Psychologists study cognitive, emotional, and social processes and behavior by observing, interpreting, and recording how individuals relate to one another and to their environments. They use their findings to help improve processes and behaviors.

Some psychologists work independently, conducting research, consulting with clients, or working with patients. Others work as part of a healthcare team, collaborating with physicians and social workers , or in school settings, working with students, teachers , parents, and other educators. Those in private practice often work evenings and weekends to accommodate clients.

Although psychologists typically need a doctoral degree in psychology, a master’s degree is sufficient for some positions. Most psychologists also need a license.

Impelled in part by some of the dismissive comments I have seen on /r/science , I thought I would take the opportunity of the new Science Discussion format to wade into the question of whether psychology should be considered a ‘real’ science, but also more broadly about where psychology fits in and what it can tell us about science.

By way of introduction, I come from the Skinnerian tradition of studying the behaviour of animals based on consequences of behaviour (e.g., reinforcement). This tradition has a storied history of pushing for psychology to be a science. When I apply for funding, I do so through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada – not through health or social sciences agencies. On the other hand, I also take the principles of behaviourism to study 'unobservable' cognitive phenomena in animals, including time perception and metacognition.

So… is psychology a science? Science is broadly defined as the study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments or controlled observation . It depends on empirical evidence (observed data, not beliefs), control (that cause and effect can only be determined by minimizing extraneous variables), objective definitions (specific and quantifiable terms) and predictability (that data should be reproduced in similar situations in the future). Does psychological research fit these parameters?

Though the debate between simulation and tacit-theory is still raging in psychology and philosophy, there has been growing support for a hybrid position which accepts that some of our predictions are made through belief and desire attribution, and others are made through simulation (Kuehberger and Perner 1997). In this paper I wish to embellish on this view of how we predict behavior. I will do this through examining two sets of questions which are not sufficiently addressed within this debate:

Within the tacit-theory, How do we develop the database? That is, How do we gain knowledge about human behavior in specific circumstances? How does one know that there are no other salient characteristics in a situation? And, How does one adjudicate between two conflicting rules?

Within simulation, How is it that we have to ability to predict our own behavior? That is, How do we know what we would do in a given circumstance? How do we learn how to behave?

The word is derived from Greek θεωρία theoria (Jerome), Greek "contemplation, speculation", from θεωρός "spectator", θέα thea "a view" + ὁρᾶν horan "to see", literally "looking at a show". [1] A second possible etymology traces the word back to το θείον to theion "divine things" instead of thea , reflecting the concept of contemplating the divine organisation (Cosmos) of the nature. It is attested in English since 1592. [2]

Finally, in pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by official organizations of scientists one gets a definition like the following.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact. [6]

Suicide is statistically the tenth most common cause of death, with some one million people taking their own lives each year, but how successful is psychology at recognising when someone may be at risk of making a suicide attempt?

Not particularly, it turns out, with a meta-analysis published recently in  Psychological Bulletin  suggesting that our success rate in predicting when someone is going to attempt suicide is no better than a coin flip.

Psychologists study cognitive, emotional, and social processes and behavior by observing, interpreting, and recording how individuals relate to one another and to their environments. They use their findings to help improve processes and behaviors.

Some psychologists work independently, conducting research, consulting with clients, or working with patients. Others work as part of a healthcare team, collaborating with physicians and social workers , or in school settings, working with students, teachers , parents, and other educators. Those in private practice often work evenings and weekends to accommodate clients.

Although psychologists typically need a doctoral degree in psychology, a master’s degree is sufficient for some positions. Most psychologists also need a license.

Impelled in part by some of the dismissive comments I have seen on /r/science , I thought I would take the opportunity of the new Science Discussion format to wade into the question of whether psychology should be considered a ‘real’ science, but also more broadly about where psychology fits in and what it can tell us about science.

By way of introduction, I come from the Skinnerian tradition of studying the behaviour of animals based on consequences of behaviour (e.g., reinforcement). This tradition has a storied history of pushing for psychology to be a science. When I apply for funding, I do so through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada – not through health or social sciences agencies. On the other hand, I also take the principles of behaviourism to study 'unobservable' cognitive phenomena in animals, including time perception and metacognition.

So… is psychology a science? Science is broadly defined as the study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments or controlled observation . It depends on empirical evidence (observed data, not beliefs), control (that cause and effect can only be determined by minimizing extraneous variables), objective definitions (specific and quantifiable terms) and predictability (that data should be reproduced in similar situations in the future). Does psychological research fit these parameters?

