Why is the level of rigor (and IQ) so low in psychology and other social sciences? (weight, people)

[RationalExpectations]

Q: Why is the level of rigor (and IQ) so low in psychology and other social sciences?

A: I can't speak to psychology -- but I can to another social science: economics.

There is quite a bit of mathematical rigor in economics. For example, economists have studied General Equilibrium Theory since the late 1800s, but you might not be familiar with it as it is rarely taught at the undergraduate level. The math is a bit hairy for typical undergraduates, and the economic concepts are complex. Much of modern General Equilibrium Theory was developed by Kenneth Arrow (1972 Nobel Prize in Economics) and Gérard Debreu (1983 Nobel Prize in Economics). These two men published the seminal academic paper "Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy" (their definitive mathematical proof of the existence of a general equilibrium used Topological Math rather than any Calculus-based methods). Debreu went on to publish the classic "Theory of Value: An Axiomatic Analysis of Economic Equilibrium," a tour-de-force of mathematical economics.

Or take financial economics. Many of the top 10 undergraduate programs are actually called "BS in Financial Engineering." You'll need to have a solid foundation in the calculus of stochastic processes just to enroll in a PhD asset pricing class.

Or take last year's winner of the Nobel Prize in economics was Paul Romer, who earned his BS in Mathematics at MIT, and then his MA & PhD in Economics at the University of Chicago.

Or, for example, Carnegie-Mellon's undergraduate program in computational finance. It is actually hosted in the Department of Mathematics https://www.cmu.edu/math/bscf/index.html

[Nik4me]

Originally Posted by Supernova89

I'm based in Europe.

Obviously Europe is a generic term. If you are not in one of the newer countries which “ bought “ the American model- meaning you are in Germany, Austria, etc - then - there is definitely something wrong with your university- keep looking
Another insight- you could have selected an unsuitable major- you possibly could apply yourself more in the cross disciplinary research of a more precise sciences- where actually the most important of the advancements are made: biochemistry, biophysics, mathematical biosciences

Trust me- once you expand your intellectual circles - your sense of intellectual superiority will go away... it could even bring a touch of inadequacy in you

As you mention the difficulty in “measuring” a will, except possibly through an empirical observation and a supposition;
I would argue that there is no a reliable method to measure a human intelligence- I think I made a point in one of the discussions on race and IQ here somewhere.
So even you consider the people around you as not intelligent enough- it is a very subjective observation - there are different aspects of intelligence- your judgment is not an absolute truth and you could be very wrong, which makes you ...not “intelligent” enough?

[sheena12]

Originally Posted by Teacher Terry

That was not my experience but I am 65 so went to college a long time ago.

Not my experience then - or now. I attended the only university in the states where Sigmund Freud and Karl Jung spoke. It was an is highly selective. I remain active with alum relations, and psychology remains one of the most popular and rigorous majors.


There were no intellectual slouches at my university, and unlike some of the Ivies, one could not buy one's way into the school.



Yet another "I am against anything but STEM" post. Give it a rest.

[turkeydance]

"..the famous physicist Richard Feynman once said if you really want to show you understand how something works, build it."

[Supernova89]

Originally Posted by Nik4me

Obviously Europe is a generic term.

Lol. Nice ad hoc there

[Supernova89]

Originally Posted by turkeydance

"..the famous physicist Richard Feynman once said if you really want to show you understand how something works, build it."

I'm not sure how that applies to this.

[Supernova89]

I'll put it like this; my university got the particle accelerator and was proclaimed the biggest center of natural science research in Europe (2009).

[Supernova89]

The false autism attribution to Kim Peek is in Holts:" Psychology, The Science of Mind and Behavior textbook", as is the outdated science on the left vs right brain dichotomy, which would be a correct account of neurology in the 80s.

[Lodestar]

Just a few thoughts I've had while reading here.

Psychology is either an art or a science from my experience. Like the restaurant business you've got your "front of the house" folks who keep the books and your "back of the house" gang who cook and serve the food. They are often at odds with one another.

If you want to do research and develop theories you'll need the hard sciences but to be a good clinical psychologist you'll need a totally different group of skills, many of them instinctual. These often can't be learned through study. Testing for them is even more problematic.

It's very similar to teaching. You not only have to know your subject matter but be able to communicate it in such a way that it is digestible. One is intellectual and the other is interactional and social. All the knowledge in the world is useless if you are unable to present it in a way that is accessible to your students. And woe be to the rigid instructor who will not accept alternative viewpoints in the soft sciences. I think this is a veritable scourge today.

At very least a good teacher should be aware of various approaches to the subject matter, be competent in the language in which he is teaching, and encourage exploration and discussion of the efficacy of what may be conflicting practices. Like a good psychologist - a neutral stance, presenting information and stimulating self-discovery.

[Lodestar]

Two more interesting names who not only help fund public education but also influence it came up in this thread - Carnegie and Mellon. There are also the Rockefellers.