Is it just me or is cognition and neuropsychology harder than the math in psychology?

[Prototype123]

I find the content of cognition och neuropsychology to be quite abstract. Some of the processes and terminologies are hard to grasp if you don't come from a natural science background, while the math of the statistics classes are pretty straightforward, given that you have a decent understanding of numbers.

Do you guys agree that, contrary to popular belief, statistics is not the most challenging content of psychology, but rather cognition and physiology (part of neuropsychology)?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ollie123]

This is very individual. I never found either of those areas very challenging. Stats is almost always taught in a very applied way and doesn't touch on the really advanced math concepts that underlie it. Cog/Neuro is mostly just rote memorization until you start getting into the applied realms.

Any topic becomes challenging when you dive deep, but even in graduate school I don't think I ever had a course I considered "difficult" - they were mostly just overviews that provided me background to dig in on my own. Challenging patients and research problems? Absolutely.

 

[Prototype123]

This is very individual.

Since I don't come from either a natural science or math background, and I don't possess any great talent for either one, shouldn't my perspective carry some weight to it? I've never taken a class in physics or physiology at any level, and I had to learn algebra "verbatim" for the statistics class. Yet the stats was ok.

I would personally call any intending graduates attenton to the physiology part (how neurons communicate, for an example). The math part is mostly taken care of by the statistics crunchers, and the stuff that isn't should be fine for any analytically inclined individual interested in research.

Cog/Neuro is mostly just rote memorization until you start getting into the applied realms.
.

I disagree for two reasons. A) The physical processes are harder to memorize (and grasp) if the terminology is completely foreign to you, B) The exams questions can be phrased in a way that demands thinking of your feet, and not simply book memorization. Unlike personality psychology in which a certain professors theory states such and such - easy verbal input -output, to everyday terms used.

 

[PsyDr]

You've consistently said you are brighter than most psychologists. There's a huge area you are missing and then deducing incorrectly.

I love that an undergrad is instructing grad students on the field.

 

[Prototype123]

You've consistently said you are brighter than most psychologists.

That's not saying a lot. Intendeed psychology majors are bottom of the barrel intellectually, as GRE bear out.

 

[singasongofjoy]

That's not saying a lot. Intendeed psychology majors are bottom of the barrell intellectually, as GRE bear out.

Since I don't come from either a natural science or math background, and I don't possess any great talent for either one, shouldn't my perspective carry some weight to it? I've never taken a class in physics or physiology at any level, and I had to learn algebra "verbatim" for the statistics class. Yet the stats was ok.

I would personally call any intending graduates attenton to the physiology part (how neurons communicate, for an example). The math part is mostly taken care of by the statistics crunchers, and the stuff that isn't should be fine for any analytically inclined individual interested in research.



I disagree for two reasons. A) The physical processes are harder to memorize (and grasp) if the terminology is completely foreign to you, B) The exams questions can be phrased in a way that demands thinking of your feet, and not simply book memorization. Unlike personality psychology in which a certain professors theory states such and such - easy verbal input -output, to everyday terms used.

It's perfectly fine for you to disagree, because you're asking about opinions. Whether people think something is hard is an opinion and will vary from person to person. Just because something is hard for you doesn't mean it's hard for everyone else. So I hope this thread does not devolve into useless arguments like several past threads of yours in this forum have. Just throwing that out there before this thread goes further down the rabbit hole.

 

[Prototype123]

It's perfectly fine for you to disagree, because you're asking about opinions. Whether people think something is hard is an opinion and will vary from person to person. Just because something is hard for you doesn't mean it's hard for everyone else. So I hope this thread does not devolve into useless arguments like several past threads of yours in this forum have. Just throwing that out there before this thread goes further down the rabbit hole.

I've never claimed that it's 100% universally accepted. Having a background of ignorance in both, however, I don't understand how people would find physiology easy compared to math, which is dictated by logic. If you've never encountered terms such as depolarization and then have to understand it in an abstract context, I'd say that's harder than the common sense logic of math, which most people have some exposure to.

