9 ms·

Why Many People Perceive the Study of Human Behavior as Unscientific (2011) [pdf]

21 points by tokenadult 12y ago

dthunt 12y ago
APA should ditch the Goldwater rule.
- hrktb 12y ago
  It's the first time I heard of this rule, thanks. As far as I understand, it only limits professional diagnostics, shouldn't it be OK if it's not done as a practicing psychatrist (i.e. call it an analysis or interpretation and not a diagnostic)?
  - dthunt 12y ago
    The end result is that the public doesn't know about the rule, so they see psychologists acting a certain way and frequently think it's actually epistemically bad, or impossible, to reason about the mental states of other humans based on their actions, writings, and other artifacts. Imagine if computer security experts couldn't talk, in general, about the security of a line of products offered by a company, or about the probable cause of a specific issue that had been observed in a particular product. The parallels ARE actually there; it's not as strange an analogy as it looks at first glance. I understand some of the reasons the rule exists. I think this is probably not the best solution, in that it creates a public who have very strange ideas about psychiatry, and that is actually a great harm. I'm neutral on most of this article, but like, specifically, if public perception is an issue, finding a better way to resolve the ethical dilemma that spawned the Goldwater Rule sounds like a pretty good idea to me.
- lutusp 12y ago
  If the public thought psychiatrists were all quacks, I would agree, but the public's regard for psychiatrists means their evaluation of a public figure could be very damaging. Therefore I think the Goldwater Rule still serves a purpose.
josu 12y ago
18 pages of pure bullshit. I devoted 10 minutes to reading parts of it; I couldn't find anything of value. It goes as far as to compare the "highly probabilistic predictions" of psychology to those of quantum physics, and it even cites Richard Feynman. It's just laughable. In one instance it uses the word "stochastological".
- afafsd 12y ago
  Thanks for saving me the trouble of reading it. I'd also suggest that one of the reasons people perceive the study of human behaviour as unscientific is that it so frequently is. Studies of human behaviour are inextricably bound up in politics. Many studies are designed, whether consciously or unconsciously on the part of the authors, to advance the authors' own political or social agenda. Even if you avoid that problem, many studies are just plain statistically lousy, and employ deeply non-random samples. And finally you've got the annoying problem that people know they're being studied and may modify their behaviour accordingly.
  - enord 12y ago
    What's with the resentment towards psychology on YC?[Insert Freudian joke here]
otakucode 12y ago
How about: human behavior is a complex system exhibiting chaotic behavior and is mathematically proven to be unpredictable? And don't even get me started on the absurd over-reach of the conclusions of almost all social science papers. They'll study Westerners and proclaim to have discovered something about humans - ignoring the monumental variable of culture. They also project their own values on research constantly. How many times have you seen research reported as "health benefits of sex"? And how many times have you seen the same research reported as "health dangers of abstinence"? They're the exact same thing, but a matter of cultural perspective. If you view sexuality as a normative part of human life, then observing that those who have fewer orgasms develop prostate cancer is a health danger of abstinence. But if you view sexuality as an aberration, something that's not a normal part of everyday life, then you report it as a benefit of increased sexual activity - establishing that you think the current level is 'normal' rather than 'so low as to present actual biological danger'(which is the truth).
- HelloMcFly 12y ago
  That it is seemingly chaotic doesn't make it chaotic, and I'm interested in the mathematical proof that behavior can't be predicted. Don't confuse limited ability to predict with impossibility. We can make many confident statements about the likelihood of certain behaviors/reactions/response, in the aggregate, under given real-world circumstances. You are correct in that much research, especially research older than 10 years ago, tended to ignore culture. I know my field of study (I/O Psychology) references cultural frequently, either through overt study when possible (desirable given the publication potential) or at least remarking on the limitations of any findings. I don't read much outside I/O research though, so maybe it hasn't progressed much on the whole and the global nature of I/O work for businesses rewards more recognition of culture. It's hard though - accessing globally-relevant datasets for studies of human behavior is often impossible. That doesn't make all studies meaningless, or unscientific. And yes, you're correct about value-laden framing of results. That doesn't invalidate the science of the results, it just makes it more necessary to think critically when interpreting them rather than relying on abstracts and headlines alone.
  - 12y ago
droopyEyelids 12y ago
Here is an interesting excerpt. > “Psychology Does Not Yield Repeatable Results” How replicable (repeatable) are the results of psychology compared with those of the hard sciences? Larry Hedges (1987) decided to find out. He compared the replicability of findings in particle physics, ostensibly one of the most rigorous domains of physics, with those of several areas in psychology, including the effect of teacher expectations on students’ IQ scores, gender differences in verbal and spatial ability, the effects of desegregation on educational achieve- ment, and the validity of student course evaluations. Using various statistical metrics of consistency, Hedges found that the results of particle physics studies aimed at estimating the mass or lifetime of stable subatomic particles (e.g., the muon) were in general no more consistent that those of psychology. Hedges’s findings suggest that the claim that psychology’s results are far less dependable than those of physics are not supported by data. > Still, we should not overstate the implications of Hedges’s (1987) findings. As Hedges acknowledged, he did not sample randomly within either physics or psychol- ogy, so his results may be unrepresentative of the domains within these broad fields. Nevertheless, Hedges observed that the results of studies in several other domains of physics, including the estimation of chemical and thermo- dynamic constants, appear to be about equally consistent (or inconsistent, depending on whether one chooses to view the glass as half full or half empty) as those within many domains of psychology.
