General Psychology, 30 credits, for the uniniated in math?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps take a look at Section 1 of this document: http://www.unc.edu/~mjp1970/Mitch's Grad School Advice.pdf to get a rough understanding of what graduate training in psychology looks like in the US. You cannot be a therapist with a bachelor's degree in the US, save for say becoming licensed as an addictions counselor in some states. That is why folks are telling you that there isn't much difference between getting a bachelor's degree in the humanities and a bachelor's degree in psychology in the US - often they lead you to very similar job prospects unless you are willing to do many years of graduate training. And perhaps that explains some of your confusion regarding 'intended major in psychology' and 'psychologists.' To become a psychologist in the US, you need to have a doctoral degree (many years of training AFTER your bachelor's). The majority of psychology undergraduates do not go on to graduate school.
Members don't see this ad.
 
I don't seek to become a psychologist. As already shown in the previous page, there is an alternative path in Sweden for those interested in research only. I ask on this specific forum, however, since most classes will be the same for both researchers and "to be psychologists".
 
I know nothing about Sweden's system, but in the US, if you want to do your own research and not work as an assistant for someone else in psychology, you generally need a PhD. Many 'psychologists' do research full-time; psychologist is not a synonym of therapist or someone who solely provides clinical services in the US.

If you're planning to do research, yes, I would hope your program would require you to get extensive training in statistics for which you would need to understand math.

I and others seem to be going in circles attempting to provide you helpful feedback and advice, so I don't believe I am going to spend any more time on this feed. I hope you look into your options, and if you are seeking the advice of others, I hope you actually take some of it to heart! Best of luck to you in whatever you decide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
SLB-CO said:
If you're planning to do research, yes, I would hope your program would require you to get extensive training in statistics for which you would need to understand math.
Click to expand...

My question was regarding a basic course called General Psychology, encompassing a course in method. I already knew that full blown statistics would be a major factor later. If I am to believe the professor, there is no mathematical background needed for this basic course.
 
The comments about how unintelligent psychologists are sounds like some serious trolling to me. What is humorous is how the poster mixes up psychologists with all of the psychology majors in undergrad. The other thing is basing intelligence on mathematical ability alone. Also, other majors who specialize in mathematics such as physics and engineering are going to tend to be better at most aspects of math than us. It's what they do. Interesting thread and hope that the OP enjoyed himself. I am assuming that OP is a.male because typically it is early adolescent males who seem to enjoy this type of thing. In my day it was prank phone calls. The internet just affords more opportunity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
MCParent said:
Then enroll in the classes. You should have no problem quickly outpacing the mouth-breathing neanderthals you think will be sitting next to you, and we'll elect you as our new god.
:troll:
Click to expand...

Alarming (and ironic) that the least intelligent population of the sciences is the one adminstering IQ-tests. And yes, we can safely conclude that from these findings. At least in the US. The difference in scores between the top and bottom is substantial. No way of getting around that.

I do get a tickle from the fact that psychologists in here clearly get their egos bruised. It's so obvious from your responses.
 
Last edited:
Move on, buddy. You are not accomplishing anything worthwhile in this thread. This is a professional forum for those who seriously consider graduate studies. It is not a forum to criticize others based on data you are amassing to justify why you should be able to pass a general psychology course without math skills.

What does surprise me is how you've been able to engage several psychologists on this thread with 3 pages of ____ (fill in the blank)

It is true...my ego is bruised but only b/c we are not helping you to understand the bigger picture, rather than helping you figure out how if you a poor in math, then you'll somehow do well in psychology.

Remember my previous tip: Math involves logic...and critical thinking course plus a math tutor will help you pass anything past a PSY 101 class.

Good luck to you. But it is time to move on before the thread is closed for lack of collegial discussion and increasing hostility.
 
I'm really confused as to why you would even want to major in a discipline you seem to have no respect for? I have no natural giftedness in math nor did I have proper education during K-12, but I used Khan Academy, tutors, remedial courses at community college, and office hours to get a 3.9 in intro stats and 4.0 in advanced stats at university. If you want to do well you can do these things too, many psych majors get extra help with stats.

Also, fun fact back when I took the ACT and SAT and scored sub 30th percentile in math I put down proudly that I intended to be a biology major, now I'm in a PhD program soon to be administering IQ measures :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Grenth said:
I'm really confused as to why you would even want to major in a discipline you seem to have no respect for? I have no natural giftedness in math nor did I have proper education during K-12, but I used Khan Academy, tutors, remedial courses at community college, and office hours to get a 3.9 in intro stats and 4.0 in advanced stats at university. If you want to do well you can do these things too, many psych majors get extra help with stats.

