If hallucinogens were appoached logically, not spiritually, would efficiency increase

[yagecero]

Freud is not representative of the modern of Psychological field. Heck, psychoanalysis (dream interpretation and whatnot) in general has fallen by the way-side.

My experience with academic Psychology dealt mostly with large amounts of anonymous questionnaire responses and observational data. Unless the the focus of the study required that the responses be vocalized, there was very little interaction between subject and researcher. Obviously, it's much easier to be honest and objective with nobody to judge you.

From these hundreds, sometimes thousands, of data points we'd run some basic statistical analysis and identify any trends or lack thereof, then revise our hypothesis and start again. That's really all psychological research is - obtaining numbers and running analyses. The thousands of psychological institutions across the globe are adding significant quantities of information into the current knowledge pool, which allows for some pretty significant meta research to take place. The claim that Psychology is not an "empirical" field is patently false.

So what you're saying is the data are dependant on the perceptions of those carrying out the research. Yes, I see. There is no way at all that those data could be manipulated through the researcher's interpretation. 8)

Ever heard of the observational paradox?

And I was by no means suggesting that Freud was representative of the current psychological field. Freud was an arbitrary time marker in my response to Psyduck's post.

 

[MrGrunge]

So what you're saying is the data are dependant on the perceptions of those carrying out the research. Yes, I see. There is no way at all that those data could be manipulated through the researcher's interpretation. 8)

What would be the point of manipulating data? The goal of any research design is to minimize the possible areas of bias to obtain the most accurate data possible. Like with every other scientific field, psychological studies are subject to harsh peer-review - manipulating data through sloppy methodology is pretty easy to detect for anyone paying enough attention.

Can you explain why you don't think Psychological research is empirical in nature? It seems to me to fit the very definition of the term.

 

[yagecero]

What would be the point of manipulating data? The goal of any research design is to minimize the possible areas of bias to obtain the most accurate data possible. Like with every other scientific field, psychological studies are subject to harsh peer-review - manipulating data through sloppy methodology is pretty easy to detect for anyone paying enough attention.

Can you explain why you don't think Psychological research is empirical in nature? It seems to me to fit the very definition of the term.

My opinion is not completely related to psychology; it more concerns the human sciences in general. It also stems from having just finished a Master of linguistics. Semiotics tells us that we cannot convey 'true' meaning through language, that the language we use is an approximation of the truth at best, and that this version of the truth is interpreted by other agents who derive their own meaning from our linguistic and paralinguistic expression. I would argue that, even when one has an outstanding control of language, what s/he expresses through linguistic features is unverifiable by nature. Expression, be it through utterance or action, is entirely open to interpretation. Great language, employed by those who have a broad linguistic repertoire, is more verifiable, but the people who possess these capabilities are very few and far between. The vast majority of people do not know what they are trying to express, nor do they have the tools to do so.

The same is also true of humans observing other humans. If anything, the problems increase when there are more minds involved in the observation and interpretation of human expression. There is no certainty when it comes to this interpretation. That linguistic features, and the interpretation of linguistic features, are taken as fact is problematic for a multitude of reasons. The data are unstable before quantitative methods are realised, and entirely malleable (consciously or unconsciously) during the phase of expression < > interpretation.

Qualitative research does not just magically become quantitative by presenting inherently unverifiable data through verifiable processes. Although it sure helps your results when you act like it does

 

[MrGrunge]

No Psychologist is conducting a study to determine whether or not their hypothesis is completely generalizable because, given the nature of human Psychology, such a thing is impossible. Psychological research deals with large quantities of data - the idea is to look for patterns of responses, not to determine specific instances of causality. Through some basic (or complex, depending on the scope of the study) statistical analysis of these patterns, you can use the data to predict the responses of other people to certain questions/stimuli with surprising accuracy. It doesn't matter if every individual response is completely accurate or not (assuming that the study maintains a certain level of internal validity) because eventually a pattern, or lackthereof depending on the hypothesis, will reveal itself.

That's all psychology is - using statistics to predict responses. Given that empiricism is the practice of relying on observation and experimentation to formulate ideas, I don't really see how you could argue that the psychology isn't empirical in its approach. Whether or not you consider the research valid is irrelevant.

Given your background in Linguistics, I found a 1977 interview where Chomsky gives his views on the subject. I think his point about Psychology being a nascent field is spot-on, especially his characterization of the then-popular Behaviorist approach. There are plenty of intellectually empty pursuits being focused upon in the broad scope of the psychological field, but there is also a lot of progress being made toward understanding its more complex, cognitive underpinnings.