which category are you under?

Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
Teddy Roosevelt.

The Square Deal was the culmination of Classical Liberalism
Click to expand...
Teddy funded, in secret, the Japanese attack on Korea to spread imperialism. That didn't come back to bite us and clearly displays the live and let live classical liberal doctrine.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
UncleBuck said:
are you being serious?
Click to expand...
Yes. The only psychology i have seen (and I admit that my training is in the physical sciences) is both statistical and retrospective. That is incomplete science. To be complete it must have a corpus of theory, not just retrospective observation with uncertain organizational principles. Theory is distinguished from hypothesis by making testable and definite predictions that also hold true. Astrology makes definite and testable predictions, but (not only don't they stand scrutiny but) they don't derive from a unified foundation of premises. I don't think psychologists even agree about what a phenomenon means, let alone how it predicts future behavior. I could be wrong.
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Yes. The only psychology i have seen (and I admit that my training is in the physical sciences) is both statistical and retrospective. That is incomplete science. To be complete it must have a corpus of theory, not just retrospective observation with uncertain organizational principles. Theory is distinguished from hypothesis by making testable and definite predictions that also hold true. Astrology makes definite and testable predictions, but (not only don't they stand scrutiny but) they don't derive from a unified foundation of premises. I don't think psychologists even agree about what a phenomenon means, let alone how it predicts future behavior. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
We can currently figure out which muscles make facial movements. Those we can control and those which happen involuntarily have allowed us to do the same for chimps. Emotions unique to humans are being mapped as a result. We have also figured out emotions are universal amoung all people, but are masked because of culture and how that becomes a basis of conflict. Just like in the animal kingdom facial expressions get masked in front of the dominant.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Canna Sylvan said:
We can currently figure out which muscles make facial movements. Those we can control and those which happen involuntarily have allowed us to do the same for chimps. Emotions unique to humans are being mapped as a result. We have also figured out emotions are universal amoung all people, but are masked because of culture and how that becomes a basis of conflict. Just like in the animal kingdom facial expressions get masked in front of the dominant.
Click to expand...
I find that fascinating but would call it neurobiology rather than psychology. When AC talks about conservative mindsets and cognitive ability, we've left instrumented neurobio behind.

I am truly curious what theory (definite, fact, consistent and predictive) stands behind the statement he chose as the banner for psychology's theoretical contribution. A peer-reviewed assertion that this is fact, with statistics backing it, won't do, and he knows that. That is mere data gathering and workup. So it's "I call your hand" time and I want to see the theory.
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I find that fascinating but would call it neurobiology rather than psychology. When AC talks about conservative mindsets and cognitive ability, we've left instrumented neurobio behind.

I am truly curious what theory (definite, fact, consistent and predictive) stands behind the statement he chose as the banner for psychology's theoretical contribution. A peer-reviewed assertion that this is fact, with statistics backing it, won't do, and he knows that. That is mere data gathering and workup. So it's "I call your hand" time and I want to see the theory.
Click to expand...
That's what the book I ordered coming tomorrow is about. The book has the label psychology.It's based 100% on observing how a stim causes muscles to react and we react in kind to the resulting facial reaction. Seems rather scientific to me.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I don't think "predictability" is the right word. I suggest "predictivity". A scientific theory has two hallmarks: 1) it accounts for all the facts available, and 2) it has definite predictive value.

This is why i have issue saying that there are economic and psychological theories. Nobody agrees what will happen if premises xxxx are satisfied. There are competing, contradictory models that rely heavily upon the forgiving power of statistics, which places these disciplines in their infancies.

Finding statistical correlations is of only limited value. Until a model can be tested to the point of earning the label theory (for which it needs to make substantive and falsifiable predictions) it is hypothesis.
Click to expand...
The basics are quite predicable. A boot camp. A police stop. I have done a lot of mammal training including here and at work. :) And I am ruthless on, yours truly. Ram Das, used to say, "if the body wants shade, sit in the sun."

The Theory of Human Behavior is all that is practiced for power. It is all that is needed.

I really don't know what you mean here. If you set up conditions mammals, including humans will responds almost identically.

In a police stop people will respond almost identically to various ploys they teach.

Now, I will hear you say, not all motivators of human behavior are known, not all are tested.

I think they are all known and tested by greed, protection, sacrifice betrayal, and conquest from the beginning. This is all meant to exclude pop psychology and goofy, I thought, that they thought, so I shouda said, stuff.

It is also meant to exclude psycho-analysis as anything but part of the problem. I already said the only problem as far as that goes, for day to day. We never get to a reasoning mind before, in a few days, we are fooled into thinking happiness is a construct of the environment.

This can take years of practice to remember all the time, while the babble-mind messes it up, but the enlightenment takes but an instant.

I will have to add, that when you read about this, you might find a lot of controversy. Is it science or even scientific if you are not allowed to experiment on human subjects.

I say, that is so recent, it is hardly necessary. Plenty of evidence on these experiments in the history of oppression of fellow humans.

BTW, I just say a very interesting movie. Out of the Ashes. About a Jewish Doctor that was forced to assist Dr. Joe.
The entire Nazi record is a study in the Theory.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I find that fascinating but would call it neurobiology rather than psychology. When AC talks about conservative mindsets and cognitive ability, we've left instrumented neurobio behind.

I am truly curious what theory (definite, fact, consistent and predictive) stands behind the statement he chose as the banner for psychology's theoretical contribution. A peer-reviewed assertion that this is fact, with statistics backing it, won't do, and he knows that. That is mere data gathering and workup. So it's "I call your hand" time and I want to see the theory.
Click to expand...
I do in fact take for granted that peer reviewed scientific study means academic research. If you're only going to be satisfied by theory, go take some psychology classes.