Also, fun fact back when I took the ACT and SAT and scored sub 30th percentile in math I put down proudly that I intended to be a biology major, now I'm in a PhD program soon to be administering IQ measures :D
Click to expand...

I don't know why you muddle students with disciplines. I don't claim that the discipline of psychology is mediocre. Students of it are however are. It does suggests that it's not too hard to graduate in, and that people in here glorify the difficulty level (math in particular), which is very unhelpful.

I don't pick disciplines based on the IQ of the other students. One thing that I will have to factor in is dealing with is an overwhelming majority of women. Some report around 80% in the US. Not sure if that also holds true for research oriented course.
 
Last edited:
CheetahGirl said:
Remember my previous tip: Math involves logic...and critical thinking course plus a math tutor will help you pass anything past a PSY 101 class.
Click to expand...

Undergraduates in philosophy were taught critical thinking day one. That doesn't help the fact that I don't know how to write/understand equations.
 
Last edited:
Prototype123 said:
I have the data to back it up. Of the GRE scores, psychologists are at the very bottom:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SQ9Gpp-yuXI/AAAAAAAAHnc/nIEJ3uK0TkQ/s1600-h/gre.bmp

Rank 24 out of 28 is not something I would brag about.
Click to expand...
Hard to believe that because you struggle with math they might not let you into the field with some of the least intelligent people. Maybe you could be a real doctor, they scored even lower on that list you posted.

For real students of psychology, that list is a great example of useless statistics. If we don't know a lot of other information, we can't really interpret the data in any meaningful way. First question that pops into my head is whether these are students who say the want a PhD or are they the students who are accepted to a program or those who actually accomplish it. It is also important to compare the sample size of the various disciplines and to understand the population characteristics of the people who are applying to them. Medicine, psychology, education are all fields with similar characteristics in that they are applied and involve significant interactions with people. Just stuff for people who are critical thinkers to think about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
smalltownpsych said:
Hard to believe that because you struggle with math they might not let you into the field with some of the least intelligent people. Maybe you could be a real doctor, they scored even lower on that list you posted.

For real students of psychology, that list is a great example of useless statistics. If we don't know a lot of other information, we can't really interpret the data in any meaningful way. First question that pops into my head is whether these are students who say the want a PhD or are they the students who are accepted to a program or those who actually accomplish it. It is also important to compare the sample size of the various disciplines and to understand the population characteristics of the people who are applying to them. Medicine, psychology, education are all fields with similar characteristics in that they are applied and involve significant interactions with people. Just stuff for people who are critical thinkers to think about.
Click to expand...

Did you actually read the description? GRE score concentrations in 24 fields of PH.D study. The first question that popped into your head is unwarranted.

As for medical science, they scored 1 point behind psychology (....) but higher overall in the quantative section. Now, you actually need grades from high school mathematics to get accepted into statistics courses, but not for the psychology specific courses (including candidates.) and by the way, there is a requirement of mathematics B level for the psychologists programme in Sweden, but I am not applying for that. I will instead aim for the candidates in psychology, after this basic course.
 
Last edited:
I was investigated as a teen by neuropsychologist. He stressed that my level of giftedness was separable from my deficiencies in arithmetic, in which I had a cognitive impairment. I scored above average range in his verbal tests but below what is to be expected in arithmetics. I couldn't calculate simple tasks in my head, had to use my fingers., and was unable solve the problems posed. That is not true of today. I can calculate things in my head when I go shopping. I don't know how these attributes suddenly emerged in me.

What is curious beyond this is his conclusion that I must have recieved "verbal stimulation from my mother". Nothing could be further from the truth. My mother is not articulate at all. Her favourite expressions are of the kind: that's good, he/she is good, e.t.c And I have never read books. My father is not verbal either. None of my parents went to academies either. And this is not my native language either. I am a swede.

I was tested as an adult and scored in the high school range in number sense. All of the teacher rejected the notion that I had dyscalculia. I studied math for a very brief amount of time, and stopped just when algebra was being introduced, ironically enough.

Is there any good theory as to why my dyscalculia ceased to exist as an adult? It's a cognitive impairment. It's not supposed to go away. The only logical conlusion is that exhibited traits consistent with dyscalculia, without actually having it. But that's not very logical...

