4 ms·

if only psychology was a real science where hypothesis are thoroughly tested and tests are independently reproduced.

hutzlibu 3y ago
Well, the main problem with this is, it would require human experimentation to be efficient. You know, those babies raised in this way, those in that way. And by the age of 2 cut open and everything meassured. Or do you have other ideas how to do proper testing? Because otherwise experiments with control groups, electrodes, MRT etc. are a thing in psychology. But you can only achieve so much with it.
- syndicatedjelly 3y ago
  The study of psychology is done in neuroscience. But the research is extremely different. Neuroscience is like studying quantum mechanics and electromagnetism to understand the movement of electrons in a wire, while Psychology is comparable to UI/UX research. Many people are working on bridging neuroscience and psychology but it hasn't happened yet.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Ok, I see (maybe formally wrong) neuroscience as a part of psychology. (At least some psychologists I talked to, had this position) And the reason why bridging is not really happening, because of the ethical restrictions. But this is my hypothesis. The other hypothesis might be, that too many careers depend on models that would not hold up by experiments, but I really cannot judge here because of lack of knowledge.
    - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
      It’s more of the former - it’s not ethical to do the experiments that would prove or disprove the hypothesized links. There’s plenty of real work to do, not a conspiracy lol
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > Ok, I see (maybe formally wrong) neuroscience as a part of psychology. (At least some psychologists I talked to, had this position) They might believe this in the same way that some UX people might view all of software as a subset of UX, because everything ends up as an experience for some user somewhere.
    - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
      Neuroscience is a subset of biology, Psychology seems to be its own field off in liberal arts (maybe under Philosophy?), borrowing reputation from Neuroscience and Statistics while often refusing to adhere to the tenants of a real science.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - wslh 3y ago
    BTW, is there something new and interesting about the connection between quantum mechanics and the brain? There are many articles/papers in [1] but it would be great to hear from someone in the field. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=quantum+brain https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=quantum+bra...
    - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
      Sorry I didn’t mean to come off as if I’m in research, I just have a BS in neuroscience. No longer doing anything with the degree
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  > Or do you have other ideas how to do proper testing? Well, for starters don't call them studies, call them "hunches" or "intuitions" or whatever you like to indicate that there is actually no real evidence to prove your thesis. Occam's razor tells us to believe that it's much more plausible that psychologist publish massaged data to keep getting funded, than because it's actually very hard to admit that "we don't know for sure, this study proves nothing". Have you ever heard of my fellow Italian professor Francesca Gino?
micromacrofoot 3y ago
Unless you want to start growing test subject humans in vats, it's not exactly something that's as simple as "testing right" — the problem isn't lack of will or skill. We can't just throw rats at this problem like many scientific fields do.
- jiofj 3y ago
  Which is why it's not a real science. No one is saying that "scientists" working on psychology are negligent, but that it's impossible for psychology to meet the requirements of a real science.
  - micromacrofoot 3y ago
    I think it's a little harmful to start saying "real science" — this is something that is at times meant to discredit psychology entirely, so it's an unfortunately loaded phrase. I think they're still doing science, it's just much more difficult given physical and ethical constraints.
    - mrkeen 3y ago
      The arguments in this thread: * Psychology is not a "real" science because it doesn't produce quality evidence. * But quality psychological evidence is (too) hard to produce. See how the second point doesn't really refute the first?
      - micromacrofoot 3y ago
        You're missing the point that calling something "not real" is very often used as a method to discredit it. Saying "not real" discredits the fact that there are more barriers here. That's my primary issue with this. Phrenology can also be called "not real science" but it doesn't seem fair to paint both with such a broad brush. There's more nuance involved than an off-the-cuff "not real." Though at this point it all feels too belabored to carry on.
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago

Well, the main problem with this is, it would require human experimentation to be efficient. You know, those babies raised in this way, those in that way. And by the age of 2 cut open and everything meassured. Or do you have other ideas how to do proper testing? Because otherwise experiments with control groups, electrodes, MRT etc. are a thing in psychology. But you can only achieve so much with it.

syndicatedjelly 3y ago
The study of psychology is done in neuroscience. But the research is extremely different. Neuroscience is like studying quantum mechanics and electromagnetism to understand the movement of electrons in a wire, while Psychology is comparable to UI/UX research. Many people are working on bridging neuroscience and psychology but it hasn't happened yet.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Ok, I see (maybe formally wrong) neuroscience as a part of psychology. (At least some psychologists I talked to, had this position) And the reason why bridging is not really happening, because of the ethical restrictions. But this is my hypothesis. The other hypothesis might be, that too many careers depend on models that would not hold up by experiments, but I really cannot judge here because of lack of knowledge.
  - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
    It’s more of the former - it’s not ethical to do the experiments that would prove or disprove the hypothesized links. There’s plenty of real work to do, not a conspiracy lol
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Ok, I see (maybe formally wrong) neuroscience as a part of psychology. (At least some psychologists I talked to, had this position) They might believe this in the same way that some UX people might view all of software as a subset of UX, because everything ends up as an experience for some user somewhere.
  - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
    Neuroscience is a subset of biology, Psychology seems to be its own field off in liberal arts (maybe under Philosophy?), borrowing reputation from Neuroscience and Statistics while often refusing to adhere to the tenants of a real science.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- wslh 3y ago
  BTW, is there something new and interesting about the connection between quantum mechanics and the brain? There are many articles/papers in [1] but it would be great to hear from someone in the field. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=quantum+brain https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=quantum+bra...
  - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
    Sorry I didn’t mean to come off as if I’m in research, I just have a BS in neuroscience. No longer doing anything with the degree
peoplefromibiza 3y ago
> Or do you have other ideas how to do proper testing? Well, for starters don't call them studies, call them "hunches" or "intuitions" or whatever you like to indicate that there is actually no real evidence to prove your thesis. Occam's razor tells us to believe that it's much more plausible that psychologist publish massaged data to keep getting funded, than because it's actually very hard to admit that "we don't know for sure, this study proves nothing". Have you ever heard of my fellow Italian professor Francesca Gino?

micromacrofoot 3y ago

Unless you want to start growing test subject humans in vats, it's not exactly something that's as simple as "testing right" — the problem isn't lack of will or skill. We can't just throw rats at this problem like many scientific fields do.

jiofj 3y ago
Which is why it's not a real science. No one is saying that "scientists" working on psychology are negligent, but that it's impossible for psychology to meet the requirements of a real science.
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  I think it's a little harmful to start saying "real science" — this is something that is at times meant to discredit psychology entirely, so it's an unfortunately loaded phrase. I think they're still doing science, it's just much more difficult given physical and ethical constraints.
  - mrkeen 3y ago
    The arguments in this thread: * Psychology is not a "real" science because it doesn't produce quality evidence. * But quality psychological evidence is (too) hard to produce. See how the second point doesn't really refute the first?
    - micromacrofoot 3y ago
      You're missing the point that calling something "not real" is very often used as a method to discredit it. Saying "not real" discredits the fact that there are more barriers here. That's my primary issue with this. Phrenology can also be called "not real science" but it doesn't seem fair to paint both with such a broad brush. There's more nuance involved than an off-the-cuff "not real." Though at this point it all feels too belabored to carry on.
peoplefromibiza 3y ago