So...uhh...this is gonna be a thing

[ebola-chan]

Psychology isn't a science but Id hardly say its a waste of time, however I do believe they have been turned into a joke or mockery of what it used to be.

Psychology is literally the science of individual behavior and the mind. Plus if you favor the past, then maybe psychoanalysis is more your type? Freudian interpretation of dreams, revolving around the subconscious? The Id, Ego, and Superego?

Sorry, but psychology is much better and concise than it used to be. After all, you don’t hear about many Milgram or Stanford Prison experiments anymore. And there are things like the DSM that are available to practitioners.

Science is basically any field that involves theories or sorts of testing/experiments that seek to quantify certain things through empirical studies. Curiosity fueling advancement and desires for understanding with healthy skepticism. Clinical ain’t the only field. There’s developmental, evolutionary, cognitive, forensic, abnormal, and plenty of other branches that are associated with biochemistry, anatomy, and behavior. Psychology originally came from the study of the mind which changed to behavior because we cannot literally examine a mind itself. It goes hand-in-hand with analyzing brain functions and the anatomical chemistry going on. Chemicals, nerves, signals sent through the brain, etc.. So, psychology is one of the hybrid branches between the analytical/natural sciences with behavioral/social sciences.

>Its a science
>its actually hybrid of social science and natural sciences
>its a hybrid of something that isnt a science and has overlaps with scientific fields of study
So like math its not an actual science. Got it. 

You cant quantify alot of aspects of psychology, easiest pointer being emotions, like you can a element on the periodic table.
Which is why its grouped with "social sciences" and not "natural sciences" like astronomy.

There's nothing inherently wrong with not being a science. Science isn't the end all be all for answers.
I just don't think we should be throwing the words science around when discussing this since alot of it doesn't even stand up under its own reasoning.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

>Its a science
>its actually hybrid of social science and natural sciences
>its a hybrid of something that isnt a science and has overlaps with scientific fields of study
So like math its not an actual science. Got it. 

You cant quantify alot of aspects of psychology, easiest pointer being emotions, like you can a element on the periodic table.
Which is why its grouped with "social sciences" and not "natural sciences" like astronomy.

There's nothing inherently wrong with not being a science. Science isn't the end all be all for answers.
I just don't think we should be throwing the words science around when discussing this since alot of it doesn't even stand up under its own reasoning.

Sorry, but you are objectively wrong once again. Psychology has been found to be a science through the consensus of practitioners, academics, and researchers who partake in it. Math is simply logical proofs and patterns, of course it is not a science. But guess what? Math is necessary to quantify data! Go figure! It’s almost as if all forms of science rely on a form of mathematics called statistics, and equations/formulas that can help make sense of their observed data.

To presume that people are throwing around “science” to back themselves up is likely warranted, since most of the social sciences were established in the 19th century, like psychology, anthropology, archaeology, criminology, sociology, etc.. Modern researchers and academics in the social sciences use an eclectic style, meaning they use several methodologies like combining qualitative and quantitative data for their studies to use in experiments and tests. They are all considered sciences. I was only positing that psychology was one of those hybrids of two types of science! Reread my post, I implore you.

Maybe you should delve into what psychologists are actually doing these days and in the past. Someone even posted an article about all of this in a previous post! It is undisputed that all the social sciences are indeed worthy of the name, science.

As someone who combines sociology, psychology, ethics, and legal studies daily, I have that eclectic drive as well as a criminologist. Maybe you, ironically, are simplifying things lol. “Not science because it cannot be quantified.” Sorry, pal. But there are things in all of the social sciences that can be quantified, yet not to the extent that things in physics can be. Remember, the brain is an organ too. The center of our minds. Would you so dastardly toss out any forms of study in it simply because we cannot view the mind directly? I gave plenty of branches in psychology that also have quantifiable parts. Hell, the DSM is a collection of conditions and disorders that were discovered through empirical means.

Gender dysphoria’s in there. So it is being studied. We wouldn’t be having any debate related to it if it was never discovered after all, like if we didn’t know about gravity but wondered what it was that pulled objects to the ground. It’s almost like all science starts with observations that cause skeptical questioning and development of experimentation to find the truth...