 

[PsyDr]

I've never claimed that it's 100% universally accepted. Having a background of ignorance in both, however, I don't understand how people would find physiology easy compared to math, which is dictated by logic. If you've never encountered terms such as depolarization and then have to understand it in an abstract context, I'd say that's harder than the common sense logic of math, which most people have some exposure to.

It's almost as if there are complex models for that...

Or that there's a difference between the lay understanding of logic and pure math/mathematical logic.

 

[Prototype123]

I had fruitful exchanges with my statistics instructor, despite next to no background in math (including high school), and even teased him that his prior exam questions were too easy. Compare that to the physiology classes, scratching my head to all these processes, unable to inquire about the subject at all.

 

[Ollie123]

Your particular physiology course may be more difficult than your stats course. We would have no way of knowing that, nor do I have any idea how you could generalize this to the overarching topics. Any topic can have exam questions that necessitate more "thinking on your feet" - its not like that is specific to physiology. Regardless, I'd argue both are remarkably straightforward at the level typically taught at any level of psychology education. I personally find wading through complex personality theory by the old-school analysts to be far more difficult, but that's likely a combination of my relative disinterest in it and their generally horrific writing skills. The personality coursework we covered in undergrad/grad was easy though because again - quite superficial and not enough nuance to be challenging. That's me though. I'm not exactly sure what this discussion is about. Different people are better/worse at different things. No?

 

[Prototype123]

Your particular physiology course may be more difficult than your stats course. We would have no way of knowing that, nor do I have any idea how you could generalize this to the overarching topics. Any topic can have exam questions that necessitate more "thinking on your feet" - its not like that is specific to physiology. Regardless, I'd argue both are remarkably straightforward at the level typically taught at any level of psychology education. I personally find wading through complex personality theory by the old-school analysts to be far more difficult, but that's likely a combination of my relative disinterest in it and their generally horrific writing skills. The personality coursework we covered in undergrad/grad was easy though because again - quite superficial and not enough nuance to be challenging. That's me though. I'm not exactly sure what this discussion is about. Different people are better/worse at different things. No?

I'm from an intellectually impoverished background, so your experience is pretty irrelevant unless we share that in common (which I doubt by probability alone).

It's the same fundamental level of both courses. I've heard as a general rule that physicists tend to find pure math easy but that the inverse relationship is not true, namely that mathematicans may very well struggle with physics. Perhaps I'm equipped with a mathematicans brain, then. Physiology did not come easy for me, and I'm guessing physics would be the same.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I think math is hard. I think the brain is hard to learn to. I think cogition is easy. My dog is named spot. He can run. He can run fast.

 

[bmedclinic]

That's not saying a lot. Intendeed psychology majors are bottom of the barrel intellectually, as GRE bear out.

You've consistently said you are brighter than most psychologists. There's a huge area you are missing and then deducing incorrectly.

I love that an undergrad is instructing grad students on the field.

Many psychologists were psychology majors, but not many psychology majors become psychologists. Maybe these things arent the same?
I was a psychology major in 2002. I become a psychologist in 2014.
Maybe you're smarter than me (unlikely, and tbh it doesnt really matter, and I trust you know that if you know as much as IQ as the rest of us) but its pretty unlikely you know more about psychology than me, or most licensed psychologists on the forum. That's at least worth considering.

 

[Prototype123]

I think math is hard.

What about math at the fundamental level do you find hard?

 

[Prototype123]

Many psychologists were psychology majors, but not many psychology majors become psychologists. Maybe these things arent the same?
I was a psychology major in 2002. I become a psychologist in 2014.
Maybe you're smarter than me (unlikely, and tbh it doesnt really matter, and I trust you know that if you know as much as IQ as the rest of us) but its pretty unlikely you know more about psychology than me, or most licensed psychologists on the forum. That's at least worth considering.

I've lived in both the world of academic philosophy for 5 years and now psychology, and the drop in intelligence in the psychology professors is substantial. All philosophy lecturers were of superior or gifted level. 9 out of 10 psychologists are not even approaching that. More likeable people, but pretty average to high average in intelligence. Their verbal profiles in particular are unimpressive, and verbal intelligence is one of the strongest predictors of full scale IQ.

 

[PsychPhDone]

I've lived in both the world of academic philosophy for 5 years and now psychology, and the drop in intelligence in the psychology professors is substantial. All philosophy lecturers were of superior or gifted level. 9 out of 10 psychologists are not even approaching that. More likeable people, but pretty average to high average in intelligence. Their verbal profiles in particular are unimpressive, and verbal intelligence is one of the strongest predictors of full scale IQ.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I think math is hard. I think the brain is hard to learn to. I think cogition is easy. My dog is named spot. He can run. He can run fast.

Can we see him run?

 

[Luka75]

@Prototype123 You just enjoy being controversial, don't you? I'm not sure if you're a troll or if you're serious but you do have knack for thread making.

 

[bmedclinic]

I've lived in both the world of academic philosophy for 5 years and now psychology, and the drop in intelligence in the psychology professors is substantial. All philosophy lecturers were of superior or gifted level. 9 out of 10 psychologists are not even approaching that. More likeable people, but pretty average to high average in intelligence. Their verbal profiles in particular are unimpressive, and verbal intelligence is one of the strongest predictors of full scale IQ.

Ah, thank you for your enlightenment. lol.

 

[psych.meout]

I've lived in both the world of academic philosophy for 5 years and now psychology, and the drop in intelligence in the psychology professors is substantial. All philosophy lecturers were of superior or gifted level. 9 out of 10 psychologists are not even approaching that. More likeable people, but pretty average to high average in intelligence. Their verbal profiles in particular are unimpressive, and verbal intelligence is one of the strongest predictors of full scale IQ.

That's not saying a lot. Intendeed psychology majors are bottom of the barrel intellectually, as GRE bear out.

Oh, so we're doing this again?

 

[Prototype123]

Oh, so we're doing this again?

Ask him.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Can we see him run?

Glad someone got the joke. I wasn't sure if it might go right over all of these intellectually challenged psychologists and psychology students heads.

 

[Prototype123]

Glad someone got the joke. I wasn't sure if it might go right over all of these intellectually challenged psychologists and psychology students heads.

Don't go into comedy.

 

[Prototype123]

Glad someone got the joke. I wasn't sure if it might go right over all of these intellectually challenged psychologists and psychology students heads.

Difference between ignoring your lame attempt and not understanding it.

 

[ilovedance1]

Can't decide between :troll: or ...

 

[Prototype123]

Can't decide between :troll: or ...

Nothing trollish about the thread question posed. People can't stay within the topic and instead decide to swing at me.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Nothing trollish about the thread question posed. People can't stay within the topic and instead decide to swing at me.

Unfortunately, it is really more of an example of a poor question than anything else. Part of psychology is learning how to frame questions. Why would we engage in this other than to say that each individual is going to have varying abilities and experiences with the subjects and that there is no way to objectively measure and compare which subject is "harder" than another? If you really want to have an intelligent dialogue with other people who are interested in psychology, then maybe you would need to shift your own perspective. I must have mistakenly assumed that you just wanted to trade insults. I used to do that for fun with my buddies so I have no problem with it.

 

[ilovedance1]

Nothing trollish about the thread question posed. People can't stay within the topic and instead decide to swing at me.

I was referring to these comments:

"That's not saying a lot. Intendeed psychology majors are bottom of the barrel intellectually, as GRE bear out."

"I've lived in both the world of academic philosophy for 5 years and now psychology, and the drop in intelligence in the psychology professors is substantial. All philosophy lecturers were of superior or gifted level. 9 out of 10 psychologists are not even approaching that. More likeable people, but pretty average to high average in intelligence. Their verbal profiles in particular are unimpressive, and verbal intelligence is one of the strongest predictors of full scale IQ."

