So what is psychology and why did you study it?

pisslips

I still can't figure out what psychology is.
In modern times it seems to mostly employ scientific method, a lot of the experiments have become more accurate at isolating parameters to study etc.Which I guess is related to nueroscience.

But then you have this interpretive side to it, a kind of behavioural science or sociology which isn't really science at all imo. It brings up the issue of subjective proof, for example, if I prove a theory with the use of patterns on a graph etc. It's not really proof at all because people can (well as psychologists know) percieve different patterns, colours etc. To a lesser extent statistics to certain confidence intervals are not scientific proof either.

Also, when psychology is applied through psychotherapy, this hardly constitutes scientific ativity. Sure you are calling on many scientifically proven arguments and statistical inferences but you are interpreting based on your own life experience and intuition aswell and most importantly you're trying to 'help' someone to I guess function in a constructive role in society.Or are you supposed to even be concious of that? Would you take a similar approach as a medical doctor.

So what the hell is psychology?

It was on my C.A.O. at one stage which I immediately removed since I couldn't even define it.

Why did you choose to study it?

Valmont

pisslips wrote: »

In modern times it seems to mostly employ scientific method, a lot of the experiments have become more accurate at isolating parameters

Correct.

pisslips wrote: »

Which I guess is related to neuroscience

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Neuroscience is concerned with the micro aspects of behaviour (i.e. the neuronal level) and psychology is concerned with the macro aspects (i.e. overt behaviours of the person). That is a greatly simplified explanation, psychology covers a vast range of behavioural phenomena.

pisslips wrote: »

But then you have this interpretive side to it, a kind of behavioural science which isn't really science at all imo.

Yes, it's called behavioural science because it isn't science at all. Great insight there. Could you explain what you mean by the interpretative side to psychology? Are you suggesting that other scientific subjects don't "interpret"?

pisslips wrote: »

or sociology

Psychology and sociology are two entirely different subjects.

pisslips wrote: »

It brings up the issue of subjective proof, for example, if I prove a theory with the use of patterns on a graph etc. It's not really proof at all because people can (well as psychologists know) percieve different patterns, colours etc.

If you were familiar with the scientific method you would know that one never speaks of "proof" for a theory, only evidence that either supports or doesn't support your experimental hypotheses. If you actually think that psychologists simply look at colours and patterns on graphs in their scientific analysis then you really are exhibiting a general ignorance of science or indeed any subject that utilises the scientific method.

pisslips wrote: »

To a lesser extent statistics to certain confidence intervals are not scientific proof either.

Technically speaking, mathematics is the only subject where pure scientific proof actually occurs. So to use this point as a criticism of psychology is overly pedantic and one you would need to elaborate further upon to gain any ground.

pisslips wrote: »

Also, when psychology is applied through psychotherapy, this hardly constitutes scientific ativity. Sure you are calling on many scientifically proven arguments and statistical inferences but you are interpreting based on your own life experience and intuition aswell and most importantly you're trying to 'help' someone to I guess function in a constructive role in society.

You have a point here in that psychotherapy in general is not very scientific. However, it does serve it's purpose in that it can help many people with various problems.

What is psychology? In short I would say it is the scientific study of human behaviour and the mind. It is important to keep in mind that there are many subjects within psychology such as biological psychology, cognitive psychology, social psychology etc.

pisslips

I'd like to point out that I'm asking these questions out of curiosity, it's not some kind of attack.

Well, firstly I always thought nueroscience was the study of the nervous system which incorporates macrascopic emergent functions also.Such as the structure of the brain etc.

Also, mathematics is not a science it does not follow the doctrine of scientific method.

Statistical proof is not real mathematical proof nor is it scientific proof but it is compelling evidence depending of course on how competent the analysis is.

So, behavioural science, I don't know anything about.
An experiment for example.
You would take a live subject and provide some stimulis and observe the response.....repeat.
Then you'd have data, statistical analysis....evidence.
So now you can infer that in most cases if this stimulus is applied this response should be obseved.

Then you make a theoretical frame work where you have to interpret the laws you have uncovered and make them fit together postulating about the 'gaps' and I'd say there's a lot of gap.
So at any stage during this formulation of theoretical framework, does the emergent property of emotion come into play. And how the hell do you define it. Also the fact that a subject is aware that they are being observed surely affects it's behaviour.

My main problem with accepting it is, I truely feel that nothing can be proven scientifically by asking a person a question or a series of questions.

One of the reasons I think this for example is that other sciences like physics or chemistry, use experimental instruments to increase their ability to sense be it sight sound or smell(microscope, ultrasound, spectroscopy(molecular analysis)) but there is no way for example that a man could tell the quark composition in the nucleus of a hydrogen atom in a hydrogen carbonate in a rock....by looking at it.

So, how can you come to meaningful tractable accurate conclusions about human behaviour when you only have human senses to discover them?

I mean like the greeks are we going to have the analogue of believing in water, fire and earth as the elementary matter.....I mean they were on the right track.

Anyway, I guess I won't be convinced until I study some philosophy of science, some epistimology, maybe some psychology aswell.

I guess it's like a young science.

Do people filling in the CAO know how rigourously analytical it is?
I'd imagine the least important thing is that you might want to help someone and thats not a slur, I think I'd like to do it just out of curiosity which is the best reason to do anything really.It was the whole T.V. psychotherapy thing that put me off in the first place.

Valmont

pisslips wrote: »

Well, firstly I always thought nueroscience was the study of the nervous system which incorporates macrascopic emergent functions also.Such as the structure of the brain etc.

Yes but not as macroscopic as behaviour. For example, leadership or motivation. The are many other subjects like these that separate psychology from neuroscience.

pisslips wrote: »

Statistical proof is not real mathematical proof nor is it scientific proof but it is compelling evidence depending of course on how competent the analysis is.

I need to know what you mean by "scientific proof" before I can answer that.

pisslips wrote: »

An experiment for example.
You would take a live subject and provide some stimulis and observe the response.....repeat.
Then you'd have data, statistical analysis....evidence.
So now you can infer that in most cases if this stimulus is applied this response should be obseved.

That is one example of a study a psychologist could conduct. There are many, many others.

pisslips wrote: »

Then you make a theoretical frame work where you have to interpret the laws you have uncovered and make them fit together postulating about the 'gaps' and I'd say there's a lot of gap.

You're just making wild speculations here and I don't really know what you mean? You can't generalise your idea of psychological experiment to the entire science. You seem to have a very narrow view regarding psychology, it is far broader than your example suggests.

pisslips wrote: »

So at any stage during this formulation of theoretical framework, does the emergent property of emotion come into play.

Well that depends on if you are studying emotion in the first place.

pisslips wrote: »

And how the hell do you define it. Also the fact that a subject is aware that they are being observed surely affects it's behaviour.

Define what? Yes there are methodological issues regarding the behaviour of your participant and your influence on them but this hasn't stopped Psychologists making real progress with experiments using people.

pisslips wrote: »

My main problem with accepting it is, I truely feel that nothing can be proven scientifically by asking a person a question or a series of questions.

Again, you're assuming that psychologists just ask people questions and that is only a very small part of psychological research. I know you "feel" this way but since you're making this claim do you have any evidence to back it up? And again, what do you mean by scientific proof? Proof as a word is rarely bandied around by psychologists as proof, itself, is a mathematical concept. In this case, you either find evidence to support or reject your experimental hypotheses.

pisslips wrote: »

but there is no way for example that a man could tell the quark composition in the nucleus of a hydrogen atom in a hydrogen carbonate in a rock....by looking at it.

I don't think any psychologist claims he can. We aren't studying physics or chemistry, I thought that much was obvious.

pisslips wrote: »

So, how can you come to meaningful tractable accurate conclusions about human behaviour when you only have human senses to discover them? (Not making any sense here at all) I mean like the greeks are we going to have the analogue of believing in water, fire and earth as the elementary matter.....I mean they were on the right track.

I can't really contest or discuss you're points when I have no clue what they are.

pisslips wrote: »

It was the whole T.V. psychotherapy thing that put me off in the first place.

I don't blame you. Pop psychology is not psychology.
PS. Sorry for the multi quoting, it's the only way I can write a coherent response to a long post.

JuliusCaesar

pisslips wrote: »

I still can't figure out what psychology is.

Lots of information available on this. Have you tried Wikipedia?

tolteq

I did a degree in Psychology. I would strongly advise you against doing it. If you want science try chemisty physics or biology. please take my advice.

and dont waste ur free fees.

pm me if you want to chat

. anthony.

Valmont

Care to elaborate further Tolteq? I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on the subject considering you have an undergraduate qualification. What institution did you study in?

Stratocaster

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Lots of information available on this. Have you tried Wikipedia?

http://www.cchr.org/?gclid=CIPv-py3g5sCFaYA4wodJlpVsg#/home/?source=gaw

Ive seen the DVD its a real eye opener, about the world of psychology.

Byron85

Stratocaster wrote: »

http://www.cchr.org/?gclid=CIPv-py3g5sCFaYA4wodJlpVsg#/home/?source=gaw

Ive seen the DVD its a real eye opener, about the world of psychology.

CCHR = Citizens Commission on Human Rights = A group set up by Scientologists to spread lies and propganda about Psychology and Psychiatry.

Valmont

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

CCHR = Citizens Commission on Human Rights = A group set up by Scientologists to spread lies and propganda about Psychology and Psychiatry.

I think they had a seminar in Cork a few years back.

Byron85

Valmont wrote: »

I think they had a seminar in Cork a few years back.

In 2008 to be precise. I only found out about it the week after it was here which was a shame as myself and my friend would have went. However, a lecturer of mine, who is a Psychologist, ran into them at some Mind, Body and Spirit festival. She didn't realise who they were until I told her but she knew something was rather suspect about them.

taztastic

I'd like to point out that I'm asking these questions out of curiosity, it's not some kind of attack.

Psychology is a very lose umbrella term purely because so many traditions have arisen from the original work of the early psychologists like Hall. But it doesn't make sense to split them up purely because you need to draw on different strands to understand any one aspect. As an applied psychologist it's imperetive I use research and conduct my own so you can't even split it up into research and applied. That said I take your point, myself and my boyfriend both do psychology but are so different that we can't really understand what it is the other does.

I think the issue about science in psychology is a bit of a misleading issue. The object is to understand and in many cases change or modify some aspect of the person/persons (not in a mad big brother way - even education or sports psychology is geared towards this as is neurodegenerative disease research or any other aspect of neuroscience). How you go about understanding isn't the issue as long as you answer the question you have set yourself. Most psychologists actually adopt a position of scientific realism which accepts that there is no objective truth based on enquiry but that we can hope to understand the world through investigation, for others its more socially constructed in that they wish to understand an individual's experience.

Always good to pose these questions since it sharpens up the arguments we wish to make as to why psychology is great. And it is. I love psychology. In fact I feel I need to acquire a t-shirt to attest to that fact.

eth0_

Stratocaster wrote: »

http://www.cchr.org/?gclid=CIPv-py3g5sCFaYA4wodJlpVsg#/home/?source=gaw

Ive seen the DVD its a real eye opener, about the world of psychology.

Clearly you are associated with the "Church" of Scientology. Go away please.