111–120 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, Psychology isn’t much of a science, but the list of college professors who didn’t sleep with students in the 70s has to be very, very, short.
Since when is psychology not much of a science?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because nothing you said disproves what the parent said, it simply gave an annecdote about what bad things a publisher did, unless you would categorize those as "ill-will of a single writer". Claiming systematic bias can also lead to that would have been fine in contrast, maybe even mentioning it has happened vaugely and bringing up your CNN example when challenged. The down votes are likely because your post could s…
> Because nothing you said disproves what the parent said, it simply gave an annecdote about what bad things a publisher did, unless you would categorize those as "ill-will of a single writer". Well the general implication in the paresnt discussing fabrication as 'the ill of a single writer' and that a reputable publication should curtail them. You're right in that a 'reputable publication' may also simply deliberate…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the people in the Milgram experiment said they knew it was fake which isn't the same thing as actually knowing. On one hand of course they knew it wasn't a real prison, they were told it wasn't a real prison and it clearly wasn't. Did they believe they weren't hurting "the prisoners"? That is far less clear and plenty of people have used the excuse that they didn't think they were actually hurting the other p…
The Milgram experiment did not involve a prison, real or otherwise.
If anything, this whole debacle has revealed to me how pathetic the whole "science" of psychology is in its current state. I mean, the emblem of its field can't even acknowledge any flaw in his experiment. I'm not saying it was bogus, but it's pretty obviously biased and flawed in many ways. Even if executed with perfect methodology, which it clearly wasn't, that sample size and the bias in participants literally pro…
> If anything, this whole debacle has revealed to me how pathetic the whole "science" of psychology is in its current state. What? How an academic being defensive of his study, conducted in 1971, an invalidation of "current" psychology? That's 40 years ago. > I mean, has the field of psychology given us anything of value? I'm asking genuinely. What an extreme leap, and an odd generalization for me to have to argue ag…
Now it seems that those initial psychological theories were all argued with similarly low sample and methodologically wonky studies. Just paraphrasing the wikipedia link. In effect, that probably hurt more then it helped and that's why we're starting to see things like Denmark declassifying it as no longer a mental disorder.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/where-transgender...
Edit: I know I'm making a big blanket statement. As someone who does not read about all the latest psychological breakthrough, I'm saying in honesty that with my limited knowledge, the impression I get from psychological research is that its not very thorough. So I'm open to hearing that in the last 40 years this has changed, an example would be great, so that I can start maybe changing my opinion.
If anything, this whole debacle has revealed to me how pathetic the whole "science" of psychology is in its current state. I mean, the emblem of its field can't even acknowledge any flaw in his experiment. I'm not saying it was bogus, but it's pretty obviously biased and flawed in many ways. Even if executed with perfect methodology, which it clearly wasn't, that sample size and the bias in participants literally pro…
> I mean, has the field of psychology given us anything of value? The interactive computer system, thanks to the vision of J.C.R. Licklider (who was trained as a psychologist).
I guess maybe one could argue his vision was influenced by his studies of psychology, but its hard to know.
Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17287319 I have no strong opinions either way, but one meta-point I personally find interesting is: why don't journalists send a final draft of an article to the people involved and get a final round of comments? That just seems fair. Zimbardo claims some facts in the article are simply wrong, and either 1) those errors would be corrected, or 2) Zimbardo's…
Because what you're describing is generally what is done, what has been done for decades. This is why you often see a sentence near the end of an article stating that the subject declined to comment or did not respond when reached for comment.
The assumption seems to be that people are interested in truthful reporting. In fact, most subjects do not want truthful reporting. They want favorable reporting, which is often not the same thing.
There seems to be very clear evidence that Zimbardo lied, at least, and possibly acted extremely unethically, possibly even illegally. Why would he be interested in providing comments on a story stating so? What would be his motivation? By withholding his rebuttal until after original publication, he can base his response on which parts of the story are gaining traction, if any. In this case, he's doing just that, and ignoring several elements for which he has no good answer.
It would be very nice if life were documented in a series of objective wiki pages, but so long as humans are involved, that will never be practical.
