3 ms·

I actually have a degree in psychology with a concentration in neuroscience, so I took a range of hard-science neurology classes and the required "softer" class

by Mizza 6y ago

I actually have a degree in psychology with a concentration in neuroscience, so I took a range of hard-science neurology classes and the required "softer" classes, and I came away with the belief the field is, largely, a sham. There are exceptions, but even some of the "hard science" subfields are really just soft-science with technological window dressings. I mean this at both low and high levels. At the low level, there are field-wide issues with reproducibility, p-hacking, sample size and selection, deliberate ignorance of compounding variables, etcetera. At the high level, the field simply cannot do what it claims to be able to do - explain the emergence of the mind and its role in behavior decision making, and will not be able to do so with the current approach that it takes, and it has very little to show in the way of falsifiability and predictive power. The utility of even the basic stuff like operant conditioning breaks down outside of all but the most constrained lab conditions, but it is largely not discussed for the same reasons I mentioned above - it is too uncomfortable to admit. I think the politics surrounding the 'Rat Park' experiment[0] is an illustration of this. There are counter-examples - behavioral and drug therapies which "work" (although it's often hard to say _why_ within any definitive proof) - but I don't think they're enough to shore up the whole field against this criticism. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

orwin 6y ago
Correct me if i'm wrong, but sociology is soft-science, subfield of psychology right? Maybe it isn't, i'm not sure, but this is what i've been lead to think. And sociology have predictive value, can we agree on that? Putting plots/columns in front of emergency exit (or just small exits) do help the human flow. We can predict and manipulate panic spread, social contagion, how people evacuate[0]... So i suppose sociology is one of the exception you're talking about, but, realistically, isn't that just because sociological studies and applications have more founding, are easier to recruit for, and have less ethics constraint than other psychologies studies? It's nothing like economics. [0] https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsif.2016.0414 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsif.201...
- acoard 6y ago
  Sociology is generally considered it's own field that has some overlap with psychology and not a subfield. >And sociology have predictive value, can we agree on that? No, I don't think we can and I think that's the crux of the disagreement. What big predictions have sociology made that have born to be true? Your example of emergency exits doesn't fit, and in fact proves the opposite. Those emergency exit signs existed before any sociological study of them. It's not the case that sociologists said "Hey, we just invented emergency exit signs and predict they will save lives," rather they're saying "You know those things that people have been using in emergencies to save lives for decades? Turns out it works." To be clear, I like sociology and the sociology courses I took I did find enriched my understanding of society at large. But I do not believe sociology helps us predict the future any more than history does (another field I love!). In contrast, fields like climate science say "If you release carbon, temperatures will rise" and that falsifiable prediction has born to be true. And I wager that sociologists will be more like historians with a diversity of opinion, than climate scientists who overwhelmingly agree with falsifiable and predictable claims.
h0l0cube 6y ago
> The utility of even the basic stuff like operant conditioning breaks down outside of all but the most constrained lab conditions If you want to see it at work go visit the slot machines at your local casino. Edit: I've heard about the Rat Park saga from a few mouths before, so I won't read the wiki article. One thing I've noticed is that people forget that the original claim of the study stands: if the only interesting option is the addictive stimulant, the rats keep going back. The other claim that there's pernicious effects to a utopia is in addition to the other, and both claims I regard as equally instructive to how one would think about incentives in society, that goes beyond rats. Another edit: A better example of a fraudulent study would be the Stanford Prison Experiment. I don't disagree that bad faith and misguided research is a big problem is social psychology. But I think the problem is more visible in the field now, and hopefully being addressed. 'Behavioural biology' probably holds more promise in the longer term.

by Mizza 6y ago

orwin 6y ago

Correct me if i'm wrong, but sociology is soft-science, subfield of psychology right? Maybe it isn't, i'm not sure, but this is what i've been lead to think. And sociology have predictive value, can we agree on that? Putting plots/columns in front of emergency exit (or just small exits) do help the human flow. We can predict and manipulate panic spread, social contagion, how people evacuate[0]... So i suppose sociology is one of the exception you're talking about, but, realistically, isn't that just because sociological studies and applications have more founding, are easier to recruit for, and have less ethics constraint than other psychologies studies? It's nothing like economics. [0] https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsif.2016.0414 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsif.201...

acoard 6y ago
Sociology is generally considered it's own field that has some overlap with psychology and not a subfield. >And sociology have predictive value, can we agree on that? No, I don't think we can and I think that's the crux of the disagreement. What big predictions have sociology made that have born to be true? Your example of emergency exits doesn't fit, and in fact proves the opposite. Those emergency exit signs existed before any sociological study of them. It's not the case that sociologists said "Hey, we just invented emergency exit signs and predict they will save lives," rather they're saying "You know those things that people have been using in emergencies to save lives for decades? Turns out it works." To be clear, I like sociology and the sociology courses I took I did find enriched my understanding of society at large. But I do not believe sociology helps us predict the future any more than history does (another field I love!). In contrast, fields like climate science say "If you release carbon, temperatures will rise" and that falsifiable prediction has born to be true. And I wager that sociologists will be more like historians with a diversity of opinion, than climate scientists who overwhelmingly agree with falsifiable and predictable claims.

h0l0cube 6y ago

> The utility of even the basic stuff like operant conditioning breaks down outside of all but the most constrained lab conditions If you want to see it at work go visit the slot machines at your local casino. Edit: I've heard about the Rat Park saga from a few mouths before, so I won't read the wiki article. One thing I've noticed is that people forget that the original claim of the study stands: if the only interesting option is the addictive stimulant, the rats keep going back. The other claim that there's pernicious effects to a utopia is in addition to the other, and both claims I regard as equally instructive to how one would think about incentives in society, that goes beyond rats. Another edit: A better example of a fraudulent study would be the Stanford Prison Experiment. I don't disagree that bad faith and misguided research is a big problem is social psychology. But I think the problem is more visible in the field now, and hopefully being addressed. 'Behavioural biology' probably holds more promise in the longer term.