Objective science is fleeting. Science finds new explanations each day, and they can be replaced the next day or years into the future.

[ebola-chan]

>Its a science
>its actually hybrid of social science and natural sciences
>its a hybrid of something that isnt a science and has overlaps with scientific fields of study
So like math its not an actual science. Got it. 

You cant quantify alot of aspects of psychology, easiest pointer being emotions, like you can a element on the periodic table.
Which is why its grouped with "social sciences" and not "natural sciences" like astronomy.

There's nothing inherently wrong with not being a science. Science isn't the end all be all for answers.
I just don't think we should be throwing the words science around when discussing this since alot of it doesn't even stand up under its own reasoning.

Sorry, but you are objectively wrong once again. Psychology has been found to be a science through the consensus of practitioners, academics, and researchers who partake in it. Math is simply logical proofs and patterns, of course it is not a science. But guess what? Math is necessary to quantify data! Go figure! It’s almost as if all forms of science rely on a form of mathematics called statistics, and equations/formulas that can help make sense of their observed data.

To presume that people are throwing around “science” to back themselves up is likely warranted, since most of the social sciences were established in the 19th century, like psychology, anthropology, archaeology, criminology, sociology, etc.. Modern researchers and academics in the social sciences use an eclectic style, meaning they use several methodologies like combining qualitative and quantitative data for their studies to use in experiments and tests. They are all considered sciences. I was only positing that psychology was one of those hybrids of two types of science! Reread my post, I implore you.

Maybe you should delve into what psychologists are actually doing these days and in the past. Someone even posted an article about all of this in a previous post! It is undisputed that all the social sciences are indeed worthy of the name, science.

As someone who combines sociology, psychology, ethics, and legal studies daily, I have that eclectic drive as well as a criminologist. Maybe you, ironically, are simplifying things lol. “Not science because it cannot be quantified.” Sorry, pal. But there are things in all of the social sciences that can be quantified, yet not to the extent that things in physics can be. Remember, the brain is an organ too. The center of our minds. Would you so dastardly toss out any forms of study in it simply because we cannot view the mind directly? I gave plenty of branches in psychology that also have quantifiable parts. Hell, the DSM is a collection of conditions and disorders that were discovered through empirical means.

Gender dysphoria’s in there. So it is being studied. We wouldn’t be having any debate related to it if it was never discovered after all, like if we didn’t know about gravity but wondered what it was that pulled objects to the ground. It’s almost like all science starts with observations that cause skeptical questioning and development of experimentation to find the truth...

Objective science is fleeting. Science finds new explanations each day, and they can be replaced the next day or years into the future.

>Objectively wrong
>its a hybrid fields
>no its a actually a science
>actually its a hybrid field
>actually its considered science by the people who work in it
>actually it can be quantified but not to the extent that physics can(So its not a science? You need clear quantifiability to be a science)
Quit flip floppiong and weasel wording if you want to say someone is objectively wrong. Its still not a science internet sleuth.


>All social sciences are worthy of the name science
>They are considered a science
Gender studies is a psudeo-science and is classified as a social science. Also nobody worth listening to considers economics a science, which is also a social science. 

>We wouldn't be having a debate if gender dysphoria wasnt in the DSMV
I dont really think thats the case. Transexuals predate the DSMV and term gender dysphoria  by a large margin and this entire debate started by them wanting to use the government like a sledge hammer to mandate acceptance(which in all fairness their hardly the only group doing this) . Nobody would give a crap otherwise. Even without a DSM V they would still exist as a group, and at least some people would know of their existence.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

@"ebola-chan"

Internet sleuth? Well, I feel flattered to be regarded as such on the internet since most of my work has been in-person research. Oh wait, that was aimed as an insult. I guess that makes it funny now lol. Try your hardest to get my goat, bud. You won’t win.

As for the “psychology is not a science” argument: I have stated several times that it is a hybrid of two categories of scientific study lol. Social science does include economics! Clear there. Same with Political Science. Have fun twisting my words there.

