When is Science not Science?

[Hellcat]

Is Psychology a science or is it a prescience?

As Psychology has gone through many stages of differing theories and practises in the field of psychology, and by in large psychologists cannot agree what psychology is. What does it fall under science or prescience?


Are there any set and identifiable paradigms in psychology? If there are, then psychology would be a science? But as argued before and probably still by some psychology has not got any such paradigms, therefore psychology is a preparadigmatic, as it lacks a paradigm, without which it's must still be in a stage of prescience and cannot call itself a science?

[MRC_Hans]

Science? Science can denote a number of pursuits that are acknowledged as Science (I assume psycology is among them), but Science is mainly a question of methods.

You can approach anything, even ghosts or woo-doo, in a scientific way, which makes what you do Science. And you can approach even math or nuclear physics in a non-scientific way, which makes what you do non-science.

Hans

[Mercutio]

Part of the problem with psychology is that, in its separation from philosophy (much later than, say, chemistry or physics separated from philosophy), its family tree acquired a number of pesky squirrels, many of which hang on still. In my opinion, the popular view of psychology is dominated by these attractive but non-scientific elements. Freud, Jung, and the psychoanalytic lot believed they were scientific, but had problems with falsifiability, after-the-fact explanations, and the usual personal infighting and defending positions you get when one's position is attacked.

The initial methodology of psychology was introspection; the subject matter consciousness. While laudable, this approach carried huge methodological and philosophical problems (as Watson and others soon pointed out). Behaviorism received much the same reaction as Darwin's natural selection; embraced by one faction, vilified by another. The humanists (Rogers, etc.), in an attempt to study again the phenomenon of experience, were easily charicaturized as "soft" by the people who loved behaviorism, but were embraced too-eagerly by those who wanted more than behaviorism seemed to offer. Meanwhile, other areas of psychology had differing degrees of success. Psychophysics evolved into the study of sensation and perception, an area that, in my opinion, is rigorously scientific today. Developmental psychology is much more theory-driven, but has progressed methodologically in leaps and bounds. Social psychology has arguably the most difficult subject matter to operationalize, but there is tremendous progress here as well. Physiological psychology (some would call this a branch of biology; I don't) has made astounding progress.

Sadly, if we look at the psychology section in your typical bookstore, it may be indestinguishable from the new-age/occult section (our local bookstore, until recently, combined them.) We get the public thinking that "men are from mars..." is what psychology is all about. "Psychological testing" on the web is practically epidemic, and useless.

I don't know the extent to which this addresses your question, but IMHO, the working science of psychology and the public face are two entirely different animals. Whether we are paradigmatic or pre- depends on whom you ask, and in which area.

[Dancing David]

There are psychologists who are scientists and there are psychologists who are not, you are right about the nature of pop psychology. But then there are pop science books in any subject.
There is neuro psychology and it is a science and there are cognitive, behavioral and therapy psychologists who use the scientific method, they are not as prominent as they should be.
There is currentlt some research which showws most people in therapy recieve benefit during twelve weeks, still in is hard to get clients and therapists to go along with this.

Peace

[DrChinese]

I think this is a great question. I cannot determine, from review of scientific journals of psychology, anything that even approaches a consensus on what the state of the science actually is.

The funny thing is, that does not seem to slow the onslaught of statistical studies of human behavior or the creation of ad hoc theories.

If it was anything but human behavior which was being studied, such science would be laughed at. But perhaps there is something unique about the science of psychology which obstructs traditional study.

[Ladewig]

When is science not science? When it is ajar - no, wait, that's a door.

I agree some psychology is science and some is not. Rorschach tests are not. The synesthesia study described in the latest Scientific American is.

The study showing that spontaneous recovery rates for some psychological disorders were almost identical to the recovery rates of people in therapy indicates that there are swaths of the field that are not scientific.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ladewig
When is science not science? When it is ajar - no, wait, that's a door.

I agree some psychology is science and some is not. Rorschach tests are not. The synesthesia study described in the latest Scientific American is.

The study showing that spontaneous recovery rates for some psychological disorders were almost identical to the recovery rates of people in therapy indicates that there are swaths of the field that are not scientific.

I remember this study from my degree--basically, participants were assigned to three groups; one group received analysis, one group received medical treatment and the final was the control group. The recovery rates were pretty much the same (about 30% if memory serves) for all groups. Sadly my memory's not good enough to remember who carried out the study :(

Anyway, Mercutio's done an excellent job of describing the main disciplines within psychology, but I just want to mention--by way of illustration of the complexity of the issue--cognitive psychology, which came from behaviorism and spans the gap between psychology and cognitive science, and social learning theory, which sits rather oddly between behaviorism and social psychology. Then there's postmodern psychology which sits between social psychology and phemonological psychology.

Although most of the sub-disciplines have fairly rigorous research methods, there's still a huge debate about whether psychology should be considered a science anyway; the "harder" lot (behaviourists, cognitives) say yes; the "softer" lot, because of the research methods they use (typically qualatative rather than quantative) say no. All very confusing!

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Anyway, Mercutio's done an excellent job of describing the main disciplines within psychology, but I just want to mention--by way of illustration of the complexity of the issue--cognitive psychology, which came from behaviorism and spans the gap between psychology and cognitive science, and social learning theory, which sits rather oddly between behaviorism and social psychology. Then there's postmodern psychology which sits between social psychology and phemonological psychology.

Although most of the sub-disciplines have fairly rigorous research methods, there's still a huge debate about whether psychology should be considered a science anyway; the "harder" lot (behaviourists, cognitives) say yes; the "softer" lot, because of the research methods they use (typically qualatative rather than quantative) say no. All very confusing!

I would be interested in Mercutio's descriptions. Where might I find them?

[Mercutio]

just above, Doc. they aren't so much an excellent description as a cliff-notes version for folks who already know much of the territory.

as for your comment about the subject matter, I sincerely agree. These theories would be (some have been) laughed out of other areas of research, but humans are seen to be special. IMHO, the behaviorists have it right--not Watson, although a stereotype of Watson is most people's view of behaviorism--but the humanists and cognitivists (?) refuse to let go of an anthropocentrist world view. We experience the world as a complex place, we don't want a simple explanation, like Skinner's. So what if he may well be right?

