- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: California school district LGBT sex ed
Posted on 4/22/18 at 4:23 pm to rbWarEagle
Posted on 4/22/18 at 4:23 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:
Not sure what you would like me to do with that piece of information. I may have used either one of those terms a handful of times ever on this board, so, . Seems to be good terminology to broadly describe group dynamics
Do with it what you will. I just know you got it from your Sociology class
My fricking tortured my sociology teacher as well as my psych teacher now that I think of it.
I personally find that particular terminology to be straight out of the Sky Screamer book. Not that I've got you on the Sky Screamer list but it is what it is
1
Posted on 4/22/18 at 4:27 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Do with it what you will. I just know you got it from your Sociology class
Never had a sociology class. It's pretty common jargon in Social Psychology, Social Neuroscience, Evolutionary Game Theory, etc.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 4:28 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:
Never had a sociology class. It's pretty common jargon in Social Psychology, Social Neuroscience, Evolutionary Game Theory, etc
Close enough.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 4:29 pm to ShortyRob
Not really. Scientific rigor is exponentially higher in the subfields I mentioned. Psychology has had it's issues but the field as a whole has done quite a bit to right the ship. 
Posted on 4/22/18 at 4:32 pm to Powerman
quote:
Update: everyone is crazy now
That isn’t true. There are some good conservative and liberal posters here. But we all know that the loudest political voices are the most extreme.
Unequivocally, more conservatives post here than liberals; that’s the nature of a website that’s built around sports. But FTR I consider myself to be very conservative, and I’m appreciative of the opportunity to read views opposite to mine. It’s a great exercise in personal introspection.
I’ve found that it helps to peruse the threads while enjoying a good scotch.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 4:34 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:
Psychology has had it's issues but the field as a whole has done quite a bit to right the ship.
We just have to agree to disagree on that one
Quack science
Posted on 4/22/18 at 4:39 pm to ShortyRob
Well, they have. One of the very few fields to address the replication crisis within their own community (even though it's extremely far-reaching beyond psychology - biomedical science, for instance) and attempt to move toward open science - submitting raw data, methodologies, analyses, computer code, etc.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 4:43 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:
Well, they have
Dude we just had high-profile psychiatrists band together and try to diagnose the president of the United States from their living rooms in order to get Congress to remove him
That should have caused Mass revolt in the community if the community had any actual scientific standards.
And yes they had a significant replication crisis although to be fair some of the real Sciences have that problem too
But psychology's problem is actually before the replication problem. Without going into 20 paragraphs the bottom line is that psychology's problem is that it doesn't know it's sociology. Then again sociology thinks it's a science too
LOL
This post was edited on 4/22/18 at 4:44 pm
Posted on 4/22/18 at 4:47 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Dude we just had high-profile psychiatrists band together and try to diagnose the president of the United States from their living rooms in order to get Congress to remove him
Sorry, but that's an exception; not the norm.
quote:
That should have caused Mass revolt in the community if the community had any actual scientific standards.
If I recall correctly, the group who attempted to do this was a pretty fringe one. I don't think it calls for an entire field to take responsibility for the fringe.
quote:
Without going into 20 paragraphs the bottom line is that psychology's problem is that it doesn't know it's sociology
I don't even know what that could possibly mean. I see that your opinion is pretty firm, though. I doubt my musings on statistical analytic improvements is going to help
Posted on 4/22/18 at 4:48 pm to ShortyRob
Psychology’s problem is that it is a soft science at best.
At worst, it’s a tool for the suppression of “othered” groups lik in Soviet Russia where people wanting to defect to the West were considered mentally ill.
At worst, it’s a tool for the suppression of “othered” groups lik in Soviet Russia where people wanting to defect to the West were considered mentally ill.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 4:52 pm to teke184
quote:
Psychology’s problem is that it is a soft science at best.
That's the colloquial notion, for sure. I don't think that's quite as valid a perception with the substantial rigor increase over the last decade or so.
quote:
At worst, it’s a tool for the suppression of “othered” groups lik in Soviet Russia where people wanting to defect to the West were considered mentally ill.
Well that's just shortsighted. Most fields of scientific inquiry have been used improperly in the past.Posted on 4/22/18 at 4:56 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:It's by definition the norm. I sure didn't hear an outcry from the psych community.
Sorry, but that's an exception; not the norm.
If it were the exception, we'd have seen an outcry. We didn't because Psychology is a "science" that can be affected by public opinion(which kinda kills the science part) Admittedly, I was kinda happy about this because I've made fun of their science bonifides for 20 years. The frickers are absolutely HORRIBLE at recognizing researcher bias.
quote:Psych's problem is, and always will be a problem because....
I doubt my musings on statistical analytic improvements is going to help
1) Humans, unlike chemicals in a beaker, are notoriously hard to "control" for. By hard I mean, basically impossible.
2) The Psych community is just fricking godawful at recognizing observer bias and researcher bias. I mean, awful is just being kind as frick about it.
I'm not saying they're never right. But hey, philosophers are often right too, but they aren't science.
