Psychology (1 Viewer)

[Arcorn]

Holy shit, this lecturer is bollocks, this isn't a real science, just a pseudo-science.

 

[VIPPER]

i hear it's easy to become a psychologist.

 

[Arcorn]

From what I gathered from the lecture today, yeah.

 

[Carrotsticks]

Holy shit, this lecturer is bollocks, this isn't a real science, just a pseudo-science.

Many of my friends (psychologists of course) are very sensitive about this. However, I cannot deny that I think a course based on fact (or theories supported by a plethora of evidence) would be considerably harder than Psychology.

You can walk into a Psych exam knowing absolutely nothing, and still score decently. However, you can not do the same with a Mathematics or Chemistry/Physics etc exam. In my opinion, this speaks for itself.

Apologies in advance if I've upset anybody, this is just an opinion.

Also Arcorn, may I ask from what University are you taking this course? I think USYD has one crazy Psych lecturer. I crashed one of them for fun to see how loopy he really is.

Fruit loops.

 

[Arcorn]

I'm at UNE, I wanted a bludge subject out of my electives and I could do physics or psyc. So yeah, went for the bludge topic. I was able to do all this, be on facebook AND get everything he was saying typed out (Because I was sick of writing for the day and I type faster anyway) Was pretty boring.

 

[Deer]

i hear it's easy to become a psychologist.

Genuinely not sure if trolling,

buuuuut yeah it is actually very difficult to become a registered psychologist. As I'm sure you'd know if you're studying it, to become a registered psych you need to do your 3 year undergrad majoring in psych, then make it into honours (which is extremely competitive; I've heard stories of needing an HD average but I can't be certain of this. Definitely a WAM of 80+ though.) Then to become registered you need to complete your 2 year masters of clinical psych, which is again extremely competitive, or do 2 years approved experience, which again is very hard to find! Even if you meet the requirement of 1st class or upper 2nd class honours for admission into masters, often you need to compete with students who have done tons of work experience, as well as pass the interview. From a group of 140 applicants they will only accept 15-20 into masters.

I agree that its relationship to science is a strange one, but I think you just have to accept that when dealing with the brain and human behaviour, there's never going to be any black and white formulas as in biology or chemistry (though of course they're both extremely important to psych too). I think that element of the unknown and unpredictable is one of the exciting things about psychology; a strength rather than a weakness. And who wants to spend their life looking down a microscope when you can spend it talking to people! ;D

 

[ladiesman217_]

I agree, I don't really hold psychology in high regard. the only reason im doing psyc1001 is so I can perv on all da hawt chix coming from b.arts. might drop it for a chem unit

 

[ladiesman217_]

Genuinely not sure if trolling,

buuuuut yeah it is actually very difficult to become a registered psychologist. As I'm sure you'd know if you're studying it, to become a registered psych you need to do your 3 year undergrad majoring in psych, then make it into honours (which is extremely competitive; I've heard stories of needing an HD average but I can't be certain of this. Definitely a WAM of 80+ though.) Then to become registered you need to complete your 2 year masters of clinical psych, which is again extremely competitive, or do 2 years approved experience, which again is very hard to find! Even if you meet the requirement of 1st class or upper 2nd class honours for admission into masters, often you need to compete with students who have done tons of work experience, as well as pass the interview. From a group of 140 applicants they will only accept 15-20 into masters.

I agree that its relationship to science is a strange one, but I think you just have to accept that when dealing with the brain and human behaviour, there's never going to be any black and white formulas as in biology or chemistry (though of course they're both extremely important to psych too). I think that element of the unknown and unpredictable is one of the exciting things about psychology; a strength rather than a weakness. And who wants to spend their life looking down a microscope when you can spend it talking to people! ;D

psychologists will one day be replaced by neuroscientists as alchemists had been replaced by chemists.

sorry gurl you picked the wrong degree

 

[Arcorn]

I had a different lecturer today, he didn't have a redeeming communist moustache and pretty much discredited everything he said because he was going on scientific rigour and stuff. Then had all these quotes to show how things change and how it's hard to predict things is hard and how many experts had been wrong. None of the quotes had sources and half of them were misquotations that he obviously hadn't researched very hard. Because he was talking about how not to take things on faith but look at the scientific methods used, etc.

 

[Deer]

Shame that you have such terrible lecturers. There's an extremely nutty one at USyd but there's also a brilliant one, her lectures are always packed. I used to sit in on them before I was even studying psych. Just the luck of the draw I guess. Hopefully you'll have a better tutor.

