5 ms·

“I don’t understand it” = “not a science” It doesn’t have the rigour of say physics for sure … but physics is specifically the science of what can be measured.

by rusk 5y ago

“I don’t understand it” = “not a science” It doesn’t have the rigour of say physics for sure … but physics is specifically the science of what can be measured. I wouldn’t write it off as a science though. You may write off some of its practitioners for sure but you can do that with anything.

luffapi 5y ago
No reproducibility = not a science
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rusk 5y ago
  There’s plenty of reproducibility and falsifiability and all those other essential ingredients. The very fact that there is a “reproducibility crisis” at all shows that as a field it’s open to this kind of cross examination. Psych makes plenty of fairly reliable predictions around social behaviour, childhood development and human machine interaction. Only somebody who didn’t understand psychology would say it produces no reproducible results. It’s not physics. You can’t do it in a lab. But it can explain and predict within bounds of certainty. DSM is often wielded as a criticism but this is strictly speaking a psychiatric i.e “medical” tool which strictly speaking should be used as a basis for making diagnosis not for diagnosis itself. It’s limitations are well understood in the field of psychology and again somebody who understood the field would know this.
  - luffapi 5y ago
    > But it can explain and predict within bounds of certainty. Can you provide an example of a prediction that can accurately be made with psychology? > Only somebody who didn’t understand psychology would say it produces no reproducible results. I’m well versed enough with psychology. I even remember when people took the DSMIV seriously!
    - mistermann 5y ago
      > Can you provide an example of a prediction that can accurately be made with psychology? In any given internet discussion on a non-deterministic topic, there will be at least one person (usually several) who speaks as if they are omniscient (have the ability to accurately read minds, predict the future, know comprehensive reality, etc).
      - mistermann 5y ago
        Circle the wagons.
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
      > I’m well versed enough with psychology. I even remember when people took the DSMIV seriously! That's the manual of psychiatry (which is a very, very different thing) right? DSM's only interaction with the field of psychology is for insurance purposes for therapists who are also psychologists. I mean, I read it when I was doing a psychology undergrad, but it definitely wasn't something that was required. FWIW, I think that you may not be defining psychology the same way as many of the commentators here.
- nofinator 5y ago
  Psychology is a big field. A lot of the work in the psychology of judgment and decision-making is very reproducible, especially in the area of cognitive bias.
  - luffapi 5y ago
    Can you post a study you feel is reproducible?
    - xenocratus 5y ago
      https://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/file/2cb6ae15-530f-49eb-9b32-87ea1ee9493c/1/Psychological%20science.pdf https://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/file/2cb6ae15-530f-49eb-9b... Can you post a study you feel shows that nothing in psychology is reproducible?
pxue 5y ago
I'm reading Principles by Ray Dalio. In it he mentions how Bridgewater had been using myer-briggs to test and measurement their employees personalities. I've always been dismissive of the myer-briggs test. Since the tests are "not reproducable", must mean it's at best a pseudo-science. But then I realized, who am I to dismiss the idea? I'm not an expert. Much smarter people than I (Dalio) believe in it. At the end of the day, does it help us move closer to understanding the differences between our minds? I'd say yes it does. It may not be a "perfect" 100% correct model, but at least it's a step towards a direction.
- luffapi 5y ago
  Myers Briggs is the poster boy for pseudo science. > But then I realized, who am I to dismiss the idea? I'm not an expert. Much smarter people than I (Dalio) believe in it. This is an appeal to authority; you should stick to your original gut feeling. Dalio and the like make their money selling books and as such write what people want to hear. It’s Chicken Soup For The Soul for people with bachelor degrees.
  - fsloth 5y ago
    Dalio actually made his money by operaring as he preached. Based on that we can say it did not cause critical impediment to his progress. That does not validate Meyers-Briggs. Lots of succesful leaders have loved all sort of pseudoscience.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    > Myers Briggs is the poster boy for pseudo science. Amusingly enough, most psychology academics would be in violent agreement with you on that.
- gnarbarian 5y ago
  things like the Myers-Briggs test fall on the more scientific side of a continuum of explanatory and prescriptive narratives including The likes of "surrounded by idiots" The i-ching, tarot cards, mythology etc. They are very useful for inscribing yourself into the narrative in order to break you out of your perspective and help guide you toward a more positive direction than otherwise.

