APA= Appointed psychology assholes.
Just kidding.
APA=American Psychological association.
I've always wondered about how psychologist view religion. They accept it as a part of psychology. Apparently humans have the inherent need for religion. They view religion as needed coping skill.
I'm like what? Really? Religion is a coping skill?
Sure People use religion as a coping skill but I'd say that, that's not actually a healthy coping skill!
They also skirt around the subject of atheism and how that is viewed by psychologists.
Basically the chickens don't want to create waves. As a branch of science I think they should take this issue a bit more seriously. But I can understand why they don't. The public isn't ready to hear that religion is unhealthy psychologically. Can you imagine the uproar.
Of course right now they view it as a much needed coping skill, I am the one declaring that to be none sense! But it'll be interesting if a group of psychologists grow some balls and prove that religion is unhealthy. I'm still waiting.
Quote from: doorknob on February 14, 2017, 08:56:51 AM
As a branch of science I think they should take this issue a bit more seriously.
Except that most scientists view psychology as a pseudoscience.
Hey wait a minute! APA is one of my favorite posters here.
Quote from: doorknob on February 14, 2017, 08:56:51 AM
APA= Appointed psychology assholes.
Just kidding.
APA=American Psychological association.
I've always wondered about how psychologist view religion. They accept it as a part of psychology. Apparently humans have the inherent need for religion. They view religion as needed coping skill.
I'm like what? Really? Religion is a coping skill?
Sure People use religion as a coping skill but I'd say that, that's not actually a healthy coping skill!
They also skirt around the subject of atheism and how that is viewed by psychologists.
Basically the chickens don't want to create waves. As a branch of science I think they should take this issue a bit more seriously. But I can understand why they don't. The public isn't ready to hear that religion is unhealthy psychologically. Can you imagine the uproar.
Of course right now they view it as a much needed coping skill, I am the one declaring that to be none sense! But it'll be interesting if a group of psychologists grow some balls and prove that religion is unhealthy. I'm still waiting.
You are right. Most all neurosis and psychological disorders, from mild to the debilitating in my Abnormal Psychology text, are coping skills, and they almost always involve some sort of fear or misperception of reality. Possibly they all do. At least I can't think of an exception right now. And one would think that a primary focus of psychologists would be to help clients clear up misperceptions of reality. Psychosis and chemical imbalance is something else. I wouldn't consider religion a psychosis, although it can show up in the chaos of psychosis.
But religion is just off limits because it's so widespread. Like the rest of the coping skills, it may or may not be harmful. It might be helpful if the client is simply incapable of accepting reality. But avoiding reality is not something I would ever advocate as a first choice. There just isn't much upside in that.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 14, 2017, 09:29:37 AM
Except that most scientists view psychology as a pseudoscience.
Where are you getting your information from?
Psychologist even write peer reviewed journals. Experiments are done whether you agree with their accuracy or not. It is a branch of science.
What scientists aren't taking this seriously. Can you site and sources supporting this?
I'm just asking because this is news to me.
Quote from: SGOS on February 14, 2017, 10:04:29 AM
But religion is just off limits because it's so widespread.
Smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, are also coping mechanisms that are worldly widespread. Yet, we recognize the potential dangers of both, especially in relation to the connection of alcoholism to alcohol and cancer to smoking.
Quote from: doorknob on February 14, 2017, 10:06:18 AM
Where are you getting your information from?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/is-psychology-a-e2809creale2809d-science-does-it-really-matter/
QuoteCriticism of psychology's lack of rigor is not new; people have been arguing about wishy-washy speculations in fields like evolutionary psychology and the limitations of fMRI scans for years.
The same criticism has also been leveled at other social sciences including economics and sociology and yet the debate in economics does not seem to be as rancorous as that in psychology. At the heart of Berezow's argument is psychology's lack of quantifiability and dearth of accurate terminology. He points out research in fields like happiness where definitions are neither rigid nor objective and data is not quantifiable.
Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn't science. How exactly should "happiness" be defined? The meaning of that word differs from person to person and especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn't necessarily make Chinese people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can't use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I'm feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/under-the-influence/201308/the-psychology-the-psychology-isnt-science-argument
QuotePsychologists do unscientific things
Psychology doesn't define its terminology well enough to be considered a science
Psychology relies too heavily on subjective experience
Psychology isn't falsifiable
Yes there are always a few that don't take psychology seriously how ever, as it stands now psychology IS a branch of science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB7Dlwaufyk
I'm just posting this for people who are interested in why I bring this up.
Religion isn't only a psychological experience. It's also a sociological phenomenon.
Which is The main reason Why I personally wouldn't lump it in with psychological disorders, delusions and coping mechanisms. At least not automatically.
I had a psychology professor mention, but only in passing (it wasn't a rant), that psychology tries to be a science, and indeed observations in formal texts were always supported by some study, sometimes even from rat behavior. So there is an attempt to make it science, and it is, but not to the extent of physics. The prof's opinion was that it would have been more productive to approach psychology from a philosophical perspective, rather than a scientific one.
Although, the area of philosophy and ideology are risky areas in which to seek for truth. Perhaps the human mind and all of its idiosyncrasies simply doesn't gravitate to truth. Who knows?
But in fact, I could list renowned practitioners in the field who flowered back in the days when I was studying this stuff, and they all built their methodologies on philosophical underpinnings. However, they didn't reject science, and there was a thread of continuity that ran through all their methods. Not that the shamans and faith healers didn't try to invade the field, but they were never taken seriously.
Philosophy can be useful, but it takes prudence and care, perhaps some scientific like constraints, less we end up putting our mental health in the hands of Deepak Chopra.
Psychological research is done using the scientific method. It may not have started out as science as much of what sigman freud said turns out to be false but today it is very much a science. Just as serious as physics or any other branch of science. Any one claiming it is not is ignorant as to what goes on in the field. It is the study of human behavior. If they have a discrepancy with it they can read peer reviewed journals and do their own experiments proving it's not accurate.
But to claim it isn't science is some one's ignorance. Just like creationists.
I apologize as there are some arguments going on in the scientific community that I was unaware of. But as of now it is officially a branch of social science and as serious as any other branch of science.
And I apologize for arguing that fact.
Quote from: doorknob on February 14, 2017, 08:56:51 AM
APA= Appointed psychology assholes.
Just kidding.
APA=American Psychological association.
I've always wondered about how psychologist view religion. They accept it as a part of psychology. Apparently humans have the inherent need for religion. They view religion as needed coping skill.
I'm like what? Really? Religion is a coping skill?
Sure People use religion as a coping skill but I'd say that, that's not actually a healthy coping skill!
They also skirt around the subject of atheism and how that is viewed by psychologists.
Basically the chickens don't want to create waves. As a branch of science I think they should take this issue a bit more seriously. But I can understand why they don't. The public isn't ready to hear that religion is unhealthy psychologically. Can you imagine the uproar.
Of course right now they view it as a much needed coping skill, I am the one declaring that to be none sense! But it'll be interesting if a group of psychologists grow some balls and prove that religion is unhealthy. I'm still waiting.
The Varieties of Religious Experience ... by William James .. a founding daddy of American academic psychology. The elderly William James was impressed by Freud, at least as a new approach. There has probably been much research since then, but not advertised (the church would disapprove).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion ... you could also try this new Google thing ;-)
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/03/religion-spirituality.aspx - for APA view specifically
Quote from: Sorginak on February 14, 2017, 09:29:37 AM
Except that most scientists view psychology as a pseudoscience.
Most of psychology (not neuro science) deals with psychosomatic things. Materialists don't believe in anything psychosomatic. Most scientists are materialists .. hence most view psychology as a pseudoscience. But most scientists are wrong. For example most scientists probably consider economics to be a science, when it is clearly water witching ;-)
Quote from: Sorginak on February 14, 2017, 10:08:07 AM
Smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, are also coping mechanisms that are worldly widespread. Yet, we recognize the potential dangers of both, especially in relation to the connection of alcoholism to alcohol and cancer to smoking.
