Fair fair

The observation from the OP is from actual IRL ppl though. I was just asking on here just cuzz

You are right, tho

Mhm, most are in HR which has some bearing but nothing therapy or Criminal Minds type of **** :P

This guy gets it. Sit down and tell me whats wrong with you lol

If youre paying to take english classes at university, youre doing it wrong.

You can do all those things without a degree. We need a degree now to help our fellow human beings? Did Bill Withers get a degree before he wrote his hit song? Ok then

Did Joe Clark help his students with a degree? No, he used a baseball bat.

For those bashing liberal arts degrees, as you progress through your career it's really the experience in the relevant field you have, and a degree is what you need to open the corporate door.

For example, I'm hiring for a senior financial analyst at a mid-sized company. Financial planning kind of stuff, not investing. The gal I'm going to offer the job to was a marketing major but she found her way into a finance role somewhere along the way. With about 15 years of experience she'll be getting paid around $115k.

Cormac McCarthy

He's a famous novelist and he writes with no sentence structure or punctuation, because he enjoys it.

You're small minded.

I for instance, enjoy writing in a casual manner, as if I was speaking, because it's more fun. Content is king, not periods n sh!t.

Learning psychology is like learning martial arts, that's what a favorite professor of mine told me.

You can ACT like you know martial arts. You can get in there and fight and maybe win, but if you learn an artform for fighting you are working a system.

So, when helping people, if you know the artform of it, then you're more likely to succeed and repeat your success. In addition, in psychology you study the thought process and behaviors of typical cases where people develop problems. So, if a person got molested, it's likely to play out in certain behaviors and attitudes. That allows you to be more understanding of the person and come up with strategies to help them.

We need a little bit of everything tbh. Biophysics and molecular biology are hot areas that incorporate a lot of hard science in with the "softer" categorical approach of biology. There is a LOT of complicated chit with understanding protein interactions and the real reason we don't have good mathematical models for biology is because it is so ridiculously complex.

It that interesting though?

I mean like do it for thirty or forty years interesting?

I can't see a person interested in psych sitting and talking about proteins all day.

Well, to be fair, Freeman Dyson is a physicist so he always views it through the lens of how it can connect to and be used for science.I mean...eventually, yes. The picture of how the brain functions will be a synthesis of organismal biology, cell and molecular biology, and biochemistry. The fields of neurology, neuroscience, and psychology would eventually all be merged or feed into each other. Once we start getting some really good models, you may even start seeing some sort of computational prediction algorithms that can identify, classify, and predict human behaviors and mental illnesses. That's what I expect to see in the future. It will be a fusion of many areas of science. Yes, psychology will get harder. I'd imagine that in the future, computer science will be core work that everyone will learn, much like the fields of writing and reading are today. A psychologist of the future will spend a lot of time looking at behavior analysis algorithms and the theory behind them.

Don't get me wrong. Everything I said ITT about physics being superior etc was mostly in jest. Psychology is an extremely important science. We just haven't figured out enough yet. I should know since I am currently a partial hospitalization patient in a CBT therapy program. While their methods seem crude and ridiculous at times, they have empirically observed benefits to this type of therapy. It IS a science, just a really "soft" one...for now. But it still is a step in the right direction. It is important that we keep making these steps.

I'll remind everyone what early chemistry looked like: a bunch of people dicking around with lead trying to make gold. And look where we are now. We will keep marching steadily forward unless we wipe ourselves out. The future is going to be very different from anything we can imagine, much like teaching children the basic principles of geometry was unfathomable 2000 years ago. Chit, in some schools, they are starting to teach basic quantum mechanics along with special relativity in high schools. Some bright freshman in college already know what diodes and transistors are and understand the p-n junction, etc on a rudimentary level.