What I do know is that psychology is a scientific discipline recognized by mainstream academia and taught as a science in universities and even ivy league colleges. When a major psychology journal claims that a study is peer reviewed and draws a conclusion it is good enough for me.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Yes. The only psychology i have seen (and I admit that my training is in the physical sciences) is both statistical and retrospective. That is incomplete science. To be complete it must have a corpus of theory, not just retrospective observation with uncertain organizational principles. Theory is distinguished from hypothesis by making testable and definite predictions that also hold true. Astrology makes definite and testable predictions, but (not only don't they stand scrutiny but) they don't derive from a unified foundation of premises. I don't think psychologists even agree about what a phenomenon means, let alone how it predicts future behavior. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
you're comparing the daily predictions for gemini to the asch conformity experiments?

the monthly outlook for pisces to chemical imbalances in the brain?

psychology can make any number of testable theories with predictions that hold true.

psychologists may not be splitting the atom, calculating launch trajectories, or uncovering the secrets of the higgs-boson, but it is definitely a science.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
The basics are quite predicable. A boot camp. A police stop. I have done a lot of mammal training including here and at work. :) And I am ruthless on, yours truly. Ram Das, used to say, "if the body wants shade, sit in the sun."

The Theory of Human Behavior is all that is practiced for power. It is all that is needed.

I really don't know what you mean here. If you set up conditions mammals, including humans will responds almost identically.

In a police stop people will respond almost identically to various ploys they teach.

Now, I will hear you say, not all motivators of human behavior are known, not all are tested.

I think they are all known and tested by greed, protection, sacrifice betrayal, and conquest from the beginning. This is all meant to exclude pop psychology and goofy, I thought, that they thought, so I shouda said, stuff.

It is also meant to exclude psycho-analysis as anything but part of the problem. I already said the only problem as far as that goes, for day to day. We never get to a reasoning mind before, in a few days, we are fooled into thinking happiness is a construct of the environment.

This can take years of practice to remember all the time, while the babble-mind messes it up, but the enlightenment takes but an instant.

I will have to add, that when you read about this, you might find a lot of controversy. Is it science or even scientific if you are not allowed to experiment on human subjects.

I say, that is so recent, it is hardly necessary. Plenty of evidence on these experiments in the history of oppression of fellow humans.

BTW, I just say a very interesting movie. Out of the Ashes. About a Jewish Doctor that was forced to assist Dr. Joe.
The entire Nazi record is a study in the Theory.
Click to expand...
any fool can lead a horse around by it's bridle. that doesnt prove the fool to be a master horseman.

any fool can drive a car, but most have no clue what's inside the mysterious components under the hood.

any fool can run game on a broad, successful game doesnt prove the player is a master of female psychology, and failed game doesnt mean the broad has somehow mastered OUR psychology.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
abandonconflict said:
I do in fact take for granted that peer reviewed scientific study means academic research. If you're only going to be satisfied by theory, go take some psychology classes.

What I do know is that psychology is a scientific discipline recognized by mainstream academia and taught as a science in universities and even ivy league colleges. When a major psychology journal claims that a study is peer reviewed and draws a conclusion it is good enough for me.
Click to expand...
I agree with "academic research" and "recognized discipline". But "science" is self-promotion, even or especially in the Ivies.

I don't say that the discipline is without value. But when people invoke psychology they imply a predictive value that i have not seen supported. That is where my dissent is in re using psychology to make certain claims.
Example: there is a tremendous amount of "junk science" based on fallacious process on both sides of the gun ownership debate. No unifying theoretical framework, just a series of soapbox pulpits.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
any fool can lead a horse around by it's bridle. that doesnt prove the fool to be a master horseman.

any fool can drive a car, but most have no clue what's inside the mysterious components under the hood.

any fool can run game on a broad, successful game doesnt prove the player is a master of female psychology, and failed game doesnt mean the broad has somehow mastered OUR psychology.
Click to expand...
Any fool can say any fool, any fool.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/emergency,+safety+and+infrastructure/Safety+at+home+and+in+the+community/Child+protection

If a child tells you someone is harming them

Parents may think a child is lying if they talk about sexual abuse, especially if they mention someone who is trusted. Children can make up stories about many things but they don't usually lie or make up stories about sexual matters.*
If a child tells you that someone is harming them:

  • listen to them. Don't dismiss what they say. It takes a lot of courage for a child to tell about abuse. Reassure them that they are right to tell you
  • stay calm. They may be afraid to say more if you are shocked or upset
  • don't ask lots of questions. Let them tell you in their own words at their own pace
  • make sure that the child is safe and let them know you will do your best to stop them being harmed
  • contact the Child Abuse Report Line on 13 14 78. They can help you work out what to do. They are required to keep your details confidential.
Take action if a child tells you someone is harming them. You may be the only person they tell.
Click to expand...
they forgot one:

if your child cries going to a place they once normally had no issue with..
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I agree with "academic research" and "recognized discipline". But "science" is self-promotion, even or especially in the Ivies.

I don't say that the discipline is without value. But when people invoke psychology they imply a predictive value that i have not seen supported. That is where my dissent is in re using psychology to make certain claims.
Example: there is a tremendous amount of "junk science" based on fallacious process on both sides of the gun ownership debate. No unifying theoretical framework, just a series of soapbox pulpits.
Click to expand...
The difference between junk science and peer reviewed study is vast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top