HN Explorer

ask HN: How is psychology not bullshit?

4 points by sheperd209 ↗ HN
I come from an applied mathematics background but by no means a researcher/academic.

Still every time I look at a clickbaity psychology article title, it baffles me how they arrive at their conclusions.

Also I'm very skeptical of their understanding of statistics or worse yet, I've heard that there's a lot of "p-hacking" to get the results they want.

It seems like such a bogus fields but they dress it up with scientific terminology and statistics.

Unironically, can someone tell me why they think it's bullshit if they do, and tell me why it's not bullshit if you don't it is.

7 comments

[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 25.3 ms ] thread
phantom_of_cato
It is, for the most part. The replication crisis supports that statement. [1] Quite a few results you may have read about in "Thinking: Fast and Slow" probably won't replicate. [2]

There are at least two factors at play: what they are studying is quite complex, and people who tend to study it aren't the smartest. Take two PhD students, one in the psychology department, and one in physics. Make them switch roles. Who do you think is going to be in more trouble? [3]

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

[2]: https://replicationindex.com/category/thinking-fast-and-slow...

[3]: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Comevius
Even chemistry is less rigorous than physics, for the same reason biology is less rigorous than chemistry, and so on. Social sciences don't have to be quantifiable, or completely reproducible to be useful, in fact they usually can't be because there are too many moving parts involved. Psychology already provided many important explanations, even if there is a lot of bullshit that will take centuries to weed out, given the complexity involved. The bullshit is part of the process.
necovek
While one can see obvious issues with many studies, and especially with media reporting on those studies, there is one obvious proof that at least some of that research works.

Basically, dark web patterns, click-bait titles, reality shows, constant influx of targetted information DOES seem to keep users clicking and coming back. I like to call (most of) marketing immoral application of psychologic results: abuse of the worst patterns of human behaviour for commercial gain.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Now again, most of it is obvious babble that's just statistical play, but it's similarly true that some research really translates to reality.

sheperd209
So does sales techniques.

I bet there are lots of salesmen who are effective without a psychology degree. Yet one would not call an effective salesman a scientist.

I'm just continuing to play the devil's advocate here, appreciate your input :)

necovek
Sure, a lot of the scientific findings are frequently established before they are formally verified/repeated (and even in "proper" science, it's common to have a hypothesis that you set out to prove) and people can practice them without having any scientific background too.

That is exactly what I think makes something a scientific success: ability to apply the findings without understanding the nitty-gritty.

Sales is definitely a success of applying psychological results too: consumerism is the definition of the current age (in Western hemisphere, at least) mostly because we are driven to consume to the extent we are.

Of course, it's important to remember that psychology, just like most social sciences, is statistics-based, thus none of the results apply on small numbers and especially not on an individual.

pestatije
Because psychology is farther removed from maths than, say, physics. For instance, you can see how statistics does a bit of math-bending for simplicitys sake (eg. standard deviation formula) and still claim to be a serious science.