People are Fools to believe so strongly into PSYCHOLOGY!

reply to post by Ian McLean


It is because of my compassion for people that I believe so strongly in their potential. I do not make any claim to know what is right or wrong, what is normal and abnormal; however, I do know that many things people do to each other disrupts the harmony of coexisting and that is the area I will be pursuing: Perception, what we think ourselves into believing that cause us to act/react or not. We all live here, like it or not and we all deserve to have a life. I hope to one day solve the contradictions of coexisting. Since many of the problems of the world originate in the mind, that is where I chose to focus my studies. I will end my reply here, for my head is so full of ideas, I may get off topic.

i used to love psychology until i realised the real reason for my anguish.and since have lost interest in alot i used to love in a good way.anyways psychology is still good if the psychologist cares.sometimes just having someone subjective to listen is all you need.not to mention that placebo effect and motivations from doing something to help yourself.

reply to post by capstan


Oh I still love basic psychology. I believe people should focus heavily upon those rules. However it's the more advanced assumptions of psychology that show the real break down in understanding another's mind.

Though some do take it too far,it is a valuable too when dealing with employees and also very helpful tool in sales,you can learn to stroke ones ego without them knowing it,but yes psychology as a whole tends to stereotype people

reply to post by Incarnated

Incarnated-I understand and can appreciate your concerns about the misuse (and abuse) of psychobabble but if you are saying that the basic tennets of psychology are not a legitimate fied of science then how the Dickens does the (very cheeky) Derren Brown get away with his misdirectional psychological showmanship techniques on unsuspecting members of the British public?
Here are a few good examples:
Advertising:
uk.youtube.com...
Paying with paper:
uk.youtube.com...
Undertaker:
uk.youtube.com...

Debunking mediumship by cold reading in the U.S.:
uk.youtube.com...
Cheers Karl



[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by Incarnated


You keep falling back on the "drilling holes" issue

why not actually address those who have responded articulately to your OP?

I myself took an experimental psychology class my senior year of high school, and you know what it did for me? ABSOLUTE WONDERS, I am more at peace with myself because of this class than I ever was before it. I came to understand why I acted the way I did, and why I thought the way I did, I also learned that I am in control of what happens to me, I learned that I was human too, that I can make mistakes but am always in control to pull myself back on path.

Aside from that, I don't think you have any legs to stand on here, honestly. Your example of observing what someone was thinking by walking down the street has no merit whatsoever.

What you are implying is that you believe psychology to be the foundation for telepathy, mind-reading, etc. Because, according to what we have seen and heard those that assume they can read someone's mind consider themselves to be psychic, and I very much doubt psychologist believe themselves to be psychic.

What about criminal profiling? That is a psychological specialty, and with it we've been able to predict and treat many potential criminals, as well as stop other criminals from doing their deed again.

I'm not saying I believe psychology is a science, nor am I implying that it isn't, because as many of you know who have studied psychology, that debate will go on forever. I do believe that you are wrong in your assumptions and overtly degrading of psychology. You seem to be overcompensating for something.




Show me on the doll where he touched you

-JR

reply to post by ShadowStep


so you're saying a person who can go from the very epitome of bubbly laughter and joy can go to the very depths of depression with bouts of crying screaming and overall destruction within seconds, and that would be ok? That would be normal? That person doesn't need help, or shouldn't consider getting help, because they're just unique?

You should tell that to the person who was hospitalized with three broken ribs and 32 stitches to her arm.

"The person who harmed you is totally OK, they don't need any help, that's just who they are and you have to accept it"

Yeah...ok that'll fly


edit: i r bahd spehler

[edit on 23-11-2008 by bandaidctrl]

reply to post by Incarnated

So any observation that isn't external is false? That's rather short-sighted if you ask me. Just because you can't see your mind doesn't mean it doesn't exist. On the contrary, we know it exists because we can observe it. Mental illness is expressed quite vividly in physically apparent behavior. Sure, we interpolate that behavior, but it's there. I admit it would be a lot easier if we had some type of technology to actually map the "mind". However, the first step would be physically defining it. Psychology is a new science. It's people like you that are determined to destroy it that provide the largest impediment to its progress. Believe me, psychology is no dead-end science. Quantum mechanics might even have an application in the future. It's not at all absurd. Both of these sciences are ignored and oppressed to some degree because of pure uninhibited arrogance (even by scientists themselves), and a deficiency in interest for experimenting with what would appear to be wild science.


