving you counselling on relationships. It's bunk. Real therapy often takes years because each person needs therapy tailored to them.

Now, granted, pych has really only started to mature and actually become more science based in the last few dacades. Prior to that you had what many other branches of science had centuries ago. Every crazy and crackpot coming up with a "Model". Psych has the added problem that people think of dealing with other people as "common sense" things and that any opinion is a valid one. Psych has a lot of baggage it needs to throw off before people will take it seriously.

Oh and on the Freud note. He hasn't been "Debunked" his theories are still used but a lot of the "specific" details have been thrown out or relegated to being only useful for the population he was researching (Which was really almost exclusively upper-middle class austrian women during the victorian period. So if you are a victorian era upper middle class austrian woman, his theories would help you greatly. That and the cocaine he administered).

[Superman]

Oh and on the Freud note. He hasn't been "Debunked" his theories are still used but a lot of the "specific" details have been thrown out or relegated to being only useful for the population he was researching (Which was really almost exclusively upper-middle class austrian women during the victorian period. So if you are a victorian era upper middle class austrian woman, his theories would help you greatly. That and the cocaine he administered).

I think people sometimes fail to realize that psychoanalysis is alive and well. Here in the States, insurance companies will rarely cover this type of treatment (due to it's length and frequency), and the practitioners don't come cheaply. Any psychoanalytic institute is geared toward doctorate level candidates, and the vast majority of practitioners are M.D.'s.

[Superman]

Oh and on the Freud note. He hasn't been "Debunked" his theories are still used but a lot of the "specific" details have been thrown out or relegated to being only useful for the population he was researching (Which was really almost exclusively upper-middle class austrian women during the victorian period. So if you are a victorian era upper middle class austrian woman, his theories would help you greatly. That and the cocaine he administered).

I think people sometimes fail to realize that psychoanalysis is alive and well. Here in the States, insurance companies will rarely cover this type of treatment (due to it's length and frequency), and the practitioners don't come cheaply. Any psychoanalytic institute is geared toward doctorate level candidates, and the vast majority of practitioners are M.D.'s.

[Superman]

Holy crap. That makes two this week. Can a mod nuke that? Thanks.

[The Dude]

My wife has started a B.Sc. in psychology (heading in the research direction) and I have been pleasantly surprised with the rigour in at least some aspects. It's true, the 100-level material is often high-school grade, and there's enough soft bullshit even in the 200/300s that someone taking psych as a minor or even a major could coast through while picking up almost no real science.

On the research side, they're faced with a very difficult task of detecting/quantifying subtle effects in very complex systems. In order to be effective, they really have to have their shit together when it comes to scientific method, strict experimental controls, assessment of statistical significance, etc. In my experience, engineering research is somewhat more cavalier about these things (probably because we have the benefit of applying safety factors when putting things into practice).

Anyway, I suspect that there is a real difference between the sort of psychology degree that you would get in a science faculty at a serious research university, versus what you would get from an arts faculty or humanities college.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm quite convinced that psychology is a useless pseudoscience which claims to hold answers for problems which are usually physical in nature, and in other cases, simply aren't problems at all.

The only validity in psychology is that the theoretical side can sometimes be philosophy. Freud, Jung, et. al., will be remembered centuries from now when the psychology fad is dead and buried as great philosophers, with their efforts in psychology pushed aside and remembered mainly as their failed efforts at creating a diagnostic system based on philosophy, which was simply doomed from the very beginning by its very nature to be something that is impossible to effectively apply.

[Superman]

usually physical in nature, and in other cases, simply aren't problems at all.

How about elaborating on that? I know three neurologists well, and all would disagree with you.

[Mobiboros]

I'm quite convinced that psychology is a useless pseudoscience which claims to hold answers for problems which are usually physical in nature, and in other cases, simply aren't problems at all.

The physical (ie. neuro-chemical) side of the coin is handled by Psychology as a field in the form of neuro-psych and psychiatry (the latter of which is an MD with a speciality in psych-medications).

