An Open Letter to White Privilege

[Mr.Samsa]

I know two people who have psychology degrees.

One works in a library, the other works for the water company, tracking down leaks.

And entirely appropriate uses of a pretty duff qualification.

People with psychology degrees have a similar level of success with job prospects as any other science major. And interestingly, everyone I know with a psych degree is working in the field - interesting how anecdotes and confirmation bias works. But hey, I guess you can't believe in confirmation bias since those evil psychologists described it.

[pErvinalia]

He struggles a bit with science, does our MM. Thinks global warming is a giant conspiracy.

[Mr.Samsa]

He struggles a bit with science, does our MM. Thinks global warming is a giant conspiracy.

Ah, 'nuff said then. I can't expect someone who rejects science to appreciate scientific fields like psychology.

[mistermack]

I know the two people with psychology degrees extremely well. One is an ex, and the other is a family member.
I know for a fact that neither would have been able to get a degree in a proper science. Something both have said many times. Although they might not put it in those words.

Which rather illustrates my point, that intelligence has many totally different facets, and an ''intelligence quotient'' is a ludicrous concept.

If someone who gets a degree in psychology, knows very well that they could never have been a proper scientist, it says a lot, both about psychology, and the concept of IQ.

[Mr.Samsa]

I know the two people with psychology degrees extremely well. One is an ex, and the other is a family member.

That's cool, the people I know with psychology degrees I also know extremely well. I also know them better than you know yours AND I know more of them, so my anecdotes beat yours.

I know for a fact that neither would have been able to get a degree in a proper science. Something both have said many times. Although they might not put it in those words.

That's cool, many people I know in other scientific fields struggle with getting their heads about the complexity of psychological experiments. That's why psychology research is generally considered to be harder than research in say physics, as with physics you don't have to design your studies to control for the objects choosing to behave in certain ways.

What you describe and what I describe isn't a problem, of course people trained in one science won't be able to just cross over into another science. That's trivially true.

Which rather illustrates my point, that intelligence has many totally different facets, and an ''intelligence quotient'' is a ludicrous concept.

Huh? How have you demonstrated anything of the sort?

If someone who gets a degree in psychology, knows very well that they could never have been a proper scientist, it says a lot, both about psychology, and the concept of IQ.

That makes no sense - psychologists are proper scientists. So does that mean your point is self-refuting?

[mistermack]

What really makes psychology one step away from woo, for me, is the fact that you can and do get psychologists giving completely opposite evidence in court cases, about the same subject.
That's because, unlike proper science, the concepts are not testable in a proper way.

You can test gravity with a spring.

Maybe that's why psychological research is so ''difficult''. Because you are trying to measure smoke with a ruler in a windy room.

[Mr.Samsa]

What really makes psychology one step away from woo, for me, is the fact that you can and do get psychologists giving completely opposite evidence in court cases, about the same subject.

And you get the exact same thing with all sciences. You get forensic experts giving contradicting evidence of things like biological evidence, of physics calculations of things like bullet trajectories, medical evidence, etc etc.

Are they all "woo" too?

That's because, unlike proper science, the concepts are not testable in a proper way.

Except all of psychology is testable. If a psychologist tried to publish a paper supporting a concept that wasn't testable then they'd get laughed out of the field.

You can test gravity with a spring.

You can test cognitive biases with a picture of a line.

Maybe that's why psychological research is so ''difficult''. Because you are trying to measure smoke with a ruler in a windy room.

No, it's simply because there are more confounds to control for. The fact that psychology has been so successful clearly shows that it's accurately measuring what it purports to measure.

But this discussion is going to be useless if you keep bringing up anecdotes and appeals to vague situations. You think there is a scientific problem with psychology, well okay then - link me to some of the recent psychological research that you've read and explain why you think it's untestable or unscientific in some way. Once you do that then we can have a more productive discussion.

At the moment it's hard to see how you have anything meaningful to say, especially since you seem to be conflating psychology with clinical psychology.

