Psychology Psudobabble

[Keira]

I've been reading a few peer reviewed papers on Transsexualism and it seems like psychology as a whole has no clue what it's talking about. It talks of gender variance, but in black and white terms; how backwards is that! Plus most of the time the papers are just outright offensive and rely on generalizations.

I'm curious as to what other intellectuals think about Psychology.

Is it a Pseudoscience?

Isn't it extremely black and white?

Are there many hard facts backing up many of its claims? Or is the majority of it just ridiculous?

(Edit)

The only reason I asked for intellectuals is because I didn't want the thread to degenerate into, "All psychologists are idiots/jerks".

[suzifrommd]

I'm curious as to what other intellectuals think about Psychology.

Well I'm not an intellectual, but I'll give my opinion.

I think psychology's intentions are good. It operates with the hope of helping people with very serious problems that keep them from living fulfilling lives.

However the human brain is so complex with so many variations, that they struggle with coming up with conclusions that can be verified scientifically.

Most psychotherapists would tell you that their craft is more of an art than science and is not scientifically based.

Psychology is at its most damaging when we rely upon it to make predictions (about whether someone will kill someone, whether someone will be helped by a certain treatment, etc.), since even statistically verifiable processes will have variation and outliers that can be disastrous for the individuals involved.

[Brooke777]

As someone who inteds on completing her degree in psychotherapy, I like psychology. One thing you need to keep in mind, is psychology is a collection of past information and personal opinions. It is by far an exact science. Only neurological psychology has some sort of scientific basis to it.

[Keira]

Psychology is at its most damaging when we rely upon it to make predictions (about whether someone will kill someone, whether someone will be helped by a certain treatment, etc.), since even statistically verifiable processes will have variation and outliers that can be disastrous for the individuals involved.

It's like when I was reading a paper that called people either "Autogyniphiles" or "Androphiles". It takes the human aspect out of the research: essentially Androphiles = Hydrophillic, reducing people to particles. Not to mention the fact that statistics make categories out of people, instead of making categories for people.

[Frank]

I think there's so much variation, it's hard to pin anything down. Psychology, in my opinion, tries to understand transsexualism and not be offensive about it but most of what I've read is clearly written by someone who hasn't walked that path.

[Zumbagirl]

My feeling is that they know or have known that "sex changes" work for a long time but to be honest I don't think they know why. Most of what I have seen is based on statistical samples so small that any conclusions drawn would be irrelevant. A lot of the other theories like  ->-bleeped-<- or differently gendered brains constitute a logical argument known as the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" where a small cluster of values are used to arrive at sweeping conclusions that can be easily disproven.

What I find interesting from psychology when studying humans is the lack of control groups, double blind studies and so on that are part of medicine or science in general. There are a lot of logical fallacies in how conclusions are assumed. Example if I want to go about proving  ->-bleeped-<- and all I meet are people that meet the criteria then the theory is proven. This is a popular misconception. If I am looking for red snails for example and I only look at red snails then I assume that all snails are red. The differently gendered brain problem assumes causality. It can be no more provable that some part if the brain creates a TG person than to say it is caused by the moon.

In the end it's not so much that its pseudo science, it's more accurate to say its bad science.

[BunnyBee]

I think the problem is that some researchers study this condition because they really, genuinely want to understand it and others do so because they have an axe to grind.

[Keira]

My feeling is that they know or have known that "sex changes" work for a long time but to be honest I don't think they know why. Most of what I have seen is based on statistical samples so small that any conclusions drawn would be irrelevant. A lot of the other theories like  ->-bleeped-<- or differently gendered brains constitute a logical argument known as the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" where a small cluster of values are used to arrive at sweeping conclusions that can be easily disproven.

What I find interesting from psychology when studying humans is the lack of control groups, double blind studies and so on that are part of medicine or science in general. There are a lot of logical fallacies in how conclusions are assumed. Example if I want to go about proving  ->-bleeped-<- and all I meet are people that meet the criteria then the theory is proven. This is a popular misconception. If I am looking for red snails for example and I only look at red snails then I assume that all snails are red. The differently gendered brain problem assumes causality. It can be no more provable that some part if the brain creates a TG person than to say it is caused by the moon.