Talk about a late bloomer....

I don't expect anyone of you to comprehend the text above with your GRE scores verbally, but there might be a statistical outlier hiding.
 
Prototype123 said:
I have the data to back it up. Of the GRE scores, psychologists are at the very bottom:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SQ9Gpp-yuXI/AAAAAAAAHnc/nIEJ3uK0TkQ/s1600-h/gre.bmp

Rank 24 out of 28 is not something I would brag about.
Click to expand...

Prototype123 said:
Did you actually read the description? GRE score concentrations in 24 fields of PH.D study. The first question that popped into your head is unwarranted.

As for medical science, they scored 1 point behind psychology (....) but higher overall in the quantative section. Now, you actually need grades from high school mathematics to get accepted into statistics courses, but not for the psychology specific courses (including candidates.) and by the way, there is a requirement of mathematics B level for the psychologists programme in Sweden, but I am not applying for that. I will instead aim for the candidates in psychology, after this basic course.
Click to expand...

Look this is the same problem you ran into with posting about SAT scores.

You are confusing "intended" PhD students with "actual" ones and "students" with "graduates." The former is always going to be much higher than the latter, as PhD programs in psychology have very low acceptance rates (<16% for funded programs), especially compared to many other disciplines, including medicine. So, you can't really look at the profiles of intended PhD students as profiles of actual students or actual psychologists holding doctoral degrees. Anyone can say they are applying for PhD programs or intend to do so, and anyone can actually apply to these programs. You need to look at the stats of students who are actually admitted to these programs, which you can find on any program's website, to see what the profiles of actual PhD students in psychology are like.

You keep going on and on about how your only issue is that you have difficulty actually performing actual calculations, but your conceptual skills are fine. The thing is, though, that you've repeatedly demonstrated that you both lack these conceptual/critical thinking abilities (e.g. from where is that data from your SAT and GRE information taken?, are intended majors the same thing as actual majors or graduates?, is it really impossible for there to be extreme scores in a distribution and to still have a mean that is relatively close to the overall population mean?, are SAT scores correlated with undergraduate performance and graduation??, are GRE scores correlated with graduate program performance and graduation?, what is an IQ score, what is intelligence, how are they different, and how are they the same?, etc., etc.) and have great hubris by being unwilling or unable to recognize where you are lacking (e.g. lecturing actual psychologists about psychometrics, intelligence, etc.).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
psych.meout said:
Look this is the same problem you ran into with posting about SAT scores.

You are confusing "intended" PhD students with "actual" ones and "students" with "graduates." The former is always going to be much higher than the latter, as PhD programs in psychology have very low acceptance rates (<16% for funded programs), especially compared to many other disciplines, including medicine. So, you can't really look at the profiles of intended PhD students as profiles of actual students or actual psychologists holding doctoral degrees. Anyone can say they are applying for PhD programs or intend to do so, and anyone can actually apply to these programs. You need to look at the stats of students who are actually admitted to these programs, which you can find on any program's website, to see what the profiles of actual PhD students in psychology are like.

You keep going on and on about how your only issue is that you have difficulty actually performing actual calculations, but your conceptual skills are fine. The thing is, though, that you've repeatedly demonstrated that you both lack these conceptual/critical thinking abilities (e.g. from where is that data from your SAT and GRE information taken?, are intended majors the same thing as actual majors or graduates?, is it really impossible for there to be extreme scores in a distribution and to still have a mean that is relatively close to the overall population mean?, are SAT scores correlated with undergraduate performance and graduation??, are GRE scores correlated with graduate program performance and graduation?, what is an IQ score, what is intelligence, how are they different, and how are they the same?, etc., etc.) and have great hubris by being unwilling or unable to recognize where you are lacking (e.g. lecturing actual psychologists about psychometrics, intelligence, etc.).
Click to expand...

I am not aiming to be accepted into funded programs. I am attemping to graduate in psychology. Why do you respond to things I never even asked for?
 
One last comment from me before I bow out:

SDN is also not a forum to discuss, analyze, and resolve personal psychological issues/concerns. It would be best to seek out advisement from your university or consultation with a professional in your community (Sweden?).

Take care.

Prototype123 said:
I was investigated as a teen by neuropsychologist. He stressed that my level of giftedness was separable from my deficiencies in arithmetic, in which I had a cognitive impairment. I scored above average range in his verbal tests but below what is to be expected in arithmetics. I couldn't calculate simple tasks in my head, had to use my fingers., and was unable solve the problems posed. That is not true of today. I can calculate things in my head when I go shopping. I don't know how these attributes suddenly emerged in me.