I have even seen one paper calling cognitive psychology "the new spiritualism", equating the search for a meaningful "mind" with that for the soul a century ago.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Mercutio
just above, Doc. they aren't so much an excellent description as a cliff-notes version for folks who already know much of the territory.

as for your comment about the subject matter, I sincerely agree. These theories would be (some have been) laughed out of other areas of research, but humans are seen to be special. IMHO, the behaviorists have it right--not Watson, although a stereotype of Watson is most people's view of behaviorism--but the humanists and cognitivists (?) refuse to let go of an anthropocentrist world view. We experience the world as a complex place, we don't want a simple explanation, like Skinner's. So what if he may well be right?

I have even seen one paper calling cognitive psychology "the new spiritualism", equating the search for a meaningful "mind" with that for the soul a century ago.

Hey, accept a compliment when you're given one! ;)

I think one of the things that people pass over with Skinner is that his theory *seems* simple put is actually quite sophisticated, particularly wrt operand conditioning and the complex way we respond to the world; and that he was careful to state that his theory is not a theory of mind, and nor does it make any commitments about the existence of mind, simply because the mind cannot be tested in any scientific way, whereas behaviour can. But on the other hand, behaviorism's a bit lacking when it comes to language acquisition. IMO, Skinner may be right, but it's not all of the story.

[Jeff Corey]

Oxymorons:

Cognitive-behavioural

Cognitive science

[jj]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Oxymorons:

Cognitive-behavioural

Cognitive science

Why did this remind me of PDQ Bach's "Leo the Lion" who had Roar Shock, or Klaus the Ram, who was "born to make pancakes, I'm a battering ram"?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Oxymorons:

Cognitive-behavioural

Cognitive science

So I suppose all the people who benefit from the Linehan model are leprechauns, I will admit there is lot of crap in psychology, mainly in that no one ever replicates anything.

Peace

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Hey, accept a compliment when you're given one! ;)
...snip...
But on the other hand, behaviorism's a bit lacking when it comes to language acquisition. IMO, Skinner may be right, but it's not all of the story.


Sorry, I'm not allowed to accept compliments. Midwestern guilt, and all that. :p thanks. BTK

As for Skinner & language, the ones whom I have seen who are most convinced Skinner is right are my students with young children. I must say, it convinced me. OTOH, Skinner only mused about language acquisition (compared to his writing on other topics). Verbal Behavior was more of an exploration than a finished statement.

[Hellcat]

Which psychology aspect is if any scientific? Behaviourism, Cognitive, psychoanalytical/psycho-dynamic, criminal/forensic, humanist, biological.

Personally I say the forensic /criminal psychology is,


Wundt took psychology out of philosophy to make it a science. He at least gave the first psychology laboratory and influenced the development of the subject. I still think in some parts it still prescience. Worse as each year a new fashion psychological trend is created this year cognitive next year psycho-dynamic, etc I mean how does that help put psychology on a serious level playing field with other established sciences?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Hellcat
Which psychology aspect is if any scientific? Behaviourism, Cognitive, psychoanalytical/psycho-dynamic, criminal/forensic, humanist, biological.

Personally I say the forensic /criminal psychology is,


In my opinion: Behaviorism, yes. Cognitive, some (too often correlational rather than experimental, because of the impossibility of truly manipulating some of the independent variables). Psychoanal-etc, not even close (despite recent efforts to operationalize and test). Criminal/forensic, much less than you'd think (example below, but also because of the same difficulties as cognitive). Humanist, nope (again, there are some valient efforts to operationalize "congruence" or "self-actualization", but it's an uphill struggle). Biological, yes. You didn't ask, but...Social, mostly (some elegant operationalizations, some crap), Developmental, more so than before. Personality, tough call (the field is fractured--Mayer is trying to present a unified structure, in a very promising manner, but that may or may not take)

Criminal/forensic example: One of the undergrads here has become quite an expert in fire-setters. She was telling me about the theories as to why people set fires, what type of person does that...personality and motivation stuff. There was a very clear favorite theory--I believe it had to do with a need for control, and controlling a theoretically uncontrollable force (fire) giving a feeling of power. I asked one simple question: Is this theory based on somebody's supposition, or are there data to back it up? She didn't know, but was going to a forensic psych conference where 2 of the top names in fire-setter psychology would be speaking. She promised to ask them. Their answers? One said "it is pure speculation." The other said "here are the data--nobody has really looked through to see what the truth is--you want to bring these back for your prof?"

So, in this instance at least, the theory was essentially a hunch--fine for a start, but how did it get to be accepted truth?


BTW, Jeff Corey--nice to see somebody I can agree with!

[Hellcat]

Isn't all Psychology really just common sense?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Hellcat
Isn't all Psychology really just common sense?

Ouch, that hurt.

Well, if that were true, either my students should be doing much better on their exams, or "common sense is neither common nor sensical" (Ben Franklin or Mark Twain, or maybe somebody else, depending on who you ask).

In hindsight, much of it may appear that way; but to use the hackneyed old example, do opposites attract or do birds of a feather flock together? Does absence make the heart grow fonder, or do we love the one we're with? Does it make sense that we will work harder for less reward (a lean VR schedule) than for greater reward (a CRF schedule)? What exactly, commonsensically, are the differences involved in determining whether the presence of others will help you (social facilitation) or hurt (social loafing)?

It would be entirely too easy to go on and on (even easier once we get to sensation/perception or physiological psych); I think the bigger picture is that Hellcat's comment is not hers (?) alone. Psychology needs to do a better job overcoming the touchy-feely ******** perception.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Does it make sense that we will work harder for less reward (a lean VR schedule) than for greater reward (a CRF schedule)?
I get answers like, "Well the rat doesn't expect the pellet every time and so he thinks he has to try hard on a VR schedule."

My reply is "Does this rat think? Expect things? Who could tell? That is a typical lame cognitive explanation and doesn't work with people either.
Maybe the rat on CRF has to pause and eat the pellet because he gets one every time. Whereas the rat on a VR100 just keeps on pressing until he gets the food.
Sort of how Clever Hans kept on clomping his hoof until he got the nod."

[Mercutio]

My favorite is when you then bring in vending machines (CRF) and slot machines (lean VR), compare people to rats, and see the dawn break...for some, at least...

[tamiO]

I happened on an article today dealing with the same issue.