In the end it's not so much that its pseudo science, it's more accurate to say its bad science.

Here is what I meant by Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

Source

Wikipedia- Article, "Pseudoscience".

[Brooke777]

According to that definition, I would say yes. Psychology is a pseudoscience.

[Keira]

Although I don't intend to imply that the whole of psychology is pseudoscience. All I'm saying is that Psychology is largely hit and miss with its theories; and sometimes some theories are half-truths.

Hence Pseudoscience...it is science, but in some respects/parts it also fails to pass the criteria of being science. Practical...perhaps, but also not usually provable. 

[Zumbagirl]

Using that definition then yes it could be pseudoscience, but I don't believe that is the intent of the people who do the studying. I liken it more to scientific incompetence than to someone trying to
deluberately mislead. So in my mind magnet therapy is pseudoscience and  ->-bleeped-<- is scientific incompetence.

I liken the same thing to dietary fads. Today carrots are good for you and then someone finds a case where somebody got cancer from eating too many carrots and then suddenly carrots cause cancer. This is scientific incompetence in action whereas a cancer cure from carrot therapy would be pseudoscience.

[Brooke777]

I'm interested to see if some of the scientific members on here chime in.

I know my intent on studying psychology, and people is not to make sweeping generalizations about groups of people. It is to learn as much as I can about many types of people and to use that knowledge to help others. I want to be a psychotherapist that actually sits and listens to her patients and helps guide them through their troubles. But, that is not a scientific approach.

[Keira]

Using that definition then yes it could be pseudoscience, but I don't believe that is the intent of the people who do the studying. I liken it more to scientific incompetence than to someone trying to
deluberately mislead. So in my mind magnet therapy is pseudoscience and  ->-bleeped-<- is scientific incompetence.

I liken the same thing to dietary fads. Today carrots are good for you and then someone finds a case where somebody got cancer from eating too many carrots and then suddenly carrots cause cancer. This is scientific incompetence in action whereas a cancer cure from carrot therapy would be pseudoscience.

I see, you just prefer "Scientific Incompetence" over "Pseudoscience" (regarding psychology) because of the negative connotations of the word "Pseudoscience".

Personally, I don't really see too much of a difference. Whether they intend to mislead or it's just "scientific incompetence", both end up creating half-truths and harmful generalizations.

I do understand the connotations of each term.

[Keira]

I'm interested to see if some of the scientific members on here chime in.

I know my intent on studying psychology, and people is not to make sweeping generalizations about groups of people. It is to learn as much as I can about many types of people and to use that knowledge to help others. I want to be a psychotherapist that actually sits and listens to her patients and helps guide them through their troubles. But, that is not a scientific approach.

If only the "Leading Researchers" had your perspective and compassionate attitude. It seems to me that a fair number of scientists can't/don't think outside of the box; resulting in them becoming stuck in their repetitive thought patterns.

Logic is extremely useful, but without creativity it grows stagnant. Science is useful, but without compassion it creates cold uncaring people and mechanical perspectives. The key is balance.

[Incarnadine]

By definition, the word "psychology" means "the study of the soul".  Imo, psychology will never be able to come to conclusions that are any more applicable than generalizations and "guesstimates" for the simple fact that every person's inner being is different in a myriad of different ways. 

No two people will react exactly the same way to exactly the same circumstances all the time; therefore replicating "cures" for psych problems is itself a problem.  Outward reactions to similar stimuli may be quite similar, but the internal workings may get them there differently and may cause them to react differently if exposure to that same stimuli is repeated.

[Elspeth]

It's like when I was reading a paper that called people either "Autogyniphiles" or "Androphiles".

The "Autogynophilia" conjecture has been largely discredited, from what I can recall. If you want to dig into the pseudoscientific aspects of current and past psych "research" and thinking, a good place to start might be Jeffrey Masson's dissection of Freud. Unfortunately, his blog is not particularly well-organized, but his decades-old critique was something of a sensation when it came out.

It's generally better to avoid this stuff unless you have oodles of time to follow through and see how various pet theories have been smashed to bits over the years. There's a lot of crap out there, and the psych establishment really hasn't come up with a good way of marking the stuff as BS that is pretty clearly BS and based in overassumptions, saying more about the writers than about anyone's real experience.

[Keira]

The "Autogynophilia" conjecture has been largely discredited, from what I can recall. If you want to dig into the pseudoscientific aspects of current and past psych "research" and thinking, a good place to start might be Jeffrey Masson's dissection of Freud. Unfortunately, his blog is not particularly well-organized, but his decades-old critique was something of a sensation when it came out.

It's generally better to avoid this stuff unless you have oodles of time to follow through and see how various pet theories have been smashed to bits over the years. There's a lot of crap out there, and the psych establishment really hasn't come up with a good way of marking the stuff as BS that is pretty clearly BS and based in overassumptions, saying more about the writers than about anyone's real experience.

I was meaning that a lot of psychologists treat patients as though they literally are their disorder/affliction. They don't see them as people, but as objects to be studied and analyzed.

Thank you though for the info and link though ; I occasionally study the most obscure things, maybe I'll check out what you suggested. I have read a bit about various theories on transsexualism, I got a textbook on sexology that I intend to read at some point here.

[Kevin Peña]

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories."

Considering that psychology cannot be proven due to the fact that it relies on casting generalizations over billions of variables, it is not science. Science involves there being definite answers to every question that don't change each time the question is asked. There is always a definite method, whether we know it or not. Plus, if you read an actual scientific journal, no one will ever say that he/she is proven absolutely correct. A hypothesis is never "proven" so much as it "cannot be disproved, and is therefore operating as the best answer by current standards."

That's not to say that science is never wrong. It's just limited by current methods//technology, which is why people once thought that nothing could get smaller than an atom, until one was split and all of this other stuff came out.

Science basically deals with facts. Psychology deals with opinions made by people who aren't immune to human variability. Variables trying to figure out one answer for many variables does not sound like science to me.

[TanaSilver]

I started my career choices off wanting to be a clinical psychologist, got a degree in Psychology, then went another route though never lost my interest in Psychology.

Two things occurred to me here: First, it's not that Psychology is a pseudo-science, I think it just takes a great deal of time for psychologists to truly understand a complex subject. To this extent, Psychology can be considered many fields, as there are areas of psychology that are advanced and well known now, and ares that aren't (transsexuals, though better now than in days past).

Another thing I think is important is to make a distinction between psychologists and psychiatrists. Psychiatry, in my opinion, is a somewhat outdated profession; it's unscientific roots show, and those practices are still used, whereas psychologists, I believe, use a more scientific method toward their research. A perfect example are the Baily/Blanchards and their Authogynephilia idea (which I believe is a total fiction, I don't think there's a single autogynephile on the planet because the very idea is seriously flawed). This "research" was done using the classic Psychiatric method: in other words, they used a small sample, very little actual scientific method, based most of their conclusions on their own ideas (most of which were conceived before they even began to "study"), and ignored data that did not fit their hypothesis. And, of course, they framed everything in a sexual context.

This is one reason why, for myself, I avoid Psychiatrists and prefer therapists.

[Elspeth]

This is one reason why, for myself, I avoid Psychiatrists and prefer therapists.

I'm sure it's different in some areas, but in the US, psychiatrists seem to limit themselves to the one area where they have a legal guild monopoly, psycho-pharmacology. The self-fulfilling theories transcend the borders between the various titles of those who provide "therapies," and considering that there's a legal challenge likely to win preserving the rights of "reparative therapy" practicioners to continue their abuse, I'd just look extremely carefully at individual therapists to decide who is trustworthy, and where they are likely (or not) to be of any use.