|
sex is overrated (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| eckmek |
| quote: |
...they have no unit for 'how strong' the voices are to objectively ascertain...
The criticism is the fact that psychology lacks a capacity to filter out incorrect data from correct data.
Until psychology has some machine which can look objectively into people's minds and ascertain these things via more rigorous channels than simply what they say and very vaguely describe, it is doomed to be a pseudo-scientific endeavour.
That is not as much the issue here, if memories are fallible or not. The issue is that psychology is laden with things which are taken as fact but in fact were never proven and are perpetuated by the parroting effect.
Homosexuality is a perticular example, the mainstream consensus has seen a shift from bad parenting to born with it to 'probably a mixture between nature and nurture', none of which was ever rigorously proven, and I don't see how any could be proven rigorously...
Where does 'sombre person' end and when are you 'clinically depressed', where does 'being full of yourself' stop, and when does 'clinically narcissistic' start? Where is the line between 'stoic' and 'schizoid personality disorder'. It's all just too vague, objectivity is key in science. A mitochondrium is a mitochondrium, there is no debate possible there.
And other than that, it's all just too vague and open to interpretation. You cannot deny that in psychology, findings published in peer-reviewed journals tend to outright conflict each other. This is unacceptable in science.
Physics incidentally does because people after all are made of matter. The unconvenient part is that it would take the most powerful computers gazillion years to work this out. But hey. |
Objectively...
Correct / incorrect data...
A machine that can look objectively...
Laden with things that were never proven...
Rigorously proven...
Objectivity is key in science...
Findings conflict with each other...this is unacceptable in science...
People are made of matter...
Now maybe it's just me, but i think all these things have the stench of truthiness on them :o |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
You mean submission for publication surely. You don't publish your own stuff, it gets published. You submit it, and the review process decides it. |
No, you publish your findings and a board of reviewers decide if it's worth being added to their compilation. However, you're the one making your article public, through their help.
Or do you like playing literal and saying that Britney Spears never released an album, she just had them released by her label?
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Other than that, that depression and lack of sleep correlate is long known. |
By whom? Didn't you just say psychologists were pseudo-scientists?
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Of course it bares relevance, that 'post-modernism' at the time was a non-neglectible part of psychology. |
Wait, we stop here.
Are you kidding me!? Post-modernism started in philosophy, and became all the rage among literary theorists. What are you talking about? Please cite at least a couple of psychologists famous in their fields for the value of their work who consider themselves post-modernists!
Sokal even published it in a magazine target at lit crit enthusiasts! You really don't know what you're talking about.
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
It's a strong term. All they said was they heard voices calling words. There are a lot more symptoms of schizophrenia. There is apathy, distrust, lack of motivation and you name it. They did not simulate this.
The main point however is the simple ease by which this can be simulated which is a severe obstacle that is yet to be overcome. |
Yeah, but when someone claims to be hearing voices and whatnot, you're definitely going to take a completely different stance at their behaviour.
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
In corporal care, can I simulate symptoms of breast cancer on queue? Can I simulate a broken leg to get a fake diagnosis on queue? I cannot. |
You can confuse the doctors, reason why wrong diagnoses are not exactly rare.
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
And even if I could, when I stopped doing so they would not continue to label me as having a broken leg, they would scratch their heads about a miracle cure. |
So psychology won't be a science unless it has x-rays? If a doctor thinks your "healed" leg is still fragile and he has enough reasons to doubt you can be discharged, he will probably want you to be under observation for quite a while.
Unfortunately, behaviour is a tad bit more difficult to analyse than your body.
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
And you quote selectively. |
Well, I can't paste the whole thing here, can I?
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Another part says: After calling the hospital for an appointment, the pseudopatient arrived at the admissions office complaining that he had been hearing voices. Asked what the voices said, he replied that they were often unclear, but as far as he could tell they said "empty," "hollow," and "thud." The voices were unfamiliar and were of the same sex as the pseudopatient.