 

[Lolsmith]

Many of my friends (psychologists of course) are very sensitive about this. However, I cannot deny that I think a course based on fact (or theories supported by a plethora of evidence) would be considerably harder than Psychology.

You can walk into a Psych exam knowing absolutely nothing, and still score decently. However, you can not do the same with a Mathematics or Chemistry/Physics etc exam. In my opinion, this speaks for itself.

Apologies in advance if I've upset anybody, this is just an opinion.

Also Arcorn, may I ask from what University are you taking this course? I think USYD has one crazy Psych lecturer. I crashed one of them for fun to see how loopy he really is.

Fruit loops.

lol you have literally no idea what you are talking about

you do not understand any of the science behind what Psychology students actually learn in their degrees and you can't just "walk into an exam room and score decently" because of this

psychologists will one day be replaced by neuroscientists as alchemists had been replaced by chemists.

sorry gurl you picked the wrong degree

No they won't, because they operate under different fields and purposes. Alchemists and chemists are similar in purpose.

I had a different lecturer today, he didn't have a redeeming communist moustache and pretty much discredited everything he said because he was going on scientific rigour and stuff. Then had all these quotes to show how things change and how it's hard to predict things is hard and how many experts had been wrong. None of the quotes had sources and half of them were misquotations that he obviously hadn't researched very hard. Because he was talking about how not to take things on faith but look at the scientific methods used, etc.

That's all well and good but how do you know they were misquotations?

 

[Arcorn]

lol you have literally no idea what you are talking about

you do not understand any of the science behind what Psychology students actually learn in their degrees and you can't just "walk into an exam room and score decently" because of this

No they won't, because they operate under different fields and purposes. Alchemists and chemists are similar in purpose.

That's all well and good but how do you know they were misquotations?

I researched them while the lecture was going. Because they seemed wrong.

I didn't mind the lecturer on Tuesday despite the fact he pretty much dismissed cognitive psychology.

Also, psyc101 doesn't do tuts so don't have to worry about that

 

[Carrotsticks]

you do not understand any of the science behind what Psychology students actually learn in their degrees and you can't just "walk into an exam room and score decently" because of this

Yes, I do understand it.

Having attended a couple of lectures for the Second and First year course, the vast majority of it appeared to be quackery. I understand that postgraduate work will be difficult, but by no means is the undergraduate course anywhere near it.

ie: one of the lectures I attended (Deer will be able to recall this one) linked different behavioural traits to preferences of different sexual acts ie: fellatio, sodomy etc.

I respect Psychology in the clinical and the *relevant to society in a useful way* research sense, but anything else like Freudian Psychology is pretty much a pseudoscience.

Oh and the USYD (first year) final exam is purely multiple choice, which I think is ridiculous. If they're going to examine it, at least do it properly.

 

[Lolsmith]

I researched them while the lecture was going. Because they seemed wrong.

Yeah I assumed so

Yes, I do understand it.

Having attended a couple of lectures for the Second and First year course, the vast majority of it appeared to be quackery. I understand that postgraduate work will be difficult, but by no means is the undergraduate course anywhere near it.

ie: one of the lectures I attended (Deer will be able to recall this one) linked different behavioural traits to preferences of different sexual acts ie: fellatio, sodomy etc.

I respect Psychology in the clinical and the *relevant to society in a useful way* research sense, but anything else like Freudian Psychology is pretty much a pseudoscience.

Oh and the USYD (first year) final exam is purely multiple choice, which I think is ridiculous. If they're going to examine it, at least do it properly.

attends "a couple of lectures"

knows the entire degree

yeah lol nah buddy windmills do not work that way

 

[ladiesman217_]

No they won't, because they operate under different fields and purposes. Alchemists and chemists are similar in purpose.

lolwut. psychology in its broadest sense is the study of human behaviour and the mind through psychological experiments, surveys and, in certain fields, introspection. It may seem scientific at first glance, but much of the theories in psychology have no biological, chemical or physiological basis; these theories assume a prior, either implicitly or explicitly, that the mind is a black box and could only be studied in terms of its input/output. Hence personality is defined as a certain tendency to think or behave in a specific way and mood is defined as the feeling state over a prolonged period of time. But what is the governing principle which determines these outputs? By what mechanism do changes in the brain produce changes in mood and personality? An adequate answer would be neurobiological, not psychological. Psychology differs from neuroscience in degree, not in kind - neuroscience is the more precise, more scientific of the two in that it studies the genetic, biochemical and biological processes that underly cognition, behaviour and emotion.

