4 ms·
If you ever took psych 101, it was immediately obvious it's mostly horse shit. Made up nonsense theory, with studies that have few participants and are done by
by danielmarkbruce 2mo ago
If you ever took psych 101, it was immediately obvious it's mostly horse shit. Made up nonsense theory, with studies that have few participants and are done by people who don't know math.
- datakan 2mo agoA lot of them contradict each other too which is what got me going down the rabbit hole of researching it.
- hoherd 2mo agoBut the answer to bad science is good science.
- danielmarkbruce 2mo agoI don't know that it's possible in psych. The economics of doing larger scale studies make it extremely difficult.
- spidersouris 2mo agoIt is both amazing and saddening to me how you can have such an arrogant view of a whole field with just taking a 101 course.
- danielmarkbruce 2mo agoTake physics 101 (or something, anything from a hard science) and understand how they know what they claim to know, and compare it to psych. It's night and day. One doesn't need to continue learning a topic to know it's bs when it's bs right from the start.
- Jensson 2mo agoPsych 101 says stuff like people being more willing to accept a date with a person after a scary experience since they mistake their quick beating heart for love, rather than humans sees a scary experience as a stronger signal of bonding than a casual experience. There is so much simple tests that they draw extreme conclusions from in the very first lectures you hear, and when they teach those things as true when its highly debatable its hard to not throw the entire field in the trash. Of course there is probably some good psychology work done, but you shouldn't have so many shoddy examples in the first course then since that gives people a bad taste for the entire field.
- lern_too_spel 2mo agoA 101 course should not teach frontiers of research. It should have fundamental established theories upon which the rest of the field is based. My experience with introductory psychology textbooks is that they spend a lot of time discussing ideas discarded decades ago, and then they spend some time discussing ideas that were discarded after the textbook was written. There is typically one poorly explained chapter on neuroscience that the authors summarized from another textbook.
- anon48293 2mo agoI did 2 psychology degrees and completely agree with his assessment. Sorry, most psychological research is sketchy at best, if not blatantly fraudulent
- teamonkey 2mo agoIn a thread talking about the Dunning-Kruger effect, no less
- SubmarineClub 2mo agoIt’s pretty handy as a signal. The moment someone starts banging on about Jungian this and Freud that, I know immediately to discount anything they say, ever.
- grebc 2mo agoIt’s mostly just window dressing on blaming your parents.
- PaulKeeble 2mo agoThe overwhelming majority doesn't survive 20 years, when someone tries to replicate it the results disappears. Some of it takes longer than that but it almost all falls eventually. Its just not a rigorous field and alas that doesn't stop the newspapers printing sensational headlines about it claiming effects that are a bit of a stretch given how they actually studied the participants.