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.
I could give a laundry list but here are some of the substandard features of the psychology department I study at.
*No requirement to deduce anything by hand mathematically, to actually demonstrate an understanding of what it is you are doing and seeding out the good from the bad
* Only requirement in terms of algebra is to recognize the symbols for different meanings (for an example correlation coefficients) and learning how to type it into SPPS. Not actually recalling and writing them yourself.
* Lax exams, criterias and gradings (I worked on one exam as an undergrad for 1 hour intending to get an E, received a B)
* Lecturers are of mediocre intelligence both verbally and mathematically, yet somehow became professors and researchers in a respected university
* Some of the natural sciences and medical information is incorrect due to lazy confirmation (claiming in the PSYCH litterature that Kim Peek was autistic, when he in fact had a brain abnormity, never diagnosed or suspected of having autism, or that austism could account for his unhuman memory feats). Also relaying popular science myths such as that aspergers don't have empathy (I could sue this ignoramus for defamation if I cared to).
I am interested both in the present and the past, why are social sciences saddled with these typical characteristics. I have studied for several years, and not once have I noticed a break in the pattern).
And yes, they are by an large of inferior intelligence, sorry to say. And that includes the slacker students. The GRE data also have them at rock bottom accordingly.
The natural sciences aren't without faults but they are rarely plagued by these things in particular. I even took some philosophy courses, and every single lecturer in that light weight discipline were of superior intelligence (still not to the point that I felt intimidated, but much smarter than PSYCH professors.
Last edited by Supernova89; 06-06-2019 at 06:12 AM..
I see the explanation in either one of these two competing theories (possibly both).
Natural selection - the brightest ones just aren't there (this is historically true but doesn't necessarily lead to lax standards).
A hereditary explanation in which someone put in place this soft, semi hippie curriculum of education and nobody bothers to touch it. Post Freud, of course, who didn't even want quantitative science in psychology.
I watched some old clips of Skinner on Youtube. To my great surprise, he did not appear to be particularly insightful or articulate by the strictest of measures. Considering that he's arguably the most influential psychologist of all time, that's a bad sign.
Because the social sciences have been co-opted for the political purposes of social engineering. People are more easily persuaded by feelings than by statistics.
That's why everybody but the most severely mentally disabled goes to college these days - to get his dose of government-sponsored brainwashing. I've done my stint through two degrees (in the Humanities.) You can survive if you still are a critical thinker.
Teachers no longer teach. They indoctrinate with the party line.
It's so obvious all but the very dense have figured it out by now. But then you knew that already, didn't you?
Disclaimer: My post is filled with outrageous and sweeping generalizations as per my college instruction. I'm willing and capable of discussing the issue from a statistical, scientific, political and historical viewpoint.
We can discuss the lie that people starve to death in America
That total sexual freedom is good for society
That America in general is probably the most evil country ever and responsible for all the world's ills.
That if you are poor it obligates you to a life of crime
That abortion supports women's health
That families with traditional role models are unnecessary
That humans are born a blank slate
And any number of things I was force-fed in college courses.
Because the social sciences have been co-opted for the political purposes of social engineering. People are more easily persuaded by feelings than by statistics.
That's why everybody but the most severely mentally disabled goes to college these days - to get his dose of government-sponsored brainwashing. I've done my stint through two degrees (in the Humanities.) You can survive if you still are a critical thinker.
Teachers no longer teach. They indoctrinate with the party line.
It's so obvious all but the very dense have figured it out by now. But then you knew that already, didn't you?
Disclaimer: My post is filled with outrageous and sweeping generalizations as per my college instruction. I'm willing and capable of discussing the issue from a statistical, scientific, political and historical viewpoint.
We can discuss the lie that people starve to death in America
That total sexual freedom is good for society
That America in general is probably the most evil country ever and responsible for all the world's ills.
That if you are poor it obligates you to a life of crime
That abortion supports women's health
That families with traditional role models are unnecessary
That humans are born a blank slate
And any number of things I was force-fed in college courses.
Interesting. Do you think that these educators have a different perspective on what achievement is? I shouldn't care about this stuff but it does rub me the wrong way. I'm one of the laziest students you can find, and I'm still repulsed that an enticing subject such as psychology is run by intellectual midgets, and that it attracts the type of slacker mentality it does.
I just wish we could switch places between the educators and not expect insignificant data results as significant, and just overall abuse the method of inquiry that they are trying to instill in students.
* Lecturers are of mediocre intelligence both verbally and mathematically, yet somehow became professors and researchers in a respected university
....
And yes, they are by an large of inferior intelligence, sorry to say. And that includes the slacker students. The GRE data also have them at rock bottom accordingly.
The natural sciences aren't without faults but they are rarely plagued by these things in particular. I even took some philosophy courses, and every single lecturer in that light weight discipline were of superior intelligence (still not to the point that I felt intimidated, but much smarter than PSYCH professors.
How does that make you feel?
Are you of superior intelligence?
Do you feel intimidated when someone's perception is better than yours?
Do you feel that even though you are so smart you are missing something?
I'm sure it's frustrating when people don't take things as seriously as you do, but maybe you also need to relax sometimes and stop measuring peoples' intelligence from how they are holding their pen.
Also, if you have questions during class you can ask them. this is how a class becomes more interesting. Participation.
If you don't like it, you can always drop out.
A fish out of water lacking intellectual peers. Endlessly frustrating and disappointing experience. All in all a mixed sensation. I can honestly state that I would prefer the roles were "correct" and that I'm the one playing catch-up to their level of insight. It feels like I am short-changing my full potential if I embark on this path. Too lazy to read up the math required of me to do anything else though, and stats suit me.
The philosophy professor labelled me in the gifted range of intelligence, for what it's worth. He read my undergrad paper, which he dismissed (I had no intellectual background and was not really fit to be doing that stuff at that point in my life) but he remarked that my level of abstract thinking was in the gifted range.
I'm a different person 6 years later, confident that my undergrad paper next term would be of high quality. I'm more well-read, disciplined, and nuanced in my thinking.
I wish this thread was more nuanced and that we dealt with the law of averages, but I feel my observations apply as a hole, and I was quite taken a back by this. It is not generalizations from my experience.
To me, IQ is overused as a measure of intelligence. The mind is so much more complex than a single number. I think you'd need at least a half dozen metrics to get even a crude approximation of an individual's true intellect. The mental attributes that are essential in the study of physics (abstract mathematics, rigorous problem solving, geometric thinking), for example, may not be of much use in the social sciences.
The mental attributes that are essential in the study of physics (abstract mathematics, rigorous problem solving, geometric thinking), for example, may not be of much use in the social sciences.
Quite the contrary, mathematics is a very important part of modern psychology research, and is the only content of the bachelor and master of science programs individual courses + your own paper. At least my bachelor and masters program in psychology offered here.
The social content courses in psychology are offered separately from the programs and are of course obligatory, but the actual bachelor and masters program consists of only statistics and scientific method (within a social science frame work).
I could give a laundry list but here are some of the substandard features of the psychology department I study at.
*No requirement to deduce anything by hand mathematically, to actually demonstrate an understanding of what it is you are doing and seeding out the good from the bad
* Only requirement in terms of algebra is to recognize the symbols for different meanings (for an example correlation coefficients) and learning how to type it into SPPS. Not actually recalling and writing them yourself.
* Lax exams, criterias and gradings (I worked on one exam as an undergrad for 1 hour intending to get an E, received a B)
* Lecturers are of mediocre intelligence both verbally and mathematically, yet somehow became professors and researchers in a respected university
* Some of the natural sciences and medical information is incorrect due to lazy confirmation (claiming in the PSYCH litterature that Kim Peek was autistic, when he in fact had a brain abnormity, never diagnosed or suspected of having autism, or that austism could account for his unhuman memory feats). Also relaying popular science myths such as that aspergers don't have empathy (I could sue this ignoramus for defamation if I cared to).
I am interested both in the present and the past, why are social sciences saddled with these typical characteristics. I have studied for several years, and not once have I noticed a break in the pattern).
And yes, they are by an large of inferior intelligence, sorry to say. And that includes the slacker students. The GRE data also have them at rock bottom accordingly.
The natural sciences aren't without faults but they are rarely plagued by these things in particular. I even took some philosophy courses, and every single lecturer in that light weight discipline were of superior intelligence (still not to the point that I felt intimidated, but much smarter than PSYCH professors.
Just my opinion. The academic studies are non- existent in the US.
For a real science one should go to Europe, especially for the humanities.
We are loosing a great deal of human intelligence potential in the US by NOT studying math and science very early in the elementary and middle school and by allowing electives in public schools.
Some kids with biological potential will never know if they are brilliant in chemistry or physics or biology.
Other countries use a very well rounded academically designed national curriculum based on the latest science. They teach children how to learn and update their knowledge for the rest of their life
Isn’t it surprising that not a very wealthy countries like India produce students with much more advanced math skills?
In the US we produce an enormously expensive bureaucracy in public schools,- which has nothing to do with teaching and learning, in healthcare- which has nothing to do with treating patients, in the government and in the politics.
That was not my experience but I am 65 so went to college a long time ago.
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.