Even the general public seems to be aware of a kind of butchered version of the double slit experiment, which, while it makes me cringe, reminds me that we are steadily marching forward as a species towards a better understanding. Remember the popularity of Interstellar? I tell myself this whenever I see all this quantum woo chit. This is still a sign that people are excited to learn, understand, and talk about recent developments of science. It is a good sign of things to come. I just hope the voices of reason don't get drowned out by fuks like Deepak Chopra or Robert Lanza.If you are referring to me, I punctuate when it is convenient. lol

And my physics Chad thing was to be taken in jest. I still do think that CS, ChemE, EE, or Statistics are the best ways to get jobs these days. The pure sciences are saturated with people. There is no shortage of scientists.

What do you do brah?

To answer the OP, no, but psychology is still the GOAT subject, and if you really want to pursue it, you can be the exception just like in any other field.

Just applied to do a doctorate in clinical psychology. I needed a psychology degree to do so.

Amazingly.....there are some people out there who are interested and passionate about actual science. Believe it or not.As a mathematical physicist, he is certainly viewing math as different than say me, I'm sure, but I still do not consider biology to be either a branch of mathematics or its line blurred with higher mathematics. There is a reason why biology students/grad students arent taking algebraic structures, number theory, Non-Euclidean geometries, etc. If you look at a Biomathematics degree, or some biology-related Phd, the "math" you are looking at is mostly statistics, modeling, operations research-type stuff. I barely consider the aforementioned to be higher math whatsoever.

Dealing with mental illness isn't as simple as "helping people". It really is a medical condition that can require extensive training. Granted, psychiatrists are better equipped medically to help patients rectify behavior, but psychologists deal with the behavioral side of things. One thing the program I am in stresses is that both are vital components to treatment. The psychology approach is actually the core work done to rectify the behavior, while the medicine approach is needed to help rectify any direct physiological abnormalities leading to the condition. Both must be addressed, and in many ways, they both feed into each other. Our psychiatrists don't look down on the psychologists. They both do important work and are crucial for the treatment program to function.I definitely agree with you there. He was using colorful language, trying to flatter the field of biology lol. While in some extremely abstract circles, group theory may be applied to spectroscopy, and calculus of variations and functional analysis may be applied in some operations research stuff, the truth is that less than 0.1% of professional biologists have any idea what a measure space is, and they don't really need to either. In this sense, I am in complete agreement with you. I will say though that under the hood of many of the tools biologists use, there is, as is the case in any field, a substantial amount of math required. After all, it takes physicists and engineers to design, build, and maintain the instruments used in their field.

Getting a degree in Psychology= I'm a retard who can't handle STEM. When someone tells me their a psychology major ( usually females) it just rings an alarm in my head that they might be stupid (srs). You're not going anywhere without a PHD in that field also.

A lot of females have a kind of "verbal" intelligence. They are very good at conversations, and they sound and are intelligent, but they simply CANNOT model chit quantitatively ever. They gravitate towards areas like biology, law, psychology, business, softer economics, etc. The male brain really does confer a natural advantage toward mathematical calculation. There are always exceptions, of course. But the vast majority of hard scientists and engineers are men, and the vast majority of soft scientists and artist types are female. It may have to do with culture, etc, but you see these dichotomies even in very "progressive" cultures where societal gender expectations are minimized.

I also don't know wtf it is, but even for women in pure math, the VAST majority of them will be found doing algebra or topology. These fields are inherently less quantitative and more categorical in a sense. You hardly ever see women in PDE or analysis. (Of course, they exist, and some have done brilliant work.) Incidentally, the most prominent female mathematicians tended to work in these areas, and my Algebra prof once said that "Algebra has a woman's touch." lol

I kind of agree psych is psuedo. Kinda dont

I was pursuing neuro until i thought about how i didnt want to listen to peoples problems all day. Then i switched to bio (which i never finished but im fairly close and could do so pretty easily)

But there are some fundamental properties of the brain. I also have to agree if it were completely pseudo the efficacy of cbt would have to be pretty low

But there are things like isolation causing anxiety and depression that should happen to every human provided theres not some defect. Spend enough time away from people, feeling not integrated to culture, good bet youre depressed.

Want me to use an example

-somebody extremely intelligent not fitting in
- someone whos a virgin at 25 and is around people and wants to have sex

All of the intricacies can differ, but bottomline is they all tell a story about isolation

Anxiety is formed when whatever youre doing is a threat to your place in culture

- e.g. making a speech and afraid youll mess up and the group outcasting you

My problem with psych is actually the labels, not the treatment. If a "depressed" person is depressed, youre kind of labeling him/her as something different which will perpetuate isolation. E.g. i am depressed vs. I am normal person

You'll have a tough time trying to convince people ITT who literally have no idea what they are talking about. These people are templates - they don't think independently. It is an oversimplification of the world in order to cope, and it is a black or white cognitive process that goes something like this: STEM = LOGIC = EMPLOYABILITY = GOOD. NOT STEM = PSEUDOSCIENCE = STARBUCKS = WOMEN = BAD.

There are plenty of rigorous scientists currently engaged in psychological research, and the psychologists of the past who deduced extremely valuable insights via clinical work - who were arguably working within the realm of pseudoscience - are considered to be some of the most influential philosophers of all time.

Can anyone explain how we managed to develop an understanding of: IQ, personality psychology; and to give an example from my own work, the understanding, diagnosis and treatment of Autism by carrying out pseudoscientific research?

In 50-100 years, some of what we think about psychology will be bunk. We are in the early stages of understanding the mind, because it is one of the most, if not the most, complex phenomena in the universe. A lack of knowledge allows pseudoscience to fill the gaps.

I mean, lettuce be real tea, most of it will be bunk or horribly incomplete/oversimplified. BUT that was the case with early chemistry as well. And it is still important that we keep marching forward. As I said, psychology IS an important area of research. While scientists may give each other chit at the end of the day and 1 up each other in pissing contests, the honest truth is that any scientist worth his weight in chit should at least have a passing interest and respect for other areas of active research. There is a lot of cool stuff in psychology, sociology, biology, etc. These areas are just "soft" because we don't have hardcore models or a reasonably complete picture yet. I find psychology fascinating -- always have.

but also

PSEUDOSCIENCE = STARBUCKS = WOMEN = BAD!!!1

It is all brain chemistry.

I got a degree in Geography bruh. .. I'm a software developer.
In other words... degree doesnt mean chit.

wtf are you even saying?

I initially wrote 'much of it will be bunk', but changed it, because people who are seriously engaged with psychological researchalreadyconsider it to be bunk. The problem is, psychology is a highly charged subject that has been invaded by politically motivated, left-wing activists that believe humans are born a blank slate. Any scientific explanation of human variation or mental health difficulty that isn't solely attributed to culture is considered to be a mechanism of oppression. This results in pseudoscience. I don't think that 'much' of what we know about intelligence, evolutionary psychology, cognitive neuroscience etc. will be considered bunk in 50-100 years. Ofcourse I could easily be wrong.

aww phuck im looksmaxxed-lite tim

all the physics majors at my school were pale, chain smoking nerds with ponytails.
biologists had tans, social lives and got to mix outdoor sample collection with labwork. lol if you've never been to an ecologist/biologist conference - they brought kegs
I chose pharmacy school because of the qol and pay, instead of botany/epigenetics PhD i was being pushed towards.
still appreciate the mindset required to do complex math/physics; I couldn't do that.

I suppose I will agree with you there.

Are you suggesting culture doesnt play a part or were you trying to frame "oppression" in a bad light there? Slightly veiled conservative insult

He's saying that liberal biases in the field deny biological influences on behavior and pretend everything is a cultural construct.

Yea, thats what i got.. But he was also slightly suggesting culture doesnt play a part

I vaguely agree with him but certainly not to the point of saying culture doesnt influence

I don't get where you think he said that. He was simply implying it wasn't the only part or more specifically, saying the field is full of people who insist it is the only part.

Right. And the latter is what i was trying to clarify

If it wasnt that distinction then i wanted to hear his explanation