The problem with women

[El]

My intenet went, hence the delayed reply.
As for the person who made that comment, it was made by a consultant about me (or my attitude to other people), to someone else. I was quoting her exact words. Its the sort of babble that seems to come out of most psychologists who are supposed to be acting in a profession.
Yes I am sticking with the newtonian stuff, until the rest is proven.

Oh, OK.  That does make this all the more clear.    You're not someone with an intellectual objection to psychology; you're someone who's trying to justify his own prejudice.

i think that the modern male is sick and tired of the emasculation that modern society projects on them.

i think it is much more comfortable to be in a clearly defined role....not that i have ever welcomed comfort, but i think most people prefer to know where they stand.

My replies to him have nothing to do with the fact that he's male, nor am I trying to emasculate him.  I just think that as far as the conversation i've been having with him on this thread goes, he's chalk-full of shit.

[McGiver]

oh.

then let it apply to willows complaint about men complaining about her.

it boils down to insecurity of the male in the modern civilized world.

[Christopher McCandless]

My intenet went, hence the delayed reply.
As for the person who made that comment, it was made by a consultant about me (or my attitude to other people), to someone else. I was quoting her exact words. Its the sort of babble that seems to come out of most psychologists who are supposed to be acting in a profession.
Yes I am sticking with the newtonian stuff, until the rest is proven.

Oh, OK.  That does make this all the more clear.    You're not someone with an intellectual objection to psychology; you're someone who's trying to justify his own prejudice.

I used to be intrested in it, was even considering studying it at one point. My mind changed when i had an in depth look in. When they actually teach the intresting areas I might reconsider, there is some clever stuff in hypnosis they refuse to go into for instance.

[El]

My intenet went, hence the delayed reply.
As for the person who made that comment, it was made by a consultant about me (or my attitude to other people), to someone else. I was quoting her exact words. Its the sort of babble that seems to come out of most psychologists who are supposed to be acting in a profession.
Yes I am sticking with the newtonian stuff, until the rest is proven.

Oh, OK.  That does make this all the more clear.    You're not someone with an intellectual objection to psychology; you're someone who's trying to justify his own prejudice.

I used to be intrested in it, was even considering studying it at one point. My mind changed when i had an in depth look in. When they actually teach the intresting areas I might reconsider, there is some clever stuff in hypnosis they refuse to go into for instance.

Oh, you're prejudiced AND you refuse to take it seriously as a science until you get to play with the bells-and-whistles part.

Or perhaps my naivety is showing and you're trolling masterfully?  If so, kudos, you're brilliant at making yourself a quite appealing target by making obviously moronic statements.

[Christopher McCandless]

My intenet went, hence the delayed reply.
As for the person who made that comment, it was made by a consultant about me (or my attitude to other people), to someone else. I was quoting her exact words. Its the sort of babble that seems to come out of most psychologists who are supposed to be acting in a profession.
Yes I am sticking with the newtonian stuff, until the rest is proven.

Oh, OK.  That does make this all the more clear.    You're not someone with an intellectual objection to psychology; you're someone who's trying to justify his own prejudice.

I used to be intrested in it, was even considering studying it at one point. My mind changed when i had an in depth look in. When they actually teach the intresting areas I might reconsider, there is some clever stuff in hypnosis they refuse to go into for instance.

Oh, you're prejudiced AND you refuse to take it seriously as a science until you get to play with the bells-and-whistles part.

Or perhaps my naivety is showing and you're trolling masterfully?  If so, kudos, you're brilliant at making yourself a quite appealing target by making obviously moronic statements.

Not prejudiced at all. If you can demonstrate to me something in psychology proven to a high scientif standard which doesnt contain a long string of ifs and buts, go ahead. Psychology is just too dull these days for me to go into. Times may change however.

[El]

Not prejudiced at all. If you can demonstrate to me something in psychology proven to a high scientif standard which doesnt contain a long string of ifs and buts, go ahead. Psychology is just too dull these days for me to go into. Times may change however.

Of course there's ifs and buts.     Human beings are varied and live varied lives.  Behavior varies from person to person, situation to situation, culture to culture, etc. depending on the scales you look at it on.  If you're looking for something like "100%", "always," and "never" in a statement about human behavior, you're pretty limited in what you can say.  However, that's true even in what you consider 'hard' science, not dealing with human behavior, or the behavior of a living organism at all.  Even water doesn't "always" freeze at the same temperature.

[Christopher McCandless]

Not prejudiced at all. If you can demonstrate to me something in psychology proven to a high scientif standard which doesnt contain a long string of ifs and buts, go ahead. Psychology is just too dull these days for me to go into. Times may change however.