Why psychology has got it wrong
by Peter Watson
Psychoanalysis was one of the "backbone" sciences of the 20th century, yet depression and behavioural problems are rife today. In the first of two articles, our correspondent explains why psychology has failed

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-7-679061,00.html

enjoy :)

[Mercutio]

Interesting article, tamiO. It shows, somewhat, a similar view of psychology as Hellcat was mentioning above. If abandoning Freud means psychology is failing, let it fail. The king is dead, long live the king. Psychology today is as far removed from Freud as chemistry is from alchemy. The promise of Freud, like the promise of phlogiston, did not pan out. Science progresses. If the pillar of a religion collapses, that's a different story.

I'm a little dissappointed the author seemed not to know that science progresses by discarding what does not work. It is as if he says "look how little is left of the original form--it must be dead."

On the other hand psychology has certainly had its share of blunders (the subliminal advertising bit, however, was more urban myth than psychology). Dead ends are expected in any science, and are found. We are simply a young science, and our dead ends have occurred in an era of mass media and good document storage.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Mercutio
My favorite is when you then bring in vending machines (CRF) and slot machines (lean VR), compare people to rats, and see the dawn break...for some, at least...

Coincidentally, one year I was teaching rat lab across the corridor from some vending machines. The students were asking why their rats were doing things like biting the lever during EXT after CRF. At that moment, a vending machine ate someone's money. "Aggressive" behavior ensued.
I saw a candy machine in NYC with a bullet hole in it. Probably a 10 year old male with an attitude and a 9.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by DrChinese

But perhaps there is something unique about the science of psychology which obstructs traditional study.

Probably the simple fact that much human behavior is irrational puts a damper on most predictive models.

Also, all the really fun experiments are illegal/immoral :rolleyes:

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Probably the simple fact that much human behavior is irrational puts a damper on most predictive models.

Also, all the really fun experiments are illegal/immoral :rolleyes:

"Timothy Leary's dead..."

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Probably the simple fact that much human behavior is irrational puts a damper on most predictive models.

Also, all the really fun experiments are illegal/immoral :rolleyes:

I don't know if I'll go all the way to "irrational" with you--extremely complex, perhaps chaotic, but examples like social traps (tragedy of the commons, etc.) explain seemingly irrational behavior as very rational from the perspective of the actor.
I once worked for a guy who was working on the three-body problem in physics. Basically, 3 billiard balls in space--how can we predict their gravitational influence on one another? 2 billiard balls, now that's easy; apparantly the calculations for 3 are a real bear. I ask my students "what in your life is more complex than 3 billiard balls in space? answer: EVERYTHING!" Human behavior is a complex system, like weather is. We can predict some very basic long-term things, and some good short-term things, but the majority of our behavior is dependent on too many variables to be easily parsed.

on the other hand, I am in complete agreement about the illegal/immoral experiments. Born too late...check out E. G. Boring's "sensations of the alimentary canal", somewhere around 1910, +/-.

edited to add..."no, he's just on the outside looking in..."

[Hellcat]

Originally posted by Mercutio


Ouch, that hurt.

Well, if that were true, either my students should be doing much better on their exams, or "common sense is neither common nor sensical" (Ben Franklin or Mark Twain, or maybe somebody else, depending on who you ask).

In hindsight, much of it may appear that way; but to use the hackneyed old example, do opposites attract or do birds of a feather flock together? Does absence make the heart grow fonder, or do we love the one we're with? Does it make sense that we will work harder for less reward (a lean VR schedule) than for greater reward (a CRF schedule)? What exactly, commonsensically, are the differences involved in determining whether the presence of others will help you (social facilitation) or hurt (social loafing)?

It would be entirely too easy to go on and on (even easier once we get to sensation/perception or physiological psych); I think the bigger picture is that Hellcat's comment is not hers (?) alone. Psychology needs to do a better job overcoming the touchy-feely ******** perception.


Ouch why?

Can I ask what age are your students? I have a particular thing about the ages of psychology students.

A common reaction amongst psychology students when in discussion about pieces of research or data findings is they say " but we knew that would happen or we knew that already" doesn't that imply psychology is all down to common sense and shows support that is what it is really?
It does seem to be that on one hand psychology supports common sense notions, on the other hand it then equally contradicts it. Now that doesn't exactly help psychology become a credible science does it?

I know Joyson in 1974(?) Did a book or an article I forget which about psychology and common sense, he was sayings that every person is there own psychologist, after all who knows you best an outsider or yourself? and I am sure he too was the one who said "if psychologists did not exist would we need to invent one?"
If by saying every person is there own psychologist is there a real need for psychologists?

What I have issue with is the over abundance of therapist self help life coaches(???WTF) psychologists that seem to have some people going literally from one to another. Isn't there a danger of people of (some not all) losing their self will/independence to do things for themselves and end up becoming dependant heavily reliant upon what others say to do? I would presume a guess that America has the most people in some form of therapy than any other country( I don't know for sure) Why?

Seeking counselling I can see helps if a person has a alcohol problem, drug, or some form of traumatic experience, I have no problem with you can understand that, but going to see somebody because your child's acting like a typical teen or because is the in thing to have, and more so especially seeing a life councillor that I have a major issue with,more so when it is done to a child.

No I am not alone in this thinking(her yes, alone in it no) we discussed this in my last psychology class with the further on up the course students. First I got told of for questioning psychology especially as I am also in that field, I siad why shouldn't I question psychology I 'd quesion law biology(have done) and anythig else. Secondly when I raised the question of the age of students taking psychology and then further into is it science I hit home why I was questioning it. My tutor silenced me when somebody mentioned the benefits of frying somebodies brains(electo therapy) and regression and repressed memories she knew I'd blow up big time on that, such as my strong felling on both of those. a quick derail to Milgrams electric shock test was sufficient to diffuse the mood and Zimbardos prisoner/ inmate test. A possible contributor to the making psychology less credible in my opinion is when some sided with the governments and created tests to stereotype and pigeon hole people, then when things waver or needs arise they change tactics world war when women(UK) went to work enjoyed it what happened when the war ended men coming home to a changed environment up came another report saying children suffered blah blah and forced women back to the ideal stereotype that fitted the governments pigeon holes. That I find issue with too.

Still left me with more questions than answers, more so one I certainly got a good reprimand for, which is a true psychologist one who observes human behaviour or one who interrupts what somebody means on that day?

[reprise]

I'm not sure whether people are aware of this in relation to criminal/forensic psychology, but most of the research on which criminologists rely to make their judgements has been collected from directly or indirectly from unsuccessful criminals.

