Psychology - Science or Religion?

Psychology has adopted the scientific mode. However, from a strictly scientific point of view, it has not been able to meet the requirements of true science.

Anti-depression medicine that makes you commit suicide??

It's all good in the wide, fraudulent worlds of psychology and psychiatry.

>>41
Failed attempt at conflating psychology and psychiatry detected.

>>41
I suggest this person subscribe to the very things they protest...I think we would very much like to see those results...}:q

Psychology is still a parascience for me, perhaps on the way to become a science, but it is still a longway to go (Neuro-science, is a subfield i accept)!

But the mainproblem is that Psychology is judgemental, and with this mix it will never! be a science.
Trying to define what is normal, what is wrong etc.

Really pathetic.

>>44
Never is a word that should never be used in a sentence...never.
The potential to use psychology is to understand that perception (each individual's) is relative to that person's physical stature, mental intellect, and ability to balance both. The science would more approximately be to first understand yourself and become as balanced as possible, then you will be able to be more of a psychologist and thereby be more apt to understand the nature of the human brain functions.
IMHO. The potential exists, but for others to understand this potential, they have to first have faith in something that might be there as opposed to believing or even knowing it's absolutely not. The same goes for money, women, and a potentially new future lifestyle. No difference choice, but environment. :)

>>45
Never is a word i will always use, if "science" is mixed up with judgemental conclusions.

Judgement can change fast with change within society.

As i stated early, psychology is on its way to become a science.
But to judge somebody, you must fully understand the matter first.

But look psychology nowadays...mostly total bullshit, especially Behaviourism etc.
And then the other extreme, dealing all "problems" with drugs.



One word: arbitrariness

>>46
no idea

>>47

no brain

Psychology is medicine. How feelings manifest into physical symptoms. I'll stick it out there and say it's a science.

Science or not, psychology gets the job done. It turns out, science is not the only beneficial discipline that man does. Apparently our brains are capable of more than one mode of operation. Saying that science has exclusive rights on truth is utter faggotry.

>psychology gets the job done

Have never laughed so hard until now.

Drugging you until you become so dumb that you forget your problems is surerly a solution.

The incosistencies in these fields are so fucking obvious that even idiots can lie their asses off to abuse the system for their own benefits.

Hm, but as a owner of a pharma-concern i would support.

>>51
Psychology has nothing to do with any of that. They put people in small rooms and see if they prefer giving red or blue marbles to feminine faces more often after being shown an image of Dick Cheney dressed up as a clown, and stuff like that.

Sorry , but all those stupid categorizations are just based on shaky positions.

And the most laughable thing is that Psychology defines! what happinies is.

This is so sick.

But who cares.

In the end it is all about power.

>>51

Dear retarded fuck, learn the difference between psychology, psychiatry and neuropsychiatry.

>>54

Dear retarded fuck, please realize that psychiatry is basing their methods and claims on psychology.

PSYCHOLOGY == pretty big field, some of it much more rigorous than the rest.

Some stuff is helping to improve rigourousness; funding only being granted after review to check methodology, etc.  Research having to achieve certain standards before it can be used.

Some stuff is interesting - CBT and various other treatments based around CBT.  The PTSD treatment that invovles eyemovements - they showed the the eye flicking is actually an important part.

>>55
Tom Cruise is a /sci/tard

\mu \left[
\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) -
2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} +
\frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta}
\right]

\mu \left[
\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) -
2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} +
\frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta}
\right]
[i][b][math]\mu \left[
\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) -
2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} +
\frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta}
\right][/b][/i]

\mu \left[
\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) -
2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} +
\frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta}
\right]

^{\mu \left[
\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) -
2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} +
\frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta}
\right]}

^{\mu \left[
\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) -
2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} +
\frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta}
\right]}

\mu \left[
\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) -
2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} +
\frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta}
\right]

\mu \left[
\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} +
\frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) -
2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} +
\frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta}
\right]

\frac{d}{{dx}} {4chan}

>>64
is that the formula for balls touching

Psychology is fail, because it is more based on claims than a fundamental theory with deduction and induction and so on.

Whatever.
Believe what you want, cause IN THE END IT IS ALL BELIEVE, even PHYSICS, yes you hear right.

We can experience things within our capabilities to do so (including building devices for measuring etc.)

But looking at it relatively, than Psychology is really a shame because of the judgemental part!

SCIENCE IS NEVER JUDGEMENTAL!