I figured that you were about to start another one of your threads insulting psychologists.

 

[Prototype123]

Unfortunately, it is really more of an example of a poor question than anything else. Part of psychology is learning how to frame questions. Why would we engage in this other than to say that each individual is going to have varying abilities and experiences with the subjects and that there is no way to objectively measure and compare which subject is "harder" than another? If you really want to have an intelligent dialogue with other people who are interested in psychology, then maybe you would need to shift your own perspective. I must have mistakenly assumed that you just wanted to trade insults. I used to do that for fun with my buddies so I have no problem with it.

The threads ambition was nothing more than a comparative self assessment on ones path in psychology graduation. My thoughts so far are that neuropsychology could possibly be my undoing and not statistics as previously assumed. I am in need of 30 credits from neuropsychology and it is a pain in the ass. The instructors are more strict than in other fields of psychology, while the content is pretty dry.

 

[psych.meout]

The threads ambition was nothing more than a comparative self assessment on ones path in psychology graduation. My thoughts so far are that neuropsychology could possibly be my undoing and not statistics as previously assumed. I am in need of 30 credits from neuropsychology and it is a pain in the ass. The instructors are more strict than in other fields of psychology, while the content is pretty dry.

What program requires 30 credits (are these credit hours?) of neuropsychology? Is this an undergrad or graduate program?

 

[ilovedance1]

The threads ambition was nothing more than a comparative self assessment on ones path in psychology graduation. My thoughts so far are that neuropsychology could possibly be my undoing and not statistics as previously assumed. I am in need of 30 credits from neuropsychology and it is a pain in the ass. The instructors are more strict than in other fields of psychology, while the content is pretty dry.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intentions. I personally hadsignificantly more difficulty with statistics than I do with neuropsychology or physiology. My statistics classes were taught at a very theoretical and conceptual level, and I had difficulty understanding the applied use of the information that I was learning. I find neuropsychology very interesting and love reading and learning about it. I definitely feel like this would be based on individual differences, personal strengths, and previous educational background.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Raven Theory...that's a rough one for me. /inside joke

 

[Prototype123]

What program requires 30 credits (are these credit hours?) of neuropsychology? Is this an undergrad or graduate program?

I need an additional 30 credits to be eligible for a bachelors in psychology. Neuropsychology was the only subcourse I was accepted into to this term. I can't really afford to waiste another term if I drop out of neuropsychology. Neuropsychology is not my field of interest, and it's not that it's super hard, but if you find cognition to be on the dry side.... And some instructors are very cheap at awarding points..

 

[erg923]

I like how people actually tried to answer this question seriously...like it was actually important or something.

 

[psych.meout]

I like how people actually tried to answer this question seriously...like it was actually important or something.

...

One of my philosophy professors sure thought so. He encouraged me to solve age-old math problems, and leave the philosophy department.

 

[Prototype123]

I like how people actually tried to answer this question seriously...like it was actually important or something.

Yeah, God forbid asking what other peoples perspectives are. We can't have that happen. The universe is going: does not compute.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I believe I was put on this earth to f*ck with medical doctors on SDN. This is clearly my calling in life.

https://forums.studentdoctor.net/th...u-during-convos.1238773/page-55#post-18776736

:troll:
You're just another SDN troll and a bad one. Its pretty boring honestly.

 

[psych.meout]

https://forums.studentdoctor.net/th...u-during-convos.1238773/page-55#post-18776736

:troll:
You're just another SDN troll and a bad one. Its pretty boring honestly.

