Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

I personally think it is because non-science can just sneak its way into the soft sciences without scrutiny for years. It doesn't have the same requirements that the hard sciences have.

Hence why you can infect people with malaria and go "Yeah I think this is doing good" then win a noble peace prize. PSYCHOLOGY EVERYONE!

You might be conflating types of non-scrutiny.  Amoral tests are bad yeah, and probably shouldn't win a nobel peace prize, but they may still be hard science. 

That's moral scrutiny, but core to science is the idea of reproducibility.  If peers can't scrutinize and reproduce the results, it's not science.  Just, at best, some one-off test.

A lot of social sciences can theoretically be tested, but I don't think they suffer as much peer scrutiny as the "hard" ones.  Possibly due to all the uncontrollable factors which demand huge sample sizes for reliability, which is expensive.

[Neonivek]

I personally think it is because non-science can just sneak its way into the soft sciences without scrutiny for years. It doesn't have the same requirements that the hard sciences have.

Hence why you can infect people with malaria and go "Yeah I think this is doing good" then win a noble peace prize. PSYCHOLOGY EVERYONE!

You might be conflating types of non-scrutiny.  Amoral tests are bad yeah, and probably shouldn't win a nobel peace prize, but they may still be hard science. 

That's moral scrutiny, but core to science is the idea of reproducibility.  If peers can't scrutinize and reproduce the results, it's not science.  Just, at best, some one-off test.

A lot of social sciences can theoretically be tested, but I don't think they suffer as much peer scrutiny as the "hard" ones.  Possibly due to all the uncontrollable factors which demand huge sample sizes for reliability, which is expensive.

It wasn't "Moral Scrutiny"... The guy... believed that the fever caused by Malaria cured mental illness (and tried a LOT of stuff before) and without any real evidence... got the Nobel peace prize. Because "Psychology" doesn't require independent tests to verify.

In fact Psychology has only VERY RECENTLY started to actually pick up its game.

I had to sit through a VERY unpleasant history of psychology and lets just say. There was absolutely NO quality control. and by very recently? I mean 2000s... 1980s? No quality control.

[hector13]

Well, compared to the hard sciences, psychology wasn't really studied as an independent thing until the latter half of the 19th Century so it's also a VERY RECENT thing.

[Teneb]

I personally think it is because non-science can just sneak its way into the soft sciences without scrutiny for years. It doesn't have the same requirements that the hard sciences have.

Hence why you can infect people with malaria and go "Yeah I think this is doing good" then win a noble peace prize. PSYCHOLOGY EVERYONE!

You might be conflating types of non-scrutiny.  Amoral tests are bad yeah, and probably shouldn't win a nobel peace prize, but they may still be hard science. 

That's moral scrutiny, but core to science is the idea of reproducibility.  If peers can't scrutinize and reproduce the results, it's not science.  Just, at best, some one-off test.

A lot of social sciences can theoretically be tested, but I don't think they suffer as much peer scrutiny as the "hard" ones.  Possibly due to all the uncontrollable factors which demand huge sample sizes for reliability, which is expensive.

It wasn't "Moral Scrutiny"... The guy... believed that the fever caused by Malaria cured mental illness (and tried a LOT of stuff before) and without any real evidence... got the Nobel peace prize. Because "Psychology" doesn't require independent tests to verify.

In fact Psychology has only VERY RECENTLY started to actually pick up its game.

I had to sit through a VERY unpleasant history of psychology and lets just say. There was absolutely NO quality control. and by very recently? I mean 2000s... 1980s? No quality control.

It's mostly that no one wants to waste their time disproving the crazies.

Research takes time. Sometimes years. When you got a choice between researching something new or disproving some random idiot, I think the one you pick is pretty clear.

[Neonivek]

Research takes time. Sometimes years. When you got a choice between researching something new or disproving some random idiot, I think the one you pick is pretty clear

Yeah... you see that wasn't the situation.

[BlackFlyme]

Woo. Shopping with my mom. Twenty minutes to closing.

She only wanted one thing. We left with way more than we came here for.

She forgot her glasses, so she didn't know what was what.

She asked out loud where the "Chink" aisle was.

She ended up buying diapers, just because they were on sale.

[BlackHeartKabal]

Woo. Shopping with my mom. Twenty minutes to closing.

She only wanted one thing. We left with way more than we came here for.

She forgot her glasses, so she didn't know what was what.

She asked out loud where the "Chink" aisle was.

She ended up buying diapers, just because they were on sale.

Wow, I, uh... wow. Uh... I don't really know what to say. That certainly made me WTF today, just in time for midnight too.

[Amperzand]

Woo. Shopping with my mom. Twenty minutes to closing.

She only wanted one thing. We left with way more than we came here for.

She forgot her glasses, so she didn't know what was what.

She asked out loud where the "Chink" aisle was.

She ended up buying diapers, just because they were on sale.

Wow yep that's a shenanigan.

[TheBiggerFish]

....
*applies hugpats*

[Neonivek]

The more I learn about the history of psychology the more I almost wish I didn't...

Holy freeken cow.

Lets just say... don't be transgendered before the 1990s... O_O

A lot of this seems to do with the fact, though, that there are a few people who are considered to have no rights as far as the government was concerned: Prisoners, The Insane, And Orphans (Orphans were commonly experimented on because they couldn't refuse and had no one who could refuse for them). So the fact that a lot of these procedures are extreme (Often FAR worse then the symptoms...) and often done poorly makes sense in that respect.

I hold that in modern times these procedures would have never grabbed hold due to the changes in the soft sciences. Yet it is still frightening.

[Tiruin]

The more I learn about the history of psychology the more I almost wish I didn't...

Study more :3
There are bright notes occurring a lot in the mix. One of it is that we're living in a time where it has a lot of potential \o/ In by which the history shows progress and development from earlier understandings into better ones.

[Neonivek]

The more I learn about the history of psychology the more I almost wish I didn't...

Study more :3
There are bright notes occurring a lot in the mix. One of it is that we're living in a time where it has a lot of potential \o/ In by which the history shows progress and development from earlier understandings into better ones.

Mostly what we are discovering in modern times is that the old asylum systems were fundamentally flawed and thus we are trying to redesign our whole system of mental health on the fly.

At least the Asylums we are used to. There were other kinds such as what I like to call the "Resort Asylum".

As well Medicine has been put up to a MUCH MUCH MUCH higher standard then it was previously. With many of the procedures that have been long since discredited effectively being prevented from ever happening again (You can't perform surgery without a license anymore, for example.)

[Sonlirain]

The more I learn about the history of psychology the more I almost wish I didn't...

Holy freeken cow.

Lets just say... don't be transgendered before the 1990s... O_O

Don't be considered insane or even mildly eccentric in the mid-late 1800's either. People were all too happy with lobotomy as treatment for being unruly.

And that's more or less how i stopped giving a damn about "New amazing discoveries" made by psychologists.
A pretty good chunk of them was either complete bullshit or staged in order to get the right result (and by right result i mean the one the scientist wants) so they can prove that their theory about ego depletion is right.
And then unlike hard sciences instead of telling them to sod right off with their made up theory people actually take it seriously by publishing in several science magazines...
And it caught traction for 20 years...
And then it got debunked once someone decided to copy his tests and failed to reproduce the results.

"Taken all together, experiments conducted at 24 different labs showed no signs whatsoever of Baumeister and Tice’s original effect."

That means an entire field of study—and significant portions of certain scientists’ careers—could be resting on a false premise. If something this well-established could fall apart, then what’s next? That’s not just worrying. It’s terrifying.

21'st century snake oil business. PERFECT.

The tasks had failed, not the Big Idea.

Yeah... because if the tests disprove the theory then change the tests till they do. that's how it works!
I'm quite sure that by 2090 people will be laughing at today's achievements in this field as well.

[Neonivek]

Don't be considered insane or even mildly eccentric in the mid-late 1800's either. People were all too happy with lobotomy as treatment for being unruly

1960s is the last decade where you could get a lobotomy for basically any reason including no reason... and I am not entirely convinced the "Ehh just give them a lobotomy" didn't happen in the 1970s.

And goodness I wasn't even referring to a lobotomy... I was referring to a procedure where to cure gender disphoria your arms, and legs, and "gender arts", and Kidney, and most of your colon, and teeth were removed... and was ALSO done until the 1950s and only stopped because it became unpopular without a salesman to push it... as in it could have lasted much longer.

----

I'm quite sure that by 2090 people will be laughing at today's achievements in this field as well.

Look... Freud is a psychologist who is famous for separating Psychology from philosophy and into the sciences.

And yes a LOT of the things he said was totally bogus and sometimes for very silly reasons. Yet his overall accomplishments still shine out and to my knowledge he didn't do this butchery.

[Sonlirain]

Don't be considered insane or even mildly eccentric in the mid-late 1800's either. People were all too happy with lobotomy as treatment for being unruly

1960s is the last decade where you could get a lobotomy for basically any reason including no reason... and I am not entirely convinced the "Ehh just give them a lobotomy" didn't happen in the 1970s.

And goodness I wasn't even referring to a lobotomy... I was referring to a procedure where to cure gender disphoria your arms, and legs, and "gender arts", and Kidney, and most of your colon, and teeth were removed... and was ALSO done until the 1950s and only stopped because it became unpopular without a salesman to push it... as in it could have lasted much longer.

That's even worse. I thought they calmed down by the 1900's and only used lobotomy on people with epilepsy and extreme cases of aggression.

But yeah. Psychology was bullshit a good chunk of the time and most likely still is. We just don't have the 20 or so years of buffer space to realize it yet.