3 ms·

I find psychology had deeper insight when it was _less_ hard-sciency. A lot of social sciences seem to have "math-envy", and try to fit a subject to a tool tha

I find psychology had deeper insight when it was _less_ hard-sciency. A lot of social sciences seem to have "math-envy", and try to fit a subject to a tool that is not well suited for it. If I read some early literature (not Freud though, he's a charlatan), I often find deep insight, and observations that get to the heart of some issue in a way that is only half science and half art, but revealing some knowledge in a way art can as well. Current psychology is quite different, mostly dry. In summary, my issue is not lack of rigor, but too much rigor and lack of deep insight.

lanstin 3y ago
Clear thinking at the semantic layer is a gift that the humanities offers, in distinction from the gift of mathematical rigor that the physical sciences offer. The challenge for psychology is to combine them - extremely precise conceptual frameworks with the unknowns clearly delineated, and as much experimental rigor as possible. And being ready to have the conceptual frameworks altered by the flood of new insights from neuroscience. The big five personality types discussed in TFA tho are on solid experimental footing (of being stable characteristics of humans that explain about half of what we label as personality) and a fit subject for other experimental investigations like this on changes over a lifetime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits