I usually never read 'Psychology/Happiness/Depression/Mindfulness/Optimism/Anxiety/Loneliness/Child Psychology/Meditation' articles that have plagued HN recently.
Is neuroscience legit science or is it unfair to lump it with psychology.
Not a quantitative hard science for sure, but that people try to understand psyche is not useless. The mind is complex and a lot of things that appeared as BS to me 4 years ago started to become a lot more plausible as I went through my own share of hurdles. I'm still eager for neuroscience, psychology and AI to overlap.
> [hard sciences have the characteristics of] testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.
Check out "The emotional life of your brain" by Richard Davidson and Sharon Begley.
It is applied neuro-science. A refined version of the "big five" character traits along with scientifically verified explanations where they originate in the brain and how to change them.
I'm not qualified to answer, but as a patient looking back; I feel duped by well meaning people.
I don't know about neuroscience, but it seems when Psychologists/Psychiarty fails they fall back too frequently on, "Well, it's an art too?".
I don't think I've met an older Psychiatrist who isn't secretly completely dissalusioned with their career. They won't admit it. I can just see it on their faces. It's ironic they know so much about denial, but they appear to really repress?
I really hope these professions attract the best students/minds in the future, and brings in enough research money so that won't be an excuse.
If you are in mental agony, you need to go through the dance--you might be the person they help. I'm not trying to be funny; you just need to go, and see if they can help.
If all you get out of it is bills, bad side effects, and no results--leave. There's a part of me that wished I never seeked out their help, but will never know if I made the right decision.
(My heart, and complete sympathy goes out to anyone hit with mental illness. I can offer this, with enough time you will feal better. Don't ruin your health by self-medicating. And I know, drugs like alcohol seem beneficial, but just don't overdo it. And again, give your brain/body time to heal. I'm an older guy who did get better. My life went down the tubes, but a lot of it was my fault--I guess? When I was in my twenties and blindsided by a malady, I held onto hope by a thin string. Every day became, just getting through it. My symptomology impoved with age. I will give good Psychologists/Psychiatrists this, they are the only professionals who seemingly truly understand what you are going through. To the rest of the world, the way you feel is a complete mystery, even family members, loved ones just don't quite get it. In the end, when you pull out of it, you might view the world a bit differently. There will be less black/white issues. I guarantee you will be a more understanding/sympathetic person. I sometimes think I became too liberal. To the point of being taken advantage of, but just don't know. I'm not the guy I used to be--for better, or worse.)
I think it might depend on the psychiatrist. Some of them treat it very much like a specialization for any medical doctor. You describe your symptoms, they give you the best treatment options available and you iterate from there. If therapy is the answer or part of it you go see a therapist. If new science comes out you adapt.
I suspect someone practicing psychology is more likely to become disillusioned.
Congrats on making it through. I was extremely ill @ 29 years old and came to terms with my seemingly imminent mortality. It changed me completely from an Alpha anal-retentive to 'just another guy' enjoying the moment... more or less, there is no Utopia I have found. No one who hasn't been on their deathbed for an extended period could understand the experience, the slowness of time under the influence of ever-present discomfort and the desperation of impending finality. It is indeed maddening, then you get past it. If you're lucky enough to get a 2nd chance, your values can not not change. I've shared a campfire or two at the lake with fellow "happy people". I don't know if we're enlightened, calloussed or brain damaged, but I am much more contented in life without the high "highs" and low 'lows" of the 110% lifestyle. To each their own.
It is a very polarizing experience! The dichotomy between wanting relief at almost any cost and not wanting to die is a major conflict. Stretch that over a period of months and it's safe to assume values/attitudes will change. The after-effect of redfining "success" in a way that conflicts with popular culture and the consumer lifestyle invites significant divergence from established norms(in western society).
"Neuroscience" is an extremely broad field, but is defined by being grounded in direct observation of the brain. I work for a major neuroscience journal, and can assure you that research being done is both highly technical and extremely rigorous.
That said, implying that psychology isn't legit science is troubling. It's certainly harder to do than other sciences, due to limitations in our technology for observation, but you can absolutely be rigorous and careful in your methodology, and come to well-supported conclusions.
It's probably way too big a course for someone only casually interested, but it's probably the best (free, but maybe overall) course available on the Internet for an introduction into the subject. Mostly because the professor is great.
The TL;DW is that neuroscience is mostly about your "bio-electrical hardware". So nothing soft there at all. Do review it, this is such an interesting field. A good course for even more fundamental fundamentals is this (pretty big and still free) multimedia course from Harvard, which I'd say is aimed at high-school level students: https://www.mcb80x.org/
What you have to understand on the medical side is that there is not much they can do for brain conditions. Surgery is mostly about stopping bleedings and "cutting away stuff". I took a little clinical neuroscience course and it was mostly "we don't know where this comes from", "here we can only treat side-effects", and actually nothing about actually healing anything at least for the various disorders covered in that course. "Brain issues" have the disadvantages that it's harder to do anything since a) it's much more risky (compared to trying and failing fixing a skin condition), b) it's much harder to get drugs there, c) it's harder to do surgery in the brain.
So the science is pretty solid on the very low level, but on the scale of a full human brain there it gets way too complex. So the higher-level you go the more it's (interpretable) statistics, the lower you go the more it's (pretty solid) (cellular or molecular) biology, (bio-)chemistry and/or physics (electricity). They find new but essential things all the time even now, the field still feels "fresh" as in you have no difficulty finding things that need research and still are somewhat basic. The problem is that the really interesting stuff, the things that matter because it's needed for actually doing something about disease or malfunction, all are high-level, and knowing well what goes on in "a" (i.e. one) neuron (or even a group) does not help you that much in clinical practice.
So on a clinical level neuroscience is as much "science" as most of medicine as a whole.
> If offered a Snickers, a Milky Way and an Almond Joy, participants would always choose the Snickers. But if they were offered 20 candy bars, including a Snickers, the choice became less clear. They would sometimes pick something other than the Snickers, even though it was still their favorite.
Just because something is your favorite doesn't mean it's rational to always choose it every time. Hot wings are my favorite food, but I don't eat them three meals a day to the exclusion of everything else. If there's a selection of 20 candy bars, possibly including ones you haven't tried before, I don't think it's irrational to try a new one since that might become a favorite. Even if it's one you already know, maybe you're just in the mood for coconut instead of peanuts at the moment. This seems like a poor way to measure irrationality.
The goal of the experiment was not to measure irrationality. The goal was to measure neuronal activity involved in decision making, while fuzzing the decision making system with too many options.
Not having read the article at all, so going purely on the title and GP's quote, the question seems to me to be whether bad decisions are always irrational and whether this was an experiment that successfully induced bad decisions (which, imo, was rightfully challenged by GP)
The article mentions irrationality numerous times. The experimenter appears to be attempting to frame all decision making as economic value choices. It even gets called Neuroeconomics. "What part of the brain calculates that the Snickers bar rates higher than the Milky Way?"
Maybe I'm just broken, but this is a long way from how I choose a choc bar, from 3 or 20. My choice will change depending on what I had recently.
I don't have time to skim the actual paper, but I'm more with the GP that it seems a pretty poor experiment.
I think the interesting part that relates to this experiment is that it's not worth it to the brain to expend a considerable amount of energy in honing the precision of deciding which candy bar to eat, which even if there's a preference is not extremely significant. What I'd be interested in seeing is a similar study where the subjects are presented with potentially life altering choices whose outcomes are unclear and see if the brain kicks in with extra processing power since it knows that the extra precision could make or break the lasting repercussions of the decisions. Not sure not only how you'd measure this but also whether it's possible to do such a study in an ethical way, but it would be interesting!
> What I'd be interested in seeing is a similar study where the subjects are presented with potentially life altering choices whose outcomes are unclear and see if the brain kicks in with extra processing power since it knows that the extra precision could make or break the lasting repercussions of the decisions.
You've just described dating and interpersonal relationships.
"When Glimcher would remove all the choices except the Snickers and the selected candy, participants would wonder why they hadn’t chosen their favorite."
The article explains it's not comparing it in a vacuum, it's specifically comparing when there's 20 candy bars including your favorite to two including your favorite. quote: "When Glimcher would remove all the choices except the Snickers and the selected candy, participants would wonder why they hadn’t chosen their favorite."
Basically saying it's only irrelvant in the strict sense defined by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alt...
30 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 75.9 ms ] threadI usually never read 'Psychology/Happiness/Depression/Mindfulness/Optimism/Anxiety/Loneliness/Child Psychology/Meditation' articles that have plagued HN recently.
Is neuroscience legit science or is it unfair to lump it with psychology.
It's actually a big problem with modern research in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
From the wikipedia article:
> [hard sciences have the characteristics of] testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.
Check out "The emotional life of your brain" by Richard Davidson and Sharon Begley.
It is applied neuro-science. A refined version of the "big five" character traits along with scientifically verified explanations where they originate in the brain and how to change them.
I don't know about neuroscience, but it seems when Psychologists/Psychiarty fails they fall back too frequently on, "Well, it's an art too?".
I don't think I've met an older Psychiatrist who isn't secretly completely dissalusioned with their career. They won't admit it. I can just see it on their faces. It's ironic they know so much about denial, but they appear to really repress?
I really hope these professions attract the best students/minds in the future, and brings in enough research money so that won't be an excuse.
If you are in mental agony, you need to go through the dance--you might be the person they help. I'm not trying to be funny; you just need to go, and see if they can help.
If all you get out of it is bills, bad side effects, and no results--leave. There's a part of me that wished I never seeked out their help, but will never know if I made the right decision.
(My heart, and complete sympathy goes out to anyone hit with mental illness. I can offer this, with enough time you will feal better. Don't ruin your health by self-medicating. And I know, drugs like alcohol seem beneficial, but just don't overdo it. And again, give your brain/body time to heal. I'm an older guy who did get better. My life went down the tubes, but a lot of it was my fault--I guess? When I was in my twenties and blindsided by a malady, I held onto hope by a thin string. Every day became, just getting through it. My symptomology impoved with age. I will give good Psychologists/Psychiatrists this, they are the only professionals who seemingly truly understand what you are going through. To the rest of the world, the way you feel is a complete mystery, even family members, loved ones just don't quite get it. In the end, when you pull out of it, you might view the world a bit differently. There will be less black/white issues. I guarantee you will be a more understanding/sympathetic person. I sometimes think I became too liberal. To the point of being taken advantage of, but just don't know. I'm not the guy I used to be--for better, or worse.)
I suspect someone practicing psychology is more likely to become disillusioned.
edit: reword 3rd sentence, removed excess
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
That said, implying that psychology isn't legit science is troubling. It's certainly harder to do than other sciences, due to limitations in our technology for observation, but you can absolutely be rigorous and careful in your methodology, and come to well-supported conclusions.
It's probably way too big a course for someone only casually interested, but it's probably the best (free, but maybe overall) course available on the Internet for an introduction into the subject. Mostly because the professor is great.
The TL;DW is that neuroscience is mostly about your "bio-electrical hardware". So nothing soft there at all. Do review it, this is such an interesting field. A good course for even more fundamental fundamentals is this (pretty big and still free) multimedia course from Harvard, which I'd say is aimed at high-school level students: https://www.mcb80x.org/
What you have to understand on the medical side is that there is not much they can do for brain conditions. Surgery is mostly about stopping bleedings and "cutting away stuff". I took a little clinical neuroscience course and it was mostly "we don't know where this comes from", "here we can only treat side-effects", and actually nothing about actually healing anything at least for the various disorders covered in that course. "Brain issues" have the disadvantages that it's harder to do anything since a) it's much more risky (compared to trying and failing fixing a skin condition), b) it's much harder to get drugs there, c) it's harder to do surgery in the brain.
So the science is pretty solid on the very low level, but on the scale of a full human brain there it gets way too complex. So the higher-level you go the more it's (interpretable) statistics, the lower you go the more it's (pretty solid) (cellular or molecular) biology, (bio-)chemistry and/or physics (electricity). They find new but essential things all the time even now, the field still feels "fresh" as in you have no difficulty finding things that need research and still are somewhat basic. The problem is that the really interesting stuff, the things that matter because it's needed for actually doing something about disease or malfunction, all are high-level, and knowing well what goes on in "a" (i.e. one) neuron (or even a group) does not help you that much in clinical practice.
So on a clinical level neuroscience is as much "science" as most of medicine as a whole.
Just because something is your favorite doesn't mean it's rational to always choose it every time. Hot wings are my favorite food, but I don't eat them three meals a day to the exclusion of everything else. If there's a selection of 20 candy bars, possibly including ones you haven't tried before, I don't think it's irrational to try a new one since that might become a favorite. Even if it's one you already know, maybe you're just in the mood for coconut instead of peanuts at the moment. This seems like a poor way to measure irrationality.
Maybe I'm just broken, but this is a long way from how I choose a choc bar, from 3 or 20. My choice will change depending on what I had recently.
I don't have time to skim the actual paper, but I'm more with the GP that it seems a pretty poor experiment.
You've just described dating and interpersonal relationships.
"When Glimcher would remove all the choices except the Snickers and the selected candy, participants would wonder why they hadn’t chosen their favorite."