3 ms·

Just realized the disconnect. HN is against Psychology mostly because of measurements and reproducibility. But they are only applying this standard to publishe

Just realized the disconnect. HN is against Psychology mostly because of measurements and reproducibility. But they are only applying this standard to published scientific papers. When Really, Psychology is most used in -> MARKETTING. Marketing is all Psychology, and they definitely do form hypothesis, measure results, and iterate on that. They are measuring you all day. Everything you see, taste, feel, smell, is a Psychology Experiment done by Marketing departments in order to control your behavior. And by control your behavior, I mean, that is testing a hypothesis in the scientific method. So, if that entire field is included into the field of 'Psychology', then yes it has grown by leaps and bounds as a science. Just not benevolently, or published in a scientific journal.

marcosdumay 3y ago
Is marketing getting good results from its research? As always, with private, closed-down research, you can't tell. The instances I notice do clearly lead to bad outcomes, but that's a highly biased sample. But anyway, I disagree that you can point to it as a counter-example. Not until you get some public data.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  I think the argument in this thread is that Psychology is a completely invalid science, complete BS with no valid results. I am saying, even if results are private, and we don't have public data, you can still look at the world around you and see the results. I have read interviews with app developers that flat out say they have entire departments of psychologist dedicated to increasing screen time. Those are un-published, but that doesn't mean it isn't real and happening. Thus you can infer that the entire field of Psychology is not complete BS, since money is going into it for the results it provides. It isn't pretty, and it isn't fitting the high ideals of 'pure science". That doesn't mean we can ignore the entire field, call it fake, or say it is all BS.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    What I am saying is that even if you are in one of those companies hiring lots of psychologists, you don't have any idea if they add anything or if you just got lucky. > Those are un-published, but that doesn't mean it isn't real and happening. It means you don't know what is happening.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      You cited your own self as a source here >The instances I notice do clearly lead to bad outcomes I'm just agreeing that there are instances. But also agree, in the private corporate world, they aren't good for us as a whole, for society or the field. And can't be verified in a 'scientific peer reviewed' way. We can only do second hand observations. But, they are impactful. Just negatively.
      - marcosdumay 3y ago
        > But, they are impactful. I see them being impactful. I have no idea what they really are.

marcosdumay 3y ago

Is marketing getting good results from its research? As always, with private, closed-down research, you can't tell. The instances I notice do clearly lead to bad outcomes, but that's a highly biased sample. But anyway, I disagree that you can point to it as a counter-example. Not until you get some public data.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
I think the argument in this thread is that Psychology is a completely invalid science, complete BS with no valid results. I am saying, even if results are private, and we don't have public data, you can still look at the world around you and see the results. I have read interviews with app developers that flat out say they have entire departments of psychologist dedicated to increasing screen time. Those are un-published, but that doesn't mean it isn't real and happening. Thus you can infer that the entire field of Psychology is not complete BS, since money is going into it for the results it provides. It isn't pretty, and it isn't fitting the high ideals of 'pure science". That doesn't mean we can ignore the entire field, call it fake, or say it is all BS.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  What I am saying is that even if you are in one of those companies hiring lots of psychologists, you don't have any idea if they add anything or if you just got lucky. > Those are un-published, but that doesn't mean it isn't real and happening. It means you don't know what is happening.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    You cited your own self as a source here >The instances I notice do clearly lead to bad outcomes I'm just agreeing that there are instances. But also agree, in the private corporate world, they aren't good for us as a whole, for society or the field. And can't be verified in a 'scientific peer reviewed' way. We can only do second hand observations. But, they are impactful. Just negatively.
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      > But, they are impactful. I see them being impactful. I have no idea what they really are.