And to the point about research of dysphoria, what do you think happened to these people previously? Just for some basis, persecution is historically documented and was justified by the legal institutions at the time. I recall homosexuality was also deemed a disease of the mind, and Turing was killed for such. Or in modern times, radical Islam kicking homosexuals into the grave. There’s horror everywhere, but thankfully the proportion has gone done in the Western World and I hope it spreads.

Pick apart Biology too by the way, since it might have “less numbers” than Physics lol. Don’t take things so literally or like a perfectionist. Things change as each day passes. That is the crucial part of science itself. True pseudoscience is like the antivaxxer movement.

I’d much rather have the academics research this before mandating free-speech restrictions, and I hate those anyways. Atheist Libertarian here by the way. Not some “SJW”. Just an academic with plenty much more to learn and experience, and I’m loving every bit of it. I’m similar to the view of Jordan Petersen on things in psychology, but he’s not perfect either. He’s one of the most crucial champions of true free-speech in academics and peer-review, which spills into public domain. Once you restrict the learned people of society, you are doomed. That means fairness to the gender-studies people and economists. I practically worship Milton Friedman, myself.

But, I’m not going out and saying everyone else is wrong because they don’t think like me. For me saying you are objectively wrong in that psychology is not a science is derived from academic consensus from the past two centuries. Read some history.

There are so many opinions. I’m not afraid of being silenced. Can you say the same? You seem distressed.

If there’s nothing further to debate, since you ignore that I have stated psychology is a scientific field of study, we should end ours so that others may chime in about the original discussion.

[ebola-chan]

@"ebola-chan"

Internet sleuth? Well, I feel flattered to be regarded as such on the internet since most of my work has been in-person research. Oh wait, that was aimed as an insult. I guess that makes it funny now lol. Try your hardest to get my goat, bud. You won’t win.

As for the “psychology is not a science” argument: I have stated several times that it is a hybrid of two categories of scientific study lol. Social science does include economics! Clear there. Same with Political Science. Have fun twisting my words there.

And to the point about research of dysphoria, what do you think happened to these people previously? Just for some basis, persecution is historically documented and was justified by the legal institutions at the time. I recall homosexuality was also deemed a disease of the mind, and Turing was killed for such. Or in modern times, radical Islam kicking homosexuals into the grave. There’s horror everywhere, but thankfully the proportion has gone done in the Western World and I hope it spreads.

Pick apart Biology too by the way, since it might have “less numbers” than Physics lol. Don’t take things so literally or like a perfectionist. Things change as each day passes. That is the crucial part of science itself. True pseudoscience is like the antivaxxer movement.

I’d much rather have the academics research this before mandating free-speech restrictions, and I hate those anyways. Atheist Libertarian here by the way. Not some “SJW”. Just an academic with plenty much more to learn and experience, and I’m loving every bit of it. I’m similar to the view of Jordan Petersen on things in psychology, but he’s not perfect either. He’s one of the most crucial champions of true free-speech in academics and peer-review, which spills into public domain. Once you restrict the learned people of society, you are doomed. That means fairness to the gender-studies people and economists. I practically worship Milton Friedman, myself.

But, I’m not going out and saying everyone else is wrong because they don’t think like me. For me saying you are objectively wrong in that psychology is not a science is derived from academic consensus from the past two centuries. Read some history.

There are so many opinions. I’m not afraid of being silenced. Can you say the same? You seem distressed.

If there’s nothing further to debate, since you ignore that I have stated psychology is a scientific field of study, we should end ours so that others may chime in about the original discussion.

Thank you Freud I am very distressed over a time killing post on the internet on a porn forum.  

>Your objectively wrong because of consensus muh tradition
>go fact check it for me
I don't think I need to point how how terrible reasoning that is

Also nobody is bringing up SJWS and I am hoping you mentioning doesn't turn this into a mudslinging contest.

But Your right we should get back on topic.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Thank you Freud I am very distressed over a time killing post on the internet.  

>Your objectively wrong because of consensus muh tradition
>go fact check it for me
I don't think I need to point how how terrible reasoning that is

Also nobody is bringing up SJWS and I am hoping you mentioning doesn't turn this into a mudslinging contest.

