How to Think Straight About Psychology
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 3
The concept of psychology in the eyes of the public is deteriorating. The Freud Problem is an example of this.
Whilst the real contributors for scientific based knowledge have received almost no public attention, the media is filled with tons of bold and contradicting information that form the definition of psychology for the masses.
There isn't a single unifying theory out there. Psychology is filled with different fields that all try to explain the vast amount of human behaviors.
The best bet of an universal theory is the evolutionary psychology.
Psychology is being belittled by other scientific disciplines due to the lack of a unifying theory, whilst in fact, this might be its greatest strength as it enables different concepts to be integrated into a variety of fields.
Another argument which can be made in defense of psychology is that other disciplines, such as chemistry, also have split into different subclasses, which are impossible to reconnect.
The sole reason for the existence of psychology is that it is the only discipline that explains human and nonhuman behaviors through a scientifically backed investigation
A theory must be empirically testable (implications for an observable event) in order to fall under the realm of science and psychology.
A theory must be publicly verifiable (not solely produced and verified by a single individual). In order to be scientifically valid it must be replicated / criticized / extended.
What unifies the discipline is that it uses scientific methods to understand behavior.
The 3 most important general principles are:
(1) science employs methods of systematic empiricism;
(2) it aims for knowledge that is publicly verifiable; and
(3) it seeks problems that are empirically solvable and that yield testable theories
Folk Wisdom - it gives explanation after the occurrence of an event.
EXAMPLE: Soldiers from rural vs city areas.
It gives us the impression that we are born with a psychological understanding.
"Everything is obvious - once you know the answer"
"Psycho-fact" - a false statement extensively repeated and engraved as a fact in the consciousness of the average Joe.
Thus, a successful theory is not one that accounts for every possible outcome because such a theory robs itself of any predictive power.
The importance of the falsifiability criterion is best described by the case of Benjamin Rush (a doctor that treated yellow fever).
He did not employ a proper scientific method in which he tried proving the inaccuracy of his treatment.
Instead he rationalized by saying that all the positive cases were due to the successful treatment and all the failures were caused by external factors.
The Theory of Knocking Rhythms
Good theories must make predictions that exposes themselves to falsification and not strive to make general assumptions that protect them from proving them incorrect.
The more precise and specific a prediction is, the higher the chance of truthfulness of the theory.
The Theory of The Little Green Men
Caused mainly due to the appeal to faith theory in which a phenomenon does not appear to any skeptical observer.
An unacceptable position that makes the theory unfalsifiable and therefore outside the realm of science.
One of the scary things about modern thinking is the concept that people need to be shielded from the truth.
But science is based on seeking conceptual changes, Galileo, Darwin and plenty of explorers that were on the frontier of the human knowledge fought for finding the truth and the pain of changing our past beliefs shouldn't keep us away from it.
Science is based on others making mistakes on which the collective knowledge can capitalize.
This is the engine on which scientific improvements are being made.
The power of science isn't based solely on the uniquely virtuous scientific mind (completely unbiased and rationale), but it arises due to the process of checks in which a vast amount of scientist are there to root out the errors.
Operationism linking scientific theories to an observable event. This makes the concept public and testable by anyone capable of carrying out the measurable operation.
We should not follow the rabbit hole of essentialism and argue about the meaning of words, instead we should give meaning to concepts after an extensive investigation of the phenomenas.
Science doesn't produce answers to the ultimate questions. Its job is to uncover the mysterious and turn them into solvable problems by eliminating the errors of our knowledge base.
Reliability vs Validity / Direct vs Indirect
(1). The consistency of a measuring instrument. An attribute that consistently generates the same results. Consistency.
(2). Is the measuring tool doing the job it is supposed to?
(3). A theoretical concept based on an observable event.
(4). A theoretical concept based on a connection with an observable event.
A good operational definition is both reliable and valid
Scientific concepts are constantly evolving. Mercy isn't given to an unfruitful definition/theory.
The operational definitions of planets/electrons and intelligence have all been changed throughout the years.
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 7
CHAPTER 6
CHAPTER 5 + 6
CHAPTER 8
Using clinical experience or/and case studies * as your only evidence isn't a sufficient method for proving a theory.
*A great way to identify if an area of science is worth delving into. Tool used in the early stages of theory testing as they cannot prove or disprove anything due to lack of detailed information.
Science is a 2 step process.
(1). Development of a hypothesis.
(2). Verifying it with rigorous tests.
Freud had only exercised the first step
When faced with a decision people retrieve information from their memory. The most accessible information is the most vivid one.
And we are predisposed by evolution to value others sincere testimony as the most valuable information we can attain.
Thus, our decision are being affected constantly by recommendations of people we cherish.
A great example of vividness is the "fallen in war" case.
It proves that the way an information is presented changes the public perception of it.
Numbers don't mean a lot, but when you can visualize it in the forms of names and pictures, then the real costs can be taken into account.
The costs of medical quackery do not end simply on what we can see in plain sight. There are also opportunity costs.
