3 ms·

I don't know the first thing about phrenology or scientology either: but I know bullshit when I see it. Psychology is rarely even vaguely scientific: I sit in a

I don't know the first thing about phrenology or scientology either: but I know bullshit when I see it. Psychology is rarely even vaguely scientific: I sit in a cafe near the psychology building at Cal, and bite my lip while nitwits with tenure discuss creative ways to falsify their data, and otherwise get the 'right' answer. You don't even need a high school diploma to do data plumbing. You don't need H1Bs to do it either: you simply need to train and pay people adequately. I used this as an example of what working scientists (you know, the article is about encouraging people to study STEM) are confronted with on the job market thanks to nincompoops who believe we are short of STEM degreed individuals. I'd rather drive a bus. Fortunately, I don't have to.

blackbagboys 12y ago
I am not a practicing scientist, but I'll venture the hypothesis that your difficulties in the job market may be partly a function of your personality.
imgabe 12y ago
Somehow the irony seems to have escaped you that you've based your opinion on a entire field of study on an anecdote about overhearing one conversation while you're deriding them for not being "scientific" enough.
- bobcostas55 12y ago
  Obviously his methodology is unsound, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. A tiny minority of published results in the field can be replicated. When these "scientists" spend most of their time massaging data to get that golden 0.049 p-value, I think a bit of derision might be deserved.
  - mcguire 12y ago
    At this point, I suspect that the majority of published results in any field cannot be replicated. A certain number of the ones that get a great deal of publicity[1] don't seem to pass a sniff test. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7143630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7143630 [2] [2] Before you go all "grr, journanists, grr", I first heard about that one on both the Science and Nature podcasts.
- scottlocklin 12y ago
  I have sat in this cafe for years, and have listened to some large fraction of the psychology department (and part of the economics department, as well as Robert Reich) discussing "how to get the 'right answer.'" That is a statistically significant sample, particularly considering ... Cal ain't exactly a cow college. Psychology as a field is baloney, as worthy of respect as the astrology column. What the "self esteem expert" in this article was discussing is even more execrable baloney than the usual.
  - imgabe 12y ago
    I can't believe that I have to explain to an allegedly working scientist that a sample of professors who happen to frequent one cafe, at one university, is not statistically significant. What is your position then? That nothing can be learned about human behavior by applying the scientific method? That there's no inherent patterns or cause and effect behind how humans act? Or just that not one single psychologist in the history of the field has yet successfully performed an experiment that has demonstrated such, or even made an attempt in good faith to do so? Certainly, it's much harder to remove all confounding variables from psychological experiments. That doesn't mean that there's nothing to be learned about human behavior by applying the scientific method.

blackbagboys 12y ago

I am not a practicing scientist, but I'll venture the hypothesis that your difficulties in the job market may be partly a function of your personality.

imgabe 12y ago

Somehow the irony seems to have escaped you that you've based your opinion on a entire field of study on an anecdote about overhearing one conversation while you're deriding them for not being "scientific" enough.

bobcostas55 12y ago
Obviously his methodology is unsound, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. A tiny minority of published results in the field can be replicated. When these "scientists" spend most of their time massaging data to get that golden 0.049 p-value, I think a bit of derision might be deserved.
- mcguire 12y ago
  At this point, I suspect that the majority of published results in any field cannot be replicated. A certain number of the ones that get a great deal of publicity[1] don't seem to pass a sniff test. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7143630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7143630 [2] [2] Before you go all "grr, journanists, grr", I first heard about that one on both the Science and Nature podcasts.
scottlocklin 12y ago
I have sat in this cafe for years, and have listened to some large fraction of the psychology department (and part of the economics department, as well as Robert Reich) discussing "how to get the 'right answer.'" That is a statistically significant sample, particularly considering ... Cal ain't exactly a cow college. Psychology as a field is baloney, as worthy of respect as the astrology column. What the "self esteem expert" in this article was discussing is even more execrable baloney than the usual.
- imgabe 12y ago
  I can't believe that I have to explain to an allegedly working scientist that a sample of professors who happen to frequent one cafe, at one university, is not statistically significant. What is your position then? That nothing can be learned about human behavior by applying the scientific method? That there's no inherent patterns or cause and effect behind how humans act? Or just that not one single psychologist in the history of the field has yet successfully performed an experiment that has demonstrated such, or even made an attempt in good faith to do so? Certainly, it's much harder to remove all confounding variables from psychological experiments. That doesn't mean that there's nothing to be learned about human behavior by applying the scientific method.