Hey, nobody provoked you to troll lol. Calling me Freud just means you admit you have lost, resulting to insults that attempt to strawman me. The mudslinging already began with THISISFUNNY, to be fair, since he called these people mentally deficient morons to put it plainly. Which they are not. They are still human-beings.

The thing is why I recommended looking at history is to show how it developed. Freud was psychoanalysis, a largely debated and debunked field compared to contemporary study. I think it was something about too much sexuality in his work lol. Anyways aside from the humor, here is a link to the American Psychological Association. Peer-reviewed academia that works in the field, and represented by many across America who either teach or research: https://www.apa.org/action/science

I’d actually like to talk about it in more in private, so that others aren’t drilled with our debate. If you’d like to reach out, my PMs are always open.

[ebola-chan]

Thank you Freud I am very distressed over a time killing post on the internet.  

>Your objectively wrong because of consensus muh tradition
>go fact check it for me
I don't think I need to point how how terrible reasoning that is

Also nobody is bringing up SJWS and I am hoping you mentioning doesn't turn this into a mudslinging contest.

Hey, nobody provoked you to troll lol. Calling me Freud just means you admit you have lost, resulting to insults that attempt to strawman me. The mudslinging already began with THISISFUNNY, to be fair, since he called these people mentally deficient morons to put it plainly. Which they are not. They are still human-beings.

The thing is why I recommended looking at history is to show how it developed. Freud was psychoanalysis, a largely debated and debunked field compared to contemporary study. I think it was something about too much sexuality in his work lol. Anyways aside from the humor, here is a link to the American Psychological Association. Peer-reviewed academia that works in the field, and represented by many across America who either teach or research: https://www.apa.org/action/science

I’d actually like to talk about it in more in private, so that others aren’t drilled with our debate. If you’d like to reach out, my PMs are always open.

Making a sarcastic remark =/= insult

Trying to guess the emotional state of someone though a few lines of text on the internet is kinda silly.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Making a sarcastic remark =/= insult

Trying to guess the emotional state of someone though a few lines of text on the internet is kinda silly.

I mean yeah, it is hard to judge delivery when there are no emotions lol. Just seems a little snarky, but I’m a hypocrite on that myself. No hard feelings though. I have thick-skin. I just thought it was funny to bring up Freud since I don’t really like him anyhow lol. But still, my offer still stands on discussing it more in-private. I always enjoy discussing this stuff. It’s my passion.

[anotherunreg]

You know, @"THISISFUNNY" . I find some irony in your defense of your views. Unrelated for sure, but why show so much concern? I don’t feel inclined to go out and berate these people to obscene lengths. Maybe you are because you might enjoy being a “edge-lord”, if that is still a term.

Empathy might be a better option. After all, we are still human. And if social sciences were truly useless in their nature, then I’d be out of a job lol. Sorry bud, but qualitative study occurs in the natural sciences just as much as it does for social sciences. There’s a reason why we have quantitative and qualitative to choose from, or to use both at the same time.

“Pure propaganda” just gives me that whole vibe of the InfoWars archetype from you. Ironically, you’re victimizing yourself without having any reason for it. Sure, free-speech must always be preserved. It is necessary. However, politeness and respect should always be offered in order for reasoned dialogue. I have seen plenty of both emotional and reasonable responses. But yours just have a mocking undertone.

Continue if you must, but the hypocritical irony might be more “funny” for me than it is for you.

I don't have concern, I just hate bullshit.
>And if social sciences were truly useless in their nature, then I’d be out of a job lol.
So you have monetary motivation for promoting these things, what a shock.
>“Pure propaganda” just gives me that whole vibe of the InfoWars archetype from you.
If Infowars says something correct I have no qualms with repeating it, nor am I much concerned with someone calling me a tinfoil wearer because I repeated something correct they said.
>Ironically, you’re victimizing yourself without having any reason for it.
You're a victim, and you're a victim!, EVERYONE'S A VICTIM YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!1!1!
>Sure, free-speech must always be preserved. It is necessary. However, politeness and respect should always be offered in order for reasoned dialogue.
1. Politeness and respect are earned not given.
2. Politeness and respect have been used to crush freedom of speech countless times, because the truth is rarely kind.
>But yours just have a mocking undertone.
"Tone policing" doesn't work on me. Though either way their position is easily demonstratable as ridiculous and should more than earn any and all ire it gets.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

