Notices
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The human element

  1. #1 The human element 
    Forum Masters Degree organic god's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    567
    Behavior and psychology is about predicting and analysing human behaviour.

    However it is my belief that the "human element" makes such analysis open to large error
    Perhaps i should explain what i mean by the human element.

    It is a fact that no two human being are the same, it is clear that i differ from the the person next to me, this is clear from appearance but also from a one minute conversation with us. The inability to fix any variable from person to person is reallt what i mean by the human error

    This is not to say that psychology is without it's uses. however i believe that any study produced on the subject is open to scrutiny because like, how accurate can any study be when it is impossible to hold the subject to a constant.
    just look at a thermodynamic equation of state.

    how accurate can any differential be if it is impossible to keep the constant..constant e.g if (dT/dP)v is evaluated how accurate can it be if v is impossivble to be kept constant


    everything is mathematical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: The human element 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by organic god
    Behavior and psychology is about predicting and analysing human behaviour.

    However it is my belief that the "human element" makes such analysis open to large error
    Perhaps i should explain what i mean by the human element.

    It is a fact that no two human being are the same, it is clear that i differ from the the person next to me, this is clear from appearance but also from a one minute conversation with us. The inability to fix any variable from person to person is reallt what i mean by the human error

    This is not to say that psychology is without it's uses. however i believe that any study produced on the subject is open to scrutiny because like, how accurate can any study be when it is impossible to hold the subject to a constant.
    just look at a thermodynamic equation of state.
    We may all be different because we express our selves differently but basically underneath the mechanisms which enable consciousness and it's expressions are the same.

    Psychology knows how people vary and that mental illness is produced by an individuals experience which is unique.
    A good psychologist will analyse and treat a person based on this factor and the treatment will be unique to him or her.

    Quote Originally Posted by organic god
    how accurate can any differential be if it is impossible to keep the constant..constant e.g if (dT/dP)v is evaluated how accurate can it be if v is impossivble to be kept constant
    Keh? lol


    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (..❀.`.☼....-♥゜・*.:。✿*゚゚・✿.。.:* *.:。.❀.`.☼....-♥゜・*.:。✿*゚゚・✿.。.:* *.:。.❀.`.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: The human element 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by organic god
    However it is my belief that the "human element" makes such analysis open to large error
    Psychology is about eliminating or reducing that error through the study of the human element.
    Quote Originally Posted by organic god
    The inability to fix any variable from person to person is reallt what i mean by the human error
    Just because there are differences does not mean these differences cannot be defined, measured and accounted for. Psychology has developed a raft ot techniques to do exactly that.

    Organic God, have you ever actually read any research studies in psychology, or do you still imagine it is mired in some Jungian, Adlerian or Freudian mumbo-jumbo; or knee jerking to a Pvalov/Skinner dinner bell? I can't believe you have, for if you had you would not be making such statements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    how accurate can any study be when it is impossible to hold the subject to a constant.
    There is no defined constant. Psychology developed through comparing people and when a psychologist assigns a disorder for example, it is not implied that all people that suffer from the same disorder will exhibit the exact same behaviours. The analysis of behaviour is always of a qualitative nature, not quantitative.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    never underestimate the power of generality

    Potential is the most powerful force in the universe. Statistics are our tool to understanding it.

    Math is a very important tool for all the sciences(hence: the mother of all science). If you understood the usefulness of statistics, you would have no problem understanding the usefulness of psychology. But nevertheless, your doubt is not without undue reason. We are human and only know what we have proven, there is much more to learn, and much we might never learn. Mistakes are inevitably made based on assumptions and by trying to fill in the blanks with experiential logic, but when it comes to research, no assumptions should be made. Experiments follow predetermined scientific procedure based on the discoveries of previous experiments. Ultimately they all add up and give a better picture of the whole than any one experiment.

    Science has evolved from previous failures and successess, and what we "know" now is bound to be proven to be a usefull falsehood on day, but it is a tool. We may invent a better tool one day, but for now, it is all we have. So you can dig at the top soil with your bare hands, or you can use a spade.

    You are implying that we don't dig at all because there is no reason to, no? But the reason is we want to learn what lies underneath. By digging here and digging there you can make an educated guess what lies elsewhere without having to dig.

    Why I use this analogy is because i'm planning an ecological experiment of digging here and there in areas where different things grow and testing the soil in various ways. Though I know it's already been done, the best discoveries are said to be the most common ones. That is, they are discovered by many people, over and over again, and are thought to be new every time because people have a tendency to forget the old discoveries and replace them with new ones, even though the old one's are still useful, if not to better understand science as a whole. Plus I have too much free time and my brain has been growing comfortably numb.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •