Psychology?

[Charlemagne_III]

Psychology, because it deal with so much subjectivity (the self studying the self or other selfs) too often successfully eludes the usual criteria of the scientific method.

That is why in the courtroom two psychologists examining the same patient, one for the prosecution and one for the defense, may testify to opposite “evidence” in the case.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Psychology, because it deal with so much subjectivity (the self studying the self or other selfs) too often successfully eludes the usual criteria of the scientific method.

I just got done having a conversation with a coworker on this aspect. We were looking at the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and the first thing that he noted was the subjectivity of some of the criteria and the overlap for some of the disorders. The best way I can think to describe it is as a soft science where something like newtonian mechanics or thermodynamics might be considered a hard science.

 

[billcu1]

I just got done having a conversation with a coworker on this aspect. We were looking at the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and the first thing that he noted was the subjectivity of some of the criteria and the overlap for some of the disorders. The best way I can think to describe it is as a soft science where something like newtonian mechanics or thermodynamics might be considered a hard science.

It’s obviously a philosophy and I’m not arguing that there’s nothing too it. It just seems to me to be called a science a postulate would have to pass scientific method which gets the same result under similar or same circumstances by various persons.

Speaking of Pavlov, I’m sure his dog experiment would probably pass scientific method or parts of it (the experiment) anyway.

I wonder sometimes too about the church’s idea that animals do not reason. Elephants and their behavior is a good example.

Speaking of the DSM; isn’t V about to come out? I’m tired of IV-TR. And homosexuality isn’t a disorder anymore. Pure politics.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Speaking of the DSM; isn’t V about to come out? I’m tired of IV-TR. And homosexuality isn’t a disorder anymore. Pure politics.

it’s out. Amazon has it for 110 USD. It’s been 40 years (May 1974) since homosexuality was listed as a sociopathic personality disturbance. I don’t think it has made an appearance in V.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

it’s out. Amazon has it for 110 USD. It’s been 40 years (May 1974) since homosexuality was listed as a sociopathic personality disturbance. I don’t think it has made an appearance in V.

One version of how it was declassified as an illness.

cleansingfiredor.com/2010/08/the-american-psychiatric-association-and-homosexuality/

 

[billcu1]

it’s out. Amazon has it for 110 USD. It’s been 40 years (May 1974) since homosexuality was listed as a sociopathic personality disturbance. I don’t think it has made an appearance in V.

What did they mean by a “sociopathic personality disturbance”? I’ve never heard of that. Personality disorders but disturbances? Was that DSM II or III ? I had the green one the reddish-brown one and I’ve seen the gray one. IV-TR. The green one didn’t speak of homosexuality. What did the DSM consider homosexuality to be? Not a sexual but social disorder? Is Asexual considered a disorder? I think if two people of the same sex can get married I should be able to marry my dog and adopt pups. That would be a happy family and death rights of marriage too.

 

[Joy2day]

1. 
   *]The DSM actually isn’t valid.
   *]Freud and Jung etc were theorists; I don’t think anyone actually swears by their ideas.
   *]I think some people quote psychology when it provides a convenient explanation for a situation that they cannot find an answer for.
   *]Psychology can be abused by many ‘lay’ people who use it to make rash judgements.
   *]A person with a ‘mental illness’ can have many and varied diagnoses over the course of their life.
   
   

 

[billcu1]

1. 
   *]The DSM actually isn’t valid.
   *]Freud and Jung etc were theorists; I don’t think anyone actually swears by their ideas.
   *]I think some people quote psychology when it provides a convenient explanation for a situation that they cannot find an answer for.
   *]Psychology can be abused by many ‘lay’ people who use it to make rash judgements.
   *]A person with a ‘mental illness’ can have many and varied diagnoses over the course of their life.
   
   

1. 
   I agree with you in all your points. But there are also underlying ideas in psychology that have some weight anyway. And buddhist “psychology” is very effective. psychology overlaps with medicine too which includes some sciences like anatomy and physiologies.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What did they mean by a “sociopathic personality disturbance”?

I’m not quite sure. I found the description to be vague.

I’ve never heard of that. Personality disorders but disturbances? Was that DSM II or III ?

That was I (1952). There were changes in the classification in II (1968). It was areound II’s 7th edition publication that the homosexual community raised objections to it and that another psychologist found that homosexuals can be otherwise well adjusted people and don’t necessarily have the experiences (ex: child molestation) or phobias (fear of the opposite sex) that people had thought they had. It was removed during the publication of III (1980).

One of the implications of the classification is that some one that was discovered to be homosexual could be considered unfit for employment in a number of different jobs that have no dependency on some one’s sexuality.

I had the green one the reddish-brown one and I’ve seen the gray one. IV-TR. The green one didn’t speak of homosexuality. What did the DSM consider homosexuality to be? Not a sexual but social disorder?