And that's a really bad generalization to say that anyone that isn't a chemical problem isn't really a problem. Psychology, the therapy side (when done properly), is about helping people find the answers not providing it for them. Some people are lucky enough to have insight into themselves enough to deal with their emotional issues. Others need help and that's what psychology is meant to provide.

[Spoonist]

I think that the reason why so many still practice according to Freuds methods are because it is easy money.
All you do is take a more or less passive role and listen to the patient talk about their problem all the while asking simple questions to keep them going. You don't take any big risks giving out advice, or suggesting treatments. Instead you can sit in your chamber and speculate on what could be wrong without actually doing something, while of course booking another weekly meeting.

Compared to the difficult and frustrating real modern psychiatry the choice is easy for the unscrupolous.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Using Freud to teach anything about psychology - even the historical aspect - is like making students memorize shit about Medieval alchemists in chemistry class.

[Starglider]

Memory organization
-Three-stage model

Barely empirical.

-Working memory

Of little use without a strong theory of what constitutes a chunk and what doesn't.

-Long-term memory modules (Declarative, procedural, semantic, episodic)

Speculative, largely non-empirical.

-Semantic networks

Hopelessly non-empirical, huge profileration of proposed underlying mechanisms, no real experiments to distinguish between them.

-Levels of processing theory

Ditto

-Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences

Completely speculative, circumstantial evidence. This is a jumped up version of the weaker, better supported but not all that descriptive 'modular mind' hypothesis.

Fluid/crystallized intelligence

Non-empirical popsci crap.

Information-processing approach

Shows a lot of promise, but we can't really validate the mechanisms until we (a) build a general AI that behaves exactly like a human or (b) improve cognitive scanning resolution and analysis to the point that we can directly observe all the mechanisms working (ideally, both).

-Practical intelligence
-Emotional intelligence

More non-empirical popsci crap. Going beyond the self-help buzzwords, I have yet to see a good detailed theory of how other-mind modelling works (there have been a few plausible stabs at it, but nothing really convincing).

-Instinctual
-Drive-reduction approach
-Homeostasis
-Arousal-approach
-Incentive approach
-Cogitative approach
-Self-actualization

Far too simple and yes, non-empirical to infer much about underlying mechanisms or reliably predict behaviour outside of very tightly controlled lab settings. Works somewhat better on animals.

Emotions
-James-Lange theory of emotions
-Cannon-Bard theory of emotion
-Schachter-Singer theory of emotion

Profileration of theories, none of which make strong testable predictions about behaviour or brain structure, with no detailed supporting mechanisms and no experiments that can strongly discriminate between them, is not science.

-Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development
-Kohlber’s Theory of Moral Development
-Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development
-Zone of proximal development

Ditto, mostly: there is some useful science on developmental biochemistry and neuroanatomy, but almost all the 'how children learn' stuff is hopelessly speculative and usually based on biased interpretations of dubious experiments.

-Psychoanalytic approach: Freud, Jung, Horney, Adler

Utter waste of space. Roughly as scientific as 'everything is made of a combination of fire, water, air and earth'.

-Behavioral approach to personality: Skinner, Bandura

Works ok on pigeons in lab conditions, though without any bridging theory of intermediate organisation to link it to neuroanatomy it's of limited utility. Basically useless for humans.

Carl Roger’s humanistic approach to personality

*string of expletives deleted*

Reactionary crap from people who can't handle real science or the idea that the ultimate source of behaviour is neuron firing patterns.

-Biological and evolutionary approach

Basically all the good, scientific bits of psychology are in this category, which is slowly and steadily expanding. Once this links up with and sorts out the 'information processing approach' we can throw the rest of the field into the trash, though I expect some kicking and screaming along the way.

rait Theory: Allport, Cattell, Eysenck

Mostly popsci crap. Sometimes this can have limited practical utility (e.g. Myers-Briggs), but again these don't make empirical predictions, don't specify a casual mechanism or any means of ultimately linking up with the rest of science, and there are no experiments that strongly discriminate between them.

