vol 98 issue 22
Locked
 
|
My questions keep disappearing, but I will try again responding to the discussion on science of psychology being fragmented. I believe, having studied it for a few years, that psychologists are widely separate in their core views because psychology, historically, tried too hard to separate the mind from the body, and from the universe. Developmental psychology comes a bit closer to the "truth" because of its heavy inclusion of the physique. In my opinion, due to this first and primary exclusionary fault, the results of psychological experiments are skewed. Sort of like how early science, which did not include quantum theory, quarks, etc, are missing key data/theorems in determining the rational for results. For example, when studying psychology for a few years in New Hampshire, I happened to respond to comments by a few professors who were saying that experiments showed that religious people have the presence of a different tiny "thing" in the central part of the brain near the hypothalamus (as I recall). They said this was leading to conclusions that there was a flaw in religious people, possibly genetically caused. I asked (a couple times) -- "Could it be that rather than religious people having something extra in their brain causing their religiousity, that non-religious people -- atheists and such -- have something missing from theirs?" (not intending a bias either way, but it irked me that they seemed to be saying that scientists were assuming if you were religious in bent, that meant you had a flaw. It also was of interest to me that many of the psychological scientists being quoted were non-religious.)
The response was --- "Well, good question. The type of question we need to keep asking." Studying psychology did not enhance my belief in the science. I did find that developmental psychology -- studying neurons, child development, cognitive behavior and such seemed to have more reliable studies and results. Have a great day! Peggy Miller -- Peggy Miller, owner/OEO
Highland Winds
wix.com/peggymiller/highlandwinds Shop is at 1520 S. 7th St. W. (Just off Russell, four blocks from Good Food Store) Art, Photography, Herbs and Writings
406-541-7577 (home/office/shop) Shop Hours: Tues/Wed: 12-4 Thurs: 3-7 pm Fri-Sat: 10 am -2pm ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Peggy, you make an interesting point (so THIS comment got through) about the dissociation between mind and body that informed early psychological studies.
I'd add that one of the signs of an early, or undeveloped, science is the lack of subsuming principles. As the science matures, the details get subsumed in the big principles. Those 56 divisions suggest that psychology hasn't yet reached that point. Pamela On Aug 22, 2011, at 11:16 AM, peggy miller wrote: My questions keep disappearing, but I will try again responding to the discussion on science of psychology being fragmented. I believe, having studied it for a few years, that psychologists are widely separate in their core views because psychology, historically, tried too hard to separate the mind from the body, and from the universe. Developmental psychology comes a bit closer to the "truth" because of its heavy inclusion of the physique. In my opinion, due to this first and primary exclusionary fault, the results of psychological experiments are skewed. Sort of like how early science, which did not include quantum theory, quarks, etc, are missing key data/theorems in determining the rational for results. For example, when studying psychology for a few years in New Hampshire, I happened to respond to comments by a few professors who were saying that experiments showed that religious people have the presence of a different tiny "thing" in the central part of the brain near the hypothalamus (as I recall). They said this was leading to conclusions that there was a flaw in religious people, possibly genetically caused. I asked (a couple times) -- "Could it be that rather than religious people having something extra in their brain causing their religiousity, that non-religious people -- atheists and such -- have something missing from theirs?" (not intending a bias either way, but it irked me that they seemed to be saying that scientists were assuming if you were religious in bent, that meant you had a flaw. It also was of interest to me that many of the psychological scientists being quoted were non-religious.) ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by HighlandWindsLLC Miller
Peggy, Kim, n all, One of the features of evolutionary psychology that I like is that it is less likely to see non-normative variations in psychological organization as diseases. Rather, it tends to see them as potential adaptations to different selection pressures. David Sloan Wilson in his Darwin’s Cathedral holds the view that the human predilection to religion is an adaptation that fosters subjugation of individual interests to those of the group. In short, it works just because it is irrational (given that “reason” is deployed to determine an individual’s best course of action for himself and his own genealogy). Nick From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of peggy miller My questions keep disappearing, but I will try again responding to the discussion on science of psychology being fragmented. I