by rusk 5y ago

luffapi 5y ago

No reproducibility = not a science

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rusk 5y ago
There’s plenty of reproducibility and falsifiability and all those other essential ingredients. The very fact that there is a “reproducibility crisis” at all shows that as a field it’s open to this kind of cross examination. Psych makes plenty of fairly reliable predictions around social behaviour, childhood development and human machine interaction. Only somebody who didn’t understand psychology would say it produces no reproducible results. It’s not physics. You can’t do it in a lab. But it can explain and predict within bounds of certainty. DSM is often wielded as a criticism but this is strictly speaking a psychiatric i.e “medical” tool which strictly speaking should be used as a basis for making diagnosis not for diagnosis itself. It’s limitations are well understood in the field of psychology and again somebody who understood the field would know this.
- luffapi 5y ago
  > But it can explain and predict within bounds of certainty. Can you provide an example of a prediction that can accurately be made with psychology? > Only somebody who didn’t understand psychology would say it produces no reproducible results. I’m well versed enough with psychology. I even remember when people took the DSMIV seriously!
  - mistermann 5y ago
    > Can you provide an example of a prediction that can accurately be made with psychology? In any given internet discussion on a non-deterministic topic, there will be at least one person (usually several) who speaks as if they are omniscient (have the ability to accurately read minds, predict the future, know comprehensive reality, etc).
    - mistermann 5y ago
      Circle the wagons.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    > I’m well versed enough with psychology. I even remember when people took the DSMIV seriously! That's the manual of psychiatry (which is a very, very different thing) right? DSM's only interaction with the field of psychology is for insurance purposes for therapists who are also psychologists. I mean, I read it when I was doing a psychology undergrad, but it definitely wasn't something that was required. FWIW, I think that you may not be defining psychology the same way as many of the commentators here.
nofinator 5y ago
Psychology is a big field. A lot of the work in the psychology of judgment and decision-making is very reproducible, especially in the area of cognitive bias.
- luffapi 5y ago
  Can you post a study you feel is reproducible?
  - xenocratus 5y ago
    https://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/file/2cb6ae15-530f-49eb-9b32-87ea1ee9493c/1/Psychological%20science.pdf https://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/file/2cb6ae15-530f-49eb-9b... Can you post a study you feel shows that nothing in psychology is reproducible?

pxue 5y ago

I'm reading Principles by Ray Dalio. In it he mentions how Bridgewater had been using myer-briggs to test and measurement their employees personalities. I've always been dismissive of the myer-briggs test. Since the tests are "not reproducable", must mean it's at best a pseudo-science. But then I realized, who am I to dismiss the idea? I'm not an expert. Much smarter people than I (Dalio) believe in it. At the end of the day, does it help us move closer to understanding the differences between our minds? I'd say yes it does. It may not be a "perfect" 100% correct model, but at least it's a step towards a direction.

luffapi 5y ago
Myers Briggs is the poster boy for pseudo science. > But then I realized, who am I to dismiss the idea? I'm not an expert. Much smarter people than I (Dalio) believe in it. This is an appeal to authority; you should stick to your original gut feeling. Dalio and the like make their money selling books and as such write what people want to hear. It’s Chicken Soup For The Soul for people with bachelor degrees.
- fsloth 5y ago
  Dalio actually made his money by operaring as he preached. Based on that we can say it did not cause critical impediment to his progress. That does not validate Meyers-Briggs. Lots of succesful leaders have loved all sort of pseudoscience.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  > Myers Briggs is the poster boy for pseudo science. Amusingly enough, most psychology academics would be in violent agreement with you on that.
gnarbarian 5y ago
things like the Myers-Briggs test fall on the more scientific side of a continuum of explanatory and prescriptive narratives including The likes of "surrounded by idiots" The i-ching, tarot cards, mythology etc. They are very useful for inscribing yourself into the narrative in order to break you out of your perspective and help guide you toward a more positive direction than otherwise.