What is curious beyond this is his conclusion that I must have recieved "verbal stimulation from my mother". Nothing could be further from the truth. My mother is not articulate at all. Her favourite expressions are of the kind: that's good, he/she is good, e.t.c And I have never read books. My father is not verbal either. None of my parents went to academies either. And this is not my native language either. I am a swede.

I was tested as an adult and scored in the high school range in number sense. All of the teacher rejected the notion that I had dyscalculia. I studied math for a very brief amount of time, and stopped just when algebra was being introduced, ironically enough.

Is there any good theory as to why my dyscalculia ceased to exist as an adult? It's a cognitive impairment. It's not supposed to go away. The only logical conlusion is that exhibited traits consistent with dyscalculia, without actually having it. But that's not very logical...

Talk about a late bloomer....

I don't expect anyone of you to comprehend the text above with your GRE scores verbally, but there might be a statistical outlier hiding.
Click to expand...
 
psych.meout said:
You keep going on and on about how your only issue is that you have difficulty actually performing actual calculations, but your conceptual skills are fine. The thing is, though, that you've repeatedly demonstrated that you both lack these conceptual/critical thinking abilities (e.g. from where is that data from your SAT and GRE information taken?, are intended majors the same thing as actual majors or graduates?, is it really impossible for there to be extreme scores in a distribution and to still have a mean that is relatively close to the overall population mean?, are SAT scores correlated with undergraduate performance and graduation??, are GRE scores correlated with graduate program performance and graduation?, what is an IQ score, what is intelligence, how are they different, and how are they the same?, etc., etc.) and have great hubris by being unwilling or unable to recognize where you are lacking (e.g. lecturing actual psychologists about psychometrics, intelligence, etc.).
Click to expand...

We are discussing students now. I provided a very accurate description of students in psychology, clearly exhibiting fairly low intelligence. You are the one jumping to the conclusion that my argument therefore applies to people accepted into funded programs, people who are by definition statistical outliers.

Get it now?
 
CheetahGirl said:
One last comment from me before I bow out:

SDN is also not a forum to discuss, analyze, and resolve personal psychological issues/concerns. It would be best to seek out advisement from your university or consultation with a professional in your community (Sweden?).

Take care.
Click to expand...

You didn't provide anything of substance to this thread. I gave a background to the question posed, in order to assess the probabilities of me actually passing statistics courses.
 
This thread is ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
LETSGONYR said:
Early and mid 2000's.
Click to expand...

The first SAT posted is from 2010, in which intended psychology majors amassed a score of 492 quant. I doubt you took the test at that particular time and scored 800. That's a pretty reasonable inference.
 
Prototype123 said:
I am not aiming to be accepted into funded programs. I am attemping to graduate in psychology. Why do you respond to things I never even asked for?
Click to expand...

Prototype123 said:
We are discussing students now. I provided a very accurate description of students in psychology, clearly exhibiting fairly low intelligence. You are the one jumping to the conclusion that my argument therefore applies to people accepted into funded programs, people who are by definition statistical outliers.

Get it now?
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.
 
psych.meout said:
Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

Your point is that only 16% get a licence as clinical psychologist? Or what do you mean by funded programs? I doubt that only 16% become psychologists.
 
Last edited:
keyboard warrior
 
Prototype123 said:
Your point is that only 16% recieve a licence as clinical psychologist? Or what do you mean by funded programs? I doubt that only 16% become psychologists.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how things work in Sweden, but in the US, funded programs are those which will provide at least partial, but usually full, tuition remission and typically some kind of stipend. People in these programs take on little to no debt throughout their graduate programs. These funded programs generally take on a handful of student per year, i.e. typically less than ten new students per year, as they function on mentor models. This is different from undergraduate programs, which just generally admit students to the school/program as a whole, as mentor models have you studying under the tutelage of a specific professor as your primary mentor and they can only have so many students at one time. If you look at these funded programs, even those with the highest admission rates top out at about 15-16% of applicants being admitted per year, i.e. total admission offers (not total admitted and matriculating)/total applicants. More typically, funded programs will admit less than 10% of applicants per year and the most competitive and popular ones (e.g. Yale, Duke, UNC Chapel Hill) will admit no more than 2-3% per year.