Though the debate between simulation and tacit-theory is still raging in psychology and philosophy, there has been growing support for a hybrid position which accepts that some of our predictions are made through belief and desire attribution, and others are made through simulation (Kuehberger and Perner 1997). In this paper I wish to embellish on this view of how we predict behavior. I will do this through examining two sets of questions which are not sufficiently addressed within this debate:

Within the tacit-theory, How do we develop the database? That is, How do we gain knowledge about human behavior in specific circumstances? How does one know that there are no other salient characteristics in a situation? And, How does one adjudicate between two conflicting rules?

Within simulation, How is it that we have to ability to predict our own behavior? That is, How do we know what we would do in a given circumstance? How do we learn how to behave?

Psychologists study cognitive, emotional, and social processes and behavior by observing, interpreting, and recording how individuals relate to one another and to their environments. They use their findings to help improve processes and behaviors.

Some psychologists work independently, conducting research, consulting with clients, or working with patients. Others work as part of a healthcare team, collaborating with physicians and social workers , or in school settings, working with students, teachers , parents, and other educators. Those in private practice often work evenings and weekends to accommodate clients.

Although psychologists typically need a doctoral degree in psychology, a master’s degree is sufficient for some positions. Most psychologists also need a license.

Impelled in part by some of the dismissive comments I have seen on /r/science , I thought I would take the opportunity of the new Science Discussion format to wade into the question of whether psychology should be considered a ‘real’ science, but also more broadly about where psychology fits in and what it can tell us about science.

By way of introduction, I come from the Skinnerian tradition of studying the behaviour of animals based on consequences of behaviour (e.g., reinforcement). This tradition has a storied history of pushing for psychology to be a science. When I apply for funding, I do so through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada – not through health or social sciences agencies. On the other hand, I also take the principles of behaviourism to study 'unobservable' cognitive phenomena in animals, including time perception and metacognition.

So… is psychology a science? Science is broadly defined as the study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments or controlled observation . It depends on empirical evidence (observed data, not beliefs), control (that cause and effect can only be determined by minimizing extraneous variables), objective definitions (specific and quantifiable terms) and predictability (that data should be reproduced in similar situations in the future). Does psychological research fit these parameters?

Though the debate between simulation and tacit-theory is still raging in psychology and philosophy, there has been growing support for a hybrid position which accepts that some of our predictions are made through belief and desire attribution, and others are made through simulation (Kuehberger and Perner 1997). In this paper I wish to embellish on this view of how we predict behavior. I will do this through examining two sets of questions which are not sufficiently addressed within this debate:

Within the tacit-theory, How do we develop the database? That is, How do we gain knowledge about human behavior in specific circumstances? How does one know that there are no other salient characteristics in a situation? And, How does one adjudicate between two conflicting rules?

Within simulation, How is it that we have to ability to predict our own behavior? That is, How do we know what we would do in a given circumstance? How do we learn how to behave?

The word is derived from Greek θεωρία theoria (Jerome), Greek "contemplation, speculation", from θεωρός "spectator", θέα thea "a view" + ὁρᾶν horan "to see", literally "looking at a show". [1] A second possible etymology traces the word back to το θείον to theion "divine things" instead of thea , reflecting the concept of contemplating the divine organisation (Cosmos) of the nature. It is attested in English since 1592. [2]

Finally, in pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by official organizations of scientists one gets a definition like the following.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact. [6]

Suicide is statistically the tenth most common cause of death, with some one million people taking their own lives each year, but how successful is psychology at recognising when someone may be at risk of making a suicide attempt?

Not particularly, it turns out, with a meta-analysis published recently in  Psychological Bulletin  suggesting that our success rate in predicting when someone is going to attempt suicide is no better than a coin flip.

Barabási and his team also discovered that regardless of the different distances people travel, the 93 percent predictability remains true both for those who travel far distances on a regular basis and for those who typically stay close to home.

“We tend to assume that it’s much easier to predict the movement of those who travel very little over those who regularly cover thousands of miles,” said Chaoming Song, PhD of the Center for Complex Network Research and lead author of the paper “Yet, we have found that despite our heterogeneity, we are all almost equally predictable.”

The researchers were also surprised to find that the regularity and predictability of individual movement did not differ significantly across demographic categories, including age, gender, language groups, population density, and urban versus rural locations.

Psychologists study cognitive, emotional, and social processes and behavior by observing, interpreting, and recording how individuals relate to one another and to their environments. They use their findings to help improve processes and behaviors.

Some psychologists work independently, conducting research, consulting with clients, or working with patients. Others work as part of a healthcare team, collaborating with physicians and social workers , or in school settings, working with students, teachers , parents, and other educators. Those in private practice often work evenings and weekends to accommodate clients.