- lutusp 12y ago
  These quotes fail to notice that, notwithstanding all the non-repeatable results in physics that come and go, physicists eventually settle on a few extremely reliable theoretical precepts, precepts that lead to new technology. A classic example is quantum physics, the most successful and reliable scientific theory we have, a theory that makes numerical predictions about nature that prove accurate to better than ten decimal places: http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-precisely-tested-theo/ http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-preci... Psychologists have many non-repeatable results but don't shape reliable theories about their subject. Physicists have many non-repeatable results but do shape reliable theories about their subject. The computer I'm sitting at is proof of that.
seanflyon 12y ago
The study of human behavior is based primarily on subjective measurements and double blind studies are generally not feasible. The level of rigor often expected in hard sciences is generally not possible in the study of human behavior.
- vacri 12y ago
  This doesn't mean it's not scientific by definition. If science required double-blind trials, then you'd be throwing out a lot of physics, too (for example, the study of planetary motion). Science is 'robust reporting and observation', not 'double-blind trials'. The more robust your methods, the stronger your case - double-blind trials add a lot of robustness. Predictive value is also helpful, but again not required to be considered science (eg dark matter, which we still have no idea about).
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    I would describe it as a soft science, but the point I was trying to make is that there are simple and obvious reasons why the public is skeptical of the field.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > This doesn't mean it's not scientific by definition. On the contrary, that is exactly what it means. Science requires empirically testable, falsifiable theories backed up by empirical observations. If we only have observations, it's not science, because observations are neither particularly useful nor falsifiable. > Predictive value is also helpful, but again not required to be considered science ... Many commentators on this issue argue that an empirical, falsifiable theory that is able to make predictions about things not yet observed is a requirement for science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Quote: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force." "The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain." Also, very important, observations (descriptions) can only be a preliminary to shaping an explanation, a testable theory (an explanation). Observations without a theoretical dimension are indistinguishable from stamp collecting and are a step toward science, but are not science themselves.
bsdshepherd 12y ago
"In a larger sense, I see the AS chapter as part of a long-term program to pathologize normal behavior, one that hopefully will backfire and destroy unscientific psychology." - Paul Lutus From: The Trouble with Psychology http://www.arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology/index.html http://www.arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology/index.html Mr. Lutus has many articles on psychology. Asperger's By Proxy (http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/aspergers.php http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/aspergers.php) is extremely relevant to the software industry.
- lutusp 12y ago
  Thank you! As it happens, I just published a new article today entitled "Science of Mind": HTML: http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind/index.html http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind/index.html PDF: http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind/resources/science_of_mind.pdf http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind/resources/science_of_mi...
  - bsdshepherd 12y ago
    I am several months from adequately responding to this article due to delayed neural development(1). Until I can properly respond, please(2) consider the following: You seem to be overlooking inflammation. If only for fun, run your web backwards - starting from dementia (e.g. Alzheimer's), then sleep disorders, then anxiety. Appropriate diet, moderate exercise, and a good night's sleep are vital as a foundation for good health. Acceptance that normal behavior is pathologized leads to the understanding that "mental illness" is legislated. Thank you for making your research publicly available, and open to review and criticism. --- 1) For over five decades I had been 'locked in'. Comedy at it's finest - I cannot contribute, as being misdiagnosed (word needed for profit motivated diagnosis - prodiagnosed?) prevented the ability to communicate that I could not communicate. 2) Tens of millions suffer needlessly. A few months away from improper 'medicine' and glowing rectangles would provide much needed data points.
pdkl95 12y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfZWyUXn3So#t=37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfZWyUXn3So#t=37 Tom Lehrer's recent(-ish) song "Sociology" seems very relevant here.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