You generally don't want to go to an unfunded program, both because the costs are absurd (being on-par with med school costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but without commensurate pay post-licensure) and they frequently admit many more students per year. Admitting more students means they provide less individual support, which makes grad school and post-doctoral training that much harder. These unfunded programs, especially free standing professional programs, have higher attrition rates (i.e. more drop out before they finish the program), lower APA-approved internship match rates, lower licensure rates, and poorer career prospects than funded programs (especially if they didn't get an APA-approved internship).

What this means in the context of what you're talking about in terms intelligence and standardized test scores, is that while psychology is a very popular undergraduate degree major, only a very tiny proportion of people who graduate with a bachelor's in psychology will ever get a doctorate in clinical psychology. So, you can't use SAT scores or GRE scores of intended psychology undergraduates or intended PhD program applicants to extrapolate out the intelligence and ability of PhD-holding psychologists. Surely, the latter population is a component sub-population among the former, but the former alone does not tell you about the composition of the latter. Also, knowing the mean alone without any other information about the distribution (e.g. skew, standard deviation, etc.) is not very helpful and can result in the abuse of statistics. This is relevant to your initial question, because it is pretty basic statistics and methodology, which you will have to understand to complete an undergraduate degree in psychology.

Furthermore, I know you think that philosophy teaches you acceptable critical thinking skills, but it does not teach you them in the context of scientific research. You need to learn how to pragmatically apply critical thinking and skepticism to research methodology and statistics, especially whether things mean what they say they do, which I alluded to earlier. You really can't take it for granted that standardized tests are measures of intelligence or even academic ability. You can't take it for granted that a high SAT, ACT, or GRE score equates to a high intelligence level or vice versa. You can't take it for granted that getting high SAT or GRE scores will be correlated to good performance and/or graduation from undergraduate or graduate programs, respectively. And even if you observe a correlation of a given strength, you have to critically evaluate how and why it got that way. If you are just going to take a chart of means at face value and extrapolate out from them so drastically as to make inferences about extremely complex phenomena like intelligence, then you have a lot to learn, and I'm not just talking about mathematical and statistical calculations.
 
Why would a large portion of the academic population opt for a degree that only the very few get awarded? You guys have previously stated that a bachelor in psychology is basically meaningless, comparable to a philosophy degree. I am confused.. Are all these people ill-informed?

You are quite mistaken about philosophy. Philosophers are taught critical thinking for scientific inquiry. The basics of how it is conducted. But this is now going a little bit deeper into a particular matter.

SAT and GRE measure many of the same things as intelligence tests - verbal comprehension, quantative abilities, memory as far as reading goes, and are thus more than reasonable inferences to a persons general intelligence. A correlation of 0.7 is concidered a high correlation, and SAT correlation to IQ is 0.82.
 
Last edited:
Prototype123 said:
Why would a large portion of the academic population opt for a degree that only the very few get awarded? You guys have previously stated that a bachelor in psychology is basically meaningless, comparable to a philosophy degree. I am confused.. Are all these people ill-informed?

You are quite mistaken about philosophy. Philosophers are taught critical thinking for scientific inquiry. The basics of how it is conducted. But this is now going a little bit deeper into a particular matter.

SAT and GRE measure many of the same things as intelligence tests - verbal comprehension, quantative abilities, memory as far as reading goes, and are thus more than reasonable inferences to a persons general intelligence. A correlation of 0.7 is concidered a high correlation, and SAT correlation to IQ is 0.82.
Click to expand...

Psychometrics and the concept of intelligence are a lot more complex and nuanced than you are insinuating. Simply stating a correlation, especially without providing a citation (hint: that's another critical thinking skill), isn't really a good understanding of research and statistics in general and psychometric research specifically. Even if your quoted coefficients are actually buttressed by empirical research, the question becomes, what is their significance in this context? Why should a full-scale IQ matter for undergraduate and graduate education in psychology? What is the utility of high SAT and GRE scores and IQs? Do they correlate highly with grades, overall performance, and graduation? Do they correlate with # of peer-reviewed publications, APA-internship matching rates, and licensure rates? Do you understand why GRE scores are a relatively minor factor in graduate school admissions compared to other metrics, especially research experience and productivity, undergraduate GPA, and "fit" with the program and mentor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
psych.meout said:
Psychometrics and the concept of intelligence are a lot more complex and nuanced than you are insinuating. Simply stating a correlation, especially without providing a citation (hint: that's another critical thinking skill), isn't really a good understanding of research and statistics in general and psychometric research specifically. Even if your quoted coefficients are actually buttressed by empirical research, the question becomes, what is their significance in this context? Why should a full-scale IQ matter for undergraduate and graduate education in psychology? What is the utility of high SAT and GRE scores and IQs? Do they correlate highly with grades, overall performance, and graduation? Do they correlate with # of peer-reviewed publications, APA-internship matching rates, and licensure rates? Do you understand why GRE scores are a relatively minor factor in graduate school admissions compared to other metrics, especially research experience and productivity, undergraduate GPA, and "fit" with the program and mentor?
Click to expand...

