4 ms·

> ... psychology is way, way bigger than clinical psychology, yet clinical psychology (and stories from it) seem to be the only thing that is ever brought up in

by lutusp 12y ago

> ... psychology is way, way bigger than clinical psychology, yet clinical psychology (and stories from it) seem to be the only thing that is ever brought up in these conversations. Yes, and there's a reason. The ground truth about the medical field is what happens in clinics. If clinicians are shaking dried gourds over patients, that tells us about medicine itself, from top to bottom -- the only way something unscientific could happen in a clinical setting is if there's no reliable science anywhere in medicine. In the same way, if someone builds a bridge by guess and by golly, without any consideration of loading and stresses, this calls into question the scientific basis of civil engineering. So when I hear a psychologist complain that clinical psychology isn't representative of the entire field, I have to say that kind of compartmentalizing doesn't work anywhere else -- it suggests that psychology isn't unified by a respect for science, or by reliable, falsifiable theory. >> Consider the example of Asperger Syndrome... recovered memory therapy. > They are not my domain of psychology. This sounds increasingly like one of those joke conversations about which kind of Southern Baptist you are. Religion works that way, science doesn't. In science, evidence and tested theories forge a consensus that unifies all legitimate fields, at least until someone produces a better theory, then the process repeats. Do you suppose that a doctor could say, "I don't care what biologists are doing, it doesn't affect me of my practice"? Do you suppose that a geologist could say, "I don't care what the physicists are doing in Earth Science, that has nothing to do with my work"? This is not realistic, because the example fields are united by a common respect for the primary role of evidence and the scientific method. I say this to remind you how you sound then you try to describe psychology as though it's a bunch of disconnected pieces. Not that that isn't so, but it provides us with a measure of the significance of science in psychology. > ... but you should not accept those as archetypal representations of all psychological and social science research. If that's true, then psychologists lose the right to describe themselves as scientists, or to receive funds earmarked for scientific activities. Taxpayers are willing to contribute to physics because (a) it's a science with an enviable track record, and (b) physicists are on the same page -- they don't say things like, "Don't listen to the particle physicists, they're not the real thing." Only psychologists say things like that. > The last part of your request is unreasonable - proving that there is no utility whatsoever in old theories is unnecessary. Then you do not understand science. When the existence of the ether was disproven, to save limited resources the falsification was accepted by everyone -- opinion played no part. When the Phlogiston theory was disproven, it was disproven for everyone, everywhere. This kind of certainty and consensus is what makes science science.

HelloMcFly 12y ago
> Yes, and there's a reason. The ground truth about the medical field is what happens in clinics. True, but psychology is not the medical field. You've picked the flashiest "branch" of it to make your archetype, but it's probably the least representative of the whole (though admittedly perhaps the best funded). Clinical psychology is more focused not on what is normal, but what is abnormal, how to diagnose it, and how to respond. Almost all of the rest of psychology is focused on what is normal, typically within a given context (childhood, workplace, developmentally, etc.) > psychology isn't unified by a respect for science, or by reliable, falsifiable theory. Psychology is not unified by a single reliable theory. I have no problem admitting as much. Maybe someday, but not while I'm alive. Again, if that's your baseline for what it takes to be considered scientific, I'm fine saying "then by that definition it's not scientific" and feeling no shame. > This sounds increasingly like one of those joke conversations about which kind of Southern Baptist you are. Then you're not thinking critically. Your doctor-biologist example doesn't fly because one's work (biology) directly and materially affects the work of the other (medicine). What clinical psychologists do, more than almost any other branch, has no impact on me presently, nor I on them. Our populations are different, and the goals of our research with respect to our populations are different. Ridicule the division if you wish, but what do you want me to do? Do you expect my field to reconfigure itself entirely to become experts on abnormal behavior and diagnoses? Should I, in my effort to increase workplace productivity and satisfaction, educate myself on the ins-and-outs of autism or psychological disorders? Human behavior is so large and complex to support these various divisions. Many, many branches are connected in some way. It's a web. I have no ability to speak beyond the basics of clinical psychology. I can speak to psychometrics, social personality, experimental, educational and consumer psychology, and behavioral analysis (all of which are branches of the APA). Outside of a general interest in human behavior with no regard for context, my goals are as different from a clinical psychologists as a biologists are from neurologists. It's hard enough to do good work in specific contexts, unfortunately. Psychology right now is a bottoms-up field because we're just too ignorant as a species (despite efforts) to do it top-down right now. > I say this to remind you how you sound then you try to describe psychology as though it's a bunch of disconnected pieces. Not that that isn't so, but it provides us with a measure of the significance of science in psychology. I don't have to try to describe it that way, because it is. It's a pragmatic response to the complications of understanding people on the whole. The whole is too disparate, so look at the pieces. That bothers you, but most don't seem as perturbed. I'm sure you see this as concrete evidence for your point, but you won't be surprised that I think that's poor criteria. "Psychology" as a term is almost certainly overly broad, which is why so many divisions exist in the first place. > If that's true, then psychologists lose the right to describe themselves as scientists It is true, and I disagree. Bad science is found everywhere. Look at what bad science has done for vaccines. Do I hold it as an archetype of medical science? Your argument seems to be "we're not perfect at explaining literally all cognition and behavior in a Single Unified Theory now, mistakes have been made in the past, so sod the whole thing." Physicists are on the same page because their work is infinitely more provable. Ultimately human cognition and behavior is a much more practically difficult, nebulous topic at the present time that's going to take longer to get right on the whole. It's all probably just math itself in some respect, and maybe we'll know the equation someday à la Hari Seldon in The Foundation. We're not there yet. >> The last part of your request is unreasonable - proving that there is no utility whatsoever in old theories is unnecessary. > Then you do not understand science. Then you're not thinking critically. It's this kind of thing that turns me off these conversations completely. For better-or-worse, many theories in psychology are not all-or-nothing. While the theory on the whole may prove false, certain elements of the theory or the direction may prove useful in new theories. Old, falsified theories are invaluable for paving the way towards new theories, and not all elements of all falsified theories need be disposed of whole-hog. You can completely reject and recognize the positive contributions it has made, and the utility elements of it still possess. I think we know where each other stand on this now. At the very least, you got your examples. EDIT: Passovers for grammar.