-Freud's latent and manifest content of dreams
-Dreams for survival theory

*string of expletives deleted*

Activation-synthesis theory

At least this is plausible, but again non-empirical, no strong predictions, no discriminating experiments. This might eventually be salvagable for use in the great cogsci/evpsych/information processing crusade to purge the field of 'intuitive' crap, cod philosophy and well-regarded nonsense.

[Starglider]

OTOH...

I'm quite convinced that psychology is a
useless pseudoscience which claims to hold answers for problems which are usually physical in nature, and in other cases, simply aren't problems at all.

Yeah, the Scientologists were right all along, right?

Seriously, the problems being 'physical in nature' doesn't mean you can get away without psychology. It just means that psychology that isn't explicitly based on brain structure (macro and micro) and chemistry is of dubious scientific value and should be replaced by something that is ASAP. In the mean time there are quite a few non-physically-grounded psychological theories (though a tiny percentage of the total) that do work well enough to have practical applications.

The only validity in psychology is that the theoretical side can sometimes be philosophy.

Wrong. 90%+ of philosophy is worthless intellectual masturbation. I should know, the field of general AI is plauged by it. Every time philosophy has ever managed to stumble over something useful, we promptly renamed it 'maths', 'physics', 'cosmology', 'logic' or 'cognitive science', to distinguish it from the useless word games.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Starglider wrote:

-Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development
-Kohlber’s Theory of Moral Development
-Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development
-Zone of proximal development


Ditto, mostly: there is some useful science on developmental biochemistry and neuroanatomy, but almost all the 'how children learn' stuff is hopelessly speculative and usually based on biased interpretations of dubious experiments.

Do you actually know what the Zone of Proximal Development is? It's hardly speculative nonsense and "dubious." It's a very valuable educational tool. It merely a type of scaffolding, which has been shown time and time again to be useful in improving learning. It seems as if you are going off on a rant including terms in your umbrella of attack that you don't really understand, but think it's cool to knock.

Note, this is specifically in regard to ZPD, which is a very well documented, useful tool. This is, of course, if you ARE including it in your rant, but you aren't specific.

Works ok on pigeons in lab conditions, though without any bridging theory of intermediate organisation to link it to neuroanatomy it's of limited utility. Basically useless for humans

Now it's obvious you are just hopping on the bashwagon to look cool in front of everyone else, because only someone completely ignorant of Behaviourism would say that it's basically useless for humans. Behaviorism is one of the best documented, most reliable, and most useful branches in psychology. It's value is tremendous in business, in economics, in therapy, and in education. I use this every day, so do you, and so do all teachers.

Positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, Premac's principle, contingency contracting, schedules of reinforcement all are very useful and far from "useless" on humans. ABA, PECS are both based heavily off of Behaviorism, and it's highly successful. You don't know what the hell your talking about. So stop acting like you do.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: Bandura's social observational learning and modeling is also very useful in education. Again, it's very well supported by the evidence in research.

[Starglider]

Do you actually know what the Zone of Proximal Development is?

No. I vaguely recall the term, presumably it was in some textbook I read. I could easily look it up and pretend I knew what I was talking about, but that would be pointless as well as dishonest.

Even a full-time psychology academic is extremely unlikely to have a detailed knowledge of all of the above theories. In other areas of science, it's possible to stay reasonably familiar with all the key theories because the ones that don't work get junked. Even then experts in one subfield generally won't know the details of the more obscure theories in related subfields - science is that big an endeavour these days. Psychology is much worse, because the rarity of conclusive evidence and genuine falsification means that the crap just piles up indefinitely. No-one can keep on top of all that, certainly not me. Generally psychological theories get forgotten about because they fall out of fashion, not because someone conclusively disproved them.