Now you change the subject matter to the relative importance of IQ. Your original contention was that most people who apply for psychology don't become psychologists, so most psychologists are in fact intelligent, since they belong to the fortunate 16%. I ask in return why people would apply for a degree they will most likely never get. This is called reductio ad absurdum.

The fact that doctors are statistically tied with psychology near the bottom is to be expected, since there are no real intellectual restrainments to becoming a doctor or psychologist. It is not a highly theoretical pursuit overall (exceptions exist).
 
Last edited:
Prototype123 said:
Now you change the subject matter to the relative importance of IQ. Your original contention was that most people who apply for psychology don't become psychologists, so most psychologists are in fact intelligent, since they belong to the fortunate 16%.
Click to expand...

No, I was not saying they're necessarily more intelligent. What I wrote earlier was that we don't know what the intelligence level is of people who are admitted to PhD programs or that of actual psychologists. I was pointing out how you can't presume the values or attributes of one population given those of another population, even if the former is a subset of the latter. This was part of my post about how methodology and statistics are more complicated than simply looking at the mean scores of a given population. We also can't reliably use a proxy like SAT or GRE scores to approximate intelligence, as there are so many other factors involved in test performance and there's not much utility in these standardized tests, as they correlate poorly with performance in undergrad and graduate school, respectively. This is why ETS can't call it the "Scholastic Aptitude Test" anymore. "SAT" just stands for "SAT."

My previous posts notwithstanding, I would say that actual psychologists (which I am not) are probably relatively intelligent, as there is some pretty advanced math (e.g. Bayesian statistics) and science (e.g. functional neuroanatomy, psychopharmacology, etc.) involved in completing a doctoral degree and practical training in assessment and intervention required for internship, post-doc, and licensure. I have no idea of their relative intelligence levels compared to other professionals with similar educations and training, but, as I previously posted, that's not really all that important. What really matters is that they are more than capable of meeting the stringent and difficult academic and practical demands of their programs, regardless of what their measured IQs and actual intelligence (which are not the same thing) are.

I ask in return why people would apply for a degree they will most likely never get.
Click to expand...

Because humans have the capacity to hope in the face of reason, logic, and statistics? Because many people have poor insight about their own abilities and those of their competition? Because some applicants don't do very much investigation into graduate programs and don't realize what is required and what it takes to get admitted?

You understand how popular lotteries are, despite the infinitesimal odds of winning, right?

This is called reductio ad absurdum.
Click to expand...

It's been a while since I took formal logic, but I don't think that means what you think it means.

The fact that doctors are statistically tied with psychology near the bottom is to be expected, since there are no real intellectual restrainments to becoming a doctor or psychologist. It is not a highly theoretical pursuit overall (exceptions exist).
Click to expand...

Paging Dunning and Kruger.
 
psych.meout said:
No, I was not saying they're necessarily more intelligent. What I wrote earlier was that we don't know what the intelligence level is of people who are admitted to PhD programs or that of actual psychologists. I was pointing out how you can't presume the values or attributes of one population given those of another population, even if the former is a subset of the latter. This was part of my post about how methodology and statistics are more complicated than simply looking at the mean scores of a given population. We also can't reliably use a proxy like SAT or GRE scores to approximate intelligence, as there are so many other factors involved in test performance and there's not much utility in these standardized tests, as they correlate poorly with performance in undergrad and graduate school, respectively. This is why ETS can't call it the "Scholastic Aptitude Test" anymore. "SAT" just stands for "SAT."

My previous posts notwithstanding, I would say that actual psychologists (which I am not) are probably relatively intelligent, as there is some pretty advanced math (e.g. Bayesian statistics) and science (e.g. functional neuroanatomy, psychopharmacology, etc.) involved in completing a doctoral degree and practical training in assessment and intervention required for internship, post-doc, and licensure. I have no idea of their relative intelligence levels compared to other professionals with similar educations and training, but, as I previously posted, that's not really all that important. What really matters is that they are more than capable of meeting the stringent and difficult academic and practical demands of their programs, regardless of what their measured IQs and actual intelligence (which are not the same thing) are.



