Failed dates: blame it on science(blog.tonightapp.com)
blog.tonightapp.com
Failed dates: blame it on science
http://blog.tonightapp.com/post/30521502704/failed-dates-blame-it-on-science
5 comments
If you are not dating another nerd science can actually ruin the date.
Can I ask a question? Why is this on HN? Where's the connection with "hackers" and their interests?
p.s. psychology isn't a science, no matter how often it's described that way.
p.s. psychology isn't a science, no matter how often it's described that way.
I'd take issue with psychology not being a science. Ok, 'pop-psychology' as evidenced in this article is not, but psychology itself definitely is (speaking as someone who did a very rigorous course in Experimental Psychology at Cambridge).
Just to name a few things that psychology covers (off the top of my head):
Speech and language development Child development (e.g. work of Piaget and many since) Models of mental illness (depression, autism, schizophrenia etc) Animal psychology- operant conditioning (Skinner and forward), language in other animals etc
There's too much to mention really, and its an extremely important and relevant field.
Just to name a few things that psychology covers (off the top of my head):
Speech and language development Child development (e.g. work of Piaget and many since) Models of mental illness (depression, autism, schizophrenia etc) Animal psychology- operant conditioning (Skinner and forward), language in other animals etc
There's too much to mention really, and its an extremely important and relevant field.
> I'd take issue with psychology not being a science.
Yep. It depends on how you define "science". If science means having a central corpus of theory that defines the field, informs research in the field, and regulates practice, as is true for physics, biology and every other scientific field, then psychology isn't a science.
If instead "scientific" means white lab coats and clipboards, and endless papers that are never replicated and that contradict each other, then psychology is a science.
If "scientific" means ignoring a field's reduction to practice, so that theory never informs clinical practice and anything goes in clinics, then yes, psychology is a science.
> ... Models of mental illness (depression, autism, schizophrenia etc) ...
Interesting you should mention autism. There is no clear definition of autism, no known cause, no clear diagnostic criteria, and no treatment. But that doesn't mean that psychologists don't diagnose and treat it -- of course they do. They just don't have any science to back up their practice.
Occasionally, an entire autism-spectrum disorder is simply abandoned, as is happening right now with Asperger's Syndrome. The reason? Clinical psychologists got carried away and began diagnosing nearly everyone who showed any apparent symptoms.
It's the same with depression -- a recent meta-analysis discovered that depression drugs don't actually work for most patients, and all the "evidence" that supports depression medications was cooked by vested interests.
As to schizophrenia, it's not a mental illness, it's a physical illness with genetic roots, an ailment that manifests severe psychological symptoms. Psychologists are reduced to treating the symptoms.
In medicine, if a "doctor" doesn't pay attention to medical research and evidence-based practice, he isn't allowed to practice because he represents a threat to public safety. In psychology, this simply isn't true. Professional organizations have repeatedly ruled that certain therapeutic practices are unscientific and invalid, and clinicians simply ignore them (examples include Facilitated Communications and Recovered Memory Therapy).
Medicine became respectable by stopping all unscientific clinical practice, and now any "doctor" who fails to meet present evidentiary standards is breaking the law. Psychology has yet to begin this process, and clinical practice is out of control.
Psychology have two choices:
1. Make clinical psychologists adopt evidence-based practice.
2. Make clinical psychologists stop calling themselves "psychologists."
There is no third choice.
> There's too much to mention really, and its an extremely important and relevant field.
It is a field that you do not understand.
More here: http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology
Yep. It depends on how you define "science". If science means having a central corpus of theory that defines the field, informs research in the field, and regulates practice, as is true for physics, biology and every other scientific field, then psychology isn't a science.
If instead "scientific" means white lab coats and clipboards, and endless papers that are never replicated and that contradict each other, then psychology is a science.
If "scientific" means ignoring a field's reduction to practice, so that theory never informs clinical practice and anything goes in clinics, then yes, psychology is a science.
> ... Models of mental illness (depression, autism, schizophrenia etc) ...
Interesting you should mention autism. There is no clear definition of autism, no known cause, no clear diagnostic criteria, and no treatment. But that doesn't mean that psychologists don't diagnose and treat it -- of course they do. They just don't have any science to back up their practice.
Occasionally, an entire autism-spectrum disorder is simply abandoned, as is happening right now with Asperger's Syndrome. The reason? Clinical psychologists got carried away and began diagnosing nearly everyone who showed any apparent symptoms.
It's the same with depression -- a recent meta-analysis discovered that depression drugs don't actually work for most patients, and all the "evidence" that supports depression medications was cooked by vested interests.
As to schizophrenia, it's not a mental illness, it's a physical illness with genetic roots, an ailment that manifests severe psychological symptoms. Psychologists are reduced to treating the symptoms.
In medicine, if a "doctor" doesn't pay attention to medical research and evidence-based practice, he isn't allowed to practice because he represents a threat to public safety. In psychology, this simply isn't true. Professional organizations have repeatedly ruled that certain therapeutic practices are unscientific and invalid, and clinicians simply ignore them (examples include Facilitated Communications and Recovered Memory Therapy).
Medicine became respectable by stopping all unscientific clinical practice, and now any "doctor" who fails to meet present evidentiary standards is breaking the law. Psychology has yet to begin this process, and clinical practice is out of control.
Psychology have two choices:
1. Make clinical psychologists adopt evidence-based practice.
2. Make clinical psychologists stop calling themselves "psychologists."
There is no third choice.
> There's too much to mention really, and its an extremely important and relevant field.
It is a field that you do not understand.
More here: http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology
Science is about building and organizing knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. And that is true for some areas in psychology,especially in case of research based on methodologically correct experiments. However it's true that in many areas we still lack of such approach and thus results. Instead there are still many myths and straight-up bullshit.and that's real shame as it affects the public image of the field.