believe, having studied it for a few years, that psychologists are widely separate in their core views because psychology, historically, tried too hard to separate the mind from the body, and from the universe. Developmental psychology comes a bit closer to the "truth" because of its heavy inclusion of the physique. In my opinion, due to this first and primary exclusionary fault, the results of psychological experiments are skewed. Sort of like how early science, which did not include quantum theory, quarks, etc, are missing key data/theorems in determining the rational for results. For example, when studying psychology for a few years in New Hampshire, I happened to respond to comments by a few professors who were saying that experiments showed that religious people have the presence of a different tiny "thing" in the central part of the brain near the hypothalamus (as I recall). They said this was leading to conclusions that there was a flaw in religious people, possibly genetically caused. I asked (a couple times) -- "Could it be that rather than religious people having something extra in their brain causing their religiousity, that non-religious people -- atheists and such -- have something missing from theirs?" (not intending a bias either way, but it irked me that they seemed to be saying that scientists were assuming if you were religious in bent, that meant you had a flaw. It also was of interest to me that many of the psychological scientists being quoted were non-religious.) Peggy Miller, owner/OEO Highland Winds Art, Photography, Herbs and Writings 406-541-7577 (home/office/shop) ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
This certainly explains Mormonism, in my experience. Subjugation, etc. I'll be traveling through Mormon country again in two days, so the peculiar irrationalities of this particular cult have been fresh on my mind. -Doug Sent from Android. On Aug 22, 2011 10:03 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Peggy, Kim, n all, > > > > One of the features of evolutionary psychology that I like is that it is > less likely to see non-normative variations in psychological organization as > diseases. Rather, it tends to see them as potential adaptations to > different selection pressures. David Sloan Wilson in his Darwin's Cathedral > holds the view that the human predilection to religion is an adaptation > that fosters subjugation of individual interests to those of the group. In > short, it works just because it is irrational (given that "reason" is > deployed to determine an individual's best course of action for himself and > his own genealogy). > > > > Nick > > > > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf > Of peggy miller > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 1:17 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: [FRIAM] vol 98 issue 22 > > > > My questions keep disappearing, but I will try again responding to the > discussion on science of psychology being fragmented. I believe, having > studied it for a few years, that psychologists are widely separate in their > core views because psychology, historically, tried too hard to separate the > mind from the body, and from the universe. Developmental psychology comes a > bit closer to the "truth" because of its heavy inclusion of the physique. In > my opinion, due to this first and primary exclusionary fault, the results of > psychological experiments are skewed. Sort of like how early science, which > did not include quantum theory, quarks, etc, are missing key data/theorems > in determining the rational for results. For example, when studying > psychology for a few years in New Hampshire, I happened to respond to > comments by a few professors who were saying that experiments showed that > religious people have the presence of a different tiny "thing" in the > central part of the brain near the hypothalamus (as I recall). They said > this was leading to conclusions that there was a flaw in religious people, > possibly genetically caused. I asked (a couple times) -- "Could it be that > rather than religious people having something extra in their brain causing > their religiousity, that non-religious people -- atheists and such -- have > something missing from theirs?" (not intending a bias either way, but it > irked me that they seemed to be saying that scientists were assuming if you > were religious in bent, that meant you had a flaw. It also was of interest > to me that many of the psychological scientists being quoted were > non-religious.) > The response was --- "Well, good question. The type of question we need to > keep asking." > Studying psychology did not enhance my belief in the science. I did find > that developmental psychology -- studying neurons, child development, > cognitive behavior and such seemed to have more reliable studies and > results. > Have a great day! > Peggy Miller > > -- > > Peggy Miller, owner/OEO > > Highland Winds > wix.com/peggymiller/highlandwinds > Shop is at 1520 S. 7th St. W. (Just off Russell, four blocks from Good Food > Store) > > Art, Photography, Herbs and Writings > > 406-541-7577 (home/office/shop) > Shop Hours: Tues/Wed: 12-4 > Thurs: 3-7 pm > Fri-Sat: 10 am -2pm > > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by HighlandWindsLLC Miller
Interesting book. One you should have written?
