Is Psychology About to Come Undone? - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Native Hunter;35623029]so science might beet phycology[/QUOTE] Phycology is the study of algae and beet is a plant.

Psychology isn't going to "come undone" because 3 magazines are going to have their experiments re-tested.

Psychology isn't just a research-based study. A lot of it is unempirical philosophy and logic, too.

[QUOTE=barttool;35623376]I'm more inclined to say Psychology isn't an exact science.[/QUOTE] It's not a natural science. It's a behavioral science Biology, it's a life science; not a natural science. Give me physics any day!

[QUOTE=prooboo;35630136]Psychology isn't just a research-based study. A lot of it is unempirical philosophy and logic, too.[/QUOTE] uh what

[QUOTE=prooboo;35630136]Psychology isn't just a research-based study. A lot of it is unempirical philosophy and logic, too.[/QUOTE] True maybe 50 years ago

The entire point of a procedure in a scientific test is to allow for others to retest. Conclusions mean nothing without a methodology.

The title is so incredibly dumb. It's gaining even more credibility by doing this, not being undone wow. This is pretty much what psychology is though. Test, re-test, someone else tests etc. etc. Even then, if the findings differ most of the time they share quite a bit of similarities.

[QUOTE=Ogris;35652538]The title is so incredibly dumb. It's gaining even more credibility by doing this, not being undone wow. This is pretty much what psychology is though. Test, re-test, someone else tests etc. etc. Even then, if the findings differ most of the time they share quite a bit of similarities.[/QUOTE] I couldn't think of a better title than what was in the original article ..

[QUOTE=King Tiger;35626593]Psychology is a hard field because everyone thinks and acts differently in different situations. Sometimes, experiments aren't easily verifiable like physics or chemistry experiments.[/QUOTE] Chemistry experiments aren't easily verifiable either... I am sure that is true for some parts of physics as well. This is why the peer review process is so tedious. You have a bunch of experts in a similar field looking at it and some are wanting to publish their own work on the subject so they postpone looking at your article and what not. They also may disagree, you may make one claim and in all their research they haven't witnessed the same thing. A small variable can cause your experiment to differ from expected results.

I do not fully get the article. I study psychology and one of the criterias of scientifc research is to replicate studies and experiments to prove that they have a signifcant effect or a similiar outcome as before. That is nothing special.

[QUOTE=junker|154;35654873]I do not fully get the article. I study psychology and one of the criterias of scientifc research is to replicate studies and experiments to prove that they have a signifcant effect or a similiar outcome as before. That is nothing special.[/QUOTE] That is usually done before the studies get published. The whole point of publishing to a journal is to publish something a number of experts have agreed upon and decided is sound. Going back and reviewing articles already published for the pure fact of finding articles which are not held to this standard is a bit different then just reproducing experiments.

Well when an experiment or study is conducted, there are really strong criterias to keep the outcome pure not not biased in any way or that the result is simply a matter of coincidence. If the results are being accepted by the scientific community then it will be published. Afterwards a lot of universities and scientists replicate the study to ensure that the result was not a coincidence or a lucky strike.

[QUOTE=junker|154;35655065]Well when an experiment or study is conducted, there are really strong criterias to keep the outcome pure not not biased in any way or that the result is simply a matter of coincidence. If the results are being accepted by the scientific community then it will be published. Afterwards a lot of universities and scientists replicate the study to ensure that the result was not a coincidence or a lucky strike.[/QUOTE] [url]http://scienceinthetriangle.org/2010/07/dukes-pottigate-another-scandal/[/url] Welcome to the scientific community. It isn't all honest and nice as you would think it would be.

[QUOTE=junker|154;35655065]Well when an experiment or study is conducted, [B]there are really strong criterias to keep the outcome pure not not biased in any way or that the result is simply a matter of coincidence.[/B] If the results are being accepted by the scientific community then it will be published. Afterwards a lot of universities and scientists replicate the study to ensure that the result was not a coincidence or a lucky strike.[/QUOTE] the standards are pretty shoddy

You might be right, I am still pretty much a novice in all this. But I participated in some studies and learned a lot about them. Maybe the theory glorified to much this scientific community.

[QUOTE=junker|154;35662678]You might be right, I am still pretty much a novice in all this. But I participated in some studies and learned a lot about them. Maybe the theory glorified to much this scientific community.[/QUOTE] What kind of studies were you in? I'm interested.