[pErvinalia]

I know the two people with psychology degrees extremely well. One is an ex, and the other is a family member.
I know for a fact that neither would have been able to get a degree in a proper science. Something both have said many times. Although they might not put it in those words.

Haha! As a defence against the claim that you don't know much about science, you prove it by invoking anecdotes as evidence! Well done!

If someone who gets a degree in psychology, knows very well that they could never have been a proper scientist, it says a lot, both about psychology, and the concept of IQ.

I'm sorry to say, but this statement says an awful lot about YOU, not psychology.

[mistermack]

No, it's simply because there are more confounds to control for. The fact that psychology has been so successful clearly shows that it's accurately measuring what it purports to measure.

Spoken like any good homeopath.

If psychologists didn't overclaim their state of knowledge so much, and just stuck to what they really do know, I wouldn't have any complaint.
But then, that would be too little to actually call it a job.

[MrJonno]

Main problem with psychology is ethics, the very act of getting someone to consent to an experiment undermines the validity of many of them.

Remember seeing this very silly experiment where they were monitoring the movement of a person's eyes when confronted by a naked women. The person knew he was being monitored and strangely enough his eyes avoided starting at any of the naughty bits.

[Mr.Samsa]

No, it's simply because there are more confounds to control for. The fact that psychology has been so successful clearly shows that it's accurately measuring what it purports to measure.

Spoken like any good homeopath.

If psychologists didn't overclaim their state of knowledge so much, and just stuck to what they really do know, I wouldn't have any complaint.
But then, that would be too little to actually call it a job.

Ah, I was disappointed out didn't link to some of those psychology studies that did the things you were accusing them of. I would have gathered together some myself but I can't find any that are untestable like you claim. Any chance you could link some now? Or are you just overclaiming your state of knowledge?

Main problem with psychology is ethics, the very act of getting someone to consent to an experiment undermines the validity of many of them.

Remember seeing this very silly experiment where they were monitoring the movement of a person's eyes when confronted by a naked women. The person knew he was being monitored and strangely enough his eyes avoided starting at any of the naughty bits.

Psych research gets around this by allowing deception in consent. If you can demonstrate that it is necessary to mislead the participant (for example knowledge of a condition might change their behavior) and that it causes no real harm (e.g. you are deceiving them on what the experiment is testing or whether they are being filmed rather than deceiving them by pushing them out into the middle of the street and telling them that the "stunt" cars will dodge them), then the majority of the time you'll get approval as long as you thoroughly debrief them afterwards.

And, of course, that would only apply to psych research that involves humans. You don't get the same issues of signing consent forms with other animals!

[pErvinalia]

No, it's simply because there are more confounds to control for. The fact that psychology has been so successful clearly shows that it's accurately measuring what it purports to measure.

Spoken like any good homeopath.

If psychologists didn't overclaim their state of knowledge so much, and just stuck to what they really do know, I wouldn't have any complaint.
But then, that would be too little to actually call it a job.

Ah, I was disappointed out didn't link to some of those psychology studies that did the things you were accusing them of. I would have gathered together some myself but I can't find any that are untestable like you claim. Any chance you could link some now? Or are you just overclaiming your state of knowledge?

That's exactly what he's doing. He's an armchair fool who deigns to comment on science, a subject which he demonstrably knows very little about. Yet at the same time he relies on the discoveries of science to get him through his day and help him enjoy his life. I don't know how he reconciles those two things. Well, actually, I have a clue - I suspect he's like our friend Cito who thinks that unless you make stuff (i.e. engineering) then it's not science.

[mistermack]

Rather conveniently, on the news last night was the news that Oscar Pistorius has finished his ''psychological assessment'' for which a multi-million pound trial was adjourned for a month or so.

The result? A complete load of bollocks that anyone could have written, after a few days learning the jargon. And there's no justification for any of it, except ''a psychologist said so''.