I'm not sure if it's earnest trolling or more sophomoric deflection when other people were less than favorable to what he posted (e.g. stuff that gets posted on reddit by people into pick-up artists, "incels," other assorted misogynists, etc.). Had people been more amenable or supportive to his posts, he likely would have not have posted that part about trolling. You see this in other forums, where people basically test the waters with their various bigotry and insulting perspectives, elaborating on their beliefs once others demonstrate support and using humor as an out if there is dissension ("I was just kidding, bro!"). This happens often with alt-right white supremacist-types testing to see if they can get other conservatives converted over to their bigoted extremism.

 

[Prototype123]

https://forums.studentdoctor.net/th...u-during-convos.1238773/page-55#post-18776736

:troll:
You're just another SDN troll and a bad one. Its pretty boring honestly.

That was a joking remark made in the lounge. But go ahead and take it seriously.

 

[Prototype123]

How about this: Shouldn't the essence of psychology be the social and personality variables affecting behavior, instead of the neurological ones? I get the point of the subject but not sure it's really psychology as much as reductionism. One can combine the two, but neuropsychology courses leaves next to no room left for the social science, at least in the classes I've taken. It's straight up cognition/physiology with some everyday experiences thrown in as mere anecdotes. Very little theoretical discussions as to the social and personality variables involved.

I have no objections to the subject as a standalone discpline, but I question it's place in a social science. I don't feel as if I am doing psychology.

 

[psych.meout]

How about this: Shouldn't the essence of psychology be the social and personality variables affecting behavior, instead of the neurological ones? I get the point of the subject but not sure it's really psychology as much as reductionism. One can combine the two, but neuropsychology courses leaves next to no room left for the social science, at least in the classes I've taken. It's straight up cognition/physiology with some everyday experiences thrown in as mere anecdotes. Very little theoretical discussions as to the social and personality variables involved.

I have no objections to the subject as a standalone discpline, but I question it's place in a social science. I don't feel as if I am doing psychology.

Well, I can't speak to the courses you are/have taking, but that's the "bio" part of the biopsychosocial model. In graduate level and professional neuropsychology, psychosocial influences are studied with biological variables to examine their interactions. They are inextricably linked and therefore it is essential to integrate them in research and clinical practice, though I would not expect the best exhibition this in an undergraduate course.

 

[Prototype123]

Well, I can't speak to the courses you are/have taking, but that's the "bio" part of the biopsychosocial model. In graduate level and professional neuropsychology, psychosocial influences are studied with biological variables to examine their interactions. They are inextricably linked and therefore it is essential to integrate them in research and clinical practice, though I would not expect the best exhibition this in an undergraduate course.

There is virtually no psychosocial analysis in the basic courses. Might as well go into the biological sciences or neuroscience. I cheerish it from an intellectual standpoint, but there already is the natural sciences for that.

To illustrate my point, our main litterature is written by two neuroscientists.

 

[psych.meout]

There is virtually no psychosocial analysis in the basic courses. Might as well go into the biological sciences or neuroscience. I cheerish it from an intellectual standpoint, but there already is the natural sciences for that.

To illustrate my point, our main litterature is written by two neuroscientists.

Psychology is an interdisciplinary science, which incorporate things like neuroscience, so it's not exactly inappropriate or unusual for non-psychologists to contribute to or author materials for a psychology course.

 

[Prototype123]

Psychology is an interdisciplinary science, which incorporate things like neuroscience, so it's not exactly inappropriate or unusual for non-psychologists to contribute to or author materials for a psychology course.

Neuropsychology has an abundance of neuroscience content, but it isn't neuroscience, or else a distinction would not exist. Statistics is a another matter. The content of that is of course mathematics. But I won't argue against statistics books because it's used as a tool, not as something reseached in and of itself (in psychology).

 

[neurobain]

How about this: Shouldn't the essence of psychology be the social and personality variables affecting behavior, instead of the neurological ones? I get the point of the subject but not sure it's really psychology as much as reductionism. One can combine the two, but neuropsychology courses leaves next to no room left for the social science, at least in the classes I've taken. It's straight up cognition/physiology with some everyday experiences thrown in as mere anecdotes. Very little theoretical discussions as to the social and personality variables involved.

