Pseudoscience....

[Wolfshade]

ECT, electro convulsive therapy.

Though actually within Psychiatry/Psychology fields there is a big debate when ti comes to the categorisation of disorders.
The medics like a catagorical, where as the psychologists prefer a more spectrum based approach.

[eldargal]

And don't forget the difference between psychology and psychiatry.

Psychiatry being the quacks. Seriously I've seen first hand friends on drugs prescribe by psychiatrists for years with the problem barely under control end up basically fixed by a few months with a psychologist.

[Psychosplodge]

A proper psychologist or a mass produced uni minimum level psychologist?

[eldargal]

Practicing psychologists have rigorous standards they have to meet to be registered to practice. I was being flippant in regards to psychiatrists too, many of them rely on sound principles to work through issues and not rely on drugs. However a lot do just seem to rely on drugs.

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed. Quality psychiatrists will admit it's largely trial and error, particularly when it comes to drug treatments. Sadly, some just figure 'sod it' and bung them on one type, and hope for the best.

Whilst it doesn't do the field any favours, it hardly discredits it entirely.

Other pseudoscience....Creationism. It only makes sense if you arbitrarily ignore swathes of evidence against it. For example, young earth. Earth is 6,000 years old, because that's what the Bible says. Geologists are wrong....erm...because they are, they must be. They contradict the Bible. Then you get the waffle about things, and once again, mad suppositions, like a water canopy (yeah, I know) which caused the flood and that.

Again, I find pseudoscience of interest, simply because some of the theories (well, claims, to be accurate) are interesting, just not well supported.

But conspiracy theorists? They're not even pseudoscience. They're just attention seeking malcontent mentalists. Take Loose Change, as he's already been mentioned. Claims to have 'proof' the US government was behind 9/11. That's right. The US government planned an atrocity, and have for what, nearly 12 years managed to keep a lid on it, despite that pesky kid and his 'proof'. That would be the same western government who, like all western governments, remains largely unable to organise a piss up in a brewery, or an orgy in a house of ill repute, suddenly showing an uncharacteristic machievellian streak.... Uh huh. Because you know, the alternative, that Loose Change is talking out of his hiney hiney ho is unthinkable. All that accumulated evidence that discredits him and his claims? Ignore it. All part of the conspiracy, set up to discredit him..... Yeah..... K.... If you insist. You nutter.

And it's the same for pretty much all conspiracies. They ignore fundamental evidence when it suits them, stressing just one flimsy thing which if you're in a darkened room, drink 9 pints and then squint, might just support them ish.

[Wolfshade]

Drug "treatments" treat the symptom not the cause. In terms of efficiency though most people will be thrown at CBT because it is very cost effective (you can have a nurse adminster it) and it has a high efficacy rate across a very large number of issues.

The trouble is with creationism (laugh as if there is just one) is that you can credit the evidence in such a way that it still makes sense, the historical record, or the information that geologists/cosmologists use to point to an old earth can easily be waved away as a test of faith, it is only 6k years but it was made to look older to test our resolve. Once you are against that argument, walk away and save your breath.

As for 11/9 is clearly orchestrated by the lizardmen to curtail our freedoms so we walk willingly into a totalitarian state...

[Kirsten]

well a psychiatrist declared me sane two years ago, shows what they know.

[Necron2.0]

Except it is. It is the systematic, scientific study of human behaviour, that it can't precisely predict things is irrelevant. Are you sure you aren't confusing it with psychiatry?

I did say that I consider the study of behavior as being separate and not subject to my general observation that psychology is crap. The study of behavior actually produces quantifiable data. Outside of behavioral studies, much of psychology is not repeatable (related to the thought processes of the individual) or else is woefully lacking in objectivity (related to the study of psychological trends in a population).

In the latter case, much of the "research" is conducted through polls. Now many sciences use polled data to make inferences regarding a particular theory. In general there is nothing wrong with that, IF (strong "if") the proper level of skepticism is maintained to ensure the statistical data could have no other logical and rational interpretation. In some of the studies I've read, however, psychology willfully and routinely disregards that "if" clause, which from the perspective of a statistician completely invalidates the claimed findings. I have read numerous "findings" from psychologists that go something like, "We polled 'Z' people and found that 'X' percent had condition 'A'. We also found that 'X' percent had condition 'B'. This proves that 'A' causes 'B'."

This leaves me thinking to myself, "No ... what this proves is the researcher had no clue of the difference between 'causation' and 'correlation'."

This is similar to a study I read on global warming (Asside: this is not meant as the entry point into a discussion of global warming. This is merely an example of one report that, at the very least, wasn't presented well). The condensed version of the study stated that because they found ice cores that showed high concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during times when the planet was known have gotten hotter, this proved that carbon dioxide caused global warming. The problem there is ... which happenned first? The only way to suggest with that research that carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas is if the carbon showed up in the ice cores before the earth warmed up. Even that doesn't prove a causal relationship. The only thing the research shows is a correlation between hot earth and atmospheric carbon. I can suggest one scenario that breaks the causal link: earth warms up, forests dry out, forests catch fire, carbon in the atmosphere. From a statistical analysis perspective, because I can find at least one exception to the data, the data cannot be used to infer any form of causal link.

Another problem with polls, particularly in their application to psychology, is the phenomenon of poll bias. Unless the poll is administered very carefully, the polled individuals will have a tendency to skew their responses toward a pollster's intended outcome.

[eldargal]

I think you're taking a narrow facet of psychology to declare the whole thing a pseudoscience. Yes there is some shonky goings on happening but the same can be said of every field of science.

[Ze_Shoggoth]

I think you're taking a narrow facet of psychology to declare the whole thing a pseudoscience. Yes there is some shonky goings on happening but the same can be said of every field of science.

I'm not sure I would call it a science in any respect. As I remember a scientific Dicipline depends on Hypothosis, experimentation, and result. A theory relies on Hypothosis alone. I find metrology just as pointless.

As far as I understand psychologists rely on previous documentation and then attempt to slot you in to one of those holes. There are several leading scientists in criminal palaeontology, forensic disciplines, such as DNA, and Morticanal sciences which think of psychology as honestly extremely hit and miss, and as I have seen psychologists throw leads into stupid directions costing much more harm than good I cannot for any amount of respect concidering my personal experience think of psychology anymore accurate than fronology.

The Impact these people have it simply is shocking. 6 months of training and they can cost you years of work.

Psychiatry I have only slightly more respect for. Though in about 80 percent of times when they say its sex related I switch off.

Fatagn!