10 ms·

> We're approaching the same problems neurologists work on (how does the brain do this? why does the brain do that?), but from a different abstraction layer, us

> We're approaching the same problems neurologists work on (how does the brain do this? why does the brain do that?), but from a different abstraction layer, using more of a social-sciences toolset. You’re approaching the same problems that neuroscientists are tackling, but using a “social sciences” toolset? What does that even mean? That sounds like an outright rejection of the scientific method.

Sharlin 8y ago
First, the scientific method is not relevant or useful in all worthwhile fields of inquiry. Second, the scientific method can definitely be applied in psychology.
- yuhe00 8y ago
  I don't know a lot about psychology. The only things I've read are pop-psych articles like this about "traits", "D-factors" and "personality types", which you got to admit do sound a bit much like pseudo-science, or at least not telling the full story. It's useful, for sure, but I'd like to know more about the formal methods employed in modern psychology today. I imagine statistics, surveys and telemetry perhaps being key, but like all methods based in data - You have to be very careful; testing methodology and interpretation biases can heavily influence the results. I think psychology could bring valuable insight into the future of AI as well. It's a shame that most psychologists involved in tech are in HR/communications or at best tasked with keeping people addicted to whatever social platform they are building.
  - Sharlin 8y ago
    It is true that psychology as it is currently practiced in many places has one of the worst replication crises [1] of all sciences, with lots of p-hacking and other unethical practices going on as researches attempt to get publishable results in a field where most data you get is necessarily messy and difficult-to-control confounding variables abound. But that's more about the usual perverse incentives in the academia rather than a fundamental problem with the field itself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
    - yuhe00 8y ago
      Oh, I was genuinely unaware that the replication crisis was such a big problem in psychology - It makes a lot of sense though, and it was a fascinating read :) And yes, I do agree that there's a problem with incentivization in all the sciences.
    - analog31 8y ago
      In my view, the impact of the replication crisis is to leave us with a science that embraces scientific methodology but has not produced a reliable scientific knowledge base and is burdened by an unscientific past. Digging out of this mess could take a long time, and is not guaranteed to produce results that are interesting to the general public.
mikec3010 8y ago
Psychology is one of the few sciences that isn't directly traceable back to physics (In fact, I can't think of another one). They use the scientific method, but when dealing with personalities and human behavior there are plenty of "dead ends" that cannot be reduced or described further.
- Sharlin 8y ago
  That depends entirely on your definition of "science". Out of the fields of research usually bundled under the category "social sciences" psychology is certainly among those closest to "natural sciences"—and there's certainly lot of interdisciplinary research that bridges the gap.
  - mikec3010 8y ago
    The "definition of science" isnt up for debate.
    - Sharlin 8y ago
      In that case your original assertion is trivially wrong.
      - mikec3010 8y ago
        Depends entirely on your definition of "wrong".
        jessaustin 8y ago
        The definition of "wrong" isn't up for debate. b^) Well, it seems like a simpler concept than "science", anyway.
  - gt_ 8y ago
    I really get where you’re coming from, but you’re far too ahead of yourself; and most importantly your assertion is very dangerous. It may well be popular among your peers, but history will surely drown your confidence in shame. Why? Entropy. There’s a spectre that haunts Western pyshology which allows for the set of thus considered “scientific” checkboxes to be marked, which are sufficient for the physical sciences. But, physically speaking, the physical sciences are child’s play compared with the material subject of psychology, which is fairly undebatable. On the other hand, the same could be said for the physical sciences at certain points in time, and still to say in particular focuses. So what’s my point?? Psychology as it has so far been instituted in the western world cannot observe, define, or much less control the entropy it contends with. Critical theory, political theory, economics, poetics, cultural studies; truly the entire fields of humanities have a more comprehensive understanding of this entropy than the field of psychology does. Why? Because it cannot. It’s too much. Psychology can “scientific method” it’s heart out all it wants, but it remains to be seen that this method is even the best we’ve got. Mind you again that psychology cannot control for social entropy, and what but it can (debatable) falls off a cliff outside of the lab. When we speak of social entropy, we cannot ignore politics; the scorpion’s tail of the entire effort which understandably ignores an effort to define either entropy or control but instead blindly accepts the human environment of contemporary ‘normal’ as the aim for dictating constants. This is of course ridiculous, and doing otherwise would be no less so. As such, it’s hard to blame the folks trying, but should be far easier to see how moot their effort is. The humanities has achieved a far more enlightened critique of the field of psychology than the field itself has even begun to. Sociology embraces the entropy whole-hearted and as such admits doubt and is politically marginalized (or privatized) accordingly. The approach of psychology in these respects is again understandable, but if the physical sciences were accused of something at all similar, we would all be up in arms. On a separate note, the measurable issues with the institutional politics undermining western psychology are however similar to those at play in psysical sciences, but the vaguaries and innate necessity of ignorance in pursuing the task serve as multipliers to corruption. Where to even begin? It’s just too much. To conclude, the effort in calling is certainly worthy and noble. But, the effort in practice is terribly fraught; deserves loads more criticism and caution than it receives. If the scientific method could be performed in scope (as one might say it is in the humanities) western psychogy remains in hypothetical stages. There’s cause for a few toasts, but not a celebration.