Of course there's ifs and buts.     Human beings are varied and live varied lives.  Behavior varies from person to person, situation to situation, culture to culture, etc. depending on the scales you look at it on.  If you're looking for something like "100%", "always," and "never" in a statement about human behavior, you're pretty limited in what you can say.  However, that's true even in what you consider 'hard' science, not dealing with human behavior, or the behavior of a living organism at all.  Even water doesn't "always" freeze at the same temperature.

Yes there are ifs and buts, but they should have most NT's figured out by now, so they could go we took X NT's, did this to them, the results were... As for the water freezing one, if its pure and under the same atmospheric pressure then it will freeze at zero. The point is they know the variables where there is a problem, rather than saying X percent of the time, and a statement following it. Anyway i mainly do maths, and everything can be proven or disproven within that area. What areas of psychology did you do anyway?

[mordok]

...but they should have most NT's figured out by now...
...
Anyway i mainly do maths, and everything can be proven or disproven within that area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem

Granted, this has now been proved.  But it took many, many years and, until then, had been a classic example of an 'unsolvable' problem.  Perhaps psychology (a much younger science) still has some ways to go?

[Christopher McCandless]

...but they should have most NT's figured out by now...
...
Anyway i mainly do maths, and everything can be proven or disproven within that area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem

Granted, this has now been proved.  But it took many, many years and, until then, had been a classic example of an 'unsolvable' problem.  Perhaps psychology (a much younger science) still has some ways to go?

If it is a science, it should improve sooner or later enough for it to intrest me. I am not convinced it is going to happen anytime soon. Look how much younger CS is, and how much further that has got, relative to psychology. They tend to nail these maths problems in the end, as you have shown. It just takes time.

[mordok]

If it is a science, it should improve sooner or later enough for it to intrest me. I am not convinced it is going to happen anytime soon. Look how much younger CS is, and how much further that has got, relative to psychology. They tend to nail these maths problems in the end, as you have shown. It just takes time.

So something has to interest YOU and convince YOU before it can be considered a science?  I am humbled by your presence.

As for computer science (did I mention that this is what my degree is in?), of course it's improved faster.  I can set a system to run a million tests and have the results within a day.  A psychology study, on the other hand, usually involves people and questionnaires and takes excessive amounts of time to administer and gather the responses before you can even get to the analysis.

Now, I'm not trying to be belligerent.  I'm more of a 'hard' sciences kind of person myself.  It's easier when everything can be placed in nice, neat columns, black or white, 1 or 0.  But humans are analog, there's a lot of gray area.  We are all different, unique, individual.  There's commonality, sure.  If there weren't, psych would never be able to exist.  Of course, we'd never have gotten off the ground as a species either.  But dismissing something just because it doesn't make sense to your worldview is only limiting yourself.

[Lucifer]

good points, all, mordok.   

 

[The_P]

Mordok's a sound gent.

[El]

If it is a science, it should improve sooner or later enough for it to intrest me. I am not convinced it is going to happen anytime soon. Look how much younger CS is, and how much further that has got, relative to psychology. They tend to nail these maths problems in the end, as you have shown. It just takes time.

So something has to interest YOU and convince YOU before it can be considered a science?  I am humbled by your presence.

As for computer science (did I mention that this is what my degree is in?), of course it's improved faster.  I can set a system to run a million tests and have the results within a day.  A psychology study, on the other hand, usually involves people and questionnaires and takes excessive amounts of time to administer and gather the responses before you can even get to the analysis.

Now, I'm not trying to be belligerent.  I'm more of a 'hard' sciences kind of person myself.  It's easier when everything can be placed in nice, neat columns, black or white, 1 or 0.  But humans are analog, there's a lot of gray area.  We are all different, unique, individual.  There's commonality, sure.  If there weren't, psych would never be able to exist.  Of course, we'd never have gotten off the ground as a species either.  But dismissing something just because it doesn't make sense to your worldview is only limiting yourself.

   TY, you've saved me much work.

Might I add, psychology studies are not only limited by time and difficulty in getting subjects, but also in regards to the pretty strict ethical standards that exist when expirementing on humans- ethical standards that are unnecessary when not dealing with humans.  (arguably, they're necessary when dealing with animals on some moral level, but realistically, they aren't as stringent.)

[Lucifer]

oh, this is all such rot.    (not you, PMS Elle, but you don't need to defend it).

it's the same old same old about extending kudos and approbation towards some subjects and not others.  depends what's in fashion.  at the moment, it's "hard" subjects, like maths and physics.  the wheel will probably turn again, though, i dare say.

[Peter]

Might I add, psychology studies are not only limited by time and difficulty in getting subjects, but also in regards to the pretty strict ethical standards that exist when expirementing on humans- ethical standards that are unnecessary when not dealing with humans.  (arguably, they're necessary when dealing with animals on some moral level, but realistically, they aren't as stringent.)

That's why I don't tell people about my kid-in-a-cage experiments.