Or maybe you don’t. I just see among people that a lot view it as being kind of stupid or maybe stupid is the wrong word perhaps the word I’m thinking of is Something I can’t put my finger on at the moment. But I feel like it’s kind of seen as
More closely aligned with liberal arts and social sciences, etc., which there’s nothing wrong with.

But I think that a lot of the commentary behind it kind of disregard or ignores the certain neurological basis behind a lot of psychological stuff? I don’t know if I’m making sense. What are your personal opinions? I have some theory as to why, it’s seemingly viewed the way it is …

but I want to hear what ktt has to say

how you came to this conclusion?
what's your mbti?
i think you might be on the spectrum

idk they probably thinks it's not something useful for society

Hmm … what does China think?

Idk but i jus met someone in a psycholology lab abd they didnt seem tp know much

Psychology is not a hard science (jus fumbled talkin to this psychologost girl telling her this as the first thing i ever said to her)

This means they make conclusipns without proper validation

Most psychology studies arent reproducible

My mbti is ESPN

Yeah Ik it’s not a hard science idgaf about that tho ik there’s kind of a hierarchy in academia w like

Math > physics > chemistry > biology

Or something.

Like this ?

Do you think neuropsychology is a hard science?

Yuh

Yea

Only studied psych at a high school level but this was not my experience. Yes there is lots of pseudoscience in the orbit of psychology but idk if id say most studies arent reproducible, are there examples youve got on mind?

nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248

I can find something thats not behind a paywall if u want

Edit: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#:~:text=A%20study%20published%20in%202018,could%20successfully%20reproduce%20original%20results.

Akademiks graduated with a degree in mathematics from a top school…lol

10 years old and probably conducted / submitted in 2014… it’s in nature tho so it’s probably valid but peep this:

psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-51211-001

Replication issues seem to be more likely to be related to heterogeneity than the field itself ?

Wild

Bsc in bio mathematics

I’m not tryna argue about replication crisis tho because that’s in every field damn near

Not on work computer so i cant access yet (sorry for setting that precident ITT)

Id guess that because this was published in a psych publication it might be biased but idk im not a psychologist

Point is doing surveys is not mechanistic and in general psychology doesnt really describe mechanisms for the things they observe they just say we observed this thing and we make a guess as to why ot happens

This is not true rly i mean in our lab we would never publish something if we didnt have replicates that are statistically significantly proving whatever point we are making (which we have to do to publish in the first place)

The sort of resolution we study in is too small to allow for such large repilcation errors. Although sometimes you do get batch effects that can lead to incorrect conclusions

The fact is psychology isnt carried out with the rigor other science is IN MOST CASES

this is simply not true. all psychological studies conducted at a scientific/professional level go thru the same rigorous standards as studies in the fields of biology, chemistry, etc.

Psychology is really respected these days - therapy not being a taboo hush hush thing or laughed at subject anymore for the most part is a big part of it

Of course there are always people who hate what they don't understand or what they feel like is "tells them about themselves"

But overall in the general public and mainstream it's probably in the best place it's been in terms of success and image, and iirc it's one of the best fields in health to now be in of the last decade

Right right I feel that, again not tryna argue replication crisis being real, more so that it is more prevalent as you go up in levels of biological organization? From what I remember you’re in a micro/cellular biology lab correct (or work on that level of organization at least)? If So I can understand how it wouldn’t be the same for you guys but I also have little exposure to that field

Right right but I think there’s still scientific method applied as much as possible and so lack of rigor being a basis for criticism is sort of a non starter unless we’re talking about a specific study imo

To defer back to my OP, I just wonder why it feels as though there’s a lot of negative opinion about psychology stuff in general beyond the idea of “that’s not real science” because I think most people don’t really subscribe to the use of scientific evidence for a lot of things anyways…

I kind of think it’s because it’s a study that feels like it should be intuitive in nature, but I don’t think it is intuitive., I think many emerging trends in psychology, research about trauma and mental disorders, etc. credence to the idea, that it’s not intuitive. But if there’s a distressed in the Way that the studies are conducted or The findings are reached then it becomes kind of a moot point so I mean…

I feel like I’m talking in circles here but I feel like it’s kind of like a “well that’s an obvious thing duh” type of discrediting on the majority’s part? Sorry for the typos or any sentences that don’t make sense. I’m doing voice to text and sometimes it doesn’t work well. I appreciate you engaging in discussion at all