@"THISISFUNNY" , I wouldn’t be in my field firstly if it did not exist. The monetary gain I get is necessary and minor compared to the feeling I get from helping people. I’m in criminology and legal studies. I was motivated to do such because of the injustices not just committed by my fellow citizens, but also by the law enforcement officials, politicians and other crooks out there. There’s plenty of other fields and jobs I can take that’ll pay me much more than what I have been offered now. Like I said, that isn’t my motivation.

I specialize in human-trafficking, mostly sex-trafficking, and organized crime. Often times I have seen in my work and research is that there are compliant/corrupt officials helping the crime syndicates as well, especially in India and Mexico.

My selected social science of criminology combines some of the others with nonscientific fields like philosophy and legal studies/ethics. So, I am often required to pull from other sources like economics, sociology, psychology, and even brain chemistry to to explain what cannot be seen just from testimony or evidence.

And yes, I did mock you. You seem to mock most of the people you disagree with. So, I thought one more troll might want to see the roles reversed. Firstly, you outright called these people diseased and maniac idiots. C’mon... We know you could’ve used different language than that... I understand respect should be earned, but what has the transgender community done to get your goat? I’d understand if you were Canadian since free-speech has been violated there with recent legislation, but in America it is still relatively the same.

For me, slightly changing how to address certain people when they ask for it is not a hard chore. It doesn’t bother me, and I’d expect the same if I requested such. There should always be some level of respect between people. Once again, most people don’t walk the streets yammering at people and saying they’re cunts all the time. Do you? I don’t think you would. People would just think you’re an asshole. What stops you here? Nothing. Anonymous username. No need to worry about any social ramifications for being a jerk, so why not?

Yes, I am a hypocrite on what I am saying. But in my first post in the thread, I didn’t come out the gate calling people morons. If I did, go ahead and call me on it. I’ll own up to it. But the difference was that you are complaining about possibly having your speech drowned and taken away. That is possible, but I doubt it’ll happen. That is why I made the “victim” claim. You’re complaining when you’re relatively unaffected by all of this.

All I want is some careful consideration in debate. Reasoned. Proper. Polite. Serious and to the point. I always have to work against having some emotional responses, myself. This is a sensitive subject matter. People will always be offended if the connotations are truly serious. We should all take a step back and evaluate not just where we come from but where the other sides come from. I’m practically a devil’s advocate in this. I see the sense in both sides, but I dislike the outright hate from both and sometimes myself. It is better, like I offered, to take a step back and check our emotions at the door sometimes. We can’t learn anything if we don’t open ourselves up to different views. I always have to keep my mind open to change, even if I think I never will. Time always proves me wrong. The point of you always saying the opposing side is ridiculous is the real sense of ridiculousness. And they do it back to you as well. I don’t think “tone-policing” is what I would describe it as. More like the Golden Rule and common sense. Treat people the way you want to be treated, but don’t be kicked onto the ground like a dying dog. There’s always time to walk away and let things sit on their own.

I don’t claim to have objective truths in opinionated discussion, like you do. I only made an objective claim earlier to cement the fact that social sciences are genuine in description and name. I don’t believe there is such a thing as political correctness, but only political victory. Who seems to win holds the power, but their opinions are not “right”. They are opinionated. Science can be seen as objective due to the continuous review made about such. I just want people to take ALL views into account compared to their own. That is the only way progress continues. Consensus and compromise, but I see too much fighting instead so I’ll call it out.

Maybe my effort is futile, but that won’t make me quit. I believe in humanity, so I won’t give up hope for a better future now. Cooperation is the way to go, to me.

But I’ll leave my thoughts there. I doubt many of you have the time for this short essay.

TLDR: Be respectful in your points. Reasoned dialogue backed up with facts derived not only from a single source. Biology isn’t the only legit field. There are numerous other ones applicable here.