I can write off all of the above despite only only spending hours to days on many of them because they all stem from a common, broken methodology. I've looked at enough failures in depth to be confident in generalising. The brain is sufficiently complex and counter-intuitive (actually untrained intuition is worse than useless for a lot of cognitive science) that making toy models of high-level brain function from some mixture of tiny and/or narrow datasets, misguided analogy, personal taste and academic fashion, then trying to progressively fill in the detail does not work. Top-down psychology rarely produces reliable empirical predictions, and even when it does it's extremely difficult to link up the different top-down theories or to link the top-down theories to the bottom-up ones (otherwise we'd have numerous comprehensive models of the mind; the current absence is hardly for lack of trying). Meanwhile the bottom-up theories build on the rest of science (starting from chemistry and biology), become testable as instrumentation advances, snap together easily and are inevitable advancing towards a complete reductionist model of the human mind.

It's hardly speculative nonsense and "dubious." It's a very valuable educational tool. It merely a type of scaffolding, which has been shown time and time again to be useful in improving learning. It seems as if you are going off on a rant including terms in your umbrella of attack that you don't really understand, but think it's cool to knock.

Note, this is specifically in regard to ZPD, which is a very well documented, useful tool. This is, of course, if you ARE including it in your rant, but you aren't specific.

I noted in my second post that top-down theories while of dubious scientific use, do sometimes turn out to have practical utility. There's no shame in that - a vast amount of engineering was and still is based on rules of thumb and semiempirical theories, because nothing better is available and we have to proceed with the best we've got. I'm prepared to take your word for it that ZPD has well-documented utility, but if it was a truly solid theory (a) we'd be able to integrate it into a general mind model and (b) it'd be peer reviewed, independently replicated, generally accepted by academia, then put to use by rational people everywhere. That's what happens to new discoveries in biology, chemistry and physics, but very few top-down psychological theories make it to that status. Instead they get implemented more as fads or lifestyle choices.

Now it's obvious you are just hopping on the bashwagon to look cool in front of everyone else,

On the contrary, I've spent a lot of time in heated debates about the validity and utility of various bits of psychology, philosophy and cognitive science, mostly on rather more serious and credential-stuffed forums than this one. My views on this have evolved over time, but I've held the above ones for a few years now.

Behaviorism is one of the best documented, most reliable, and most useful branches in psychology. It's value is tremendous in business, in economics, in therapy, and in education. I use this every day, so do you, and so do all teachers. ABA, PECS are both based heavily off of Behaviorism, and it's highly successful.

I've just explained why practical utility isn't a reliable indicator of scientific validity; there's a correlation, but most practical advice and convenient-for-humans models are not in fact a good basis for a scientific theory. Behaviorism as a general principle is fine, but almost no applications use an empirical theory to predict 'if we do x, y and z, the incidence of a will increase by b% and the incidence of c will drop by d%'. In fact many people who claim to be applying it don't even use statistics or other metrics to check their results or optimise their methodology.

[Crown]

I used to help arts students study for their psychology courses and write their psychology essays when I was in university. Leaving aside the fact (right off the bat) that it was part of the arts faculty, I have to say that I did read those textbooks and it felt like I was back in high school. The level of difficulty required to get a psychology degree is somewhere between "laughable" and "can do with eyes closed while stoned".

I'm not sure if I posted this little anecdote before, but I will again;

My sister in a Neural Psychologist, and in her graduating class for Masters there were 3 other Neural-Psychs the rest were Freudian Psychologists (about 14 if memory serves) and after the ceremony they all went out for drinks to celebrate. The next day I asked her how the night went, and she replied in a round about manner, when I asked her to explain she said the following;

"I can't relax around those people, I'm scared if I fart in their presence they'll analyse it, and tell me what a bad mother my mum was."

Which kind of sums up her feelings on that particular discipline of Psychology.

However that is not to say that she doesn't consider Psychology to be a science - she does - it's just there's more to it than 'tell me about your childhood'.

[Darth Wong]

I used to help arts students study for their psychology courses and write their psychology essays when I was in university. Leaving aside the fact (right off the bat) that it was part of the arts faculty, I have to say that I did read those textbooks and it felt like I was back in high school. The level of difficulty required to get a psychology degree is somewhere between "laughable" and "can do with eyes closed while stoned".