\mu \left[ \frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2 \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial r}\right) + \frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)^2} \frac{\partial^2 u_r}{\partial \theta^2} + \frac{1}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\left(\sin(\phi) \frac{\partial u_r}{\partial \phi}\right) - 2 \frac{u_r + \frac{\partial u_{\phi}}{\partial \phi} + u_{\phi} \cot(\phi)}{r^2} + \frac{2}{r^2 \sin(\phi)} \frac{\partial u_{\theta}}{\partial \theta} \right]

science isn't judgmental, but humans that conduct scientific study, research, and experimentation are. They have to judge that what they are seeing is real, they have to accept that their faculties are working perfectly, they have to document the findings through the portal of their perceptions, which is no different than me typing my ideas through this text-only board for all of you to interpret and accept and then test to verify. If you accept, then question, if you deny you will unwittingly do that which you abhor. This is known as repressed compulsions, some people call it biological impulses, I call it denying the antithesis. For every action there is an equal and opposing reaction. Thus, 1 = +1 + -1. Upon activity there is resistance to that activity and the activity of causation. With overwhelming activity, the inactivity of resistance is reduced. This process even works with the human mind. But who am I to say, I'm just a lowly human being...right? And everyone else has all the answers, but not me...right? Everyone else is right...right? To accept this is no different then reinforcing mysticism, denying the antithesis (the resistance or inactivity) will actually draw you closer to the resistance and away from activity. Therefore, denial slows you down, acceptance sweeps you away in its momentum, questioning gets you involved in the processes and upon knowing all sides of things, movements can be apportioned appropriately to afford a previously unknown outcome. Perhaps that of perfection...perhaps that of just being less wrong. Who really knows the absolutes, after all...aren't we basically all relative observers in our own locations? Aren't all absolutes perceived through that relativity? ...just something to think about, or not; the choice is always yours, but do you really want that choice?

So I can honestly say these next things...
Science is no different from religion in the fact that it takes humans to practice either.

In life there are three types of people;
1) Those that practice the mysticisms of religion and accept them as truth; these people never question what is and never experience the details thus their ideas are always shrouded in darkness of their own brilliant ignorance, thus they are in blissful contention.

2) Those that practice the art of denying the antithesis, thus they believe themselves never wrong and always everyone else is wrong, but they never question whether they are wrong, thus between both 1 and 2, a sense of individuality is lost in the overwhelming sea of "everything and everyone is like me" syndrome.

3) Those that know they don't have the answers, but because they know they don't have the answers they question why? The research the ideas they want to know and experience the processes and events to obtain the details of the actions, and by doing so eventually form a sense of difference with everything and everyone around them to discover they are an individual amongst other individuals who believe they are part of a whole. Thus, even this person realizes that he/she has the potential to do just as 1 and 2, but because of this realization they are able to make a choice of differentiation. To explore the path of the unknown. To break down the corridors of absolute and risk being perceived by all as a "shit disturber". And to do this is to use communication. This person actually is the hardest working of all as this person has to put up with people who don't know who they are and those that think they know, but really have no clue and believe that everyone else is of this sickness and they alone are immune. So this person has to form a "common ground" between himself and these people who know nothing of themselves and that everyone else is wrong or just like them, so their motives are to shut the other person up with their attitudes and demeanor in order to be alone or to make the other person like them so their loneliness is consoled. This makes for a very dedicated individual who perseveres even beyond this level of childishness. But because this person understands where these motives come from and would appreciate the same courtesies, he/she allows the others to do as they please and present them with exactly what they are looking for:
Those that accept everything they are told without challenging it and attempt to associate themselves with a "club/conformist" mentality are met with a different viewpoint of the same mysticisms they worship. example? I was told that Christianity was a religion of fulfillment and acceptance; I personally had no vested interest in associating myself with these people so in order for them to leave me alone I told them this, "I believe that Jesus is like the roots of a tree, without the roots a person can not grow to their fullest potential." They took this as a sign of true understanding, thus they didn't question me further and I was content as well, we both got what we wanted. I knew of these types from when I was a child, so not so hard to deal with.
The others are the ones that piss me off the most and that's why I get so pissed at myself when I find myself doing the same or see others doing the same. It's like looking in a fucking mirror without any control whatsoever, INFURIATING! So the common ground with these people is to state your opinion, and then if they challenge you and deny what you say as truth or absolute, good, begin to agree with them they too want you to be "converted", but to realize this won't convert you, your goal would be to leave these people to their own isolations just as they themselves wish. This person, number 3, is even smarter...they know how both types work and thus use their own unknown wants and biological functions against them and allow them to cannibalize themselves to death, also known as debt slavery. This is why these types are the most successful and eventually become rocket scientists or computer engineers.