Although psychologists typically need a doctoral degree in psychology, a master’s degree is sufficient for some positions. Most psychologists also need a license.

Impelled in part by some of the dismissive comments I have seen on /r/science , I thought I would take the opportunity of the new Science Discussion format to wade into the question of whether psychology should be considered a ‘real’ science, but also more broadly about where psychology fits in and what it can tell us about science.

By way of introduction, I come from the Skinnerian tradition of studying the behaviour of animals based on consequences of behaviour (e.g., reinforcement). This tradition has a storied history of pushing for psychology to be a science. When I apply for funding, I do so through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada – not through health or social sciences agencies. On the other hand, I also take the principles of behaviourism to study 'unobservable' cognitive phenomena in animals, including time perception and metacognition.

So… is psychology a science? Science is broadly defined as the study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments or controlled observation . It depends on empirical evidence (observed data, not beliefs), control (that cause and effect can only be determined by minimizing extraneous variables), objective definitions (specific and quantifiable terms) and predictability (that data should be reproduced in similar situations in the future). Does psychological research fit these parameters?

Psychologists study cognitive, emotional, and social processes and behavior by observing, interpreting, and recording how individuals relate to one another and to their environments. They use their findings to help improve processes and behaviors.

Some psychologists work independently, conducting research, consulting with clients, or working with patients. Others work as part of a healthcare team, collaborating with physicians and social workers , or in school settings, working with students, teachers , parents, and other educators. Those in private practice often work evenings and weekends to accommodate clients.

Although psychologists typically need a doctoral degree in psychology, a master’s degree is sufficient for some positions. Most psychologists also need a license.

Impelled in part by some of the dismissive comments I have seen on /r/science , I thought I would take the opportunity of the new Science Discussion format to wade into the question of whether psychology should be considered a ‘real’ science, but also more broadly about where psychology fits in and what it can tell us about science.

By way of introduction, I come from the Skinnerian tradition of studying the behaviour of animals based on consequences of behaviour (e.g., reinforcement). This tradition has a storied history of pushing for psychology to be a science. When I apply for funding, I do so through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada – not through health or social sciences agencies. On the other hand, I also take the principles of behaviourism to study 'unobservable' cognitive phenomena in animals, including time perception and metacognition.

So… is psychology a science? Science is broadly defined as the study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments or controlled observation . It depends on empirical evidence (observed data, not beliefs), control (that cause and effect can only be determined by minimizing extraneous variables), objective definitions (specific and quantifiable terms) and predictability (that data should be reproduced in similar situations in the future). Does psychological research fit these parameters?

Though the debate between simulation and tacit-theory is still raging in psychology and philosophy, there has been growing support for a hybrid position which accepts that some of our predictions are made through belief and desire attribution, and others are made through simulation (Kuehberger and Perner 1997). In this paper I wish to embellish on this view of how we predict behavior. I will do this through examining two sets of questions which are not sufficiently addressed within this debate:

Within the tacit-theory, How do we develop the database? That is, How do we gain knowledge about human behavior in specific circumstances? How does one know that there are no other salient characteristics in a situation? And, How does one adjudicate between two conflicting rules?

Within simulation, How is it that we have to ability to predict our own behavior? That is, How do we know what we would do in a given circumstance? How do we learn how to behave?

The word is derived from Greek θεωρία theoria (Jerome), Greek "contemplation, speculation", from θεωρός "spectator", θέα thea "a view" + ὁρᾶν horan "to see", literally "looking at a show". [1] A second possible etymology traces the word back to το θείον to theion "divine things" instead of thea , reflecting the concept of contemplating the divine organisation (Cosmos) of the nature. It is attested in English since 1592. [2]

Finally, in pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by official organizations of scientists one gets a definition like the following.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact. [6]

Psychologists study cognitive, emotional, and social processes and behavior by observing, interpreting, and recording how individuals relate to one another and to their environments. They use their findings to help improve processes and behaviors.

Some psychologists work independently, conducting research, consulting with clients, or working with patients. Others work as part of a healthcare team, collaborating with physicians and social workers , or in school settings, working with students, teachers , parents, and other educators. Those in private practice often work evenings and weekends to accommodate clients.

Although psychologists typically need a doctoral degree in psychology, a master’s degree is sufficient for some positions. Most psychologists also need a license.

After half a century of research, psychology can t predict.


We Can t Predict the Future--And That s. - Psychology Today

Posted by 2018 article

41aqZItVGkL