Steve Jobs experienced it by delaying his scientifically proven medical intervention for 9 months and chasing bogus cures in the meantime.
Using the vividness to portray proof is a respectable choice. But you should not base your evidence on vividness.
Third-variable Problem:
The correlation between 2 variables doesn't prove anything. They both may be related to a third variable that hasn't been measure.
Example: Toasters and Contraception use.
One event in the real world is often correlated with multiple factors.
In order to isolate the influence of a single variable scientific experimentation is used. In it we create situations that will never occur in the ordinary world.
One event in the real world is often correlated with multiple factors.
In order to isolate the influence of a single variable scientific experimentation is used. In it we create situations that will never occur in the ordinary world.
Selective bias:
Selection bias creates a spurious correlation between environmental characteristics and behavioral-biological characteristics.
Arizona air causes respiratory illnesses or Patients suffering from a respiratory illness go to Arizona for treatment, but some of them don't make it out.
Most psychological research is not of the directly applicable type. They are indirectly applied by modyfing a theory that is later involved in a practical problem.
In the indirectly applicable studies the "quality" of the sample isn't as important as the goal is to test the universal prediction of a theory.
The tests that are being used to verify a psychological principals often are conciously made in a way that doesn't reseamble real life in order to isolate a critical variable for the study.
"College Sophmore" problem is due to the fact that an extremely large number of psychological studies require college sophomores. In some cases this doesn't strike as odd, for example if testing a principal that is not based on the sample.
But in other cases, this is a striking problem, as scientists need to make sure that they do not end up with a large theoretical structure based only on a thin databased of CS. In order to do that they can utilize the power of the Internet and perform cross-culture research easier than ever.
The purpose of most research is to develop theory rather than to predict a specific event. The finding of years of research are indirectly applied to real life.
(1). Random Sampling:refers tohow subjects are chosen to be a part of a study. This isn't required of every research, but when it is, it needs to ensure that everyone in the population receives an equal chance for participation.
(2).Random assignment: this is a must if a study wants to generate reliable results when using a control/experimental group formed by the experimentor. It is a principle that must be employed and ensure that the test subject has an equal chance of being part of the control/experimental group.
Science does not happen in a breakthrough fashion. Conclusions are reached through a gradual-synthesis of hundreds of data points and analyzators.
No one experiment is definitive, but each help rule out an alternative and aids in forming the truth.
New theories should not only create valid hypothesis on newly found evidence, but they should also explain and/or prove old theories.
Meta-analyzis a large investigation on multiple studies in order to find a correlation.
CHAPTER 9
CHAPTER 10
The importance of probabilistic thinking skills can be easily seen when you consider that almost everyone fails at them. Your lawyer, doctor, president, you. The damage caused by this single fallacy is tremendous.
Being aware and capable of digesting abstract numbers and probability is the skill that will lead us into the future of psychology.
The so called "Achilles' Heel" of Human Cognition is the probabilistic thinking.
It is based on the fallacies of Biased Sample and Hasty Generalization. Believe it or not, everyone does it under emotional distress, even you, that is why it is so dangerous.
Being 100 % accurate in psychological research is nearly impossible. That does not mean that the conclusions we arrive at are false.
Vivid testimonials always outweigh probabilistic information. Even though the second type of evidence is real and the first is a fallacy if used as sole proof for a statement.
Neglecting the strength of larger sample sizes is another mistake made often. If the research done on small sample size contradicts the evidence found from the large sample size, we should always trust the latter.
Humans are pattern-seeking animals. We see links everywhere, including in places that they are none, and this is called the gambler's fallacy.
If we find a link between a particular behavior and a cause, we should not automatically conclude that there are no other reasons for a given situation. If we fail to do so, we fall victim to the Magic Bullet fallacy.
Another important factor is the research of multiple elements. We should keep in mind that the research of them separately won't yield the same results as if they are in their so-called "natural habitat".
CHAPTER 11
CHAPTER 12
Тhe role of psychology is misunderstood in more than 1 way by the lay person. Folk wisdom is the most vivid example, but undermining the importance of chance is just as wide-spread.
Predicting a specific case (clinical prediction) will always result in more errors than if we stuck to the statistically correct way. In that case, we should accept the errors in order to avoid future ones (red/blue balls - 70/30 chance - always choose red).
It is wise to admit that there will always be uncertainties when trying to predict human behavior. The best way to deal with them is by accepting them.
Psychology has a bad reputation.
A). It is often associated only with Freud, Skinner and etc., which have made some notable observations on human behavior, but they have completely missed the mark on scientific psychology.
B). Self-help gurus and pseudosciences that aren't basing their theories on science but are associated with psychology.
C). The contribution of real psychological advancements is being given to other disciplines.
D). The lack of defense coming from the experts in the psychological field and their neglect of the public image of psychology in the layperson's eyes.
E). Folk wisdom and the conception that everyone understands correctly psychology naturally.
F). The resistance of professionals in the psychological field to give up their personal psychological beliefs in order to utilize the knowledge generated by scientific evidence.