There have been very few long-term, prospective studies conducted into criminality, which seriously limits our ability to create models which predict likely criminal behaviour or recidivism. This situation isn't helped by the fact that we want criminal behaviour to make sense, even if it's a warped kind of sense. We don't want to believe that entirely normal people can commit entirely horrendous acts against their fellow human beings, and so when we look to explain such behaviour, we look first of all for flaws in their psychological makeup or dysfunctional relationships in their childhood. We look for differences between criminals and ourselves, and what we look for, we often find.

[BillyTK]

Hi Hellcat, hope you don't mind if I intrude to make a few comments on your post?

Ouch why?

Can I ask what age are your students? I have a particular thing about the ages of psychology students.

A common reaction amongst psychology students when in discussion about pieces of research or data findings is they say " but we knew that would happen or we knew that already" doesn't that imply psychology is all down to common sense and shows support that is what it is really?
It does seem to be that on one hand psychology supports common sense notions, on the other hand it then equally contradicts it. Now that doesn't exactly help psychology become a credible science does it?

I know Joyson in 1974(?) Did a book or an article I forget which about psychology and common sense, he was sayings that every person is there own psychologist, after all who knows you best an outsider or yourself? and I am sure he too was the one who said "if psychologists did not exist would we need to invent one?"
If by saying every person is there own psychologist is there a real need for psychologists?.

There's a whole problem that, as Mercutio pointed out, "it's neither common nor sense"; what was common sense to our parents and grandparents is often just plain daft to us. Although there is a core of "folk knowledge"--that is, things which do have a factual basis--but much of it borders between urban myth and superstition. This is a bit of a sweeping statement, but psychology both has its cake and eats it, by supporting common sense where it's got a factual basis, and refuting common sense where it hasn't.

The idea of "self as psychologist" is older than Joyson and goes back to George Kelly (although his assertion were that people were scientists). But this is a metaphor rather than a "fact"; it's a way of exploring human activity by noting that we're active, we're inquisitive, we explore stuff both about our world and ourselves (it was also a bit of riposte to behaviourism, albeit a rather fallacious one IMO).

What I have issue with is the over abundance of therapist self help life coaches(???WTF) psychologists that seem to have some people going literally from one to another. Isn't there a danger of people of (some not all) losing their self will/independence to do things for themselves and end up becoming dependant heavily reliant upon what others say to do? I would presume a guess that America has the most people in some form of therapy than any other country( I don't know for sure) Why?
Easy--money! It's an industry. As such it needs to create demand for its products. I don't doubt that some kinds of therapy can help some people some of the time, but IMO there's certain kinds of therapy which lend themselves to exploitation by charlatans; for instance, psychodynamic (Freud/Jung et al) therapies. Whilst I don't doubt there are many practitioners out there who genuinely seek to alleviate suffering, it'd be so easy to use some of the concepts to "trap" people into a costly course of therapy (eg: Patient: "This is working, I want to stop." Analyst: "I detect some feelings of hostility; let's explore these..." Patient: "No really, you're not helping me!" Analyst: "I sense you're projecting your own failures onto me; let's explore these..." &c &c)

Seeking counselling I can see helps if a person has a alcohol problem, drug, or some form of traumatic experience, I have no problem with you can understand that, but going to see somebody because your child's acting like a typical teen or because is the in thing to have, and more so especially seeing a life councillor that I have a major issue with,more so when it is done to a child.
Counselling can help for a range of cases from specific problems such as addiction through to helping people to come to terms with significant events (diagnosis of chronic or terminal illness, bereavement etc) but it's often a matter of find the most suitable form of counselling. A lot of the rest of it is due to the psychology industry.
No I am not alone in this thinking(her yes, alone in it no) we discussed this in my last psychology class with the further on up the course students. First I got told of for questioning psychology especially as I am also in that field, I siad why shouldn't I question psychology I 'd quesion law biology(have done) and anythig else. Secondly when I raised the question of the age of students taking psychology and then further into is it science I hit home why I was questioning it. My tutor silenced me when somebody mentioned the benefits of frying somebodies brains(electo therapy) and regression and repressed memories she knew I'd blow up big time on that, such as my strong felling on both of those. a quick derail to Milgrams electric shock test was sufficient to diffuse the mood and Zimbardos prisoner/ inmate test. A possible contributor to the making psychology less credible in my opinion is when some sided with the governments and created tests to stereotype and pigeon hole people, then when things waver or needs arise they change tactics world war when women(UK) went to work enjoyed it what happened when the war ended men coming home to a changed environment up came another report saying children suffered blah blah and forced women back to the ideal stereotype that fitted the governments pigeon holes. That I find issue with too.
Ah yes, John Bowles and his famous theory of maternal deprivation--basically that if children are neglected at a certain age they'll grow up into delinquents; whilst there's some evidence about "critical stages", these aren't specifically dependent on maternal intervention. I doubt if it's the first time that psychology has been misused for political purposes and it certainly wasn't the last (see for instance, "The Bell Curve" by Hernstein and Murray, which linked race, IQ and social success to support a case that welfare was wasted on the poor).
Still left me with more questions than answers, more so one I certainly got a good reprimand for, which is a true psychologist one who observes human behaviour or one who interrupts what somebody means on that day?
The problem is that psychology is such a wide area with so many debates going on about what psychology actually is/should be. Some psychologists investigate behaviour, some investigate how behaviour is produced; others are more interested in what individual behaviour means to that individual; I've heard the hard (science-based) lot accuse the softer (phenomonological) lot of being kooks, and the soft side accusing the hard side of at best doing pretend science and at worst of prostitution to the political powers of the day. I always found it helpful to think of psychology in terms of its focus of study (the individual) rather than trying to reconcile all the claims and counter-claims.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Mercutio
As for Skinner & language, the ones whom I have seen who are most convinced Skinner is right are my students with young children. I must say, it convinced me. OTOH, Skinner only mused about language acquisition (compared to his writing on other topics). Verbal Behavior was more of an exploration than a finished statement.

Language is where Skinner and I part company (though I'm sure it's no big deal for him). Just from a purely anecdotal basis I found Chomsky's language acquisition theory kinda more compelling... but I take your point about "Verbal Behavior".

[Hellcat]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Hi Hellcat, hope you don't mind if I intrude to make a few comments on your post?