-J. Sent from Android Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> hat geschrieben: Peggy, Kim, n all, One of the features of evolutionary psychology that I like is that it is less likely to see non-normative variations in psychological organization as diseases. Rather, it tends to see them as potential adaptations to different selection pressures. David Sloan Wilson in his Darwin’s Cathedral holds the view that the human predilection to religion is an adaptation that fosters subjugation of individual interests to those of the group. In short, it works just because it is irrational (given that “reason” is deployed to determine an individual’s best course of action for himself and his own genealogy). Nick From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of peggy miller My questions keep disappearing, but I will try again responding to the discussion on science of psychology being fragmented. I believe, having studied it for a few years, that psychologists are widely separate in their core views because psychology, historically, tried too hard to separate the mind from the body, and from the universe. Developmental psychology comes a bit closer to the "truth" because of its heavy inclusion of the physique. In my opinion, due to this first and primary exclusionary fault, the results of psychological experiments are skewed. Sort of like how early science, which did not include quantum theory, quarks, etc, are missing key data/theorems in determining the rational for results. For example, when studying psychology for a few years in New Hampshire, I happened to respond to comments by a few professors who were saying that experiments showed that religious people have the presence of a different tiny "thing" in the central part of the brain near the hypothalamus (as I recall). They said this was leading to conclusions that there was a flaw in religious people, possibly genetically caused. I asked (a couple times) -- "Could it be that rather than religious people having something extra in their brain causing their religiousity, that non-religious people -- atheists and such -- have something missing from theirs?" (not intending a bias either way, but it irked me that they seemed to be saying that scientists were assuming if you were religious in bent, that meant you had a flaw. It also was of interest to me that many of the psychological scientists being quoted were non-religious.) Peggy Miller, owner/OEO Highland Winds Art, Photography, Herbs and Writings 406-541-7577 (home/office/shop) ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by HighlandWindsLLC Miller
Peggy,
Very good points. I realize my answer to Owen might have given the impression that Psychology had nothing that could serve as a solid foundation. Not so. If I believed there was nothing available for a foundation, I would have titled the blog somethings like "Time to abandon psychology". There is chance at "Fixing Psychology", because the the needed material is there. If you cut through the (abundant) rhetorical posturing and dig into historic findings, then psychology has plenty of material on which to build a solid, and fairly unified science. Part of the problem is that once questions have been answered in a fairly solid way, people stop researching in those directions - and for some crazy reason, psychologists stop teaching things that are not currently popular research topics, and so much really great and definitive work has been forgotten. Indeed, much of that good work falls under "Developmental Psychology," an area in which, traditionally, researchers have had a good handle on physiological and evolutionary issues. Eric P.S. Agree completely with your analysis of your professor's bias. On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 01:16 PM, peggy miller <[hidden email]> wrote: Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5
“…should have written …” Ahhhhh! A knife to the heart! Actually, Wilson is so good that I can read his books without envy. Nick From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm Interesting book. One you should have written? -J.
Peggy, Kim, n all, One of the features of evolutionary psychology that I like is that it is less likely to see non-normative variations in psychological organization as diseases. Rather, it tends to see them as potential adaptations to different selection pressures. David Sloan Wilson in his Darwin’s Cathedral holds the view that the human predilection to religion is an adaptation that fosters subjugation of individual interests to those of the group. In short, it works just because it is irrational (given that “reason” is deployed to determine an individual’s best course of action for himself and his own genealogy). Nick From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of peggy miller My questions keep disappearing, but I will try again responding to the discussion on science of psychology being fragmented. I believe, having studied it for a few years, that psychologists are widely separate in their core views because psychology, historically, tried too hard to separate the mind from the body, and from the universe. Developmental psychology comes a bit closer to the "truth" because of its heavy inclusion of the physique. In my opinion, due to this first and primary exclusionary fault, the results of psychological experiments are skewed. Sort of like how early science, which did not include quantum theory, quarks, etc, are missing key data/theorems in determining the rational for results. For example, when studying psychology for a few years in New Hampshire, I happened to respond to comments by a few professors who were saying that experiments showed that religious people have the presence of a different tiny "thing" in the central part of the brain near the hypothalamus (as I recall). They said this was leading to conclusions that there was a flaw in religious people, possibly genetically caused. I asked (a couple times) -- "Could it be that rather than religious people having something extra in their brain causing their religiousity, that non-religious people -- atheists and such -- have something missing from theirs?" (not intending a bias either way, but it irked me that they seemed to be saying that scientists were assuming if you were religious in bent, that meant you had a flaw. It also was of interest to me that many of the psychological scientists being quoted were non-religious.) Peggy Miller, owner/OEO Highland Winds Art, Photography, Herbs and Writings 406-541-7577 (home/office/shop) ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |