Most scientific/least scientific specialities in Psychology field

[psych844]

Not to get any wars going lol, but was curious what areas of psychology are the most scientific/least scientific in your guys view. You can mention in general (a subspeciality - ie forensic), or/and specific things within that area that makes you uncomfortable/uneasy.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Raven Theory...it's a real conversation starter. .

 

[Ollie123]

Very tough to answer for several reasons. 1) Everything is interconnected; 2) Many things CAN be scientific but scientific approaches are not typically used; 3) Some fields feign scientific approaches but then do super-sketchy things that make it not scientific (i.e. the recent work that has come under fire due to folks running dozens of related projects and publishing the 3 that worked out the way they wanted as a "series of replications").

If the question is "What fields currently have the most/least scientific support?" my answer will be very different from "What field lends itself most to rigorous scientific methods?"

 

[psych844]

Very tough to answer for several reasons. 1) Everything is interconnected; 2) Many things CAN be scientific but scientific approaches are not typically used; 3) Some fields feign scientific approaches but then do super-sketchy things that make it not scientific (i.e. the recent work that has come under fire due to folks running dozens of related projects and publishing the 3 that worked out the way they wanted as a "series of replications").

If the question is "What fields currently have the most/least scientific support?" my answer will be very different from "What field lends itself most to rigorous scientific methods?"

You can answer both. lol

 

[smalltownpsych]

To me the difficulty with psychology is that much of what we deal with is difficult to measure and apply more so than not scientific. For example, I know that part of psychotherapy involves me helping another person regulate and express affect and there is lots of evidence to support some of the mechanisms of that process, but very difficult to tie that into outcomes and separate technique from my own personal qualities. Patients feel safe and trust me and that is tough to quantify and study, but it is clearly a major factor. I use these intangible interpersonal strengths to assist in the delivery of evidenced based treatments whenever possible. On the other hand, charlatans might have the same ability to engender trust, but they use it in a much different way. I don't really think that there are any areas of psychology that are more scientific than any other as opposed to there are individuals who understand the importance and limitations of the science and use the scientific method as the basis or organizing principle behind the work, and then there are those who just make the crap up as they go along becuase it sounds good and it sells.

We often like to criticize Freud becuase he was not an empirical scientist, but he was clearly not a charlatan and used the tools that he had at his time in a scientific manner. Obviously, he extrapolated way too much from his observations of individual cases and that led to many flaws, but he wasn't just making it up, he was describing and interpreting what he observed and what patients reported. I use the Freud example because psychologists seem to have trouble seeing where the other theorists are right and it continues today and I think it is a disservice to our field as it makes it easier to give ammunition to the public who generally think we are not scientific. When I talk about Freud to students, I acknowledge the limitations that he had but the emphasis is on the fact that he really started the whole thing (psychotherapy) and that his theories changed the way people think which is pretty darn amazing.

 

[GoPokes]

Something something EMDR

 

[psych844]

To me the difficulty with psychology is that much of what we deal with is difficult to measure and apply more so than not scientific. For example, I know that part of psychotherapy involves me helping another person regulate and express affect and there is lots of evidence to support some of the mechanisms of that process, but very difficult to tie that into outcomes and separate technique from my own personal qualities. Patients feel safe and trust me and that is tough to quantify and study, but it is clearly a major factor. I use these intangible interpersonal strengths to assist in the delivery of evidenced based treatments whenever possible. On the other hand, charlatans might have the same ability to engender trust, but they use it in a much different way. I don't really think that there are any areas of psychology that are more scientific than any other as opposed to there are individuals who understand the importance and limitations of the science and use the scientific method as the basis or organizing principle behind the work, and then there are those who just make the crap up as they go along becuase it sounds good and it sells.

