You're viewing a single thread.
reminder not to judge a book by its cover. these kinds of self improvement books are often titled to attract the people that need them more than reflect the opinions inside. like that one social media post of the lady burning a book titled "guys like girls who..." because she assumed it was hateful, but the point of the book was to help young women build confidence and realize they don't need male approval.
These books are pseudoscientific bullshit, to be clear
Anything related to psychology and sociology is pseudoscience.
No, you're massively overgeneralizing. Freud is pseudoscience, but there's lots of very real studies especially around the 60s (before ethics were considered) that follow the scientific method and have real measurable outcomes and conclusions.
Don't be anti science. Science is a method, not a social club.
There definitely is real, experimental psychology, but unfortunately the vast majority of psychology in the popular consciousness, and even in some academic / professional bodies, is modern-day phrenology. (Also I'd cut Freud some slack, since he was working based on the standards of his time.)
Psychology from the 60s is unreplicatable just-so story trash. Some stuff being done in the last decade or two is starting to approach legitimacy, but I think we're still not really there yet.
The only reason you think you have space to say that is because doing direct psychological experimentation on humans is extremely unethical
The only reason I "have space to say so" is because it's not a science. Allowing whatever you mean by "direct psychological experimentation" wouldn't change that.
I'm not saying it's a field of study that isn't useful, but it's not science.
That sound was a behavior analyst stabbing UndercoverUlrikHD in the spleen. I'm guessing you know absolutely nothing about the different fields within psychology, or even much beyond what you're exposed to in popular culture. Yet here you are, trying to redefine the scientific method to suit your feelings
I typed this whole comment about how and why sociology is a science, and realized they probably don't give a shit.
You're absolutely right that I'm not an expert on neither psychology nor sociology. But I'm not basing my opinions on popular culture either. My opinions were mostly formed from years ago when I had to do a month research and write my exam in Examen Philosophicum during my study for a Master of Science, where I wrote about the history of scientific theory.
It was mostly when I read about Karl Popper and his criterion of falsifiability that I stumbled upon the "science" of psychology. Other than that, my impression of psychology mostly comes from living with a psychology student for three years and hearing about her studies.
A science without hard facts isn't much of a science from my point of view. You can't reproduce or simulate the minds of people thousands of times. There's so many variables factoring in when you're researching, or diagnosing. How do you separate the researcher's emotions and personal interpretation from the "objective" facts of a person's psyche.
@ZzyzxRoad@sh.itjust.works Implying I'm a troll isn't really a great form of argument. Feel free to type your whole comment again and I'll read it with an open mind.
@ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social I'm not trying to be anti science, I still think it's a worthwhile field of study, I just don't think it's fits the criteria of science. Feel free to show me wrong.
98% if it is just gathering statistics; 2% is trying to pretend to know what those statistics mean.
yeah that's fair, i didn't check myself lol. just saw the ghost of others errors in this post.
I tried reading one of these. Gave up when I realized it was basically a very slightly modified version of the four humours philosophy of philosophy. Couldn’t find anything helpful in it.
yeah, i don't know these books, nor do i often like self help books... this post just reminded me of mistakes I've seen in the past. the internet is very very fast to hate without checking if they're right.
if any book requires its title to be a clickbait in order to sell and author are willing to use such a move, i'd doubt about the quality of its content
hmm, idk, again in the "guys like girls who" example. it's targeting people with bad self image and telling them they're fine the way they are. if you hate that then you're being way too of a purist on your "clickbait" stance
Like 50% of the self help industry is showing people that they're actually the problem in their lives. You'll never get a person like that to read a book called "actually you're the problem" but frame it in a way that they agree with, "surrounded by idiots", and then set up some scenarios, but break them down to show why the other people actually aren't idiots, and it's the "surrounded" person's issues showing through... Well, they may stick around long enough to learn something.
Not necessarily. We live in a capitalist distopia where it doesn't matter how good you are at what you do or what you sell. You won't sell shit if you can't market yourself. The opposite also applies.
I figured they were conspicuous show pieces, intended for others to see on one's bookshelf or in one's hand in public.