5 ms·

> If anything, this whole debacle has revealed to me how pathetic the whole "science" of psychology is in its current state. What? How an academic being defens

> If anything, this whole debacle has revealed to me how pathetic the whole "science" of psychology is in its current state. What? How an academic being defensive of his study, conducted in 1971, an invalidation of "current" psychology? That's 40 years ago. > I mean, has the field of psychology given us anything of value? I'm asking genuinely. What an extreme leap, and an odd generalization for me to have to argue against. How about Milgram, Asch, Cognitive Dissonance? Studies of memory, vision, neurons can inform the development of AI. Things like IQ tests have helped detect and prove that leaded gasoline was damaging the intellect of a generation. Psychology is THE field to give clarity to question such as what gender dysphoria is about (research shows it is usually correlated with a brain that is more structurally similar to the gender one identifies as [1]). So I'm not sure where a wholesale indictment of a field could really come from. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality

AstralStorm 8y ago
You're mixing up psychology with psychiatry and neuroscience... These are intertwined to about 80s. Not anymore, hopefully. The hardest of these is probably neuroscience and produces very micro results, but at least they are known to be valid.
- spruciefic399 8y ago
  I think the evidence begs to differ: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn3475 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn3475 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091305717306081 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009130571...
didibus 8y ago
That wiki link, did you read the section on psychology in it? It pretty much reinforces my opionion. Seems like most of the real understanding of it is coming from biological factors. Now it seems that those initial psychological theories were all argued with similarly low sample and methodologically wonky studies. Just paraphrasing the wikipedia link. In effect, that probably hurt more then it helped and that's why we're starting to see things like Denmark declassifying it as no longer a mental disorder. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/where-transgender-is-no-longer-a-diagnosis/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/where-transgender... Edit: I know I'm making a big blanket statement. As someone who does not read about all the latest psychological breakthrough, I'm saying in honesty that with my limited knowledge, the impression I get from psychological research is that its not very thorough. So I'm open to hearing that in the last 40 years this has changed, an example would be great, so that I can start maybe changing my opinion.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  1. I provided 6 separate examples of the use of psychology (3 experiments, 3 real-world use-cases). You responded to one. 2. Something being biological is not contrary to it being psychological. Your response is disingenuous. You certainly are well-aware that your blanket statement was a rash, emotional inaccuracy. Rather than concede that point, you're choosing to try to nit-pick at one sixth of the refutation. This is HN, best just to admit your mistake.

AstralStorm 8y ago

You're mixing up psychology with psychiatry and neuroscience... These are intertwined to about 80s. Not anymore, hopefully. The hardest of these is probably neuroscience and produces very micro results, but at least they are known to be valid.

spruciefic399 8y ago
I think the evidence begs to differ: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn3475 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn3475 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091305717306081 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009130571...

didibus 8y ago

That wiki link, did you read the section on psychology in it? It pretty much reinforces my opionion. Seems like most of the real understanding of it is coming from biological factors. Now it seems that those initial psychological theories were all argued with similarly low sample and methodologically wonky studies. Just paraphrasing the wikipedia link. In effect, that probably hurt more then it helped and that's why we're starting to see things like Denmark declassifying it as no longer a mental disorder. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/where-transgender-is-no-longer-a-diagnosis/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/where-transgender... Edit: I know I'm making a big blanket statement. As someone who does not read about all the latest psychological breakthrough, I'm saying in honesty that with my limited knowledge, the impression I get from psychological research is that its not very thorough. So I'm open to hearing that in the last 40 years this has changed, an example would be great, so that I can start maybe changing my opinion.

alexandercrohde 8y ago
1. I provided 6 separate examples of the use of psychology (3 experiments, 3 real-world use-cases). You responded to one. 2. Something being biological is not contrary to it being psychological. Your response is disingenuous. You certainly are well-aware that your blanket statement was a rash, emotional inaccuracy. Rather than concede that point, you're choosing to try to nit-pick at one sixth of the refutation. This is HN, best just to admit your mistake.