I have no objections to the subject as a standalone discpline, but I question it's place in a social science. I don't feel as if I am doing psychology.

Clinical neuropsychology in practice does take into consideration social, personality, and emotional variables, in addition to the neurological/cognitive. A comprehensive assessment includes not only tests of cognition and the neuroimaging results/neurological workup if available, but also a thorough clinical history, which includes current and past psychosocial stressors, psychiatric and medical history, current living situation, developmental history, academic/vocational/military/occupational history, among other factors. Also, screeners such as the BDI and BAI are often administered alongside instruments like the MMPI-2/2-RF, PAI, MCMI, etc. The three tap into personality and psychopathology with more empirical vigor and supplement the clinical interview. A competent neuropsychologist will consider the entire picture in evaluating the cognitive results. Also, a neuropsychologist is a clinical psychologist with additional training in brain-behavior relationships.

For example, last week I had a patient who was severely impaired across all WAIS-IV subtests, but was from a very low SES background and no more than 5 years of education. This was highly discrepant with her clinical history and performance on other tests of cognition. Using demographically adjusted norms revealed that she was solidly in the average range for people of her age, gender, ethnicity, and educational level.

What you see in coursework are the basics. You cannot do a decent job diagnosing dementia with lewy bodies or primary progressive aphasia without a thorough understanding of the physiology. That is why undergraduate courses focus on this aspect. You are studying a subdiscipline that has overlap with neuroscience and neurology. if you were to progress in neuropsychology, you would see the "social" pieces become more integrated.

 

[Sanman]

The premise of your thread is silly. Your question is whether a group of people that excelled in undergraduate psychology to the point that they decided to pursue a doctorate and, in many cases here, a post-doctoral specialization in neuropsychology found an undergrad class difficult? While I do not deign to speak for others here, the answer for me is that I did not struggle with it. Is it difficult? At times, that's the fun part!

However, given the average to _omewhar above average intellect of your professor, there should be no reason for you struggle, right?

While pondering that perhaps call out Iron Mike Tyson on his weak left hand and step in the ring with him. I mean it can't me that hard to beat up an old guy for a kid in his prime, right?

 

[Prototype123]

The premise of your thread is silly. Your question is whether a group of people that excelled in undergraduate psychology to the point that they decided to pursue a doctorate and, in many cases here, a post-doctoral specialization in neuropsychology found an undergrad class difficult? While I do not deign to speak for others here, the answer for me is that I did not struggle with it. Is it difficult? At times, that's the fun part!

However, given the average to _omewhar above average intellect of your professor, there should be no reason for you struggle, right?

While pondering that perhaps call out Iron Mike Tyson on his weak left hand and step in the ring with him. I mean it can't me that hard to beat up an old guy for a kid in his prime, right?

The intelligence of my professors is irrelevant, besides when they can't explain their own lectures (which is painful to witness).

 

[Prototype123]

The premise of your thread is silly. Your question is whether a group of people that excelled in undergraduate psychology to the point that they decided to pursue a doctorate and, in many cases here, a post-doctoral specialization in neuropsychology found an undergrad class difficult?

No, if they found physiology relatively difficult compared to the other content, since it fosters natural science knowledge which many of us lack.

 

[Prototype123]

Why any psychologist in the modern era uses the WAIS intelligence scale for poorly educated individuals is beyond me. It is measuring exactly what their missing - crystalized intelligence. Even the fluid intelligence portion is only meaningful if critical periods in the persons life isn't a factor to take into concideration (which they very well might be, since their poorly educated).

 

[psych.meout]

Why any psychologist in the modern era uses the WAIS intelligence scale for poorly educated individuals is beyond me. It is measuring exactly what their missing - crystalized intelligence. Even the fluid intelligence portion is only meaningful if critical periods in the persons life isn't a factor to take into concideration (which they very well might be, since their poorly educated).

See now, this is a low effort troll.