Thread: The human element

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.