If this is 'simulating symptoms of schizophrenia', then it is a very bad simulation. It's like saying 'My leg hurts' to simulate a broken leg while otherwise continuing to walk on it normally. It would puzzle a doctor, you would be sooner taken into a psychiatric hospital for that, ironically, than get your leg fixed. |
Except the doctor cannot hear the voices, whereas the doctor can see the leg. If someone complains they're hearing voices and then come up with an explanation like that, do you really think anyone would just ignore what | quote: | | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5 And if you stopped coughing up blood and claimed you were cured and you displayed no symptoms anymore, would they still treat you as having a peptic ulver or consider you a very strange case of a miracle cure? |
Any good doctor would still keep you under observation for a while and run a battery of tests to see if they missed something.
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
The criticism of the experiment is not so much the fact that they got admitted, but the fact they couldn't get out easily. The simple thing psychologists like to call the power of suggestion. Psychologists themselves are no exception to this it seems. |
Well, of course not.
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Other than that, another more subtle difference has to be accounted for. The people didn't fake hearing voices at all, they just said they heard them. The aequivalent would be to say that you are coughing up blood while you evidently are not. |
Which would definitely a sign of hypochondriasis - and that's something to be accounted for ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
And the fact that psychology at this point has no way to differentiate between people that hear voices, and people that say they do but don't is in fact one of te major things that make it a pseudo-science. |
They can't explain one thing, so it pretty much makes the whole project worthless. Good call. Funny how string theorists haven't demolished the whole enterprise of physics yet, that's probably about to happen sooner or later.
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Amongst that the fact that they have no unit for 'how strong' the voices are to objectively ascertain if the magnitude has increased or decreased and all that shebang. |
Have you got an idea of how you can fix this?
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
The criticism is the fact that psychology lacks a capacity to filter out incorrect data from correct data. |
Unlike medicine in general, you can only work on behaviour with... well, behaviour.
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Until psychology has some machine which can look objectively into people's minds and ascertain these things via more rigorous channels than simply what they say and very vaguely describe, it is doomed to be a pseudo-scientific endeavour. |
Oh, never mind what I wrote about x-rays... hmm... as a linguist, I wonder if I need a machine that can analyse languages before we can work on them...
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Homosexuality is a perticular example, the mainstream consensus has seen a shift from bad parenting to born with it to 'probably a mixture between nature and nurture', none of which was ever rigorously proven, and I don't see how any could be proven rigorously, because you can always point out the one escape. Namely 'Yes, they say they aren't gay, but they are in reality, they just suppress it' or the reverse. |
What!?
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
And this again suffers from the same flaw as the above. The only way to "diagnose" homosexuality is to ask someone again 'are you homosexual' or 'are you attacted to people of your own sex'. Which is the major flaw psychology is currently limited by. |
...
What?!
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Tell me, in what way exactly do my three criteria collide with the four of Popper? |
I'm saying you're quite a follower. Popper says science must be falsifiable to distinguish it from pseudo-science, and you accepted it. Popperian enough to me.
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
I would say that currently the idea of 'consciousness' is not reconcilable with a naturalistic perspective of the world. As far as we know, human beings are soulless machines whose behaviour towards survival is perfected over millions of years of natural selection. Human beings may claim they are conscious, but that is not a proof that they are. Note the difficulty again that psychology has no capacity to differentiate a lot between what people claim and what is true, or if there even is such a difference. |
Yeah. So far, we have not been able to tell apart the zombies from the actual people in psychological research. One day we might be able to tackle this problem.
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Where did I say it did? |
When you said "homosexuality can be cured".
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
And this is exactly the point I'm raising. These things shift way too fast in psychology from one perspective on it to another. In 30 years time the perspective will have again been changed. Then surely what psychologists think today and what they will think in 30 years can't both be reasonable? |
When Einstein proved Newton was wrong, did that turn physics into a pseudo-science? I don't see how frequency changes that.
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Also, 'disease' is another point of it. What is a 'disease', define 'disease'? This term is vague. It's just an agreement, it's not scientific any more, it's polistical. Where does 'asperger' start (apparently a disease) and where does 'reclusive person' end?
