6 replies to this topic

[justinb]

The lack of a Psychology section at ImmInst speaks volumes. I believe we should add one as soon as possible.

Here is an interesting introductory website for nonverbal communication.

Nonverbal Dictionary

[DJS]

Well, there is always a section which "needs to be added", but I agree that the subject of psychology (more specifically evolutionary psychology) is an important one. Not sure where you would put this kind of section though...we do have a social science subforum, but it wouldn't really fit there....hhhmm.

You know what I would do if I were you Justin. Maybe try starting a thread (or two or three) in the philosophy forum, and if you can get it looking good and organized then leadership may consider giving the subject its own subforum somewhere on the site. [thumb]

[justinb]

Ok, I will do it when I have the time and motivation. [tung]

[emerson]

I somewhat agree it could be a good idea. I think between social sciences and philosophy most of the theoretical and speculative aspects of psychology are covered. A section more geared to experimental, or possibly evolutionary psychology, might be interesting.

[David]

Psychology is definitely a social science young Don. You might as well put evolutionary psychology in the fiction section though. It's not really a science as its Ho:'s aren't falsifyable. Not until we really reach immortality and get to stick around a long time to test them. Not much good except as topics for drunken blah blah around the dinner table.

2 more weeks and the double degree finished, by the way. Anyone need their head shrunk?

Dave

[DJS]

Psychology is definitely a social science young Don. You might as well put evolutionary psychology in the fiction section though. It's not really a science as its Ho:'s aren't falsifyable.

Hi Dave. Long time no see.

At this point I tend (for the most part) to view the overarching term of "social science" to be an oxymoron. )

I also find it telling that you should have the attitude you do regarding evolutionary psychology, however I am not all too suprised as this is the typical response I am accustomed to hearing from individuals pursuing psychology as a profession.

Currently I have become more partial to the idea of "neuro-philosophy" as proposed by Patricia Churchland. Essentially it is a merger of cognitive science (which operates predominately within the behavioralist paradigm) and neuroscience, a field that could more readily be considered a "hard science" which is conducive to testable hypotheses. However, I also believe that a more comprehensive and *integrated* neuro-philosophy will have a need for the more speculative field of evolutionary psych. You see, the problem with evo-psych is that it runs the risk, by itself, of telling "just so stories". But when coupled with more *grounded* fields it could have a valuable role to play as an illuminator -- something which provides a sense of direction to the more analytic fields.

In reality evolutionary psych has inherent value because it couches it speculations within a naturalistic frame work (naturalism being a philosophy which operates within certain epistemic parameters). Thus it is able to at least attempt answering the *why questions* which traditional psychology has completely ignored. A good example of this is Pinker's advancement of "kin selection theory" which has completely toppled the Oedipal speculations put forward by psychology's patron saint, Sig Freud.

Psychology not grounded in naturalism is fluff.

[David]

Yea Don, I've been pretty busy. Between the studies and the various projects I've been involved in... playing music and shrinking heads does wear one out! [lol] Heh, I've even been tutoring stats! Wot a nerd! [glasses]

I get what you are saying, the "social" side of science is often an inexact science. That is why they are so hard on us in our studies. I really couldn't think of anything more fascinating though. It gets even more interesting when they start encouraging you to do your own research.

I'm one of those traditionalists that doesn't believe that delving into neuroscience is real psychology. I do believe that in a few score years it will branch off into its own realm. Indeed, already some of my lecturers have told me already that they arn't psychologists, they are Biologicologists. I'ts a sneaky way of them not having to adhere to the guidelines and ethical demands of the APA. Leaves them free to date their students. The rotters!!!!

I myself have behaviourist leanings, and consider Freud nothing more than a social historian for his own culture, geography and time. Not to mention his own SELF.

Psychology not grounded in the scientific method is fluff. I do see your point though. I see evolutionary psychology as a rich mining ground for ideas. Unfortunately, like I said, it can't be proved. Not yet! You can tinker around the edges, a kind of human directed "intelligent design" over short periods of time with short lived species like worms and mice. From what I can gather though, if you then put the altered mice in a cage and let them do their own thing they revert back to their original form over a number of generations. It's almost as if evolution has it's own ideas!

If you want to look into an alternative to kin selection theory, check out 'terror management theory'. Although really, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

I don't believe in altruism. We do things for reward or to escape punishment. Most often, the punishment we in the "civilised" realm are avoiding is meted out by our own sense of what is right and wrong (guilt, apprehension, depression, anxiety), instilled through training recieved through the environment as we progress from cradle to grave.

Shees, you can tell I'm up to date with everything can't you? One presentation, two exams and one research proposal to go!

Dave