Because humans have the capacity to hope in the face of reason, logic, and statistics? Because many people have poor insight about their own abilities and those of their competition? Because some applicants don't do very much investigation into graduate programs and don't realize what is required and what it takes to get admitted?

You understand how popular lotteries are, despite the infinitesimal odds of winning, right?



It's been a while since I took formal logic, but I don't think that means what you think it means.



Paging Dunning and Kruger.
Click to expand...

It means that supposing the truth of your contention leads to absurdity.

Don't you understand that your explanation could also be applied to the top disciplines as well, and those still had respectable scores, dropouts included? I don't know any mathematican who would argue that statistics is an advanced part of math. In fact, most people claim it's the easiest. The math in theoretical physics, for an example differential equations, is far more advanced and way too hard for many people.
 
Last edited:
And here I was hoping this was going to be the start of a nice, welcoming, and helpful thread for those of us who struggle with maths, and still want to go ahead with at least an undergrad in Psychology, to maybe have our own little corner where we could come together and receive some basic help and support. :yeahright:

I was actually thinking of starting a thread like that myself, but not if its just going to be overrun by people who seem more intent on scoring points arguing with people, than they do with actually wanting to perhaps learn a thing or two from those who are advanced in the field and still deign to give up some of their free time to support and guide those of us who are just starting out. I think that deserves a bit more of a show of gratitude, actually. :eyebrow:

And someone who actually knows what they're talking about correct me if I'm wrong, but Reductio ad absurdum means reducing an argument to its most absurd/untenable point in order to prove the truth of a statement, or conversely demonstrate that a particular statement cannot possibly be true.
 
Ceke2002 said:
And here I was hoping this was going to be the start of a nice, welcoming, and helpful thread for those of us who struggle with maths, and still want to go ahead with at least an undergrad in Psychology, to maybe have our own little corner where we could come together and receive some basic help and support. :yeahright:

I was actually thinking of starting a thread like that myself, but not if its just going to be overrun by people who seem more intent on scoring points arguing with people, than they do with actually wanting to perhaps learn a thing or two from those who are advanced in the field and still deign to give up some of their free time to support and guide those of us who are just starting out. I think that deserves a bit more of a show of gratitude, actually. :eyebrow:

And someone who actually knows what they're talking about correct me if I'm wrong, but Reductio ad absurdum means reducing an argument to its most absurd/untenable point in order to prove the truth of a statement, or conversely demonstrate that a particular statement cannot possibly be true.
Click to expand...
Didn't we already have that thread? In the US, a psychologist needs enough understanding of mathematics to interpret statistics and for the more research oriented the more they will need to know. When someone asks how difficult that is or how much mathematical ability they would need, it becomes an impossible question to answer. it really isn't even the right question to ask. All that matters is whether or not you can pass the classes, get into grad school, internship, pass the licensing exam, and get a job. It is often more about persistence than it is about ability. I have no idea what happens in psychology down under, but I am thinking it is probably a bit challenging too.
 
Last edited:
smalltownpsych said:
Didn't we already have that thread? In the US, a psychologist needs enough understanding of mathematics to interpret statistics and for the more research oriented the more they will need to know. When someone asks how difficult that is or how much mathematical ability they would need, it becomes an impossible question to answer. it really isn't even th right question to ask. All that matters is whether or not you can pass the classes, get into grad school, internship, pass the licensing exam, and get a job. It is often more about persistence than it is about ability. I have no idea what happens in psychology down under, but I am thinking it is probably a bit challenging too.
Click to expand...

Exactly. All this talk about SAT/GRE scores, IQ scores, and which students are superior/inferior is really missing the point, which I've repeatedly tried to explain. All that really matters is that you can proficiently do the work asked of you, which applies to pretty much every field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Prototype123 said:
It means that supposing the truth of your contention leads to absurdity.
Click to expand...

Except, it's not absurd that many people apply for things that they are unqualified for, don't really understand, and/or don't have much chance of achieving, like winning the lottery. It's reality and the human condition.
 
smalltownpsych said:
Didn't we already have that thread? In the US, a psychologist needs enough understanding of mathematics to interpret statistics and for the more research oriented the more they will need to know. When someone asks how difficult that is or how much mathematical ability they would need, it becomes an impossible question to answer. it really isn't even the right question to ask. All that matters is whether or not you can pass the classes, get into grad school, internship, pass the licensing exam, and get a job. It is often more about persistence than it is about ability. I have no idea what happens in psychology down under, but I am thinking it is probably a bit challenging too.
Click to expand...