We often like to criticize Freud becuase he was not an empirical scientist, but he was clearly not a charlatan and used the tools that he had at his time in a scientific manner. Obviously, he extrapolated way too much from his observations of individual cases and that led to many flaws, but he wasn't just making it up, he was describing and interpreting what he observed and what patients reported. I use the Freud example because psychologists seem to have trouble seeing where the other theorists are right and it continues today and I think it is a disservice to our field as it makes it easier to give ammunition to the public who generally think we are not scientific. When I talk about Freud to students, I acknowledge the limitations that he had but the emphasis is on the fact that he really started the whole thing (psychotherapy) and that his theories changed the way people think which is pretty darn amazing.

Could you expand on the bold part. I get what you're saying for most part..but couldn't we measure (by doing an experiment) the link between high levels of trust in a therapist and outcomes?

 

[MCParent]

Not to get any wars going lol, but was curious what areas of psychology are the most scientific/least scientific in your guys view. You can mention in general (a subspeciality - ie forensic), or/and specific things within that area that makes you uncomfortable/uneasy.

Science is an approach to resolving questions, not a content area.

 

[WisNeuro]

Parapsychology and Transpersonal psychology.

 

[psych844]

Science is an approach to resolving questions, not a content area.

Of course..but some content areas don't necessarily use the same approaches (that is sort of the point) ..or in some cases..you are using the scientific method, but you use practices/apply things in to practice, that have not been proven through the scientific method.

 

[PsyDr]

I partially make my living by explaining bs things to judges and jurors. In general, just think how receptive a bunch of strangers would be to xyz therapy or assessment if you presented it in a humorous tone.

I once explained to a jury about the historical basis and practice of body psychotherapy. One of the best times I've ever had.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Could you expand on the bold part. I get what you're saying for most part..but couldn't we measure (by doing an experiment) the link between high levels of trust in a therapist and outcomes?

There is evidence for that correlation, trust and outcome, but why do they trust me is a bit harder to get at. Also, my emotional expressiveness, body language, eye contact, voice tone, etc all play a role in the treatment. These are difficult control for and separate out and there are a lot of other variables. My cultural background and experience and their cultural background and experience, gender, appearance. Sure we could look at trust but it interacts with many other variables. Technique, experience, my age and their age, client's ses, my personal beliefs, clients beliefs. I could go on for days. We can examine all of these things in various ways, but it is extremely difficult to sort it all out. We have different research strategies for this and each methodology has its own limitations and strengths.

Psychology is the study of the mind which is in itself a psychological construct that cannot be directly observed bit can only be inferred based on observed behaviors. Because of this Skinner said that we should ignore the mind and study the behavior, others focus more on what the person reports as being key. CBT tries to integrate both aspects to an extent, but due to emphais on experimental design can still be too reductionistic. Other theoretical approaches tend to be flawed by not having enough testable hypotheses or research behind them. I conceptualize from an object relations stance and there is a lack of effective treatment research in this area unfortunately. Good developmental research on much of it, but not directly connecting how to take that info, guide treatment, and measure outcome. I can talk about this stuff all day long as you can probably tell.

 

[Layla Jams]

There is evidence for that correlation, trust and outcome, but why do they trust me is a bit harder to get at. Also, my emotional expressiveness, body language, eye contact, voice tone, etc all play a role in the treatment. These are difficult control for and separate out and there are a lot of other variables. My cultural background and experience and their cultural background and experience, gender, appearance. Sure we could look at trust but it interacts with many other variables. Technique, experience, my age and their age, client's ses, my personal beliefs, clients beliefs. I could go on for days. We can examine all of these things in various ways, but it is extremely difficult to sort it all out. We have different research strategies for this and each methodology has its own limitations and strengths.

Psychology is the study of the mind which is in itself a psychological construct that cannot be directly observed bit can only be inferred based on observed behaviors. Because of this Skinner said that we should ignore the mind and study the behavior, others focus more on what the person reports as being key. CBT tries to integrate both aspects to an extent, but due to emphais on experimental design can still be too reductionistic. Other theoretical approaches tend to be flawed by not having enough testable hypotheses or research behind them. I conceptualize from an object relations stance and there is a lack of effective treatment research in this area unfortunately. Good developmental research on much of it, but not directly connecting how to take that info, guide treatment, and measure outcome. I can talk about this stuff all day long as you can probably tell.

Very well said!