Where does 'sombre person' end and when are you 'clinically depressed', where does 'being full of yourself' stop, and when does 'clinically narcissistic' start? Where is the line between 'stoic' and 'schizoid personality disorder'. It's all just too vague, objectivity is key in science. A mitochondrium is a mitochondrium, there is no debate possible there. |
When is species just a species and not just a variant? When is a language a proper language and not just a dialect? (if mutual intelligibility always worked, Portuguese and Galician wouldn't really be separate languages, but they are).
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
This sounds almost as if you take the debate from what psychology as a field is to defending psychologists as people being competent. |
No, but the incompetents cannot discredit the whole field.
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
If they are competent or not, if it's altogether with the current technology humanly psossible to study the mind scientifically (which I believe it is not) doesn't change the fact whether it's pseudoscience or not. |
Which you said didn't exist?
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
In fact, that it's a young field with lots of inconsistencies more or less implies that it's still a pseudoscience, or a protoscienceif you like. |
What exactly are you calling a pseudoscience?
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Phyiscs was essentially a pseudoscience back then. Aristotle did not investigate physics within scientific rigour, that practise is only about 500-odd years old. Natural sciences are a fairly recent invention, mathematics is some-what older. |
Reeeeeally? Well, now I really want your answer.
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
I would not call it 'science' when people claim that an object launched into the air always travel in a curve that forms an arc of a circle and don't bother to test it, nor have a way to test it. That's speculation. |
No, that's not. What Galileo did was speculation, he never dropped anything from the top of a tower. He formulated hypotheses and developed thought experiments.
If you throw an object up it will travel in curve because of the gravity pull, by the way.
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Some say that, some won't say that. Some will admit it's a pseudoscience, some will defend it. Does it matter what it's called?
The simple point is that psychology is not backed at the moment by the rigours of experimental verification, units, magnitudes, objective instruments and all that shebang. As I said, psychology relies on asking and interviewing people too much. It's like practicing biology by asking people how they think their organs work on the inside instead of cutting them open after they died. |
No, it isn't restricted to this. There's also an awful amount of observation and data gathering in psychology.
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
And other than that, it's all just too vague and open to interpretation. You cannot deny that in psychology, findings published in peer-reviewed journals tend to outright conflict each other. This is unacceptable in science. |
Yeah, there are no disagreements in physics either, that's why they've managed to unify all their theories quite harmonically.
All right, I'm tired of this... I'm just going to skip this and go the last paragraphs:
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
I studied it for a while, decided that I found formal linguistics and computation theory to be cooler.
Yes, actually, I at first doubled in psychology and physics. |
I doubt your studies in psychology lasted more than one semester: either you never bothered to pay any attention to what you were being told and ditched it for this reason (or, worse yet, you didn't understand and became spiteful towards the whole discipline) or you're making this up to sound more credible. No one who's opened a psychology book could be so full of misconceptions and claim they count as valid criticism.
Formal linguistics, you say? How is that any more scientific than psychology? Aren't you looking for an universal grammar Chomsky postulated and that never got anywhere?
Aaaww, man, this just got awesome, please tell me you work with generative grammar :stongue: |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Lira. If you mirror his thinking he'll quit posting with you. Might be helpful to avoid that giant wall-o-text. :p |
Wait, I don't think the rest of you caught what he said in the end: in short, he's a hip hop producer complaining all the rest of edm is repetitive :D |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I doubt your studies in psychology lasted more than one semester: either you never bothered to pay any attention to what you were being told and ditched it for this reason (or, worse yet, you didn't understand and became spiteful towards the whole discipline) or you're making this up to sound more credible. No one who's opened a psychology book could be so full of misconceptions and claim they count as valid criticism. |
That's right. I just read your entire post and found this to reply to.
OR - He has an issue with a psychological diagnosis he's received and by discrediting the field he can discredit the diagnosis. |
|
|
| eckmek |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
:stongue:
I completely missed this :D |
Sometimes you're a little predictable.
In a good way, in a good way! |
|
|
| Spam |
| ITT: Sex is over rated because psychologists never get laid. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
No, you publish your findings and a board of reviewers decide if it's worth being added to their compilation. However, you're the one making your article public, through their help.
Or do you like playing literal and saying that Britney Spears never released an album, she just had them released by her label?
By whom? Didn't you just say psychologists were pseudo-scientists?
