Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do psychologists come in the media and essentially label groups of people as inferior or less adept?
I was reading something about the psychology of whistleblowers, and how psychologists deem these people as naive and silly.
However, don't these professionals have to act ethically, or is that a "conservative" view? lol.. This is really like saying if one sees another assault somebody, we can't call the police but simply have to shrug our shoulders and say "meh, humans are corrupt, big deal".
Unless you are wording your post very sloppily, you are saying that literally all psychologists label people as inferior or less adept, all whistleblowers as naive and silly, and all psychologists are therefore unethical.
Some psychologists are pompous fools, because they are people, and some people are pompous fools.
Psychology is one of the relatively subjective "sciences" and I suspect that you can find a psychologist to "expertly" testify to most anything you want to make an appeal to authority about. That doesn't change that there is some validity to the field and that some psychologists are quite talented and intuitive and, for certain things, effective.
Unless you are wording your post very sloppily, you are saying that literally all psychologists label people as inferior or less adept, all whistleblowers as naive and silly, and all psychologists are therefore unethical.
Yes, I am saying that.
Quote:
Some psychologists are pompous fools, because they are people, and some people are pompous fools.
Psychology is one of the relatively subjective "sciences" and I suspect that you can find a psychologist to "expertly" testify to most anything you want to make an appeal to authority about. That doesn't change that there is some validity to the field and that some psychologists are quite talented and intuitive and, for certain things, effective.
Seems your making allowances for them. That's OK, however it's my opinion that psychologists often try to cite unprofessional practices and to me this is unacceptable. why is your opinion superior to mine?
Seems your making allowances for them. That's OK, however it's my opinion that psychologists often try to cite unprofessional practices and to me this is unacceptable. why is your opinion superior to mine?
Mordant's last paragraph reminds me of some of the kinds of criticisms philosophers of science make about the field of psychology--by suggesting it has a lot of subjectivity to it.
Seems your making allowances for them. That's OK, however it's my opinion that psychologists often try to cite unprofessional practices and to me this is unacceptable. why is your opinion superior to mine?
Probably not superior but more effective. I think what would make some practices more effective are results.
Crackpot, pseudo-psychologists you find on tv may say things like that. Psychology is all about the numbers (reaching statistical significance at whatever p value) and true psychologists know that nothing is ever "PROVEN", just "SUPPORTED" by their sample under X circumstances and that there will always be outliers.
... it's my opinion that psychologists often try to cite unprofessional practices and to me this is unacceptable. why is your opinion superior to mine?
My opinion is simply different. I never said it was superior.
I am not sure what you mean when you say psychologists try to cite unprofessional practices. Would you mind clarifying?
i simply think psychology should be banned, since it's more trouble than what it's worth.
I don't really care about this guy's opinion, but it was clear he was trying to insinuate that whistleblowers are somehow defective as people, or that those who cannot accept corruption are "backward". If this is his personal belief, again I don't care. It just seems to me lately that many medical professionals in the public sphere say things like this, with loose implications of labelling people. If medicine is moving away from its prior paradigm in its treatment of patients, so be it, they should just be honest and say so.
i simply think psychology should be banned, since it's more trouble than what it's worth.
I don't really care about this guy's opinion, but it was clear he was trying to insinuate that whistleblowers are somehow defective as people, or that those who cannot accept corruption are "backward". If this is his personal belief, again I don't care. It just seems to me lately that many medical professionals in the public sphere say things like this, with loose implications of labelling people. If medicine is moving away from its prior paradigm in its treatment of patients, so be it, they should just be honest and say so.
doesn't matter. the world is better off without it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