No problem here. :D Mind you, you're from doppelgangland :eek: I may develop issues :D

[lyghtningbyrd]

My dad is a psychologist, and I know that he takes a very scientific, logical approach to it, and I've heard him complain repeatedly in the past about bogus psychology, (lie detector tests, IQ tests, can't remember what else, theres a lot more)which seems to irritate him a lot.

I can't remember if he said hypnosis was a bogus method or not...

Is hypnosis legitimate?

[Mercutio]

Hellcat, good comments. BillyTK did a very good job addressing them, so I won't rehash, but rather make a different observation (and, perhaps surprisingly, agree with the vast majority of your complaint).

In any science, there is the research side and the applied side. For instance, Biology is research, Medicine is applied Biology (to oversimplify, but not much). We see an awful lot of "alternative" medicines, but not nearly so much alternative biology, except in direct conjunction with the alt. medicines. Same in psychology. The vast majority of your examples are in "applied" psychology (applied in quotes because there is legitimate applied psychology as well, and it is difficult for the public to differentiate the two); counseling, therapy, self-help life coaches, and the like.

As BTK pointed out, there is a lot of good done by some of these folk. However, there is also a lot of crapola. What is worse, many practitioners are adamant in their defence of their craft in the absence of (sometimes in contradiction of) evidence. As I have said elswhere here, I have a colleague who espouses "Bioenergetics", which takes Freud's internal psychic mechanisms and posits actual physical manifestations of them. In other words, your id, ego, superego are physically expressed in your posture. Therapy consists of "Body Work" and "Grounding", and (from what I can see) lots of stomping and shouting "no!". My colleague freely admits there have been no (that he or I know of) double-blind or even minimally controlled experiments evaluating any of Bioenergetics's claims. This does not bother him in the least. "I just know, from personal experience, and from my clients, that it works." Of course, the same can be said for astrology or tarot card readings. Is it possible that there is something to Bioenergetics? Yes. Likely? IMHO, no. As yet, however, there is no evidence one way or the other.

This, and similar examples of "applied psychology", are simply not science. I my eyes, they are also not psychology, any more than reflexology is medicine. Your dismissal of this sort of psychology is a good thing; I only wish the science of psychology could do a better job of weeding out this stuff. Given our history, and the inertia behind this part of psychology, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime. Hey, there is still homeopathic medicine, and some in the public still think of it as part of medicine proper. Such is life.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd
My dad is a psychologist, and I know that he takes a very scientific, logical approach to it, and I've heard him complain repeatedly in the past about bogus psychology, (lie detector tests, IQ tests, can't remember what else, theres a lot more)which seems to irritate him a lot.

I can't remember if he said hypnosis was a bogus method or not...

Is hypnosis legitimate?

Hypnosis has always struck me as being akin to intelligence--there's clearly something going on there, but too many people are willing to rush in and fill in the gaps with spurious nonsense.

Here's a handy FAQ (http://www.hypnosis.com/faq/) I found, which seems fairly thorough and critical for a pro-hypnosis site (it's something to do with the American Board of Hypnotherapy for what its worth).

[Mercutio]

Hellcat, I'm sorry--i forgot to answer your question about my student's ages.
For the most part, they are "traditional" undergrads; 17-22, middle class, white. I have had thousands of student by now, in a number of different settings. I love the non-traditional students, but with regard to your question, I don't find them all that different from my traditional ones. More variety, is all--in motivation, in ability, in skepticism, in confrontationality (?).

[Dancing David]

Wow great thread!

Some commonsense notions that don't work:

Talking about suicide leads to suicide.
Depression doesn't exist, mental illness doesn't exist.
Shaming someone will lead them to change.
Psychotropic drugs cause mental illness.
I did it this way: it will work for everyone.
Children don't rememebr trauma and shouldn't talk about it.
Beating children is good for them
Anger is uncontollable.

Peace

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Language is where Skinner and I part company (though I'm sure it's no big deal for him). Just from a purely anecdotal basis I found Chomsky's language acquisition theory kinda more compelling... but I take your point about "Verbal Behavior".

I don't see how you can find a non-falsifiable theory about a hypothetcal "deep structure" producing grammatical output to be compelling.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey


I don't see how you can find a non-falsifiable theory about a hypothetcal "deep structure" producing grammatical output to be compelling.

If there's more compelling, falsifiable theories about language acquisition turned up since Skinner's "Verbal Behaviour", I'd be really interested. If not, I'll just have to make do with Chomsky, unfalsifiability and all! ;)

[Dancing David]

there is biological evidence for the aquisition of language being part of the way our brain structure learns, depreive a child of contact with human language and there is a cut off date for ever learning it. Chomsky dropped the ball by not trying to come up with the deep structure and discovering it's cultural vaiations. He is kind of busy with his other things.

Peace

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Dancing David
there is biological evidence for the aquisition of language being part of the way our brain structure learns, depreive a child of contact with human language and there is a cut off date for ever learning it. Chomsky dropped the ball by not trying to come up with the deep structure and discovering it's cultural vaiations. He is kind of busy with his other things.

Peace

Well, to be pedantic, the biology of language acquisition keeps returning to the theoretical language acquisition device to explain how children acquire language... edited to add the fact that he started the ball rolling with his idea of the LAD and universal grammar in his review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior makes him a top bloke in my book ! :D

Anyway, I found this article onlanguage acquisition by Steven Pinker (http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/pinker.langacq.html) (that name rings a bell, I just carnt quite remember why!) if anyone's interested!

[Mercutio]

BillyTK--there are those who suggest that Chomsky's review shows he didn't even read Verbal Behavior, let alone understand it. A counter-review by Kenneth McQuarkadale (I know the spelling is wrong, maybe Jeff Corey has the right citation) might be good reading for you.

[Jeff Corey]

MacCorquodale, K. (1970) Journal of the Experimental Analsysis of behavior.
I found a link by googolling "Chomski's review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior.

It was obvious that Chomski never read much of Verbal Behavior. He characterized Skinner as a "S-R theorist".

[Mercutio]

Thanks. Your googling skills enable my laziness. :D

Had you read the paper before?

[BillyTK]

Mercutio--it wouldn't surprise me at all if the whole point of Chomsky's review was simply to introduce his own theory on language acquisition ;) But thanks for the tip--I'll hunt the article down!

Jeff Corey--Thanks for the reference!

Edited to add I found a copy of MacCorquodale's paper (http://www.behavior.org/loebner/index.cfm?page=http%3A//www.behavior.org/loebner/maccorquodale/maccorquodale-1970.cfm) here.

