By law, all journals should have to accept all papers for publication before seeing the results, and publish at least 50% replications. Academic career points should be (citations of replicated studies)- 2x(citations of studies that failed replication)
I suspect at least part of the noisy science problem with psychology is the same as that encountered with trying to herd cats, or trying to reason with a tired three year-old; i.e., the subject matter being examined squirms. And, on top of that, the researcher or researchers involved also do their own squirming. Not so much a problem with the natural sciences because at least the subject matter being observed exhibits relatively stable characteristics. One less degree of freedom with the natural sciences.
So I’ve never looked at the growth mindset literature, but my prior is very high that something like it is true, that it’s better to believe in self-improvement than be fatalistic. Is it just the interventions that don’t work to improve outcomes? Or is there no relationship between belief in self-improvement and better outcomes?
As with Intellectually Artificial modern science, Guénon said psychology was only as good as the godless psychos who went in to it hoping to learn if they were normal or not. (I paraphrase.)
Usually those with psyche problems have an underlying and significant spiritual problem that remains woefully unaddressed, and are force-packing yet more and even moar scientism as a means to solve it. Said woebegone patient is then permanently capped by the metaphysic level (generally low to non-existent) of the average psychologist, sealing their doom at the hands of what is the true meaning of 'artificial intellect'.
So no, modern psychology will never become a real science until the genuine metaphysic source of the psyche (soul) is addressed first.
I don't think Guénon's requirements can ever be met given the current dominant ideologies. At least a concession, I think, is possible. Before the 'inversion of quality' fully sets in, one can aim for 'materially objective' categories which, although cut off from above, is also insulated from below. cf., the replication attempts within cognitive psychology fare better than its social variant.
I agree that the 'soul' comes first, possibly after (?) the 'spirit', and the analysis of contingencies (which is all a scientific psychology can ever be) must be subservient in this hierarchy to flourish.
"Can AI save science from humans?"....not a bad idea in principle Let's give it a go (although some would say, with irony, 'what could possibly go wrong').
Coming to the (partial) defense of psychology - not as a science but as a field of enquiry - I would say that:
1) Evolutionary psychologists like David Buss seem to be doing some good work.
2) Freud, though rightly dismissed as a 'scientist' nevertheless made some memorably wise observations about human psychology.
Today, about 90% of psychology students are women. It wasn't like this 50 years ago but that's what it is today. That should already answer your question of whether they are doing real science or political activism.
Lee Jussim is the only psychologist whose work is worth following.
I read "can psychology become a proper science" into a deeper meaning: are we at all justified in expecting findings indicated by statistical methods (negligible p-values) to hold outside of their original group? In short, is statistics itself a good tool? I'm not so sure.
"The markers of being a bad study are: 1) having only one stimulus per study (I don't know what this means exactly either), and more amusingly, 2) NOT being social psychology."
By law, all journals should have to accept all papers for publication before seeing the results, and publish at least 50% replications. Academic career points should be (citations of replicated studies)- 2x(citations of studies that failed replication)
I suspect at least part of the noisy science problem with psychology is the same as that encountered with trying to herd cats, or trying to reason with a tired three year-old; i.e., the subject matter being examined squirms. And, on top of that, the researcher or researchers involved also do their own squirming. Not so much a problem with the natural sciences because at least the subject matter being observed exhibits relatively stable characteristics. One less degree of freedom with the natural sciences.
So I’ve never looked at the growth mindset literature, but my prior is very high that something like it is true, that it’s better to believe in self-improvement than be fatalistic. Is it just the interventions that don’t work to improve outcomes? Or is there no relationship between belief in self-improvement and better outcomes?
Interventions don't work. Not too surprising. Who thinks one can really change people's personalities using some lame school intervention?
As with Intellectually Artificial modern science, Guénon said psychology was only as good as the godless psychos who went in to it hoping to learn if they were normal or not. (I paraphrase.)
Usually those with psyche problems have an underlying and significant spiritual problem that remains woefully unaddressed, and are force-packing yet more and even moar scientism as a means to solve it. Said woebegone patient is then permanently capped by the metaphysic level (generally low to non-existent) of the average psychologist, sealing their doom at the hands of what is the true meaning of 'artificial intellect'.
So no, modern psychology will never become a real science until the genuine metaphysic source of the psyche (soul) is addressed first.
I don't think Guénon's requirements can ever be met given the current dominant ideologies. At least a concession, I think, is possible. Before the 'inversion of quality' fully sets in, one can aim for 'materially objective' categories which, although cut off from above, is also insulated from below. cf., the replication attempts within cognitive psychology fare better than its social variant.
I agree that the 'soul' comes first, possibly after (?) the 'spirit', and the analysis of contingencies (which is all a scientific psychology can ever be) must be subservient in this hierarchy to flourish.
"Can AI save science from humans?"....not a bad idea in principle Let's give it a go (although some would say, with irony, 'what could possibly go wrong').
Coming to the (partial) defense of psychology - not as a science but as a field of enquiry - I would say that:
1) Evolutionary psychologists like David Buss seem to be doing some good work.
2) Freud, though rightly dismissed as a 'scientist' nevertheless made some memorably wise observations about human psychology.
Today, about 90% of psychology students are women. It wasn't like this 50 years ago but that's what it is today. That should already answer your question of whether they are doing real science or political activism.
Lee Jussim is the only psychologist whose work is worth following.
I read "can psychology become a proper science" into a deeper meaning: are we at all justified in expecting findings indicated by statistical methods (negligible p-values) to hold outside of their original group? In short, is statistics itself a good tool? I'm not so sure.
"The markers of being a bad study are: 1) having only one stimulus per study (I don't know what this means exactly either), and more amusingly, 2) NOT being social psychology."
Remove the "NOT" in #2