Is psychology a real science?

[Miser]

That's right. Modern society can provide plenty of opportunities for people to achieve their goals - even if the goals are sometimes a bit dodgy.

 

For example:

 

1. Exhibitionists can join naturist clubs.

2. Hot-tempered violent persons, can enlist in the army, or take up boxing.

3. Those with sadistic desires to cut human flesh, can become surgeons.

 

These are all legal ways of sublimating base urges, and making them respectable, or even admired.

 

But most people don't seem to take the rational, considered approach suggested in your post. Does something in human nature oppose it?

 

You see what I see. A person who is completely undeterred by human emotions. Would you clarify your last question though. If I've read it correctly, I see the contrary, a dehumanization instead of being swayed by something human - a suppression of human nature.

 

Until you demonstrate adequately with evidence that "most people don't take rational approaches" it would be a complete and total waste of effort speculating and seeking explanations for why that is so.

 

See most as people who fall into the 68 percent area of the bell curve.

[Dekan]

Until you demonstrate adequately with evidence that "most people don't take rational approaches" it would be a complete and total waste of effort speculating and seeking explanations for why that is so.

 

The simple explanation might be - that men have testicles. These organs produce hormones with the potential to dominate the male brain.

 

Most men succumb to this power - their brains disappear into their trousers. They become politicians, start wars, copulate with interns, and generally disgrace themselves.

However a valiant minority of men, resist the hormonal corruption. They rise above it, and become Scientists - keeping their minds free for the rational contemplation of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry.

 

After all, the greatest scientist in history - Isaac Newton - was a lifelong virgin.

 

Doesn't that put it in a nutshell?

[Miser]

The simple explanation might be - that men have testicles. These organs produce hormones with the potential to dominate the male brain.

 

Most men succumb to this power - their brains disappear into their trousers. They become politicians, start wars, copulate with interns, and generally disgrace themselves.

However a valiant minority of men, resist the hormonal corruption. They rise above it, and become Scientists - keeping their minds free for the rational contemplation of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry.

 

After all, the greatest scientist in history - Isaac Newton - was a lifelong virgin.

 

Doesn't that put it in a nutshell?

 

Socrates said "the unexamined life is not worth living". But is the examined life worth living? Is the contemplative life worth living?

 

In short, Newton may not have resisted hormonal corruption but was simply born into a biological vessel and social environment that made him the chaste person he was. Its difficult to claim that he is more noble because of a resistance to lust that was probably not too powerful to begin with.

 

Regardless, what are your views on abstinence?

Edited November 26, 2012 by Miser

[John Cuthber]

Just because they want to sell books doesn't make their claim more false. This magazine is an forum for those who posses the rare 'tacit knowledge' required for psychology to talk about their interpretation on the available data. It isn't meant to be fully scientific.

The sales of books do not influence their accuracy.

But the converse is not true, and not always in a good way.

And the article in the rag isn't science.

Why did you cite it?

 

Anyway, since it only takes one counter example to trash a theory, and my nephew is that example, you can stop worrying about it now.

(Obviously, there are lots of other like him too, but just 1 is enough)

[iNow]

The simple explanation might be - that men have testicles. These organs produce hormones with the potential to dominate the male brain.

 

Most men succumb to this power - their brains disappear into their trousers. They become politicians, start wars, copulate with interns, and generally disgrace themselves.

However a valiant minority of men, resist the hormonal corruption. They rise above it, and become Scientists - keeping their minds free for the rational contemplation of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry.

 

After all, the greatest scientist in history - Isaac Newton - was a lifelong virgin.

 

Doesn't that put it in a nutshell?

In short, no. You cannot provide evidence that your assertion is even remotely true or worth our time. Got it.

[Miser]

In short, no. You cannot provide evidence that your assertion is even remotely true or worth our time. Got it.

 

When you describe people, do you use only empirically quantifiable definitions such as height, weight, race and gender or do you include personality traits as well? What do people mean to you?

[iNow]

Dekan made assertion regarding something he thinks "most people" do or don't do. I asked him to support that assertion with evidence and demonstrate that it actually happens, and he has not yet done so. Until he does, I maintain my position that it is a waste of time to speculate about why "most people" do that since we haven't yet established that "most people" actually do.

[Ringer]

http://www.psycholog...-dont-have-adhd

 

I would have to say a more accurate reason more children in the US are diagnosed with ADHD is the diagnostic criteria that is used.

[ewmon]

I would also like to draw attention to the ever-changing and controversial Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the so-called "bible" of mental disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association that classifies and defines mental disorders) as evidence of the significant uncertainty involved with both psychology and psychiatry, which I previously described as being "soft sciences".

 

Over the years, the DSM has added, modified and deleted a variety of mental disorders. For example, in the not too distant past, the DSM classified homosexuality as a mental disorder.

 

This NPR broadcast details the controversial changes for next version, DSM-5.

[Ringer]

I would also like to draw attention to the ever-changing and controversial Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the so-called "bible" of mental disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association that classifies and defines mental disorders) as evidence of the significant uncertainty involved with both psychology and psychiatry, which I previously described as being "soft sciences".

 

Over the years, the DSM has added, modified and deleted a variety of mental disorders. For example, in the not too distant past, the DSM classified homosexuality as a mental disorder.

 

This NPR broadcast details the controversial changes for next version, DSM-5.

 

You know clinical is a very small subset of psychology right? And that psychiatrists are not psychologists, but medical doctors.

[ewmon]

I don't see clinical as a very small subset of psychology, and in fact, I would think that therapy is the part of psychology that affects people's lives the most. On the subject of psychology, Wikipedia says:

 

The majority of psychologists are involved in some kind of therapeutic role, practicing in clinical, counseling, or school settings

What else is being done in overwhelming amounts in psychology that make clinical/therapy a very small subset of the psychology?

 

As for the psychiatrist/psychologist distinction, although psychiatrists publish the DSMs, psychologists as well as psychiatrists use it, and other professions use it.

 

In a sense, even ordinary everyday people use it. I know a boy with Asperger's Syndrome, oops, I mean he's autistic (because Asperger's won't be appearing in the DSM-5). Previously, someone could have been depressed because her mother died, but now she's just acting "normal" because it's normal to feel that way when a loved one dies. A member of my family had "Adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features", but now I don't what to call it because this mental disorder no longer appears in the DSM. With its labels and diagnoses in constant flux, as it is, how can anyone take it seriously? If psychology is not a soft science, it certainly is rather fluid.