[edit on 24-11-2008 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by cognoscente
reply to post by Incarnated

 

So any observation that isn't external is false? That's rather short-sighted if you ask me. Just because you can't see your mind doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

NO! that is your misunderstanding of my statement. Thus you've just proven my point. As my point as I see it was simple to understand. My point is that another can not obsever clearly what is going on in anothers mind, because as you've proven you can even understand my word use.

Psychology is real, but most of it is a bunch of crazy people trying to understand their craziness by projecting it upon others.

Originally posted by Incarnated
Most psychology majors study psychology because the believe there's something wrong with their own heads. They also want to believe there is something wrong with your head.

I think that's called projection, lol.

So, tell me about your past...had any bad experiences with psychologists and psychiatrists...

The closest thing to true psychology is behaviorisim.

I'm sure Skinner would have been chuffed.

Originally posted by Tsuki-no-Hikari
So...how is Psychology not an observational science?

Of course it is. The problem is that many people appear to mix up the pop-psychology BS, psychoanalysis, and other forms of pseudopsychology with what psychologists actually do. For example...

Psychology is a big bull#. I studied Psychology at university for three years. Now I quit this # and Im preparing to enter the Medical University. You go for more to 10 years to a analist, speak some bull#, hear more bull#, pay a lot to nothing. Than you have some magical drug for some minutes and you are enlighted and free...

PSYCHOLOGY=BULL#=FREUD

lol

There is the applied stuff - counsellors, random therapists, educational, industrial, clinical, sports etc etc. These people apply the science produced elsewhere, and sometimes do research themselves.

And there is the fundamental research, which is where the science is mainly done. And it uses both quantitative and qualitative methods.

Look! Science!

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

2008 Volume 137, Issue 4 (Nov)

Memory in posttraumatic stress disorder: Properties of voluntary and involuntary, traumatic and nontraumatic autobiographical memories in people with and without posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.
Pages 591-614
Rubin, David C.; Boals, Adriel; Berntsen, Dorthe
Abstract | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Permissions

Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions.
Pages 615-625
Rhodes, Matthew G.; Castel, Alan D.
Abstract | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Permissions

Selective attention in human associative learning and recognition memory.
Pages 626-648
Griffiths, Oren; Mitchell, Chris J.
Abstract | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Permissions

Automatic and controlled response inhibition: Associative learning in the go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms.
Pages 649-672
Verbruggen, Frederick; Logan, Gordon D.
Abstract | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Permissions

Retraction of Hard, Lozano, and Tversky (2006).
Page 672
Hard, B. M.; Lozano, S. C.; Tversky, B.
Abstract | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Permissions

Will a category cue attract you? Motor output reveals dynamic competition across person construal.
Pages 673-690
Freeman, Jonathan B.; Ambady, Nalini; Rule, Nicholas O.; Johnson, Kerri L.
Abstract | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Permissions

Stereotype threat and executive resource depletion: Examining the influence of emotion regulation.
Pages 691-705
Johns, Michael; Inzlicht, Michael; Schmader, Toni
Abstract | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Permissions

Spontaneous gestures during mental rotation tasks: Insights into the microdevelopment of the motor strategy.
Pages 706-723
Chu, Mingyuan; Kita, Sotaro
Abstract | Full Text PDF | Full Text HTML | Permissions

I see Ambady's name in there. She was involved in the super study of person perception which experimentally demonstrated that a 'thin-slice' (30 seconds, IIRC) of behaviour was sufficient to influence longer term social judgement - first impressions last and all that.

The paper about resource depletion sounds interesting, a while back a couple of good papers (Shelton & Richeson) showed how exposure to race information depletes activity in the frontal lobe. This effect was related to the 'implicit' race bias of a participant, suggesting that people with covert race biases use areas of the frontal lobe to regulate the more reflexive emotion-based reaction.

Ooh! Bad Amos Tversky (he's dead now, though) - I see a retraction. He's the dude who worked with Dan Kahneman on heuristics and biases in decision-making. Showing, for example, how 'framing' of decisions alters behaviour with logically equivalent problems. This showed the idea of the uber-rational homo economicus to be a bit of a fantasy. More recently, Ray Dolan at UCL has demonstrated how such framing appears to rely on the amygdala, and overcoming it on the orbitomedial PFC - an emotional process. Fantastic stuff.

That's science!

[edit on 19-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


The Tversky you see in that retraction is Barbara Tversky (his widow), not Amos Tversky.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by melatonin

 

The Tversky you see in that retraction is Barbara Tversky (his widow), not Amos Tversky.

Bah! My bad, you are right, how dare she use his name, lol. Didn't even know they had a psychology double-act going on.

Oh well, gave me the chance to mention some classic science.