What Do You Think About Psychology?

Depends on the actual question, whether it's meant to be taken literal. In this example, querillabedlam asked a loaded question. It's obvious why people see a square, less obvious is why querill is just a dork with the responses. That may be of more interest to psychology, than loaded questions.

 

Or why you're spelling my name wrong?

 

There's no mystery there, it takes to long to spell out the whole thing.

 

Imagine if it was intentional, would you pick the mic back up?

 

Dyslexia, maybe?

 

i see 3 complete circles

 

None of you seem very smart and a few of you can't walk into a bar without eating it.

I'm 7 points from a genius

 

i don't see how either one is particularly lazy.

pathetic was probably not the right word to use. it was just annoying, because a vast majority of the more advanced psychology was just one person or another's interpretation of a very small number of case studies, disguised as science. at least philosophy admits that it's just some people sitting around thinking.

there are a few areas of psychology that are based on actual studies using scientific method and whatnot. even a lot of those used pretty iffy methods though. like using only freshman psychology students as subjects for example; it's convenient but i can't believe it's a truly accurate sample of the population.

 

I feel the same way about polls, specifically political ones. Do you think philosophy or psychology would better serve a more accurate conclusion, assuming political polls = freshman psychology students?

 

^ i'm probably being dense, but i don't get what you're asking.

 

I believe political polls are as skewed as your example of freshman psychologists being used to prove actual studies. What I'm asking is, you mentioned you'd rather have majored in philosophy, and I'm wondering which one of these fields do you personally think would represent a more accurate poll, when it comes to politics? Is philosophy less likely to have confirmation bias than psychology when it comes to empirical evidence?

 

i don't think there would really be any major difference between the two as far as that. they may not get the same results, but they would probably be equally inaccurate. the issue isn't in interpreting the results, it's in having a sample of people with generally similar age, background, and interests instead of a truly representative sample of the population.

i really only wish that i'd have majored in philosophy because i liked it better and got better grades in it. i stuck with psychology because i thought it would be more practical as far as future career prospects, but it turns out both subjects were equally impractical and the only point of getting a degree in either one, in my case, was to have a degree in something.

 

Can't you become a therapist or researcher with a PhD in psychology?

 

Nice one, I missed that

There is sense of a square though, this is basically an introduction to the impressionist movement. Suggestive rather than definitive.

We can see this in language, at best words can only form a vague description of a subjective reality, which is why everything is so open to interpretation and why I personally stress the importance of semantics.
There is no square, but it can be seen if looked for, much like the cross. The cross is actually a sharper observation because it's well balanced and clearly described by the frame. Looking for little quirks like that provides invaluable contextual information that can be used to develop a solid framework of perspective to integrate clearly identified data.

A lot more abstract I'll admit, but this is a kind of creative process that is somewhat out of our conscious control. It's equivalent to relaxing and letting your crops grow, just show up for harvest.


Edit: A nice example of Advaita

 

I agree with the language part and these are all aspects of why I find study of the mind so fascinating. An initial thought when it comes to the language issue seems obvious, Why wouldn't we just invent more words to diminish the vagueness in descriptions? Then we come to find that the average human only has a short term memory store of about 7 letters.

All these examples provide insight into the condition of the human mind and I think many can definitely gain insight into themselves as well.

 

Well this is it, mind is all there is. What we relate to as the outside world is only a reflection of the minds interpretation, so that's all we can ever really know. Everything else is hypothesis and relative to available technology and zeitgeists of the time.

This is why most psychologists are so full of shit because they're like children putting stickers they got from their university sticker books on anything they can, and the really scary thing is that they will.
And do!


Jung, however, now he was on to something.

 

That is philosophy

 

I prefer to call it applied philosophy, but, you're not wrong.

 

As a practicing psychologist of many years, I find that it is the best way of getting young beautiful patients into bed.

...and if any unwanted babies should result, it provides a great tool for rationalizing and manipulating a termination of the pregnancy.



I'm joking! I'm joking! I'm not a psychologist. I use philosophy to get girls into bed...


Seriously though----philosophers such as Foucault have treated and studied psychology as a philosophy.

I think Jungian psychology gives us some amazing insights into life, human nature, spirituality, history, and so forth. I would also argue that psychology/psychiatry puts too much emphasis on Freud. But I've never been a patient.