|
How dated is Jung at this point? I know he was influential in his time, but then again he was one of Freud's contemporaries and look where he got us.
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
NGDBSS posted:How dated is Jung at this point? I know he was influential in his time, but then again he was one of Freud's contemporaries and look where he got us. He's an influential thinker for modern psychologists but most of his ideas are not testable.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
I'm glad the social sciences exist, but I don't get how they let these zombie research programs keep shuffling along well past their use-by date. Like, in chemistry we don't have people getting PhDs in Arrhenian or Kelvinite chemistry or whatever the gently caress, we took their theories as far as they could go and then threw them in the trash when they broke. But psychology and (to bring it back on topic) economics seem to have these weird cults of personality that keep trucking even when better models get developed.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I'm glad the social sciences exist, but I don't get how they let these zombie research programs keep shuffling along well past their use-by date. Like, in chemistry we don't have people getting PhDs in Arrhenian or Kelvinite chemistry or whatever the gently caress, we took their theories as far as they could go and then threw them in the trash when they broke. But psychology and (to bring it back on topic) economics seem to have these weird cults of personality that keep trucking even when better models get developed. I would say a big part of it is just that the social sciences aren't a focus for a lot of institutions, so they try not to rock the boat out of fear they'll lose even more funding.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
 Actually modern chemistry is a fraud because it violates Aristotle's Law of Identity
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
"Aristotle can eat my rear end" should be the first chapter in every modern science textbook
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
I was gonna ask in the Jordy Pete thread, what Freud and Jung actually mean to a professional psychologist today. Like as far as I know, medical doctors don't give a poo poo about Galen from a practical point of view.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I was gonna ask in the Jordy Pete thread, what Freud and Jung actually mean to a professional psychologist today. Like as far as I know, medical doctors don't give a poo poo about Galen from a practical point of view. Well, a bunch of your patients are going to believe one or both are real and if you're going to treat them you're going to need to work around those sorts of beliefs for one. Even if you're not one who's doing active treatments of patients, your study would need to consider those topics when they come up.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I'm glad the social sciences exist, but I don't get how they let these zombie research programs keep shuffling along well past their use-by date. Like, in chemistry we don't have people getting PhDs in Arrhenian or Kelvinite chemistry or whatever the gently caress, we took their theories as far as they could go and then threw them in the trash when they broke. But psychology and (to bring it back on topic) economics seem to have these weird cults of personality that keep trucking even when better models get developed. Let me tell you about the flat earth, hold on while I park my perpetual motion machine
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
My university email got newsletters from a perpetual motion advocate for a while. They stopped last year, I guess he couldn't keep it going forever.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Booooo get off the stage boooooooo
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:My university email got newsletters from a perpetual motion advocate for a while. They stopped last year, I guess he couldn't keep it going forever. Try this One Weird Trick for infinite free energy! Experts in Thermodynamics hate this suburban mom who solved perpetual motion!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Booooo get off the stage boooooooo i liked it
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
Me too this is how I show approval
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
I think social scientists have to deal with programs teaching and advocating dumb busted bullshit because there's political money in it. The money in advocating crap in the physical sciences are more in it for the apolitical grift.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I'm glad the social sciences exist, but I don't get how they let these zombie research programs keep shuffling along well past their use-by date. Like, in chemistry we don't have people getting PhDs in Arrhenian or Kelvinite chemistry or whatever the gently caress, we took their theories as far as they could go and then threw them in the trash when they broke. But psychology and (to bring it back on topic) economics seem to have these weird cults of personality that keep trucking even when better models get developed. You can predict how individual atoms will act with the right math. Physical science follows hard rules that tend to not break down. That's useful because if you understand those rules you can control that stuff. There are people that want to control people the same way so they fund looking for the rules. That isn't always terrible. You start to see things like the fact that crowds behave like fluids so if you put escape valves on the crowd you don't get people getting crushed to death because the crowd has nowhere to go and the pressure built up too high. What economists want to find is accurate predictions in the economy so the game can be rigged. Of course the same people that want to rig the game hate regulations because those usually get out into place because somebody found a way to rig the game.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I'm glad the social sciences exist, but I don't get how they let these zombie research programs keep shuffling along well past their use-by date. Like, in chemistry we don't have people getting PhDs in Arrhenian or Kelvinite chemistry or whatever the gently caress, we took their theories as far as they could go and then threw them in the trash when they broke. But psychology and (to bring it back on topic) economics seem to have these weird cults of personality that keep trucking even when better models get developed. Austrian Economics is funded by billionaires wanting someone to come up with forestloads of theory to justify being greedy. Literally in the case of the Koch brothers and the GMU Econ department.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
Oh, I get it in the case of econ, there are lots of financial incentives to build up a pet economic theory. But I doubt there's a billionaire funding Jungian psych research, you know?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
The CIA funded Gloria Steinem and the Iowa Writers' Workshop, so who knows
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
I remember the day early on in grad school when advisor told me that with a lot of hard work and luck, I might one day find my research underwritten and my views promoted by shadowy organizations with sinister agendas. Oh, to dream.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I remember the day early on in grad school when advisor told me that with a lot of hard work and luck, I might one day find my research underwritten and my views promoted by shadowy organizations with sinister agendas. Oh, to dream. Heh, it took that long? My department's building is named for an oil company. There's a big ol plaque in the front lobby dedicated to a different oil company. Shoulda gotten a STEM degree if you wanted to get hired by an evil organization  