On 2 July, defence lawyer Roux read excerpts from a psychologist's report, which stated "Mr Pistorius has been severely traumatised by the events that took place on 14 February 2013, He currently suffers from a post-traumatic stress disorder, and a major depressive disorder … The degree of anxiety and depression that is present is significant. He is also mourning the loss of Ms Steenkamp. Mr Pistorius is being treated and should continue to receive clinical care by a psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist for his current condition. Should he not receive proper clinical care, his condition is likely to worsen and increase the risk for suicide."[112] The report did not confirm a diagnosis of "Generalised Anxiety Disorder" by a witness called by the defence, ""No evidence could be found to indicate that Mr Pistorius suffered from anxiety to the extent that it impaired his functioning prior to the incident in February 2013.". The report found some jealousy but no evidence of abuse by Pistorius: "There is evidence to indicate that Mr Pistorius was genuine with his feelings towards Miss Steenkamp and that they had a normal loving relationship. He did become insecure and jealous at times but this was normal for the specific situation. He would express his displeasure and irritation but would try and sort it out later by talking with Miss Steenkamp. Although the relationship was still young, there were no signs of abusive coercion like those often found in these kinds of relationships." [113] Wayne Derman, professor of sport and exercise medicine at the University of Cape Town, testified that Pistorius was "hyper-vigilant" and restless.[114]

How can anyone take that shit seriously? And not one single mention, not ONE, that Pistorius might be faking it.
That's what makes psychology so laughable. The man in the street knows more of the truth, than what's in that report.

[tattuchu]

"Although the relationship was still young, there were no signs of abusive coercion like those often found in these kinds of relationships."



As a side note, Pistorius could be genuinely grieving Steenkamp's death and be genuinely depressed about it and whatnot, while still having killed her. Killers are often portrayed in the media during court cases as...well, it's like they're expected to have no emotion over what they've done. It's like we're meant to think of them as cold calculating killers who show no emotion during or after the murder, and any grieving for the victim indicates their innocence. I don't think it's that simple. I think if I flew into a rage and killed someone, I might feel awful about it afterwards, like, "Oh my god what have I done?! I really liked that girl and now she's dead because I killed her. Fuck!" And I'd be really sad and depressed because I killed her. Of course Pistorius's grief could very well be an act. But even if it isn't, that still doesn't mean he's innocent.

[Mr.Samsa]

Rather conveniently, on the news last night was the news that Oscar Pistorius has finished his ''psychological assessment'' for which a multi-million pound trial was adjourned for a month or so.

The result? A complete load of bollocks that anyone could have written, after a few days learning the jargon. And there's no justification for any of it, except ''a psychologist said so''.

On 2 July, defence lawyer Roux read excerpts from a psychologist's report, which stated "Mr Pistorius has been severely traumatised by the events that took place on 14 February 2013, He currently suffers from a post-traumatic stress disorder, and a major depressive disorder … The degree of anxiety and depression that is present is significant. He is also mourning the loss of Ms Steenkamp. Mr Pistorius is being treated and should continue to receive clinical care by a psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist for his current condition. Should he not receive proper clinical care, his condition is likely to worsen and increase the risk for suicide."[112] The report did not confirm a diagnosis of "Generalised Anxiety Disorder" by a witness called by the defence, ""No evidence could be found to indicate that Mr Pistorius suffered from anxiety to the extent that it impaired his functioning prior to the incident in February 2013.". The report found some jealousy but no evidence of abuse by Pistorius: "There is evidence to indicate that Mr Pistorius was genuine with his feelings towards Miss Steenkamp and that they had a normal loving relationship. He did become insecure and jealous at times but this was normal for the specific situation. He would express his displeasure and irritation but would try and sort it out later by talking with Miss Steenkamp. Although the relationship was still young, there were no signs of abusive coercion like those often found in these kinds of relationships." [113] Wayne Derman, professor of sport and exercise medicine at the University of Cape Town, testified that Pistorius was "hyper-vigilant" and restless.[114]

How can anyone take that shit seriously? And not one single mention, not ONE, that Pistorius might be faking it.
That's what makes psychology so laughable. The man in the street knows more of the truth, than what's in that report.

Hey, I'm not sure if you saw it but in my last couple of posts to you I asked if you knew of any psychology papers that could be used to demonstrate the claims you're making. Any luck in finding some?