These are the people that build rockets and go to the moon, but without the people like 1 or 2, how would we know to do this...?

A very challenging question, I guess we would have to experience what they do and perhaps lose ourselves in order to find out. I have done both and become as both in a solid state of ambiguity and anonymity amongst all who are visible to myself, and thus I believe that I would consider myself an Omega personality as I am enslaved to both alpha and beta personalities. I consider the third type person to be a sigma personality, one who integrates themselves amidst their environment, but challenges themselves by questioning what others tell them to do or say or think or feel or know. Any deviation perceived by myself was then assimilated as a form of chauvinism that reminds me of an old Japanese proverb; the nail that sticks out gets hammered. I have faith that being hammered isn't such a bad thing, after all don't we all get hammered little by little over the years? Why not do something? These are the questions I ask myself and find that I am willing to do these things to prove myself to myself that I'm willing to do what I need to in order to surpass my own knowledge base, my own point of origin. I have been formulating how to understand what a point of origin is:

Point of Origin is the state of safety, fulfillment, serenity, bliss, content, satisfaction, easy, a habitual sensation, a natural form of being or activity with little or no resistance.

It is my understanding that this point of origin is flexible, but has a strong firmament in whatever point it happens to reside within, I believe some call it a "mud hell" and others call it "natural talent". The more you apply yourself in any direction that deviates from the "norm" of your point of origin -that being relative to each individual- will strain upon that point of origin, but with due diligence even perseverance over time will overwhelm that point of origin and the practiced will then become the new point of origin, or habit. The reason for this point of origin understanding is that our bodies run off of chemicals, these chemicals have long lasting effect upon every cell structure they happen to interact with and any inconsistencies in their daily dosages will result in withdrawal which leads to the need for action, usually that which will fulfill the need the easiest or quickest without little or no resistance. This is no different than an animal, but aren't all biological structures similar to a degree and then relative afterward?

To pull away from habit is to do things differently every day, but with a memorable and simple function that persists at accomplishing such a task so that pulling out of habit becomes the habit, it becomes the point of origin, it makes you flexible and open-minded, at least in theory. I can only express my own experiences to you, my own details; it is you that lack the understanding of what I say, therefore a true scientist does as the Native Americans did when the first clipper ships came to the shores of North America. They accepted that something was out there beyond the horizon because the waves were hitting their feet more intensely than usual, and upon continual perseverant observation, the vision of the ships appeared to them and they were bewildered as to the nature of what such a thing would be out on the open ocean. If we don't use the tools we are given, the tools we have learned will rust and the wisdom that we've gained by practice will fade in time, and once again we will be back in the dark ages arguing about the use of money as currancy for trade of goods or services...ah, I see we are currently doing so...perhaps it is too late...perhaps not. Who is to say?

>>67
Don't be dumb, anyone can set up a system of knowledge based on axioms without even refering to the actual world.  What you have in that case is mere mathematics, not science.

>>71
Please learn to read.

Someone who covers themselves in poop is a poopiphile.  They love it.  It would never be because they are trying to make themselves repulsive.  That never happens.  Everyony wants to be famous.

Except that's sort of like psychology.  If poopiphilia is all that gets taught about people who cover themselves in poop, then the problem never gets treated, just the symptoms. 

That's why psychology fails.  It covers general human psychological conditions wothout creating a fix.  It's a treatment, not a cure, and therefore it's a religion.

>>72
YOU
>>73
And you are Tom Cruise.

>>74
And you are god.  I worship you, because you know everything.  Now go fuck yourself.

>>75
I smite thee for insolence.  NO HEAVEN FOR YOU, ASSHOLE

>>76

pish, like it's really that much fun to be locked in a perpetual dope nod, anyway.

>>67

ur taking it personally => ur doin it rong!

>>77

in before virgins

>>78
What is personal?

I just stated the facts.

Psychology is way to much incosistent for me to be taken seriously.
And the more ridiculous thing is that it is judgemental.

Hm...sounds good , doesn't it?

But if i would be somebody somehow related to the branches of psychology money-wise, i would sure support it.
The only rational reason i can think of.

>>77
When did that happen to you?  Proper medication for the majority of cases leaves you feeling better, not roofied.  Anyway, prescribing medicine is the realm of the psychiatrist and is only a subset of the wide field of psychology.

>>79
Actually one complaint I have is that it is not judgemental enough.  People need judgement; some more than others.  What are you doing that you feel people are judging you unfairly for?