21 points by tokenadult 12y ago

dthunt 12y ago

APA should ditch the Goldwater rule.

hrktb 12y ago
It's the first time I heard of this rule, thanks. As far as I understand, it only limits professional diagnostics, shouldn't it be OK if it's not done as a practicing psychatrist (i.e. call it an analysis or interpretation and not a diagnostic)?
- dthunt 12y ago
  The end result is that the public doesn't know about the rule, so they see psychologists acting a certain way and frequently think it's actually epistemically bad, or impossible, to reason about the mental states of other humans based on their actions, writings, and other artifacts. Imagine if computer security experts couldn't talk, in general, about the security of a line of products offered by a company, or about the probable cause of a specific issue that had been observed in a particular product. The parallels ARE actually there; it's not as strange an analogy as it looks at first glance. I understand some of the reasons the rule exists. I think this is probably not the best solution, in that it creates a public who have very strange ideas about psychiatry, and that is actually a great harm. I'm neutral on most of this article, but like, specifically, if public perception is an issue, finding a better way to resolve the ethical dilemma that spawned the Goldwater Rule sounds like a pretty good idea to me.
lutusp 12y ago
If the public thought psychiatrists were all quacks, I would agree, but the public's regard for psychiatrists means their evaluation of a public figure could be very damaging. Therefore I think the Goldwater Rule still serves a purpose.

josu 12y ago

18 pages of pure bullshit. I devoted 10 minutes to reading parts of it; I couldn't find anything of value. It goes as far as to compare the "highly probabilistic predictions" of psychology to those of quantum physics, and it even cites Richard Feynman. It's just laughable. In one instance it uses the word "stochastological".

afafsd 12y ago
Thanks for saving me the trouble of reading it. I'd also suggest that one of the reasons people perceive the study of human behaviour as unscientific is that it so frequently is. Studies of human behaviour are inextricably bound up in politics. Many studies are designed, whether consciously or unconsciously on the part of the authors, to advance the authors' own political or social agenda. Even if you avoid that problem, many studies are just plain statistically lousy, and employ deeply non-random samples. And finally you've got the annoying problem that people know they're being studied and may modify their behaviour accordingly.
- enord 12y ago
  What's with the resentment towards psychology on YC?[Insert Freudian joke here]

otakucode 12y ago

How about: human behavior is a complex system exhibiting chaotic behavior and is mathematically proven to be unpredictable? And don't even get me started on the absurd over-reach of the conclusions of almost all social science papers. They'll study Westerners and proclaim to have discovered something about humans - ignoring the monumental variable of culture. They also project their own values on research constantly. How many times have you seen research reported as "health benefits of sex"? And how many times have you seen the same research reported as "health dangers of abstinence"? They're the exact same thing, but a matter of cultural perspective. If you view sexuality as a normative part of human life, then observing that those who have fewer orgasms develop prostate cancer is a health danger of abstinence. But if you view sexuality as an aberration, something that's not a normal part of everyday life, then you report it as a benefit of increased sexual activity - establishing that you think the current level is 'normal' rather than 'so low as to present actual biological danger'(which is the truth).

HelloMcFly 12y ago
That it is seemingly chaotic doesn't make it chaotic, and I'm interested in the mathematical proof that behavior can't be predicted. Don't confuse limited ability to predict with impossibility. We can make many confident statements about the likelihood of certain behaviors/reactions/response, in the aggregate, under given real-world circumstances. You are correct in that much research, especially research older than 10 years ago, tended to ignore culture. I know my field of study (I/O Psychology) references cultural frequently, either through overt study when possible (desirable given the publication potential) or at least remarking on the limitations of any findings. I don't read much outside I/O research though, so maybe it hasn't progressed much on the whole and the global nature of I/O work for businesses rewards more recognition of culture. It's hard though - accessing globally-relevant datasets for studies of human behavior is often impossible. That doesn't make all studies meaningless, or unscientific. And yes, you're correct about value-laden framing of results. That doesn't invalidate the science of the results, it just makes it more necessary to think critically when interpreting them rather than relying on abstracts and headlines alone.
- 12y ago

