Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed, Study Says

[trottigy]

Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed, Study Says

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/science/many-social-science-findings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html

More than 60 of the studies did not hold up. Among them was one on free will. It found that participants who read a passage arguing that their behavior is predetermined were more likely than those who had not read the passage to cheat on a subsequent test.

Another was on the effect of physical distance on emotional closeness. Volunteers asked to plot two points that were far apart on graph paper later reported weaker emotional attachment to family members, compared with subjects who had graphed points close together.

[jpcook]

Good points Jerry... we've known for some time that psychology is a pseudo-science!

[hatcheckgirl]

 

Scientists have pointed to a hypercompetitive culture across science that favors novel, sexy results and provides little incentive for researchers to replicate the findings of others, or for journals to publish studies that fail to find a splashy result.

 

Yes, I found this when I studied a little psychology.  It has a scientific basis, but it is more loosely interpreted and has the potential for misconstruing the results because statistics can be read in different ways.  They look for the 'trends', and while this is broadly the case, even then as this article pointed out, they make a stronger case even for weaker trending results.  No one wants to read about a mediocre result - half of all boys and half of all girls like ham - so what?  It has to be spectacular to reach print!

 

And yet, human nature is not that complicated.  From what we learn in the Bible, humans still act the same way even after all this time.  Jehovah has given us a unique insight, with so much more to learn in the future!  Rom 11:33 "O the depth of God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable his judgments are and beyond tracing out his ways are!"

[Lorelaisbiggestfan]

Good points Jerry... we've known for some time that psychology is a pseudo-science!

Don't think I would go as far to say all psychology is pseudo science. I actually found some stuff I learned in psychology to be very useful. Really, like any science, things can be proven wrong. Why else the need to always be revising text books all the time?

[kejedo]

Don't think I would go as far to say all psychology is pseudo science. I actually found some stuff I learned in psychology to be very useful. Really, like any science, things can be proven wrong. Why else the need to always be revising text books all the time?

I have a degree in psychology, and worked as a counselor and social worker. Psychopathology (which I studied) and Psychopharmacology have helped many with mental illnesses.  As far as experiments, all sciences have flawed and misrepresented data. I think I skipped experimental psych courses, unless as a way to represent and interpret statistical data. Does not mean I believed all (or any of) the experiments. I do not recall studying any of the premises listed in the article. Carl Jung stated he learned a lot from astrology. Doesn't mean I'm going to use it. We also used a book titled, "How to Lie With Statistics."  Misleading techniques can be used in any field. We know from our literature, that many biological representations that were supposed to support evolution have proven to be faulty. On our COs last visit he quoted quite a bit from psychology at the pioneer meeting. Maybe someone has notes. He couldn't give us a printout and I thought a sister was taking notes for the group, as in a previous pio meeting, but not so.