Sharlin 8y ago

First, the scientific method is not relevant or useful in all worthwhile fields of inquiry. Second, the scientific method can definitely be applied in psychology.

yuhe00 8y ago
I don't know a lot about psychology. The only things I've read are pop-psych articles like this about "traits", "D-factors" and "personality types", which you got to admit do sound a bit much like pseudo-science, or at least not telling the full story. It's useful, for sure, but I'd like to know more about the formal methods employed in modern psychology today. I imagine statistics, surveys and telemetry perhaps being key, but like all methods based in data - You have to be very careful; testing methodology and interpretation biases can heavily influence the results. I think psychology could bring valuable insight into the future of AI as well. It's a shame that most psychologists involved in tech are in HR/communications or at best tasked with keeping people addicted to whatever social platform they are building.
- Sharlin 8y ago
  It is true that psychology as it is currently practiced in many places has one of the worst replication crises [1] of all sciences, with lots of p-hacking and other unethical practices going on as researches attempt to get publishable results in a field where most data you get is necessarily messy and difficult-to-control confounding variables abound. But that's more about the usual perverse incentives in the academia rather than a fundamental problem with the field itself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
  - yuhe00 8y ago
    Oh, I was genuinely unaware that the replication crisis was such a big problem in psychology - It makes a lot of sense though, and it was a fascinating read :) And yes, I do agree that there's a problem with incentivization in all the sciences.
  - analog31 8y ago
    In my view, the impact of the replication crisis is to leave us with a science that embraces scientific methodology but has not produced a reliable scientific knowledge base and is burdened by an unscientific past. Digging out of this mess could take a long time, and is not guaranteed to produce results that are interesting to the general public.

mikec3010 8y ago

Psychology is one of the few sciences that isn't directly traceable back to physics (In fact, I can't think of another one). They use the scientific method, but when dealing with personalities and human behavior there are plenty of "dead ends" that cannot be reduced or described further.

Sharlin 8y ago
That depends entirely on your definition of "science". Out of the fields of research usually bundled under the category "social sciences" psychology is certainly among those closest to "natural sciences"—and there's certainly lot of interdisciplinary research that bridges the gap.
- mikec3010 8y ago
  The "definition of science" isnt up for debate.
  - Sharlin 8y ago
    In that case your original assertion is trivially wrong.
    - mikec3010 8y ago
      Depends entirely on your definition of "wrong".
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        The definition of "wrong" isn't up for debate. b^) Well, it seems like a simpler concept than "science", anyway.
- gt_ 8y ago
  I really get where you’re coming from, but you’re far too ahead of yourself; and most importantly your assertion is very dangerous. It may well be popular among your peers, but history will surely drown your confidence in shame. Why? Entropy. There’s a spectre that haunts Western pyshology which allows for the set of thus considered “scientific” checkboxes to be marked, which are sufficient for the physical sciences. But, physically speaking, the physical sciences are child’s play compared with the material subject of psychology, which is fairly undebatable. On the other hand, the same could be said for the physical sciences at certain points in time, and still to say in particular focuses. So what’s my point?? Psychology as it has so far been instituted in the western world cannot observe, define, or much less control the entropy it contends with. Critical theory, political theory, economics, poetics, cultural studies; truly the entire fields of humanities have a more comprehensive understanding of this entropy than the field of psychology does. Why? Because it cannot. It’s too much. Psychology can “scientific method” it’s heart out all it wants, but it remains to be seen that this method is even the best we’ve got. Mind you again that psychology cannot control for social entropy, and what but it can (debatable) falls off a cliff outside of the lab. When we speak of social entropy, we cannot ignore politics; the scorpion’s tail of the entire effort which understandably ignores an effort to define either entropy or control but instead blindly accepts the human environment of contemporary ‘normal’ as the aim for dictating constants. This is of course ridiculous, and doing otherwise would be no less so. As such, it’s hard to blame the folks trying, but should be far easier to see how moot their effort is. The humanities has achieved a far more enlightened critique of the field of psychology than the field itself has even begun to. Sociology embraces the entropy whole-hearted and as such admits doubt and is politically marginalized (or privatized) accordingly. The approach of psychology in these respects is again understandable, but if the physical sciences were accused of something at all similar, we would all be up in arms. On a separate note, the measurable issues with the institutional politics undermining western psychology are however similar to those at play in psysical sciences, but the vaguaries and innate necessity of ignorance in pursuing the task serve as multipliers to corruption. Where to even begin? It’s just too much. To conclude, the effort in calling is certainly worthy and noble. But, the effort in practice is terribly fraught; deserves loads more criticism and caution than it receives. If the scientific method could be performed in scope (as one might say it is in the humanities) western psychogy remains in hypothetical stages. There’s cause for a few toasts, but not a celebration.