by lutusp 12y ago

HelloMcFly 12y ago

> Yes, and there's a reason. The ground truth about the medical field is what happens in clinics. True, but psychology is not the medical field. You've picked the flashiest "branch" of it to make your archetype, but it's probably the least representative of the whole (though admittedly perhaps the best funded). Clinical psychology is more focused not on what is normal, but what is abnormal, how to diagnose it, and how to respond. Almost all of the rest of psychology is focused on what is normal, typically within a given context (childhood, workplace, developmentally, etc.) > psychology isn't unified by a respect for science, or by reliable, falsifiable theory. Psychology is not unified by a single reliable theory. I have no problem admitting as much. Maybe someday, but not while I'm alive. Again, if that's your baseline for what it takes to be considered scientific, I'm fine saying "then by that definition it's not scientific" and feeling no shame. > This sounds increasingly like one of those joke conversations about which kind of Southern Baptist you are. Then you're not thinking critically. Your doctor-biologist example doesn't fly because one's work (biology) directly and materially affects the work of the other (medicine). What clinical psychologists do, more than almost any other branch, has no impact on me presently, nor I on them. Our populations are different, and the goals of our research with respect to our populations are different. Ridicule the division if you wish, but what do you want me to do? Do you expect my field to reconfigure itself entirely to become experts on abnormal behavior and diagnoses? Should I, in my effort to increase workplace productivity and satisfaction, educate myself on the ins-and-outs of autism or psychological disorders? Human behavior is so large and complex to support these various divisions. Many, many branches are connected in some way. It's a web. I have no ability to speak beyond the basics of clinical psychology. I can speak to psychometrics, social personality, experimental, educational and consumer psychology, and behavioral analysis (all of which are branches of the APA). Outside of a general interest in human behavior with no regard for context, my goals are as different from a clinical psychologists as a biologists are from neurologists. It's hard enough to do good work in specific contexts, unfortunately. Psychology right now is a bottoms-up field because we're just too ignorant as a species (despite efforts) to do it top-down right now. > I say this to remind you how you sound then you try to describe psychology as though it's a bunch of disconnected pieces. Not that that isn't so, but it provides us with a measure of the significance of science in psychology. I don't have to try to describe it that way, because it is. It's a pragmatic response to the complications of understanding people on the whole. The whole is too disparate, so look at the pieces. That bothers you, but most don't seem as perturbed. I'm sure you see this as concrete evidence for your point, but you won't be surprised that I think that's poor criteria. "Psychology" as a term is almost certainly overly broad, which is why so many divisions exist in the first place. > If that's true, then psychologists lose the right to describe themselves as scientists It is true, and I disagree. Bad science is found everywhere. Look at what bad science has done for vaccines. Do I hold it as an archetype of medical science? Your argument seems to be "we're not perfect at explaining literally all cognition and behavior in a Single Unified Theory now, mistakes have been made in the past, so sod the whole thing." Physicists are on the same page because their work is infinitely more provable. Ultimately human cognition and behavior is a much more practically difficult, nebulous topic at the present time that's going to take longer to get right on the whole. It's all probably just math itself in some respect, and maybe we'll know the equation someday à la Hari Seldon in The Foundation. We're not there yet. >> The last part of your request is unreasonable - proving that there is no utility whatsoever in old theories is unnecessary. > Then you do not understand science. Then you're not thinking critically. It's this kind of thing that turns me off these conversations completely. For better-or-worse, many theories in psychology are not all-or-nothing. While the theory on the whole may prove false, certain elements of the theory or the direction may prove useful in new theories. Old, falsified theories are invaluable for paving the way towards new theories, and not all elements of all falsified theories need be disposed of whole-hog. You can completely reject and recognize the positive contributions it has made, and the utility elements of it still possess. I think we know where each other stand on this now. At the very least, you got your examples. EDIT: Passovers for grammar.