[Jesse]

I partook in some hypnotherapy once. It was an enriching experience. The potential for abuse is absolutely enormous.

[BillyTK]

Hi Hellcat, sorry about not responding to this sooner:

No problem here. :D Mind you, you're from doppelgangland :eek: I may develop issues :D
"Dopplegangland" is an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer in which the "evil twin" of one of the goodies comes to town, and there's a lot of times in the Politics and Current Events where I carnt decide whether I'm the evil twin or whether it's all the other posters who are evil ;) :D

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Mercutio
.

I don't know the extent to which this addresses your question, but IMHO, the working science of psychology and the public face are two entirely different animals. Whether we are paradigmatic or pre- depends on whom you ask, and in which area.

It seems to me that the working science of psychology and the clinical practice of psychology are two entirely different animals, too, and the latter is largely dominated by the pseudoscience which constitutes the public face that you mentioned.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by DrMatt


It seems to me that the working science of psychology and the clinical practice of psychology are two entirely different animals, too, and the latter is largely dominated by the pseudoscience which constitutes the public face that you mentioned.

Wish I'd said that. I agree.
Remember when people used to equate psychologists with 2 things--rat-runners, and Freudian shrinks? Now it seems they equate psychologists with TM, alternative medicine, and, well...Freudian (and Jungian, Adlerian, and any other Ians you can dredge up) shrinks. Too bad the rat-runners didn't get better PR advice.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by DrMatt
It seems to me that the working science of psychology and the clinical practice of psychology are two entirely different animals, too, and the latter is largely dominated by the pseudoscience which constitutes the public face that you mentioned.

With some exceptions, I agree. In the clinical area, Applied Behavior Analysis (AKA Behavior Therapy or Behavior Modification) has a lot of empirical support. The idea of actually measuring behavior to see if the treatment is working has met a lot of resistance from more "traditional" therapists.

[Hellcat]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Hi Hellcat, sorry about not responding to this sooner:

"Dopplegangland" is an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer in which the "evil twin" of one of the goodies comes to town, and there's a lot of times in the Politics and Current Events where I carnt decide whether I'm the evil twin or whether it's all the other posters who are evil ;) :D



I recognised the name, the Bad willow? No problem not timing your replies honest . :D

16 hours late tut tut no gold star :p

[Mercutio]

BTW, Hellcat, thanks for this thread. It has been a fun exploration.

[Hellcat]

Originally posted by Mercutio
BTW, Hellcat, thanks for this thread. It has been a fun exploration.

Has been:(

Your welcome. I have still loads of unanswered questions though for me regarding psychology, still find it amusing I am in the field and yet I get such a telling off for questioning it :eek:


Care to discuss the varying Psychologists and aspect that are and have shaped psychology?

[Hellcat]

Originally posted by Jesse
I partook in some hypnotherapy once. It was an enriching experience. The potential for abuse is absolutely enormous.
I question not just the ethics but the validity of hypnotherapy as a treatment and practise, some people have been scarred by bad hypnotists and does it really work? Has hypnotherapy ever been regulated by the medical profession?

It ranks up there with regression therapy which I have a MAJOR ethics problem with.

[Hellcat]

Originally posted by Dancing David
there is biological evidence for the acquisition of language being part of the way our brain structure learns, deprive a child of contact with human language and there is a cut off date for ever learning it. Chomsky dropped the ball by not trying to come up with the deep structure and discovering it's cultural variations. He is kind of busy with his other things.

Peace

Off the top of my head I seem to remember vaguely a story about a child found living as a wolf in a pack who could only bark and behaved as a wolf etc, now wasn't he/she re-educated to talk and act as a human this child was past the supposed cut of date for language?


I don't believe anything is fixed or has cut off dates, there are cases where gender was determined to be fixed and has been shown this is in correct?( vague notion again)

[Hellcat]

Wolf boy (http://www.btinternet.com/~neuronaut/webtwo_features_feral_kids.htm)

Apparently thee are feral children, but they do have problems re integrating back to normal human behaviour. Still I am sure there was a successful re-integration of a feral child back to being a normal fully functioning human?? :rolleyes:

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Hellcat

Your welcome. I have still loads of unanswered questions though for me regarding psychology, still find it amusing I am in the field and yet I get such a telling off for questioning it :eek:


In my opinion, you should be encouraged to question it. That is the process of science. (I hope you don't think I was telling you off here--if so, it was certainly not intended. I think your questions were quite valid, and showed weaknesses in psychology, or at least in psychology's public face.) Any science that discourages questioning (like Freud did with his followers?) runs the risk of slipping into pseudoscience. Much of what was originally Psychology has done this already. (Actually, if you read early Freud, say "project for a scientific psychology", you will see that he intended his work to be the cornerstone of a long line of truly scientific research which would evaluate and revise his ideas. How different psychoanalysis would be today if this had happened!)

The closer you look at psychology, the more you see the disagreements; but then, this is true of any science. When you are in a position to see the newest work being done, it almost has to have multiple possible explanations which are being tested against one another. (The creationists love to see evolutionary biologists argue over detail--they interpret it as arguing over whether natural selection is true at all!)
It reminds me of a quote from Edgar Rice Burroughs (yes, in one of the Tarzan books, I believe it was "tarzan and the leopard people"). Tarzan is talking to the high priestess of the leopard people, who says "the more one knows about a religion, the less one believes in it. And I know more about our religion than any other person." (the quote may not be exact)... Point is, the questioning you are doing is out of knowledge, not ignorance, and it shows.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Hellcat


Off the top of my head I seem to remember vaguely a story about a child found living as a wolf in a pack who could only bark and behaved as a wolf etc, now wasn't he/she re-educated to talk and act as a human this child was past the supposed cut of date for language?


I don't believe anything is fixed or has cut off dates, there are cases where gender was determined to be fixed and has been shown this is in correct?( vague notion again)

I was thinking of a more recent case where this poor child had been tied to a chair and isolated by her crazy parent. The child was never able to gain full language the last that I heard, there is also an anecdotal belief that to learn a second language it helps to start before thirteen years of age.

Peace

[Hellcat]

Originally posted by Dancing David


I was thinking of a more recent case where this poor child had been tied to a chair and isolated by her crazy parent. The child was never able to gain full language the last that I heard, there is also an anecdotal belief that to learn a second language it helps to start before thirteen years of age.