It was a 302.0 disorder. I don’t know all the information of the taxonomy, but it was considered a personality disorder, sexual deviation, and of the sociopathic subtype. It was put in the same category as pedophilia and sexual sadisms (sexual assults).

Is Asexual considered a disorder?

The DSM had an entry for Sexual Aversion Disorder and Hypoactive Sexual Disorder, either of which may match what you might mean by the question.

I think if two people of the same sex can get married I should be able to marry my dog and adopt pups. That would be a happy family and death rights of marriage too.

Religious marriages of this type have happened before.

If you are talking about a civil marriage there are some obstacles to engaging in one with another species, such as the member of the other species not being considered competent enough to understand what was being agreed to assuming that the entity can express consent. There are some humans that are not considered mentally competent to enter a marriage contract.

 

[billcu1]

I’m not quite sure. I found the description to be vague.

That was I (1952). There were changes in the classification in II (1968). It was areound II’s 7th edition publication that the homosexual community raised objections to it and that another psychologist found that homosexuals can be otherwise well adjusted people and don’t necessarily have the experiences (ex: child molestation) or phobias (fear of the opposite sex) that people had thought they had. It was removed during the publication of III (1980).

One of the implications of the classification is that some one that was discovered to be homosexual could be considered unfit for employment in a number of different jobs that have no dependency on some one’s sexuality.

It was a 302.0 disorder. I don’t know all the information of the taxonomy, but it was considered a personality disorder, sexual deviation, and of the sociopathic subtype. It was put in the same category as pedophilia and sexual sadisms (sexual assults).

The DSM had an entry for Sexual Aversion Disorder and Hypoactive Sexual Disorder, either of which may match what you might mean by the question.

Religious marriages of this type have happened before.

If you are talking about a civil marriage there are some obstacles to engaging in one with another species, such as the member of the other species not being considered competent enough to understand what was being agreed to assuming that the entity can express consent. There are some humans that are not considered mentally competent to enter a marriage contract.

Confusion about oneself I think can safely be argued is a cause for sexual dysfunction as well as any other dysfunction. As far as child sexual abuse that effects some things but I wouldn’t put a solid seal of homosexuality on it. Everything is a chain of negative thoughts emotions and beliefs.

 

[billcu1]

It was a 302.0 disorder. I don’t know all the information of the taxonomy, but it was considered a personality disorder, sexual deviation, and of the sociopathic subtype. It was put in the same category as pedophilia and sexual sadisms (sexual assults).

That 302 disorder, is that a ICD code or a code particular to the DSM?

 

[Miguelmdza]

I am currently attending college (UNC) and psychology is my minor. Yes, psychology is a science because we use the scientific method. Without the scientific method, psychology would not be a science. The scientific method (in a simple form) consists of a Hypothesis, an Experiment or Observation, and a Conclusion. Psychologists can “hypothesize” that testosterone is what makes a man aggressive. The experiment could be to inject testosterone in women and see the results. From there, psychologists can conclude that testosterone can cause aggression. By the way, this experiment that I stated was an actual experiment. Feel free to look it up for more information.

 

[billcu1]

I am currently attending college (UNC) and psychology is my minor. Yes, psychology is a science because we use the scientific method. Without the scientific method, psychology would not be a science. The scientific method (in a simple form) consists of a Hypothesis, an Experiment or Observation, and a Conclusion. Psychologists can “hypothesize” that testosterone is what makes a man aggressive. The experiment could be to inject testosterone in women and see the results. From there, psychologists can conclude that testosterone can cause aggression. By the way, this experiment that I stated was an actual experiment. Feel free to look it up for more information.

Prostaglandins, lutenizing hormone and prolactin might cause a response in a man and cause lactation but you would have to fight against the body. Injecting testosterone into a woman might cause aggression but you can’t say that testosterone in men is the cause of all aggression. A woman’s response would be different than a man’s. And the lactation results in a man would be less than spectacular. I think the thyroid and hypothalamus might have something to say about that. Epistemology is what shows us causes. Statistics show correlations which may or may not be valid. Repeating and repeating an experiment under controlled circumstances is what scientific method tries to achieve. I certainly believe there is validity to psychology that to me is not in question. It’s does it fit scientific method. I like the previously mentioned court setting where two different psychologists get two different opinions to one’s psyche.

 

[Miguelmdza]

Prostaglandins, lutenizing hormone and prolactin might cause a response in a man and cause lactation but you would have to fight against the body. Injecting testosterone into a woman might cause aggression but you can’t say that testosterone in men is the cause of all aggression. A woman’s response would be different than a man’s. And the lactation results in a man would be less than spectacular. I think the thyroid and hypothalamus might have something to say about that. Epistemology is what shows us causes. Statistics show correlations which may or may not be valid. Repeating and repeating an experiment under controlled circumstances is what scientific method tries to achieve. I certainly believe there is validity to psychology that to me is not in question. It’s does it fit scientific method. I like the previously mentioned court setting where two different psychologists get two different opinions to one’s psyche.

