Psychology is a soft science (split from Childhood hyperactivity; what makes it a bad thing?)

[MonDie]

Psychologists use experimental and mathematical techniques to more precisely quantify the relationships among the observable variables that are only passively observed by the layman, like personality traits for instance. If the development of a reliable and precise measurement tool isn't scientific, then what is? But the layman might not understand the math, and what is psychology separate of these mathematical techniques if there isn't any unifying psychological theory that unites the discipline of psychology? This can make it seem more like a massive data collection operation than a scientific endeavor.

On 11/27/2022 at 6:29 PM, Agent Smith said:

🙂

Spoken like a true psychologist. In me haste I failed to recognize the complexity of the subject and give due credit to the dedication and brilliant work of psychologists the world over. Gracias.

I'm not as up-to-date with psychological techniques as I'd like to be. I'm sure there are well-tested methods in use in the diagnosis & management of mental illnesses. Do you know of any, other than psychometrics?

An excellent observation. It'll be interesting to watch how neuroscience will get along with psychology. 

Or Behavioral Ecology bolstered by the occasional MRI data.

On 11/27/2022 at 8:13 PM, Peterkin said:

Actually, that is the branch of which I'm most skeptical. I have never been particularly well versed in clinical psychology; my only experience is in counselling college students. The heavy stuff, I only know at second hand, from the patient's side: two close friends with long-standing mental issues who have tried a number of approaches over the years. Approaches, rather than treatments; it's really not like mainstream medicine. I understand hardware pretty well; I'm comfortable in most hospital departments. The psych ward, though, behind the closed doors with heavy wire mesh panels... that's another country - which, I suppose, is why so many people are reluctant to acknowledge it.

The more interesting condition to me is chronic depression. It's a bitch of an illness: it turns bright, talented, interesting people into morbid slugs. And I'm glad somebody's willing to help them - I don't care if it's a priest, a psychiatrist or a voodoo mambo!  Not every approach works - not by a long chalk! And what works for one person might be no use to somebody else. There are some constants, but successful therapies are usually arrived-at through trial and error.

The other friend has ADHD, well controlled now, with a combination drug and personal routine regimen. As a child in the late 50's, he was called hyperkinetic and there was very little anyone could do for him, except the exercise I mentioned earlier. He should have become a great soccer player - except that he literally could not keep his eyes on the ball.  Since the medical and educational establishments have been taking the problem seriously, he's had considerable coaching in how to manage the symptoms himself, so that he can live a normal life.

 

On 11/28/2022 at 2:20 PM, Peterkin said:

Like every other mental illness, the problem begins with a normal emotion or idea applied in excess or inappropriately. Fear is normal and healthy in cases where an animal is aware of a imminent danger or probable threat. It becomes unhealthy when extended to situation where there is no danger. For example, fear of falling off a high place is appropriate when one is standing on a clifftop and the possibility of falling over the edge is real. When standing on an high observation platform, surrounded by steel and glass, with no possibility of falling off, it's inappropriate, but still normal, because the fear is triggered by visual association. When standing on a chair, it's neurotic: a phobia, but still manageable. When standing on solid ground, afraid to step out the door, it's a serious problem. 

I do not see the relevance of Putin.  

Most measurement tools are trained on ordinary people whom the rater already can intuitively understand.  Yet, the most extreme aberrations are the source of the most intrigue and the most worry, and they may have nothing to teach, especially if they're lying.  Nature doesn't lie, nature isn't machiavellian. 

Many would probably fancy themselves to be the real psychologist in the room.

[Agent Smith]

On 2/5/2023 at 4:26 PM, MonDie said:

Psychologists use experimental and mathematical techniques to more precisely quantify the relationships among the observable variables that are only passively observed by the layman, like personality traits for instance. If the development of a reliable and precise measurement tool isn't scientific, then what is? But the layman might not understand the math, and what is psychology separate of these mathematical techniques if there isn't any unifying psychological theory that unites the discipline of psychology? This can make it seem more like a massive data collection operation than a scientific endeavor.

Or Behavioral Ecology bolstered by the occasional MRI data.

 

Most measurement tools are trained on ordinary people whom the rater already can intuitively understand.  Yet, the most extreme aberrations are the source of the most intrigue and the most worry, and they may have nothing to teach, especially if they're lying.  Nature doesn't lie, nature isn't machiavellian. 

Many would probably fancy themselves to be the real psychologist in the room.

What's this unifying psychological theory you refer to?

[MonDie]

On 11/25/2022 at 8:47 PM, TheVat said:

  Sometimes people get psychology, which remains a mix of art and science, confused with neuroscience, which is more the scientific approach.  Seems like there are branches that are closer to neuroscience, like psychopharmacology, where they draw on disciplines like biochemistry, genetics, etc.  Other branches, like Jungian analysis, tend more towards an intuitive art of observing a human psyche.  

There are interdisciplinary categories like behavioral science or cognitive science which, as their names imply, lean more towards the array of techniques called "the scientific method."

There's a fairly wide spectrum in how all these branches work, with counselors whose primary tool is empathy at one end, and neuroscientists whose primary tools are technology, clinical studies, and rigorous data sifting, at the other.

Psychology is categorically obscure, but reducing psychology to brain imaging is like reducing physics or biology to telescopy or microscopy.  Quantifying the content of communication should matter.

Neuroscientists, like all scientists, rely on the reliability of a basic willingness to communicate.  Psychologists and anthropologists quantify not only communication, but communication patterns and ability, and the emerging social behavior and cultural activities.  You can ignore good communication when it works and superfluous communication when it's insubstantial, but don't forget that bad communication will waste resources, time, cognition, public trust, and everybody's credibility.  Of course, that might seem insubstantial to a narrow-minded person awaiting a paycheck.

On 2/11/2023 at 11:32 AM, Agent Smith said:

What's this unifying psychological theory you refer to?

How about any logical framework of mental representation, adaptive behavior, or verbal communication that mutually reinforces the data analysese? 

[Agent Smith]

On 2/13/2023 at 12:29 PM, MonDie said:

Psychology is categorically obscure, but reducing psychology to brain imaging is like reducing physics or biology to telescopy or microscopy.  Quantifying the content of communication should matter.

Neuroscientists, like all scientists, rely on the reliability of a basic willingness to communicate.  Psychologists and anthropologists quantify not only communication, but communication patterns and ability, and the emerging social behavior and cultural activities.  You can ignore good communication when it works and superfluous communication when it's insubstantial, but don't forget that bad communication will waste resources, time, cognition, public trust, and everybody's credibility.  Of course, that might seem insubstantial to a narrow-minded person awaiting a paycheck.

How about any logical framework of mental representation, adaptive behavior, or verbal communication that mutually reinforces the data analysese? 

Looks like a good place to build a launch pad.