It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

psychology experiment results, are you kidding?

page: 2
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: grumpy64

In the article, at least one of the scientists doing the retest was retesting a study he had helped to do in the first place and it failed.

The problem is that people in high places and even the average Joe on the street has the idea that if science says it and scientists did it, it must be definitive. They us it to justify the policy positions they take or endorse, but here we see that from a social science perspective, those studies may not even be reproducible in the broad sense in further cases.

So the idea that science and technology are able to centrally plan and control our every move is still very much in doubt because at least some aspects of science still have a long way to go to unravel the mysteries of the human animal.



You have an excellent point.

I see many people on ATS who feel that
any and all scientific studies are
God speaking from above with truth.

I have actually seen what appears to
be unreasonable worship type behavior
when it comes to "science".

People have become enraged and lashed
out when I have said things like I did above
and accuse me of lying about teaching
research methods because science is never wrong.

That is the real danger of using especially
social psychology/sociology/anthropology
as so true and so accurate as to come from God
or a God or the Goddess Science;
that they base public policy on the one or two
studies.
Scary and leads to unintended unpleasant
and sometimes dangerous consequences.




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Yet scientists are disproportionately non-believers. Seems they have faith in something else.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

No, it's a "baby" science. People are working on it. Psychology is a relatively new field.
Shame on you.

"junk science" = The Bible



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks

I think they've hit the nail on the head about why this might be - the demand for those in a field to produce something (anything) to be considered a professional worthy of respect - but I have a feeling there are other factors here too.

A paper publisher needs to be supported through payment, that payment either comes through subscription or through advertising. Both revenue streams require a large circulation of customers willing to buy it.

Ultimately it comes down to what these journals publish, and they are clearly publishing things to get the attention and then the sales (making them money and keeping them going). This ultimately results in a watering-down of quality.

It's like any tabloid paper printing rubbish to get the sales, the money has to come from somewhere and people will not buy it unless there is something to persuade them to do so.

This ultimately leads those journals to publish attention-seeking content, and that leads to them becoming more willing to publish dubious content too, which leads people to produce that dubious content for publication.

The only way to stop this trend is to change how those journals stay in business. The start of that process would be out and shame those who have succumbed to the nonsense and raise the standing of those of good quality. The ones maintaining their ethical standing are the only ones which should be supported in the field.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Few being 15 or so, right? How many are unjustly stigmatized for the invention of meaningless labels?

Psychiatry is like astrology, and neuroscience it's cure, much like astronomy was some time ago.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

No, it isn't. It is a developing science, and neuroscience and brain scans have helped immensely.

The problem is quacks teaching crap or counselors using inappropriate methods because their teachers were CRAP.
That's why I got out of it - there was too much hypocrisy and too many INEPT professors and clinicians. It made me sick then, and it makes me sick now. And that's ASIDE from all the veiled narcissism and neurosis among those self-styled "professors" and "experts."

The talented, intelligent people are constantly abused by naysayers and know-nothings; and a lot of them have inept teachers who are just "assigned" to the class under their doctorate curriculum. And the talented, intelligent people keep plugging along, recognizing the CRAP their "professors" spew as just that - crap. Until they burn out.


edit on 8/29/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I think we're pretty much on the same page. In it's current form it seems to cause more harm than good, but hopefully in time advances in adjacent areas will see brighter days for understanding the working on the human psyche and care for people's well being.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Fine, that's cool, thanks. But - I'm out of here. I'm so sick and tired of the emerging and developing science of psychology and social evolution being maligned and accused of malfeasance. The stigma is something the Mental Health profession is TRYING TO ALLEVIATE as research continues. I'm disgusted and exhausted by listening to deranged, exaggerated, neurotic rantings from the ill-informed and inept who claim they know stuff.



edit on 8/29/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw

...
AND neither of you know anything about social psychology (despite your professorial claims to the contrary). Fact. Sounds to me like you were teaching people how to CHEAT on their results. Yeah, they taught us that lots of quacks do that in Research to shore up their phoney theories. So - you are responsible for teaching them how to do that?

What university was this where you were the editor in chief and the professor of all those classes you claim??
I don't believe you. But then again, there are lots of crazy people teaching stuff like you do.
So, why is it again you aren't doing that anymore?


Which textbook did you edit? Source it please.



Most of the answers to the above is mind your own business.
I am not going to put anything on ATS that will personally identify me,
I am not an idiot.

You don't believe me, fine with me.

I am retired from teaching and I won't reveal the name of the
publisher I worked for nor the universities I taught at.
Do you take me for an idiot that I'd
give you any information that could personally identify me.

What I do know about Psychology tells me that answering
you with any personal information has the possibility of being
dangerous to my person, given your history of responses.

I could be wrong, and apologize if I am,
but but your writings on ATS demonstrate
the possibility I am right.

Do NOT ask me for personal information
again, it is against T&C.


My real name is in those books and -
you quite specifically -
are not going to be privy to my real name.

Insult me away, like normal,

have your usual online hissy fits,

but don't ask me for
personal information

or anyone on ATS that might
personally identify them.



edit on 4Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:38:51 -0500pm82908pmk296 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw


I am retired from teaching and I won't reveal the name of the
publisher I worked for nor the universities I taught at.
Because..why?

Do you take me for an idiot that I'd
give you any information that could personally identify me.
Nope, don't take you for an 'idiot'.

A "liar" however, is still on the table.

Can you at least tell us why you are retired?



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw


I am retired from teaching and I won't reveal the name of the
publisher I worked for nor the universities I taught at.
Because..why?

Do you take me for an idiot that I'd
give you any information that could personally identify me.
Nope, don't take you for an 'idiot'.

A "liar" however, is still on the table.

Can you at least tell us why you are retired?


duh I'm old
and I don't care in the least you think I am a liar
because the only way to prove it to you is to
give you my name, and that I will not do
because I think it would be dangerous
for me to do so based on your responses
to me in the past.

This is my last personal conversation with you.
For the most part this is the last time I will even read one of your posts
I have lately not read your posts and will return to my policy.FYI


edit on 5Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:54:56 -0500pm82908pmk296 by grandmakdw because: format addition



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Coolio!!!
When you feel brave and honest enough to share with us all of your credentials and background.....maybe we'll talk again. But until then...well....
fine with me if you're 'done'......
and pants are on fire.

Meanwhile, don't even THINK of accusing me of threatening you. What a load of crap.



edit on 8/29/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ketsuko

No, it's a "baby" science. People are working on it. Psychology is a relatively new field.
Shame on you.

"junk science" = The Bible


If it's not reproducible, and people run with it as the underpinning for policy decisions, then it is indeed junk.

Wouldn't you like to know that the science that informs the policies being pushed into law is at least reproducible?

They may be working on it, but until it can be reproduced, it's not ready for prime time and certainly not ready for the basis of law.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

MRI.

That term doesn't ring a bell?
Well, huh!! In that case, then, you are clearly out of your league.

But --- hey!! There's a new "translation" of 'The Bible' coming out--- OMG!





posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Well it's a good thing everyone getting a label and pilled up gets thrown under an MRI.... oh wait a tic.... oops!


(post by BuzzyWigs removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Missed the point entirely now did you? Let me spell it out for you.

It's unconscionable to stigmatize someone with a label and equate it to being in a diseased state without objective testing first taking place.

Entirely unethical.

That's not fear, that's common freaking sense.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Yeah, I'm gonna take granny's lead - I'm out of here.


You posers go right ahead. I'm done.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join