Peace

Really that's horrendous do you have a link to that?

Second part, so what your reply is saying is at my age I can't learn a new language?

[Hellcat]

Originally posted by Mercutio


In my opinion, you should be encouraged to question it. That is the process of science. (I hope you don't think I was telling you off here--if so, it was certainly not intended. I think your questions were quite valid, and showed weaknesses in psychology, or at least in psychology's public face.) Any science that discourages questioning (like Freud did with his followers?) runs the risk of slipping into pseudoscience. Much of what was originally Psychology has done this already. (Actually, if you read early Freud, say "project for a scientific psychology", you will see that he intended his work to be the cornerstone of a long line of truly scientific research which would evaluate and revise his ideas. How different psychoanalysis would be today if this had happened!)

The closer you look at psychology, the more you see the disagreements; but then, this is true of any science. When you are in a position to see the newest work being done, it almost has to have multiple possible explanations which are being tested against one another. (The creationists love to see evolutionary biologists argue over detail--they interpret it as arguing over whether natural selection is true at all!)
It reminds me of a quote from Edgar Rice Burroughs (yes, in one of the Tarzan books, I believe it was "tarzan and the leopard people"). Tarzan is talking to the high priestess of the leopard people, who says "the more one knows about a religion, the less one believes in it. And I know more about our religion than any other person." (the quote may not be exact)... Point is, the questioning you are doing is out of knowledge, not ignorance, and it shows.

No I never thought you were telling me off, my elders(professors) do though quite venomously. It doesn't hep when I tell them they are projecting their displacement on me, that the the then fits of laughter. Some of my tutors really get quite cross with my questioning some of the aspects and not just the validity of the studies both the ethics of it.

Thank you for what you said in your last sentence, that meant a lot to me Thank you :D

I like Freud, though I do question his analysis, but in whole he is no worse than what Milgram and Zimbardo Loftus have all done in the name of psychological studies.
It seems to me more is done in promoting names on individual studies and not on validating psychology on the whole.
We know more about the ocean and whats in it than the brain and mind.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Hellcat

Thank you for what you said in your last sentence, that meant a lot to me Thank you :D

...snip...

We know more about the ocean and whats in it than the brain and mind.

You are most welcome.

Ah, but don't make the mistake (you arent', as far as I can see) of thinking we know nothing about them. It maddens me to hear students repeat the 10% myth, and say "well, there's so much we don't know." Yes, but there is so much we DO know--certainly more than enough to bury that myth.

You see, these students heard it and accepted it. They did not question. You do question, and that makes a huge difference. Some (not all) would argue that Freud deserves about as much respect as the 10% myth. How will we know (one way or the other), unless people like you question?

[Mercutio]

On the other hand, I have students who question too much. For instance, they reject Milgram or Zimbardo for ethical reasons, then refuse to recognise the enormous effect the situation can have on our actions. "Zimbardo is an unethical hot-dog" may be true, but it does not refute situational pressures. (ill-controlled as that experiment was...)

[Hellcat]

The reason I asked about the age of your students, and I should have mentioned it before but was side tracked. Is I feel in me IMHO, that psychology is best suited to those who have lived and experienced a bit ie those over the age of 25-30. The reason being and it may sound ludicrous is alot of psychology is based on knowing life common sense reason for certain behviours etc. for example a 16year old although may know life as they think, but they haven't the really experienced real life, i.e. coping on own bill, working and doing other things simulataneous,etc that sort of thing.

I think under that ideal age, they haven't the maturity to fully comprehend and correctly react to what makes people tick and do some things.

I don't think I am making sense here. sorry.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Hellcat
The reason I asked about the age of your students, and I should have mentioned it before but was side tracked. Is I feel in me IMHO, that psychology is best suited to those who have lived and experienced a bit ie those over the age of 25-30. The reason being and it may sound ludicrous is alot of psychology is based on knowing life common sense reason for certain behviours etc. for example a 16year old although may know life as they think, but they haven't the really experienced real life, i.e. coping on own bill, working and doing other things simulataneous,etc that sort of thing.

I think under that ideal age, they haven't the maturity to fully comprehend and correctly react to what makes people tick and do some things.

I don't think I am making sense here. sorry.

You are making tremendous sense, and have (inadvertently?) pointed out a major problem, historically, with social psych research. Once again I do not have the paper handy, but one author once claimed that psychology was, in actuality, "the psychology of the white male sophomore." This was the population (intro-psych university students) that was being sampled for virtually all our research. Of course, at our school we have more women than men taking psych courses, and the intro class is usually freshman-heavy, but the point remains: the population most frequently studied is not representative of the population at large. (Much like drug studies in medicine, where until recently subjects were male only, and dosages for females were extrapolated based on body weight, ignoring a number of possibly confounding variables.) It seems incredible that researchers whose business is looking at variability between people should assume that, for experimental purposes, they are all the same! (in fairness, they thought they were looking at universal principles, and that individual differences would be too small to matter.)

[Hellcat]

I assume your a teacher of psychology, which particular field or is it just general psychology?


I have noticed something and had what I noticed occur to me. Maybe it's just me noticing things others havent or maybe arent there but I see a pattern forming. Just want to know if I have something or not?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Hellcat
I assume your a teacher of psychology, which particular field or is it just general psychology?


I have noticed something and had what I noticed occur to me. Maybe it's just me noticing things others havent or maybe arent there but I see a pattern forming. Just want to know if I have something or not?

Does it show? I have taught into, stats, social, personality, behavioral, history, (I think I am missing some) ...upper and lower level... but then, there are people with my background who disagree with what I say, so do not assume that I am the one who is right, just because I am..:D

As for your second paragraph, are you referring to what you were noticing before, or something else? One way of seeing whether others have noticed what you have is to take advantage of the new technology with regard to literature searches. Databases can be queried in seconds now. Just pop in some keywords and see what spits out.

[Hellcat]

Originally posted by Mercutio


Does it show? I have taught into, stats, social, personality, behavioural, history, (I think I am missing some) ...upper and lower level... but then, there are people with my background who disagree with what I say, so do not assume that I am the one who is right, just because I am..:D

As for your second paragraph, are you referring to what you were noticing before, or something else? One way of seeing whether others have noticed what you have is to take advantage of the new technology with regard to literature searches. Databases can be queried in seconds now. Just pop in some keywords and see what spits out.
Thank you, I think this is another one of my brand new discoveries but I will go look up and see if I can uncover what I need. Thanks.

