3 ms·

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 pri

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.