I'm not sure if I posted this little anecdote before, but I will again;

My sister in a Neural Psychologist, and in her graduating class for Masters there were 3 other Neural-Psychs the rest were Freudian Psychologists (about 14 if memory serves) and after the ceremony they all went out for drinks to celebrate. The next day I asked her how the night went, and she replied in a round about manner, when I asked her to explain she said the following;

"I can't relax around those people, I'm scared if I fart in their presence they'll analyse it, and tell me what a bad mother my mum was."

Which kind of sums up her feelings on that particular discipline of Psychology.

However that is not to say that she doesn't consider Psychology to be a science - she does - it's just there's more to it than 'tell me about your childhood'.

The problem is that every time psychologists divine a "hidden meaning" behind a mundane action, they are devising a theory which looks suspiciously like an arts student shitting on Occam's Razor.

[Mobiboros]

The problem is that every time psychologists divine a "hidden meaning" behind a mundane action, they are devising a theory which looks suspiciously like an arts student shitting on Occam's Razor.

Sadly, even as a psych major I have to agree with this. Not every time, but greater than 99% of the time it's true. You can't really divine any meaning from mundane actions, at least not without long therapy sessions so that you can get a handle on the persons life as a whole.

The theory behind what they are doing makes sense. Basically that your current personality is built upon the sum of your experiences plus your brain chemistry (which can be affected by past experiences).. So, sometimes mundane actions do have some deeper meaning but it's not always relevent anyway since psych isn't about helping people understand what isn't broken.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

No. I vaguely recall the term, presumably it was in some textbook I read. I could easily look it up and pretend I knew what I was talking about, but that would be pointless as well as dishonest.

Even a full-time psychology academic is extremely unlikely to have a detailed knowledge of all of the above theories. In other areas of science, it's possible to stay reasonably familiar with all the key theories because the ones that don't work get junked. Even then experts in one subfield generally won't know the details of the more obscure theories in related subfields - science is that big an endeavour these days. Psychology is much worse, because the rarity of conclusive evidence and genuine falsification means that the crap just piles up indefinitely. No-one can keep on top of all that, certainly not me. Generally psychological theories get forgotten about because they fall out of fashion, not because someone conclusively disproved them.

the Zone of Proximal development isn't all that complex. I don't know why it's being labeled as more complex than it is in wiki. All it's saying is that adults, or stronger peers, should guide weaker peers/students through assignments to help them learn better and get from A to B. It's a concept strategy. I don't remember it necessarily being a theory of personality, but a way of helping people learn, because learning, as studies show, is improved through guidance during the process (scaffolding).

I've just explained why practical utility isn't a reliable indicator of scientific validity; there's a correlation, but most practical advice and convenient-for-humans models are not in fact a good basis for a scientific theory. Behaviorism as a general principle is fine, but almost no applications use an empirical theory to predict 'if we do x, y and z, the incidence of a will increase by b% and the incidence of c will drop by d%'. In fact many people who claim to be applying it don't even use statistics or other metrics to check their results or optimise their methodology.

The problem is that it's not merely practical utility. Behaviorism is one of the few objective elements of psychology that has pretty strong predictive utility. It doesn't entirely explain behavior, because behavior is also biological in nature, not just due to external stimuli. However, behaviorism's claims are well-supported in lab research, and it's ideas are falsifiable, repeatable.

I don't know why most people don't take data, perhaps because it's too time-consuming, but that has no real bearing on the idea. All Behaviorist scientists do take extensive data, as do practioners of ABA.

Would you the data supporting the use of Positive and Negative Reinforcement, contingency reinforcement schedules is bogus? Doesn't make useful predictions of what will occure? If so, that's wrong.

Again, it seems as if you are implying it's some nebulous theory that, as you said before, is basically useless, whether you are talking about practice, lab use, or theoretics.

Is it as hard a science as, say, physics? No. Physics can be more accurate. That doesn't mean Behaviorism is a useless non science.





P.S. What "research" have you actually done to substantiate your claims? By claiming people don't apply it using statistics or other metrics, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. You really should at least have more than a vague recollection of something before you attack it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah, the Scientologists were right all along, right?

Seriously, the problems being 'physical in nature' doesn't mean you can get away without psychology. It just means that psychology that isn't explicitly based on brain structure (macro and micro) and chemistry is of dubious scientific value and should be replaced by something that is ASAP. In the mean time there are quite a few non-physically-grounded psychological theories (though a tiny percentage of the total) that do work well enough to have practical applications.

Perhaps you have heard of a different field called Psychiatry which does everything you just described? People who must go through the full training of normal doctors?

Perhaps you will also note that I said nothing against Psychiatrists, just against Psychologists?

Wrong. 90%+ of philosophy is worthless intellectual masturbation. I should know, the field of general AI is plauged by it. Every time philosophy has ever managed to stumble over something useful, we promptly renamed it 'maths', 'physics', 'cosmology', 'logic' or 'cognitive science', to distinguish it from the useless word games.

That's simply false. Philosophy established the intellectual groundwork for making science possible, and it continues to serve as an important field for expanding the limitations of human understanding. The scientific method was directly the result of Renaissance humanist philosophers establishing a logical framework for the rational evaluation of empirical evidence.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And that's a really bad generalization to say that anyone that isn't a chemical problem isn't really a problem. Psychology, the therapy side (when done properly), is about helping people find the answers not providing it for them. Some people are lucky enough to have insight into themselves enough to deal with their emotional issues. Others need help and that's what psychology is meant to provide.

Since I already addressed the fact that I don't have a problem with the existence of psychiatrists, I'll just focus on this and note that any older person who's have plenty of life experience can function in the role that is just described. All people need are functional, extended families that are tolerant and accepting of them, as they should be. Psychology only thrives because of the failure of decency and acceptance in this country, not because of any inherent need for it as a field.

[Broomstick]

Given the number of people in the world who lack "functional, extended families that are tolerant" I can't see how you can argue there is no need for this profession. Granted, it could be done better, but I can say that about a lot of things.

[Darth Wong]

Given the number of people in the world who lack "functional, extended families that are tolerant" I can't see how you can argue there is no need for this profession. Granted, it could be done better, but I can say that about a lot of things.

The urgent need for psychology does not mitigate criticism of its unscientific tendencies. If anything, it makes those criticisms even more important.

[Mobiboros]

I'll just focus on this and note that any older person who's have plenty of life experience can function in the role that is just described.

Life Experience =/= wise/able to give useful advice. This is part of the reason psychology has so much baggage. People think that "common sense" approaches are just as good as someone with years of training and an objective perspective. The only thing someone with experience can say is "Well, in my experience..." whereas a trained professional can say "in the multitude of studies as well as case histories and clinical trials we've found..."

All people need are functional, extended families that are tolerant and accepting of them, as they should be.

Which:
a) Doesn't exist for most people
b) Often their families are the cause of their problems to begin with.
c) Sometimes you need someone without a vested interest in your life to talk to.

Point b is often the main reason to seek outside help. Your family shapes your early perception of the world and instills the basis for how you interact. If your family was dysfunctional in some major way this can create lasting problems for people. It also means going to your family is right out.

However even if your family isn't the cause, point c comes into effect. I explained this to a friend of mine once when debating this very issue. Your family/friends have a vested interest in your life and cannot always, or even often, give an objective opinion/advice.

Psychology only thrives because of the failure of decency and acceptance in this country, not because of any inherent need for it as a field.

Psychology thrives because people need help from trained professionals sometimes, for whatever reason. Professionals with an outside perspective who can help thise who need it.


I do, however, agree with DW's point. The urgent need for trained mental health professionals means psychology really starts needing to adhere to standards closer to those of medical doctors (even if they aren't getting medical degrees.) but modified for the profession.