Holy motherland that's a advanced article. My english is so bad, could someone explain in short ways what they mean? Really want to know this, if I now have understand the title at all

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;35662755]What kind of studies were you in? I'm interested.[/QUOTE] As a participant you are not really aware of what it is all about, most studies keep it secret from you so that you do not change your behavior in any way. But some are quite obvious. I participated in some which analyses the relation between violent pc games and aggressive behavior, some games which featured a lot of sexuality and some sexism, then you had to read a story about a girl who was being molested and answer some questions. Also if games help to reduce stress and frustration. Also some about racism and such. This year most of the studies that are being conducted at out university are based around games, it is the main theme this year.

[QUOTE=junker|154;35667370]As a participant you are not really aware of what it is all about, most studies keep it secret from you so that you do not change your behavior in any way. But some are quite obvious. I participated in some which analyses the relation between violent pc games and aggressive behavior, some games which featured a lot of sexuality and some sexism, then you had to read a story about a girl who was being molested and answer some questions. Also if games help to reduce stress and frustration. Also some about racism and such. This year most of the studies that are being conducted at out university are based around games, it is the main theme this year.[/QUOTE] Interesting study. I'm curious about how you rated the different variables. I assume you used a multiple regression analysis? Recent study my Psych department did was see if there was a relationship between need for cognition, need for closure, and Big Five personality factors and likelihood to vote. The section that voted on what to name our study almost came to "Spongebob Study". I swear, even Psychology has it numbnuts sometimes :v:.

[QUOTE=Jocke;35662819]Holy motherland that's a advanced article. My english is so bad, could someone explain in short ways what they mean? Really want to know this, if I now have understand the title at all[/QUOTE] The title is bullshit. Basically, a peer-review group is re-running each of the experiments detailed in those publications over the course of 2008. For reference, this is how empirical evidence in scientific fields works. Evidence must be independently reproducible (even if doing so would be infeasible, such as the case in many advanced physics experiments requiring extremely expensive apparati, the evidence must be presented in excruciating detail such that it could be reproduced given the means). This group is simply undertaking an extremely commonplace practice in scientific research in order to verify the results published in these journals. e.g. I tell you that, strike a match, it will light. You may verify this by buying your own match and striking it to see whether or not it will, in fact, light. Psychology is only going to "come undone" if everyone in every one of those publications flat-out lied and fabricated their methods and their results. That simply is not the case. At very most, this might expose a few flawed experiments or misinterpreted results here and there (which happens all of the time in every scientific field that has ever existed). It is not going to suddenly and irreparably destroy the field of psychology. [editline]21st April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;35660934]the standards are pretty shoddy[/QUOTE] Thank you for your input, Dr. Expert.

[QUOTE=Vaught;35667878]Interesting study. I'm curious about how you rated the different variables. I assume you used a multiple regression analysis? Recent study my Psych department did was see if there was a relationship between need for cognition, need for closure, and Big Five personality factors and likelihood to vote. The section that voted on what to name our study almost came to "Spongebob Study". I swear, even Psychology has it numbnuts sometimes :v:.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately I do not know what king of scientific methods they used, most of the research is based on qualitive methods. I had one interesting study where I had to resolve some difficult math tests with a limited amount of time and then rate my feelings and my personal wellbeing. Afterwards I did this test again but it was ridiculously hard and completely insane with was really frustrating. After a while the participants neeede to play Hitman Contracts and run around in the first level. Then you had to rate your feelings and wellbeing. I guess it was about how frustration modifies your mood while playing games. Besides my university teacher in social psychology made a study using Far Cry on how people cooperate or choose to fight for themselves. It is really funny :v:

[QUOTE=Lankist;35667987]Psychology is only going to "come undone" if everyone in every one of those publications flat-out lied and fabricated their methods and their results. That simply is not the case.[/quote] no, only a substantial portion though yeah it's a bit misleading. if a large amount of these studies end up looking dubious, then it doesn't mean psychology is bad, it means that the methods used are bad. you have to remember that parapsychology uses the exact same statistical methods as regular psychology and they still manage to get "statistically significant results" even when it's complete tripe.

Yeah, sometimes it is easy to find affirmation if you look for one. Science is all about proofing that things are wrong, a result has more scientific value if it was proven wrong than right. Anyway it is relativly easy to find the expected results due to confirmation bias or some correlation studies which prove that there might be a relation between to variables but it does not prove that there a variable is causing the other variable.