A psychologist who employs the methodology of neuroscience would have departed from the paradigm that had up to now dominated psychology. To continue to call him a psychologist would be a form of anachronism (I use the term loosely for all you assburgus out there), akin to calling a physicist a natural philosopher.

 

[Lolsmith]

lolwut. psychology in its broadest sense is the study of human behaviour and the mind through psychological experiments, surveys and, in certain fields, introspection. It may seem scientific at first glance, but much of the theories in psychology have no biological, chemical or physiological basis; these theories assume a prior, either implicitly or explicitly, that the mind is a black box and could only be studied in terms of its input/output. Hence personality is defined as a certain tendency to think or behave in a specific way and mood is defined as the feeling state over a prolonged period of time. But what is the governing principle which determines these outputs? By what mechanism do changes in the brain produce changes in mood and personality? An adequate answer would be neurobiological, not psychological. Psychology differs from neuroscience in degree, not in kind - neuroscience is the more precise, more scientific of the two in that it studies the genetic, biochemical and biological processes that underly cognition, behaviour and emotion.

A psychologist who employs the methodology of neuroscience would have departed from the paradigm that had up to now dominated psychology. To continue to call him a psychologist would be a form of anachronism (I use the term loosely for all you assburgus out there), akin to calling a physicist a natural philosopher.

No, what I was trying to get at is that they do differ quite distinctly in application, not that they differ in understanding. I even said they operated under different fields and purposes. You're focusing on, I assume, a purely academic basis and the fundamental reasoning behind both (all?) psychology and neuroscience. As per my previous understanding, I took a neuroscientist as an individual whose professional purpose is to review and discover how the brain operates, which you identified. However, the function of a psychologist isn't purely centred around research. A psychologist is a person who is trained to identify another individual's mental health issues and help deal with them in appropriate, constructive and long-term way. As opposed to a psychiatrist who, as per my understanding, is largely a prescription machine for pharmaceuticals (are there lost causes?). Neuroscience, again as I understand it, does not dwell or deal within this realm of operation, which was my original point.

 

[ladiesman217_]

No, what I was trying to get at is that they do differ quite distinctly in application, not that they differ in understanding. I even said they operated under different fields and purposes. You're focusing on, I assume, a purely academic basis and the fundamental reasoning behind both (all?) psychology and neuroscience. As per my previous understanding, I took a neuroscientist as an individual whose professional purpose is to review and discover how the brain operates, which you identified. However, the function of a psychologist isn't purely centred around research. A psychologist is a person who is trained to identify another individual's mental health issues and help deal with them in appropriate, constructive and long-term way. As opposed to a psychiatrist who, as per my understanding, is largely a prescription machine for pharmaceuticals (are there lost causes?). Neuroscience, again as I understand it, does not dwell or deal within this realm of operation, which was my original point.

Since psychology differs from neuroscience in their approach to studying the human mind and behaviour, clinical psychology, the application of psychological studies, would of course differ from psychiatry and neurology, the application of neuroscience. This distinction is uninteresting. What matters is whether and to what extent one is more 'scientific' and more precise than the other. If 'superstition' and just-so theories permeate the whole of psychology, clinical psychology, being its application would inevitably be riddled with these defects as well (look up attachment therapy). At least psychiatric therapies are grounded in biochemistry and pharmacology.

You need to look up what a psychiatrist actually does. A psychiatrist is a medical doctor specialising in the diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders, he is no more a prescription machine for pharmaceuticals than a general physician. lay off the scientology propaganda yo.

 

[study-freak]

Yes, I do understand it.

Having attended a couple of lectures for the Second and First year course, the vast majority of it appeared to be quackery. I understand that postgraduate work will be difficult, but by no means is the undergraduate course anywhere near it.

ie: one of the lectures I attended (Deer will be able to recall this one) linked different behavioural traits to preferences of different sexual acts ie: fellatio, sodomy etc.

I respect Psychology in the clinical and the *relevant to society in a useful way* research sense, but anything else like Freudian Psychology is pretty much a pseudoscience.

Oh and the USYD (first year) final exam is purely multiple choice, which I think is ridiculous. If they're going to examine it, at least do it properly.

I don't know about the rest, but I'd have to agree with the bolded bit. I did PSYC1001, stuffed up the essay assessment (which was worth one quarter of the course) and got 67%, but with a couple of days of cramming, still got a HD because of that ridiculously easy final exam.