re: Calling all Psychologists, Physicists, Engineers, etc

quote:

---

The true psychologists out there need to win back their field or it will just be an affirmation pill mill.

---

Very few Psychologists can write prescriptions.

No and it's based on non-testable hunches.

quote:

---

Asking for myself.

---

bipolar... it's a scientific fact

quote:

---

Never heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment, Stockholm Syndrome, or the Bystander Effect?

---

you missed the most important one.....

My late uncle’s PhD from Stanford in it assisted him in making him die a very comfortable man.

So there’s that.

Yes.

There are real things in the mind that are predictable. Anchoring is real. The power of suggestion is real. Heuristics are real. The “herd.” “Mob” behavior.
The grief process is real. Positive thinking works.

Beauty, hope, love.

Advertising taps into psychology. Pricing certainly does. Sports is full of performance improving psychology.

It is a science. A lot of mental illness is biophysical like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. We are also learning more about neurotransmitters and their role in depression, anxiety, etc.

quote:

---

But you have to call bullshite on behavioral science, right?

---

Why bring economics into this?

quote:

---

Not yet. I think over 70% of psychology experiments can’t be replicated. Might be higher - I can’t remember the number. Non-replication is higher than one would think in the hard sciences, but psychology is way worse.

---

The Replication Crisis is bad all over. Psychology is softer than others, so it will likely be worse, but it's nowhere near the bottom. I imagine sociology and political science are way worse b/c of how much softer those are than psychology.

Some argue the Replication Crisis doesn't really exist, also

quote:

---

When studying any phenomenon, it won’t be surprising if most hypotheses are wrong. This could be due to a number of reasons, including a tendency to test bold ideas or because the particular field of study is largely unexplored and difficult (like cancer biology). A high prior likelihood of hypotheses being wrong is then consistent with high-quality science. Due to inherent variability in experiments, some of these wrong hypotheses will falsely be proven right.

If false hypotheses constitute a large share of all possible hypotheses, the number of these false proofs may be comparable in numbers to the few hypotheses that are (correctly) proven right. This situation is further biased by the fact that scientists are more likely to report studies where they find something — regardless of whether it is really true or not — than when their hypotheses fail. Later experiments that attempt to replicate these falsely proven hypotheses will fail to do so.

Among scientific fields, psychology and clinical medicine are often reported to have the lowest rates of reproducibility. Unlike physics, our knowledge of biology is still far too incomplete to be able to understand biological systems from first principles. Consequently, hypotheses are more likely to be false, explaining the low reproducibility of experiments.

---

quote:

---

Sociology is basically Marxism presented in a more palatable manner.

Its just a systematic attack on societal institutions that "cause dysfunction."

---

Those problems exist across any field that tries to study data, just FYI. A major problem with academia is that it's accepted certain (progressive) maxims as academic regulations, primarily dealing with studying minority-marginalized populations and having any results that would be critical of those populations.

This isn't limited to psychology or sociology, though. You go try to run some biological experiments that show any sort of biological difference in white and black populations that explain differing socioeconomic outcomes and you tell me how that works out for you