[CurtC]

There are few situations where you can't find a relevant Simpsons quote. When they did a flashback to an out-of-control boy Ned Flanders in the psychologist's office, boy Ned was running around crazily, went over to the bookshelf, and started pulling out the books and throwing them on the floor. The psychologist said "Hey cut that out - some of those studies haven't been discredited yet!"

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Once again I do not have the paper handy, but one author once claimed that psychology was, in actuality, "the psychology of the white male sophomore."

I think it was Frank Beech (1950) in his article "The Snark was a Boojum".

And Hellcat, what did you mean about the ethics of Beth Loftus' research? The most controversial involved implanting a false memory of a kid having been lost at a mall some years earlier.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey


I think it was Frank Beech (1950) in his article "The Snark was a Boojum".

And Hellcat, what did you mean about the ethics of Beth Loftus' research? The most controversial involved implanting a false memory of a kid having been lost at a mall some years earlier.

Did I hallucinate it, or did Loftus publish something this past year about implanting a false memory of demonic possession?

[Hellcat]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey


I think it was Frank Beech (1950) in his article "The Snark was a Boojum".

And Hellcat, what did you mean about the ethics of Beth Loftus' research? The most controversial involved implanting a false memory of a kid having been lost at a mall some years earlier.

Yes jeff, that's the one I meant, she used it on children too. I know it was research but children, I had the same spat with the 5 steps to tyranny video we watched once, that had a teacher and I can't remember her name for love or monkeys at the moment where she said blue eyed kids were smart and brown eyed kids were not(something like that) the blue eyed kids turned nasty basically. using children I think is wrong full-stop.

Now that reminds me cue previous noticing occurrence.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Hellcat


Yes jeff, that's the one I meant, she used it on children too. I know it was research but children, I had the same spat with the 5 steps to tyranny video we watched once, that had a teacher and I can't remember her name for love or monkeys at the moment where she said blue eyed kids were smart and brown eyed kids were not(something like that) the blue eyed kids turned nasty basically. using children I think is wrong full-stop.

Hellcat, one of my students was one of these kids. She says it was very dramatic going through it, but that she and her fellow students will never forget that lesson. (BTW, I believe that it was in fact intended as a lesson, not as an experiment. I wonder if it would have gotten IRB approval as an experiment!) She feels it was one of the most important experiences of her life, and she is very glad to have been a part of it.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Hellcat


Yes jeff, that's the one I meant, she used it on children too. I know it was research but children, I had the same spat with the 5 steps to tyranny video we watched once, that had a teacher and I can't remember her name for love or monkeys at the moment where she said blue eyed kids were smart and brown eyed kids were not(something like that) the blue eyed kids turned nasty basically. using children I think is wrong full-stop.

Now that reminds me cue previous noticing occurrence.

I remember that blue eye-brown eye demo. Not an experiment. Not covered by IRB because it was for educational purposes only. That's why it wasn't in a real psych journal.
But Sherif and Sherif (1948 or so). They divided a summer camp into to the Crips and the Bloods or something and put them into competitions. Not an experiment (no independent variable) and the data were notes of what the psychologists recalled after observing conflicts.
The Lord of the Flies was better fiction.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey


But Sherif and Sherif (1948 or so). They divided a summer camp into to the Crips and the Bloods or something and put them into competitions. Not an experiment (no independent variable) and the data were notes of what the psychologists recalled after observing conflicts.
The Lord of the Flies was better fiction.

the Eagles and the Rattlers, actually (brain lint).
The Robber's Cave experiment. Muzafer Sherif was interested in the formation of intergroup prejudice--I'm thinking because of WWII and his childhood experience. This was the study that suggested that competition breeds prejudice, and that cooperation for superordinate goals will reduce it.
(Reminds me of Reagan, saying to Gorby, [channeling reagan] "well, if martians came down tomorrow, I'm sure that Americans and Soviets would fight side by side for the common good."[/reagan] (highly doubtful that is the exact quote). To which Gorby replied "that's what you said last time.")

[Hellcat]

Originally posted by Mercutio


Hellcat, one of my students was one of these kids. She says it was very dramatic going through it, but that she and her fellow students will never forget that lesson. (BTW, I believe that it was in fact intended as a lesson, not as an experiment. I wonder if it would have gotten IRB approval as an experiment!) She feels it was one of the most important experiences of her life, and she is very glad to have been a part of it.

Really? I am amazed by that, wonder if it changed anything about her personality?

Glad it didn't get approved. Mind you saying that look how late England finally up and got ethical 1980'S?

[Hellcat]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey


I remember that blue eye-brown eye demo. Not an experiment. Not covered by IRB because it was for educational purposes only. That's why it wasn't in a real psych journal.
But Sherif and Sherif (1948 or so). They divided a summer camp into to the Crips and the Bloods or something and put them into competitions. Not an experiment (no independent variable) and the data were notes of what the psychologists recalled after observing conflicts.
The Lord of the Flies was better fiction.

To put people into that scenario just feels so wrong to me. But having said that from my own observatons on a certain occurrence also noticed the same behaviour outcome without a psychologist inputting anything first.

Begs the question how could I validate what I have noted or possible investigate it further?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Hellcat

Begs the question how could I validate what I have noted or possible investigate it further?

I don't know how much psych experience you have already had--quite obviously, some--but given the nature of your questions, I'd recommend getting hold of a good Social Psychology book. Depending on what you have already read, or the nature of your questions, you may need a higher-level one, or a social cognition or applied social psych book.

With your level of skepticism and understanding, you will, no doubt, find yourself poking holes in much of the research. This is not a problem; it is part of your process. Science, like evolution, is ongoing, and questions like yours are the selection pressure. Use the book mainly as an overall road map to the territory you wish to explore. When you see material that addresses your questions, look at the citations, and read the original works. I am constantly amazed at the difference between what the source material says and what is claimed in a textbook! It is entirely possible that some of your reaction to studies is a reaction to the over-simplified sketch that made it to the final textbook (after all, the authors usually have to condense 2-20 pages into at most a paragraph!).

I may have mis-read your questions, and it could be that instead of a social psych book you might want an experimental ethics, or methodology, or even history of psych book. Whichever, the process is the same; use the book only as a guide, argue with it, use the terminology you find there to search the databases, or come back here and talk to me (or Corey, I would suspect, or any number of other folk).