I did not study that experiment that I stated. We were briefly told about it in my Psychology course. I was simply stating an example that can prove that psychology is a science.

 

[MPat]

I did not study that experiment that I stated. We were briefly told about it in my Psychology course. I was simply stating an example that can prove that psychology is a science.

However, giving an example of experiment that creates an impression (true or false) that it was badly done and badly interpreted does not really support your case that much… After all, such experiments are also done in all kinds of pseudoscience…

And it just so happens that a short search (that has failed to find anything else about the experiment you mentioned - not that I have tried very hard) has found some studies (not necessarily impeccable themselves) that seem to show that the conclusion you mentioned might have been wrong. Just look: sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm, nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/nature08711.html, nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7399/full/nature11136.html, med.mcgill.ca/mjm/v06n01/v06p032/v06p032.pdf (this review article even has a chapter “Problems with previous studies”)…

And the problem that has already been mentioned (experimenting with women and making conclusions about men) is not the only one. Let’s look at the description you provided again:

Psychologists can “hypothesize” that testosterone is what makes a man aggressive. The experiment could be to inject testosterone in women and see the results. From there, psychologists can conclude that testosterone can cause aggression.

Some other potential problems:

1. 
   *]You need a representative sample. It is not enough to “inject testosterone in women” - it is necessary to select the women in the way that let’s us reach conclusions about some larger population.
   *]You need a control group.
   *]You need a good way to measure “aggression”. Some of the studies I cited used a “ultimatum game”, but it is by no means self-evident that such method actually measures “aggression” (understood “normally”).
   
   Thus, well, are you sure you do not want a lower (but still rather honourable) title “protoscience” for Psychology…?

 

[davidv]

However, giving an example of experiment that creates an impression (true or false) that it was badly done and badly interpreted does not really support your case that much… After all, such experiments are also done in all kinds of pseudoscience…

And it just so happens that a short search (that has failed to find anything else about the experiment you mentioned - not that I have tried very hard) has found some studies (not necessarily impeccable themselves) that seem to show that the conclusion you mentioned might have been wrong. Just look: sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm, nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/nature08711.html, nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7399/full/nature11136.html, med.mcgill.ca/mjm/v06n01/v06p032/v06p032.pdf (this review article even has a chapter “Problems with previous studies”)…

And the problem that has already been mentioned (experimenting with women and making conclusions about men) is not the only one. Let’s look at the description you provided again:

Some other potential problems:

1. 
   *]You need a representative sample. It is not enough to “inject testosterone in women” - it is necessary to select the women in the way that let’s us reach conclusions about some larger population.
   *]You need a control group.
   *]You need a good way to measure “aggression”. Some of the studies I cited used a “ultimatum game”, but it is by no means self-evident that such method actually measures “aggression” (understood “normally”).
   
   Thus, well, are you sure you do not want a lower (but still rather honourable) title “protoscience” for Psychology…?

1. 
   Seems to me that all the above proves is, like every other science, it can be conducted badly.

 

[MPat]

Seems to me that all the above proves is, like every other science, it can be conducted badly.

Sure. The problem is that it looked as if it was offered as an example of great research - does it mean that everything else is worse…?

 

[davidv]

Sure. The problem is that it looked as if it was offered as an example of great research - does it mean that everything else is worse…?

I did not take it as an example of “great” research. I took it as an example of the application of the scientific method, in support of calling psychology a science. In the specific example, the goodness of the research and the applicablity of the conclusions would been worked out in the peer review process.

 

[Galbin]

Don’t confuse psychology, the academic field, with pop psychology. Feminism is more of a sociological (or even anthropological) construct than a psychological one anyway.

Real psychological research exists and is practiced by real psychology researchers using the scientific method. I have an undergrad in psychology and a graduate degree in business. The stats I had to learn for psych to develop research methodologies and to validate results blew the stats for business school out of the water.

Exactly. I got a B.Sc in PSychology. And the stats were a nightmare for sure. Psychology is definitely a science.

 

[MPat]

I did not take it as an example of “great” research. I took it as an example of the application of the scientific method, in support of calling psychology a science.

Perhaps… Although I’d prefer to think that psychologists would try to give examples of good research to illustrate such things… Why give a relatively bad example, when you can give a better one…?

In the specific example, the goodness of the research and the applicablity of the conclusions would been worked out in the peer review process.

Well, I guess you have more faith in peer review than I have… Also, it seemed reasonable to expect that that’s how things looked *after *peer review…