Physical ailments ... that can be quantified, are open to science. I you can't measure it, if it is qualitative (such as tendency to be addicted) then it isn't science. Some genetic research that may tie to tendency to be addicted, might be science, or it is racism against Native Americans and Irish Americans ;-)
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 14, 2017, 10:41:33 AM
Religion isn't only a psychological experience. It's also a sociological phenomenon.
Which is The main reason Why I personally wouldn't lump it in with psychological disorders, delusions and coping mechanisms. At least not automatically.
All personality is ... is neuroses. All society is ... is sociopathy. Don't be such an optimist!
Quote from: SGOS on February 14, 2017, 10:42:44 AM
I had a psychology professor mention, but only in passing (it wasn't a rant), that psychology tries to be a science, and indeed observations in formal texts were always supported by some study, sometimes even from rat behavior. So there is an attempt to make it science, and it is, but not to the extent of physics. The prof's opinion was that it would have been more productive to approach psychology from a philosophical perspective, rather than a scientific one.
Although, the area of philosophy and ideology are risky areas in which to seek for truth. Perhaps the human mind and all of its idiosyncrasies simply doesn't gravitate to truth. Who knows?
But in fact, I could list renowned practitioners in the field who flowered back in the days when I was studying this stuff, and they all built their methodologies on philosophical underpinnings. However, they didn't reject science, and there was a thread of continuity that ran through all their methods. Not that the shamans and faith healers didn't try to invade the field, but they were never taken seriously.
Philosophy can be useful, but it takes prudence and care, perhaps some scientific like constraints, less we end up putting our mental health in the hands of Deepak Chopra.
Freud was big, because he was the first psychotherapist who was also an MD. Of course back then, an MD was also pseudoscience.
Quote from: doorknob on February 14, 2017, 10:55:49 AM
Psychological research is done using the scientific method. It may not have started out as science as much of what sigman freud said turns out to be false but today it is very much a science. Just as serious as physics or any other branch of science. Any one claiming it is not is ignorant as to what goes on in the field. It is the study of human behavior. If they have a discrepancy with it they can read peer reviewed journals and do their own experiments proving it's not accurate.
But to claim it isn't science is some one's ignorance. Just like creationists.
Everything is chemistry - the chemists
Everything is physics - the physicists
Everything is number - the mathematicians, and other ancient versions of new age woo.
Quote from: doorknob on February 14, 2017, 10:37:55 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB7Dlwaufyk
I'm just posting this for people who are interested in why I bring this up.
I enjoyed this talk, like immensely enjoyed this talk.
As someone with an education in the subject, I can offer a little insight here. Psychology, just like other sciences, has always been at odds with the religious right. And yes, it is a science. We use the scientific method to gather data. However, it's often referred to as a "soft science" due to the lack of certainty when it comes to interpretation of the results of research, coupled with the fact that humans are incredibly complex.
The religious right often don't believe in mental disease, ignoring experts on the subject. They think that depression can be cured with prayer or just realizing how good they've got it. They don't believe in alcoholism as a disease, and think that it's just a problem of behavior. They are ignorant or dismissive of the nature vs nurture debate, instead perpetuating the myth of free will, and using their belief as an excuse to condemn people who make bad choices. Although some churches are finally coming around, the church has traditionally used pastoral care as a substitute for professional psychological help.
PS - I am not saying that atheists are more crazy than theists. And the misfit label is merely statistical, not prejudicial.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 14, 2017, 03:14:16 PM
The religious right often don't believe in mental disease, ignoring experts on the subject. They think that depression can be cured with prayer or just realizing how good they've got it. They don't believe in alcoholism as a disease, and think that it's just a problem of behavior. They are ignorant or dismissive of the nature vs nurture debate, instead perpetuating the myth of free will, and using their belief as an excuse to condemn people who make bad choices. Although some churches are finally coming around, the church has traditionally used pastoral care as a substitute for professional psychological help.
Yet, due to obvious misinterpretation of biblical scripture, they think homosexuality is a disease despite psychology having recanted their earlier, more primitive stance that it was.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 14, 2017, 05:42:55 PM
Yet, due to obvious misinterpretation of biblical scripture, they think homosexuality is a disease despite psychology having recanted their earlier, more primitive stance that it was.
That's another way they ignore what we have to say, yes. Faith > research.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 14, 2017, 05:42:55 PM
Yet, due to obvious misinterpretation of biblical scripture, they think homosexuality is a disease despite psychology having recanted their earlier, more primitive stance that it was.
Only with DSM V is it not a disease, it was still a disease in DSM IV. That is a very recent and controversial change ... but then the APA approves of torture.
Quote from: Baruch on February 14, 2017, 10:52:08 PM
Only with DSM V is it not a disease, it was still a disease in DSM IV. That is a very recent and controversial change ... but then the APA approves of torture.
Homosexuality was inconsistent with the criteria for what constitutes a mental disease. Mental diseases typically cause harm to self or others, or some kind of dysfunction. The hardest thing about being gay is having to deal with people who are biased against gay people.
I've been forced to have to deal with a few psychologist in my life and I have to say that I trust them generally about as much as I trust the goofy assed preacher down on the corner screaming the end is near.
A few years back I was hospitalized for a suicide attempt. I had to go see the shrink and he spent a whole of about 2 minutes asking how many kids I had, their ages and how many brothers and sisters I had. That was it. In the meantime, because I had injected insecticide into my arm and it became horribly infected and I nearly had to have it amputated I was ordered to go to AA meetings at the hospital to cure my depression. They offered absolutely no medical attention regarding my arm so I told the shrink that if I wasn't immediately released from the locked ward I would sue him for every dime he would ever make for the rest of his natural born life.
I was released and the very next day I went to the ER and they had to do emergency surgery to save my arm.
The surgeon told me that if I had waited one more day he would have had no choice but to amputate.
I have ZERO trust in psycologists.. NONE whatsoever.
Psychology is a soft science, meaning that we don't have mathematical bases to support it. YET... All other branches of science were once "soft" too. At some point (with evidence growing daily), psychology will eventually become "hard science".
Quote from: Cavebear on February 15, 2017, 02:40:46 AM
Psychology is a soft science, meaning that we don't have mathematical bases to support it. YET... All other branches of science were once "soft" too. At some point (with evidence growing daily), psychology will eventually become "hard science".
They told us that about sociology an psychology during my sociology-masters study.
I'm not convinced. But hey, maybe.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 15, 2017, 02:49:08 AM
They told us that about sociology an psychology during my sociology-masters study.
I'm not convinced. But hey, maybe.
So, what is your day job? Are you a sociologist?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 15, 2017, 02:53:50 AM
So, what is your day job? Are you a sociologist?
Nope, became a social worker.
I went and got a bachelor degree before doing my MANABA (masters na (=after) bachelor).
Maybe i'll one day do something with my masters. It means better pay if I find a job in it. But while my grades were alright, I always felt I'd make a better social worker than a sociological researcher.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 15, 2017, 02:59:13 AM
Nope, became a social worker.
I went and got a bachelor degree before doing my MANABA (masters na (=after) bachelor).
Maybe i'll one day do something with my masters. It means better pay if I find a job in it. But while my grades were alright, I always felt I'd make a better social worker than a sociological researcher.
Then go with it and do good work...
While, I'm not heavily invested in how sciencey psychology may or may not be, it does gather data, publish, review, and attempt to verify. Sure, there are charlatans in the field, but the approved methodology is much more organized than unsupportable "common wisdom". Even if the collected data is not in the category of mathematical proofs, it does become part of a knowledge base that can be used to identify and reform common notions that don't correspond with reality, just as hard science attempts to do.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 15, 2017, 02:40:46 AM
Psychology is a soft science, meaning that we don't have mathematical bases to support it. YET... All other branches of science were once "soft" too. At some point (with evidence growing daily), psychology will eventually become "hard science".
Look up "How to do an ANOVA" and tell me we don't have math. Fortunately for me, though, we now have software that does the math for us. I don't know if psychology will ever become a "hard science." There's too many unpredictable variables involved in human behavior.
Quote from: SGOS on February 15, 2017, 08:03:55 AM
While, I'm not heavily invested in how sciencey psychology may or may not be, it does gather data, publish, review, and attempt to verify. Sure, there are charlatans in the field, but the approved methodology is much more organized than unsupportable "common wisdom". Even if the collected data is not in the category of mathematical proofs, it does become part of a knowledge base that can be used to identify and reform common notions that don't correspond with reality, just as hard science attempts to do.
I don't know about charlatans, but even medical science has people like Andrew Jeremy Wakefield who claimed that vaccines caused autism. Research has to be peer reviewed, and anyone seeing your research could attempt to replicate the study and see if they get the same results. When the results can't be replicated, or the researcher makes false claims that the data doesn't support, they are discredited. Psychology is no different.
A lot of research, peer reviewed, is faked ... particularly in sociology. Even in medicine, because drug trials are expensive to duplicate ... this helps drug companies profits.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 15, 2017, 10:01:29 AM
I don't know about charlatans, but even medical science has people like Andrew Jeremy Wakefield who claimed that vaccines caused autism. Research has to be peer reviewed, and anyone seeing your research could attempt to replicate the study and see if they get the same results. When the results can't be replicated, or the researcher makes false claims that the data doesn't support, they are discredited. Psychology is no different.
Exactly, I brought up Charlatans to clarify that they infiltrate any "science" or any "thing". I did not intend to create the impression that psychology is some hokey equivalent of astrology. I'm getting the impression that some posters might be thinking along those lines, and that's misleading. Psychology is a dynamic recalibrating methodology that seeks to correct it's own mistakes, just as physics or medicine.
It differs perhaps in that the complexity of the human mind is more difficult to measure and study than the material aspects of what people are calling the "hard sciences." But psychology as a methodology doesn't just throw up it's hands and say, "Fuck it. It's just to hard to measure this stuff, so we might as well just pull ideas out of our asses." The study of the human mind is just a lot more complicated than understanding the Laws of thermodynamics.
This is not the fault of psychology. It's just a more difficult area of study.
I wouldn't say that particularly more sociological research is faked, relative to other research-branches.
Problem is though, Like with psychology, that you can argue if you are measuring what you claim to be measuring, using correct questions, interpreting data right, choosing adequate break-off points in percentages as to when a subject is concidered a or b, ...
Replicability can be a bitch. And as such I think a lot of results aren't faked, it's more Like they are up for debate.
Quote from: doorknob on February 14, 2017, 10:37:55 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB7Dlwaufyk
I'm just posting this for people who are interested in why I bring this up.
There is a lot here that resonates. I could bring up a lot of things, but one of her points about Sigmund Freud provides food for thought. Freud overreached on a lot of his conclusions. That's not uncommon in a new field that has no knowledge base to work from. Bring up psychology and say the word "Sigmund" and many people will immediately point out that Freud was a nut. Maybe he was. He was also a cocaine user. But many people simply reframe the issue and imply that since Freud was wrong, psychology must be wrong. It's only implied of course, but a meme is established that everything Freud initiated must therefore be wrong. This is the same fallacy we see theists frequently using. They ignore the big picture, and focus on a single issue in an attempt to distract to gain an edge.
We shouldn't do this. Freud was just a pioneer. Darwin made similar mistakes, although he was quicker at owning up to the areas that could not be understood until DNA was discovered, when others could work out the details. Neither of these pioneers did most of the work. Their actual contributions were data poor and pitiful in comparison to what was/is yet to be learned.
I think a lot of people expect too much of pioneers, like they have to get it all right on the first trial, but pioneers crossed rivers in covered wagons. They got stuck in the mud. Many of them died. It was hard and they made uncountable mistakes.
I like to give credit to Freud for his one, and possibly only contribution to psychology. He basically said, "There is a lot more to our minds that effect us in ways that we ignore or deny. We are filled with chaos in areas of our minds that seems out of reach of our consciousness, but I don't believe it's totally out of reach. Some of it can be understood if we want to take a closer look."
He got the ball rolling, just like Darwin. He was ignorant in many areas, just like Darwin. He was premature in trying to explain it all in one fell swoop, but getting the ball rolling is not a small thing, and certainly not a failure.
Example ... WebMD magazine, Sept 2016 ,,, big study of women (74,000) over years, starting with young women without any significant health problems ... after X number of years, women who were regular church people (one or more times per week) had 33% less mortality. Of course some people deny psychosomatic phenomena.
Don't get me wrong, baruch. There is bullshit research out there.
I'm just saying I don't know if false research is relatively more present in sociological research.
That would require sociological metaresearch. But hey, if you are right, that might do us fuck all.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 15, 2017, 02:18:49 PM
Don't get me wrong, baruch. There is bullshit research out there.
I'm just saying I don't know if false research is relatively more present in sociological research.
That would require sociological metaresearch. But hey, if you are right, that might do us fuck all.
I read it was more prevalent in sociology ... somewhere. But not unknown even in medicine.
Here is a professional study of misbehavior in pharmacology:
https://www.elsevier.com/editors-update/story/publishing-ethics/bias-in-research-the-rule-rather-than-the-exception
Here is an example from psychology:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/
religion is a coping mechanism. huh! I got a better coping mechanism. I just point my finger at some body and say "he did it. its all his fault". all better, problem solved
Quote from: fencerider on February 15, 2017, 11:35:28 PM
religion is a coping mechanism. huh! I got a better coping mechanism. I just point my finger at some body and say "he did it. its all his fault". all better, problem solved
Religion uses that too.
My coping skill is to just not deal with anything.
Let me just say that it's not a healthy coping skill. Very unproductive. Oh wait Christians do that too!
Psychology is a human social science, so it should be taken with a grain of salt, it isn't as enumerable as physics or chemistry, and not quite neuroscience.
It is interesting what one neuron, or a few neurons are up to ... but that will never explain systematic behavior involving billions of them simultaneously.
Quote from: doorknob on February 16, 2017, 10:08:39 AM
My coping skill is to just not deal with anything.
Let me just say that it's not a healthy coping skill. Very unproductive. Oh wait Christians do that too!
My coping skill is to just solve all problems by myself. Management does not love be asked to solve problems. That requires decisions.
Freud's initial studies on Aphasia, for example, criticized the somatic "locations" of aphasia in the brain. Deepak Chopra is correct, "Thoughts make molecules." (Quantum Healing). We can post studies that show that fear memory consolidation (such as those in PTSD) require specific protein syntheses. Julia Kristeva addresses the concept of "psychological ill-being" vs. psychoanalysis in her work, though more recently, we suggest, This Incredible Need to Believe.
Quote from: badger2 on March 01, 2017, 09:03:22 PM
Freud's initial studies on Aphasia, for example, criticized the somatic "locations" of aphasia in the brain. Deepak Chopra is correct, "Thoughts make molecules." (Quantum Healing). We can post studies that show that fear memory consolidation (such as those in PTSD) require specific protein syntheses. Julia Kristeva addresses the concept of "psychological ill-being" vs. psychoanalysis in her work, though more recently, we suggest, This Incredible Need to Believe.
I agree, that the conventional medicine, ignores the psychosomatic, at its peril.
Kristeva also suggests that there is an incredible amount of energy exerted to maintain the Xian mental geometry, which resonates with a slow, chronic form of self-induced PTSD. What molestations are occurring at the protein synthesis level?
self induced PTSD? sounds like a stupid thing to do... would you care to elaborate on the christian connection? is Trump suffering from self-induced PTSD? or maybe he's suffering from self-induced megalomania?
Quote from: doorknob on February 14, 2017, 11:15:02 AM
I apologize as there are some arguments going on in the scientific community that I was unaware of. But as of now it is officially a branch of social science and as serious as any other branch of science.
And I apologize for arguing that fact.
Psychology is not a hard science. It may become one in the future. It is the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context.