If anything, this whole debacle has revealed to me how pathetic the whole "science" of psychology is in its current state. I mean, the emblem of its field can't even acknowledge any flaw in his experiment. I'm not saying it was bogus, but it's pretty obviously biased and flawed in many ways. Even if executed with perfect methodology, which it clearly wasn't, that sample size and the bias in participants literally pro…
Whatever problems there are, this doesn’t reflect them. As you say, he is the emblem of the field. How do you think he got there? This is someone who has made their career on one surprising result, and is probably quite used to the conference circuit and interviews now. Lots of personal reasons to fight the truth.
Which is why I openly asked for people to reassure me I'm wrong to believe that the science of psychology is bogus. I've yet to see any data point or argument to reassure me by the way, I've only seen people be dismissive or point that I shouldn't generalise like that. The latter is true, but also doesn't mean my hypothesis is not correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With so many to choose from coming up with one you thought would survive scrutiny here should have been as easy as giving the blithe dismissive answer you did.
As blithely dismissive as grandparent who dismissed a whole field of science based on one scientific study (and hand waves at unnamed others)? Are you serious? If you want a 'practical' set of findings, just take a look at all the psychological tricks learned and now applied to increase social media addiction, gambling addiction, etcetera. Cognitive biases research have often proven robust under repeated tests and pa…
As a bystander, I'm not a psychologist, the last few years have been article after article affecting the credibility of psychology.
Then, I paused and thought, what has psychology done to improve our lives? And I can't think of anything.
So I'm calling out to others to show me the flip side. Every wikipedia page I go to has a huge section in criticism that basically says no one knows, some people say this is true and works, an equal amount of others say its not and doesn't. Like the page on CBT: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy
Cognitive Bias is my first showcase of something that seems mostly proven without controversy. Can I ask what has been the next step in using our understanding of inherent cognitive biases? You mentioned they're used to increase addiction to products. That's a shame, has it helped in other areas, maybe to more positive outcomes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If anything, this whole debacle has revealed to me how pathetic the whole "science" of psychology is in its current state. What? How an academic being defensive of his study, conducted in 1971, an invalidation of "current" psychology? That's 40 years ago. > I mean, has the field of psychology given us anything of value? I'm asking genuinely. What an extreme leap, and an odd generalization for me to have to argue ag…
That wiki link, did you read the section on psychology in it? It pretty much reinforces my opionion. Seems like most of the real understanding of it is coming from biological factors. Now it seems that those initial psychological theories were all argued with similarly low sample and methodologically wonky studies. Just paraphrasing the wikipedia link. In effect, that probably hurt more then it helped and that's why…
2. Something being biological is not contrary to it being psychological.
Your response is disingenuous. You certainly are well-aware that your blanket statement was a rash, emotional inaccuracy. Rather than concede that point, you're choosing to try to nit-pick at one sixth of the refutation.
This is HN, best just to admit your mistake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I find interesting are the people who are absolutely fanatical about disputing Zimbardo's conclusions. It's as if it's very important to them personally to be able to classify potential perpetrators of atrocities into two simplistic categories, People Who Do Stuff Like That and People Who, Somehow, Magically, Don't. Any experiments that might reveal human nature as the ultimate culprit are considered politically…
Except that, you are the one who makes simplistic categories. You want it to be about human nature and don't want it to be about ideologies and opinions. "It is human nature to escalate abuse within week in position of power" and "we can make people escalate abuse quickly if we indoctrinate them right" are very different conclusions with very different implications. If you are really interested in Nazi regime, you wo…
I have. The conclusion I've reached is that we're incredibly fortunate that few of those circumstances exist in the US today. If they did, the outcome would be the same, because -- get ready for this, it's a radical statement -- we're no different than the Germans.
The Nazis were not aliens or monsters or demons. They were us. Just a matter of the right (wrong) circumstances combined with the right (wrong) leadership, that's all.
That's basically what the infamous psychological experiments of Milgram and Zimbardo showed, when all of the academic hair-splitting and infighting is said and done. Their observations were, and are, a big problem for anyone who's invested in the "Some people are just evil monsters" model.