Wait, we stop here.
Are you kidding me!? Post-modernism started in philosophy, and became all the rage among literary theorists. What are you talking about? Please cite at least a couple of psychologists famous in their fields for the value of their work who consider themselves post-modernists!
Sokal even published it in a magazine target at lit crit enthusiasts! You really don't know what you're talking about.
Yeah, but when someone claims to be hearing voices and whatnot, you're definitely going to take a completely different stance at their behaviour.
You can confuse the doctors, reason why wrong diagnoses are not exactly rare.
So psychology won't be a science unless it has x-rays? If a doctor thinks your "healed" leg is still fragile and he has enough reasons to doubt you can be discharged, he will probably want you to be under observation for quite a while.
Unfortunately, behaviour is a tad bit more difficult to analyse than your body.
Well, I can't paste the whole thing here, can I?
Except the doctor cannot hear the voices, whereas the doctor can see the leg. If someone complains they're hearing voices and then come up with an explanation like that, do you really think anyone would just ignore what
Any good doctor would still keep you under observation for a while and run a battery of tests to see if they missed something.
Well, of course not.
Which would definitely a sign of hypochondriasis - and that's something to be accounted for ;)
They can't explain one thing, so it pretty much makes the whole project worthless. Good call. Funny how string theorists haven't demolished the whole enterprise of physics yet, that's probably about to happen sooner or later.
Have you got an idea of how you can fix this?
Unlike medicine in general, you can only work on behaviour with... well, behaviour.
Oh, never mind what I wrote about x-rays... hmm... as a linguist, I wonder if I need a machine that can analyse languages before we can work on them...
What!?
...
What?!
I'm saying you're quite a follower. Popper says science must be falsifiable to distinguish it from pseudo-science, and you accepted it. Popperian enough to me.
Yeah. So far, we have not been able to tell apart the zombies from the actual people in psychological research. One day we might be able to tackle this problem.
When you said "homosexuality can be cured".
When Einstein proved Newton was wrong, did that turn physics into a pseudo-science? I don't see how frequency changes that.
When is species just a species and not just a variant? When is a language a proper language and not just a dialect? (if mutual intelligibility always worked, Portuguese and Galician wouldn't really be separate languages, but they are).
No, but the incompetents cannot discredit the whole field.
Which you said didn't exist?
What exactly are you calling a pseudoscience?
Reeeeeally? Well, now I really want your answer.
No, that's not. What Galileo did was speculation, he never dropped anything from the top of a tower. He formulated hypotheses and developed thought experiments.
If you throw an object up it will travel in curve because of the gravity pull, by the way.
No, it isn't restricted to this. There's also an awful amount of observation and data gathering in psychology.
Yeah, there are no disagreements in physics either, that's why they've managed to unify all their theories quite harmonically.
All right, I'm tired of this... I'm just going to skip this and go the last paragraphs:
I doubt your studies in psychology lasted more than one semester: either you never bothered to pay any attention to what you were being told and ditched it for this reason (or, worse yet, you didn't understand and became spiteful towards the whole discipline) or you're making this up to sound more credible. No one who's opened a psychology book could be so full of misconceptions and claim they count as valid criticism.
Formal linguistics, you say? How is that any more scientific than psychology? Aren't you looking for an universal grammar Chomsky postulated and that never got anywhere?
Aaaww, man, this just got awesome, please tell me you work with generative grammar :stongue: |
This, ladies and gentlemen, is how people in long distance relationships rate sex. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
This, ladies and gentlemen, is how people in long distance relationships rate sex. |
:stongue:
In a scale from 1-10, I think it's awesome, by the way :p |
|
|
| couch-potato |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
This, ladies and gentlemen, is how people in long distance relationships rate sex. |
u think ur soooo witty |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| What the does praedict mean by the way? I see you using it alot, kululklkukurueueur, but I've never seen it before. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_alfi
What the does praedict mean by the way? I see you using it alot, kululklkukurueueur, but I've never seen it before. |
In all fairness, though the proper spelling is "predict", it comes from the Latin prę- (before) dicere (say), so it was a possible spelling in the past, albeit archaic now.
|
|
|
|
|