I don't say Psych isn't a science because they fail at being a science..........I'm saying it isn't a science because it CAN'T be a science.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 4:58 pm to ShortyRob
I should add. You know where else the psych community totally fricks itself?
Courtrooms across America.
"Oh, we're a "science"".
Let me know when there's a rash of court cases where one doctor says, "dude has a broken leg" and another doctor saw the same fricking patience says, "nah, just a sprain".
Courtrooms across America.
"Oh, we're a "science"".
Let me know when there's a rash of court cases where one doctor says, "dude has a broken leg" and another doctor saw the same fricking patience says, "nah, just a sprain".
Posted on 4/22/18 at 5:04 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
It's by definition the norm. I sure didn't hear an outcry from the psych community.
Disagree.
quote:
We didn't because Psychology is a "science" that can be affected by public opinion(which kinda kills the science part)
All science can be affected by public opinion.
quote:
1) Humans, unlike chemicals in a beaker, are notoriously hard to "control" for. By hard I mean, basically impossible.
As I said, biomedicine is in some deep shite right now with respect to the replication crisis. Of course people are multivariabled (if you will), but controlling for those variables is part of the methodology which is always open to debate and is always improving (thanks to open science protocols).
quote:
2) The Psych community is just fricking godawful at recognizing observer bias and researcher bias. I mean, awful is just being kind as frick about it.
I mean, maybe so, but psychologists were the ones who openly addressed the replication crisis within the field and exposed it for what it was.
quote:
I'm saying it isn't a science because it CAN'T be a science.
Of course it can. Especially as it incorporates neuroscientific imaging technologies.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 5:09 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:Well, to be fair, that's probably because they're the science people least view as a science and so, they're trying to bolster their credibility.
I mean, maybe so, but psychologists were the ones who openly addressed the replication crisis within the field and exposed it for what it was.
Certainly not a pass for the other guys who basically seem to think replication is for pussies because "trust us, we're scientists" but that's another thread.
quote:
Of course it can. Especially as it incorporates neuroscientific imaging technologies.
Nah. Gonna have the same problem forever. Note, I'm differentiating psychology here from psychiatry. The former is FAR worse than the latter although the latter ain't exactly great.
I've literally never seen a psych study where the problems didn't jump out to me inside of 15 minutes of reading. More often than not, they're so egregious I find it embarrassing.
They just need to accept that they're slightly more rigorous sociologists who then make the mistake of thinking they can apply that knowledge to the individual and call it a day.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 5:16 pm to ShortyRob
I'm trying to find a slightly older study online that my poor Psych teacher tried to cover from our text book back in the day. I crucified that poor bitch so bad, I don't think she ever recovered.
It was a study on children and watching violent TV where they had kids watch Barney for a period of time and had them watch violent kids shows for a time.
They observed their "violent" behavior after each time period and the concluded that the violent TV caused violent behavior.(yes, I'm seriously paraphrasing).
I was like "Holy frick on Steroids lady.......that's the worst shite I've ever read passed off as Science". Do they teach these people ANYTHING about observer bias, researcher bias, math?
Ahh. The Singer Study. Holy frick. Quackery on top of quackery.
It was a study on children and watching violent TV where they had kids watch Barney for a period of time and had them watch violent kids shows for a time.
They observed their "violent" behavior after each time period and the concluded that the violent TV caused violent behavior.(yes, I'm seriously paraphrasing).
I was like "Holy frick on Steroids lady.......that's the worst shite I've ever read passed off as Science". Do they teach these people ANYTHING about observer bias, researcher bias, math?
Ahh. The Singer Study. Holy frick. Quackery on top of quackery.
This post was edited on 4/22/18 at 5:19 pm
Posted on 4/22/18 at 5:20 pm to ShortyRob
If those studies don’t show adults getting violent when Barney is on, they aren’t worth much.
Posted on 4/22/18 at 5:31 pm to teke184
quote:
If those studies don’t show adults getting violent when Barney is on, they aren’t worth much.
The study is so comical because it got the control wrong.
It drew a conclusion based on literally nothing.
One could have used the exact same data to draw a completely contradictory conclusion.
The conclusion was 100% a result of the "expected" result the researchers already had.
Oh, and the people who fricking constructed the study were also the observers! I mean holy shite.
This post was edited on 4/22/18 at 5:32 pm
Posted on 4/22/18 at 6:00 pm to ShortyRob
Singer as in Schacter and Singer? As in their 1962 study? Come on, man. Needless to say, things have advanced a tad bit since 1962.Posted on 4/22/18 at 6:17 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:Barney wasn't on TV in 1962.
Singer as in Schacter and Singer? As in their 1962 study? Come on, man. Needless to say, things have advanced a tad bit since 1962.
If I got the name wrong, I'm a victim of trying to Google that which I read like 20 years ago.
Sue me.
ETA: It appears the study I"m recalling is Singer and Singer, 1999. Married Couple. Jerome and Dorothy Singer
This post was edited on 4/22/18 at 6:19 pm
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News