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
There's always some demand for social research, it's just not as profitable because if you massage the numbers to be more like what your benefactor wants, they won't call you back when it fucks up their propaganda campaign.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:There's always some demand for social research, it's just not as profitable because if you massage the numbers to be more like what your benefactor wants, they won't call you back when it fucks up their propaganda campaign. It doesn't help that my work to date has been critical of the creation of nationally redemptive postwar mythologies focusing on veterans and especially POWs/MIAs. Ain't never getting an evil billionaire underwriting that poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 22:26
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I'm glad the social sciences exist, but I don't get how they let these zombie research programs keep shuffling along well past their use-by date. Like, in chemistry we don't have people getting PhDs in Arrhenian or Kelvinite chemistry or whatever the gently caress, we took their theories as far as they could go and then threw them in the trash when they broke. But psychology and (to bring it back on topic) economics seem to have these weird cults of personality that keep trucking even when better models get developed. It's harder to conclusively falsify things in a bunch of the social sciences, or even to do really good theoretical development work, when compared with "hard" stuff. Pressure is hard to measure and quantify, but it's easier to work with than "depression" or "propensity for sharing rumors". The overarching standard of statistics and methods training, while improving, is still quite poor in many areas. Sources of funding and lay coverage often flow toward pseudoscience that offers easy explanations and support popular beliefs. And all the petty corruptions and social forces that mess with all of academia. All of these issues also are compounding over time- if there were a slight gap in rigor and coherence between social and physical in, say, the forties, that gap would have a tendency to widen itself over the decades that followed. And of course, lack of funding looms over it all. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:44 on May 25, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's harder to conclusively falsify things in a bunch of the social sciences, or even to do really good theoretical development work, when compared with "hard" stuff. Pressure is hard to measure and quantify, but it's easier to work with than "depression" or "propensity for sharing rumors". The overarching standard of statistics and methods training, while improving, is still quite poor in many areas. Sources of funding and lay coverage often flow toward pseudoscience that offers easy explanations and support popular beliefs. And all the petty corruptions and social forces that mess with all of academia. It'd be a lot easier if they'd just let us run double blind studies on groups of orphans, though.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 22:44
|
|
Keeshhound posted:It'd be a lot easier if they'd just let us run double blind studies on groups of orphans, though. Orphans make terrible research participants- there's a lot of variance within the group, and they don't map well to applications in a general population. Now, what I propose is a series of large underground vaults...
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
When I said black people are genetically inferior people immediately pointed out I'm factually wrong and am in fact a racist, but now I say black "culture" (wink wink) is inferior, and suddenly it's a daring revolutionary new idea the Mainstream is just too afraid to engage with.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's harder to conclusively falsify things in a bunch of the social sciences, or even to do really good theoretical development work, when compared with "hard" stuff. Pressure is hard to measure and quantify, but it's easier to work with than "depression" or "propensity for sharing rumors". The overarching standard of statistics and methods training, while improving, is still quite poor in many areas. Sources of funding and lay coverage often flow toward pseudoscience that offers easy explanations and support popular beliefs. And all the petty corruptions and social forces that mess with all of academia. Again, there's "relative differences in rigor" and then there's "jungians running around yelling about dragons."
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/C_C_Gill/status/1000351536063696896 brain genius discovers most journalists have "arts degrees"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2018 14:58
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:https://twitter.com/C_C_Gill/status/1000351536063696896 also has a metric arseload of actual scientists in her mentions linking their commentary on Peterson's inanity
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
Well, what's the r? You'd think someone with a BS in psych (with honors!) could calculate a correlation coefficient.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
Lmbo at calling J Pee's drivel 'scientific theories" while trying to say the people criticizing him don't understand science well enough. Just lmbo
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Jung and Freud were mostly covered in terms of history of thought of various subjects -personality, sexuality, etc - in my grad program in psychology. That's also where they show up on our licensing boards.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Jung and Freud were mostly covered in terms of history of thought of various subjects -personality, sexuality, etc - in my grad program in psychology. That's also where they show up on our licensing boards. Which was the King of Order, and which the Dragon of Chaos?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
Also which one was the one that always told the truth and which one always lied? That was a bastard of a dungeon to escape from
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:Also which one was the one that always told the truth and which one always lied? That was a bastard of a dungeon to escape from I think that was Jung and Freud respectively, though you can never be sure since neither's theories are falsifiable!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 13:13
|
|
|
OH NO who could have predicted this https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1000560049389907969 https://twitter.com/isi_kbreen/status/1000595885099806720 https://twitter.com/AliceAvizandum/status/1000667636500492289
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 13:54
|
|
|
Lol now his girlfriend is going to have to come out in support of antisemitism and lose half her fans.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 13:57
|
|
|
divabot posted:OH NO who could have predicted this I thought he meant powerful people like himself already owned the press and then I see those replies and of course it's racism.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Just as a quick thing but where does the title quote actually come from. People aren't actually loving watermelons are they?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 14:21
|
|
