Print

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

[Sonlirain]

Please examine why, and the ideas around the theory--context is very important to bridge that gap between "WTF [resulting surprise]" and "The origin of this zany idea that we now know but didn't before."
Also your wording.

Not much to research there TBH. Some guy 20 years ago decided to prove his theory that willpower is a quantifiable resource and more recent studies didn't just have results that questioned that theory but outright debunked it so either the original study was dead set on proving a false theory or the recent tests were staged and dead set on debunking a (true) theory.

Either that or people were completely different mentally 20 years ago and theories that were true 20 years ago won't hold out now.
But if every generation or so is so dramatically different then the entire field might be walking on struts in the middle of an earthquake if every truth discovered that's applicable here and now might be pretty much 100% untrue within a decade.

[Frumple]

Not to criticise psychologists or psychology, but it does have one of the highest turnover rates of information of any science. Every several years, I believe, half of what was previously accepted is overturned. (I can't find my source for that, my google fu has failed me.) 
It's to be expected though; humans are complicated. We can't dismiss an entire branch of science just because it's difficult.
Maybe we'll get a paradigm shift one of these days.

It's something around half, yeah, so far as I can recall, or at the least was a decade or two ago. That it's that little is honestly kinda' impressive given how gorram young the field is, and how many different things influence it. It's not just a matter of humans being complicated, it's a matter of what that complication means.

Hard sciences should be called easy mode sciences vis a vis experiment construction and execution, t'be frank; they're goddamn child's play in comparison to how rough it is getting good rigorous data with any of the soft sciences. The hard sciences' experimental scopes are almost always comparatively miniscule, their variables few, their ethics barely a concern, their cross discipline influence relatively small and easy to isolate, their core precepts often fairly well established decades or centuries ago, and the time scales required to get really good data from any one experiment generally functionally nonexistent.

None of that is true for bloody close to anything the soft sciences do. It's amazing they're managing as well as they are given the several magnitudes more trouble involved in just studying them, never mind coming to any conclusions as well.

[Tiruin]

Not to criticise psychologists or psychology, but it does have one of the highest turnover rates of information of any science. Every several years, I believe, half of what was previously accepted is overturned. (I can't find my source for that, my google fu has failed me.) 
It's to be expected though; humans are complicated. We can't dismiss an entire branch of science just because it's difficult.
Maybe we'll get a paradigm shift one of these days.

It's something around half, yeah, so far as I can recall, or at the least was a decade or two ago. That it's that little is honestly kinda' impressive given how gorram young the field is, and how many different things influence it. It's not just a matter of humans being complicated, it's a matter of what that complication means.

Hard sciences should be called easy mode sciences vis a vis experiment construction and execution, t'be frank; they're goddamn child's play in comparison to how rough it is getting good rigorous data with any of the soft sciences. The hard sciences' experimental scopes are almost always comparatively miniscule, their variables few, their ethics barely a concern, their cross discipline influence relatively small and easy to isolate, their core precepts often fairly well established decades or centuries ago, and the time scales required to get really good data from any one experiment generally functionally nonexistent.

None of that is true for bloody close to anything the soft sciences do. It's amazing they're managing as well as they are given the several magnitudes more trouble involved in just studying them, never mind coming to any conclusions as well.

You remind me of my thesis ._. So many things to cover! (in what we had firstly thought was going to be easily handled , before even learning of the whole thesiswork, back in our first-ish year)

The good thing is you get to discover new things, and the fun part is making a report and findings out of it! (SO MANY VARIABLES. SO MANY IMPLICATIONS. !!FUN!!) Real glad of all those procedures though. Helps ensure there's a system of checking and cross-checking (although I would really agree with NullForceOmega There are many students who mess up with statistics, so we have to consult professionals for cross-checking \o/)

Related to the thread: Is it normal to feel *this* nervous when your final defense is a month away? X~x

[Sonlirain]

Related to the thread: Is it normal to feel *this* nervous when your final defense is a month away? X~x

Yes

[Harry Baldman]

Related to the thread: Is it normal to feel *this* nervous when your final defense is a month away? X~x

I was on edge for a whole semester before the final defense, and at the end my brain was in deep "I am so screwed" mode until after I presented my whole bit.

It's at this point that all of the things you could have done better come back to haunt you.

[TheBiggerFish]

Keyboard is rarely showing up when I need to type, sometimes it appears for hand a second before disappearing another 30 seconds, only to do the same again, and sometimes it just deletes everything I wrote.

Well that's not good.

Try turning it off and on again?  (or unplugging/replugging)
If it's wireless, it might need a new battery.

And @psychology debate:Honestly, anybody who can get experimentally replicable data out of the human brain is practically working miracles.  I honestly think that it's just impossible to know enough about how this stuff works just yet, but we do have to keep trying or we'll never know.  And I'm pretty sure there have been benefits to even the quack theories.

@Tiruin:I have no idea but, probably, but you shouldn't need to be because you're awesome.

[miauw62]

That, Neo, is because they probably went to a shit Social Justice course. Or just bought their degree.

FTFY

dae hat sjwxs? lol they ruin internwet xdddd loil ddal with it grow tik skin xddd i shuld be abl to discrminat people as much as i awnt!!11

[Sonlirain]

dae hat sjwxs? lol they ruin internwet xdddd loil ddal with it grow tik skin xddd i shuld be abl to discrminat people as much as i awnt!!11

Utilizing typical SJW bullying tactics i see?

[Teneb]

-snip-

Yeah it's normal to feel nervous, but are you sure it's a thesis? I get the feeling it's more of a translation problem since thesis is just for doctorates.

[Frumple]

They're not, actually. The doctoral ones just tend to be the most strenuous.

[Arx]

Yeah, hereabouts you have one from Honours (essentially tagging a fourth year onto a BSc.) upward.

[hector13]

I thought it was only a Bachelor's degree after four years? Ordinary degree if three.

Then again, the Scottish education system is weird, and that's my only experience...

[Frumple]

*shrugs* It depends on the school. Years sometimes matter, others it's just credits, etc., etc., etc. There's not even remotely a global standard. Lot of places there's not even a regional one.

[miauw62]

dae hat sjwxs? lol they ruin internwet xdddd loil ddal with it grow tik skin xddd i shuld be abl to discrminat people as much as i awnt!!11

Utilizing typical SJW bullying tactics i see?

im just replying at the same level of logic as every mra

[A Thing]

Seems like a legit recommendation to me!