droopyEyelids 12y ago

Here is an interesting excerpt. > “Psychology Does Not Yield Repeatable Results” How replicable (repeatable) are the results of psychology compared with those of the hard sciences? Larry Hedges (1987) decided to find out. He compared the replicability of findings in particle physics, ostensibly one of the most rigorous domains of physics, with those of several areas in psychology, including the effect of teacher expectations on students’ IQ scores, gender differences in verbal and spatial ability, the effects of desegregation on educational achieve- ment, and the validity of student course evaluations. Using various statistical metrics of consistency, Hedges found that the results of particle physics studies aimed at estimating the mass or lifetime of stable subatomic particles (e.g., the muon) were in general no more consistent that those of psychology. Hedges’s findings suggest that the claim that psychology’s results are far less dependable than those of physics are not supported by data. > Still, we should not overstate the implications of Hedges’s (1987) findings. As Hedges acknowledged, he did not sample randomly within either physics or psychol- ogy, so his results may be unrepresentative of the domains within these broad fields. Nevertheless, Hedges observed that the results of studies in several other domains of physics, including the estimation of chemical and thermo- dynamic constants, appear to be about equally consistent (or inconsistent, depending on whether one chooses to view the glass as half full or half empty) as those within many domains of psychology.

lutusp 12y ago
These quotes fail to notice that, notwithstanding all the non-repeatable results in physics that come and go, physicists eventually settle on a few extremely reliable theoretical precepts, precepts that lead to new technology. A classic example is quantum physics, the most successful and reliable scientific theory we have, a theory that makes numerical predictions about nature that prove accurate to better than ten decimal places: http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-precisely-tested-theo/ http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-preci... Psychologists have many non-repeatable results but don't shape reliable theories about their subject. Physicists have many non-repeatable results but do shape reliable theories about their subject. The computer I'm sitting at is proof of that.

seanflyon 12y ago

The study of human behavior is based primarily on subjective measurements and double blind studies are generally not feasible. The level of rigor often expected in hard sciences is generally not possible in the study of human behavior.

vacri 12y ago
This doesn't mean it's not scientific by definition. If science required double-blind trials, then you'd be throwing out a lot of physics, too (for example, the study of planetary motion). Science is 'robust reporting and observation', not 'double-blind trials'. The more robust your methods, the stronger your case - double-blind trials add a lot of robustness. Predictive value is also helpful, but again not required to be considered science (eg dark matter, which we still have no idea about).
- seanflyon 12y ago
  I would describe it as a soft science, but the point I was trying to make is that there are simple and obvious reasons why the public is skeptical of the field.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > This doesn't mean it's not scientific by definition. On the contrary, that is exactly what it means. Science requires empirically testable, falsifiable theories backed up by empirical observations. If we only have observations, it's not science, because observations are neither particularly useful nor falsifiable. > Predictive value is also helpful, but again not required to be considered science ... Many commentators on this issue argue that an empirical, falsifiable theory that is able to make predictions about things not yet observed is a requirement for science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Quote: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force." "The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain." Also, very important, observations (descriptions) can only be a preliminary to shaping an explanation, a testable theory (an explanation). Observations without a theoretical dimension are indistinguishable from stamp collecting and are a step toward science, but are not science themselves.

bsdshepherd 12y ago

"In a larger sense, I see the AS chapter as part of a long-term program to pathologize normal behavior, one that hopefully will backfire and destroy unscientific psychology." - Paul Lutus From: The Trouble with Psychology http://www.arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology/index.html http://www.arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology/index.html Mr. Lutus has many articles on psychology. Asperger's By Proxy (http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/aspergers.php http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/aspergers.php) is extremely relevant to the software industry.

lutusp 12y ago
Thank you! As it happens, I just published a new article today entitled "Science of Mind": HTML: http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind/index.html http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind/index.html PDF: http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind/resources/science_of_mind.pdf http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind/resources/science_of_mi...
- bsdshepherd 12y ago
  I am several months from adequately responding to this article due to delayed neural development(1). Until I can properly respond, please(2) consider the following: You seem to be overlooking inflammation. If only for fun, run your web backwards - starting from dementia (e.g. Alzheimer's), then sleep disorders, then anxiety. Appropriate diet, moderate exercise, and a good night's sleep are vital as a foundation for good health. Acceptance that normal behavior is pathologized leads to the understanding that "mental illness" is legislated. Thank you for making your research publicly available, and open to review and criticism. --- 1) For over five decades I had been 'locked in'. Comedy at it's finest - I cannot contribute, as being misdiagnosed (word needed for profit motivated diagnosis - prodiagnosed?) prevented the ability to communicate that I could not communicate. 2) Tens of millions suffer needlessly. A few months away from improper 'medicine' and glowing rectangles would provide much needed data points.

pdkl95 12y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfZWyUXn3So#t=37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfZWyUXn3So#t=37 Tom Lehrer's recent(-ish) song "Sociology" seems very relevant here.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]