Yeah we did, or at least there have been similar threads, including one started by me. I meant more of like an indepth discussions/maths support thread, not just 'Hi, I'm wondering how hard stats is going to be', or maybe going a bit beyond just the basic 'can anyone give me some good books on stats to read?'. I meant more like having a maths work group type thread. :)
 
Prototype123 said:
I don't know any mathematican who would argue that statistics is an advanced part of math. In fact, most people claim it's the easiest.
Click to expand...

You poor thing, you're really reaching now.

Someone shut down this thread. For heaven's sake.

Move on, dude. Go see if all your mathematician friends want to hang out or something.
 
Ceke2002 said:
Yeah we did, or at least there have been similar threads, including one started by me. I meant more of like an indepth discussions/maths support thread, not just 'Hi, I'm wondering how hard stats is going to be', or maybe going a bit beyond just the basic 'can anyone give me some good books on stats to read?'. I meant more like having a maths work group type thread. :)
Click to expand...
Ugh! Not sure how many takers you will get on that. :) I am not a total math hater and was actually good enough at it when I was a child that my mom bought me a book with fun math puzzles. It wasn't that fun. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
MamaPhD said:
You poor thing, you're really reaching now.

Someone shut down this thread. For heaven's sake.

Move on, dude. Go see if all your mathematician friends want to hang out or something.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that one was pretty funny. "None of the mathematicians I know..." Do they hang out at a certain club or something? Actually, my sister was a mathematics major and got her masters in mathematics education. I don't know if that really qualifies her as a mathematician, but she told me that the mathematicians that were good at stats were very sought out by corporate america and well compensated. Of course, I think she also said something about them being sell-outs or not purists or something to that effect.
 
smalltownpsych said:
Ugh! Not sure how many takers you will get on that. :) I am not a total math hater and was actually good enough at it when I was a child that my mom bought me a book with fun math puzzles. It wasn't that fun. :D
Click to expand...

Well my husband has been attempting to explain some fundamentals of basic stats to me, that is if he can keep a straight face watching me all wide eyed and trying to follow along. :laugh: Yeah, I think you're right though, probably wouldn't be many takers on a thread like that - I shall keep trundling along with the self study. :)
 
smalltownpsych said:
Yeah, that one was pretty funny. "None of the mathematicians I know..." Do they hang out at a certain club or something? Actually, my sister was a mathematics major and got her masters in mathematics education. I don't know if that really qualifies her as a mathematician, but she told me that the mathematicians that were good at stats were very sought out by corporate america and well compensated. Of course, I think she also said something about them being sell-outs or not purists or something to that effect.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who was accepted into mathematics at Harvard, at the tender age of 15. And he is Swedish....We played chess and competed together in tournaments.
 
MamaPhD said:
Someone shut down this thread. For heaven's sake.
.
Click to expand...

Bet you wouldn't call for that if I posted positive aptitude test scores.... Look at it the positive way , you beat social workers!
 
Here we go, Prototype123, knock yourself out (preferably out of this thread, which, like others, I'm hoping will soon be put out if its misery).
2lcbomd.jpg


14xdpgz.jpg
 
By the way, before this thread does hopefully get closed down, thank you to everyone who tried to give serious answers to this codswallop - it might not have helped the OP, but it's helped someone at least. :=|:-):
 
Ceke2002 said:
By the way, before this thread does hopefully get closed down, thank you to everyone who tried to give serious answers to this codswallop - it might not have helped the OP, but it's helped someone at least. :=|:-):
Click to expand...

Ever heard of the expression:"shooting the messenger"? What have I done besides link scientific data to support my assertions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

calimich
AI in psychology
2
Replies
63
Views
3K
Shiori
Shiori
PsychSupreme
YouTube and psychology
Replies
24
Views
1K
PsychSupreme
PsychSupreme
The Cinnabon
Counseling Psychology EPPP rates
Replies
42
Views
2K
WisNeuro
WisNeuro
D
City college PhD clinical psychology
Replies
0
Views
640
Dan1721
D
B
Counseling Psychology faculty
Replies
3
Views
904
Justanothergrad
J
Top