It doesn’t have the rigour of say physics for sure … but physics is specifically the science of what can be measured.
I wouldn’t write it off as a science though. You may write off some of its practitioners for sure but you can do that with anything.
I've always been dismissive of the myer-briggs test. Since the tests are "not reproducable", must mean it's at best a pseudo-science.
But then I realized, who am I to dismiss the idea? I'm not an expert. Much smarter people than I (Dalio) believe in it. At the end of the day, does it help us move closer to understanding the differences between our minds?
I'd say yes it does. It may not be a "perfect" 100% correct model, but at least it's a step towards a direction.
> But then I realized, who am I to dismiss the idea? I'm not an expert. Much smarter people than I (Dalio) believe in it.
This is an appeal to authority; you should stick to your original gut feeling. Dalio and the like make their money selling books and as such write what people want to hear. It’s Chicken Soup For The Soul for people with bachelor degrees.
Amusingly enough, most psychology academics would be in violent agreement with you on that.
They are very useful for inscribing yourself into the narrative in order to break you out of your perspective and help guide you toward a more positive direction than otherwise.
Psych makes plenty of fairly reliable predictions around social behaviour, childhood development and human machine interaction.
Only somebody who didn’t understand psychology would say it produces no reproducible results.
It’s not physics. You can’t do it in a lab. But it can explain and predict within bounds of certainty.
DSM is often wielded as a criticism but this is strictly speaking a psychiatric i.e “medical” tool which strictly speaking should be used as a basis for making diagnosis not for diagnosis itself. It’s limitations are well understood in the field of psychology and again somebody who understood the field would know this.
Can you provide an example of a prediction that can accurately be made with psychology?
> Only somebody who didn’t understand psychology would say it produces no reproducible results.
I’m well versed enough with psychology. I even remember when people took the DSMIV seriously!
In any given internet discussion on a non-deterministic topic, there will be at least one person (usually several) who speaks as if they are omniscient (have the ability to accurately read minds, predict the future, know comprehensive reality, etc).
That's the manual of psychiatry (which is a very, very different thing) right?
DSM's only interaction with the field of psychology is for insurance purposes for therapists who are also psychologists.
I mean, I read it when I was doing a psychology undergrad, but it definitely wasn't something that was required.
FWIW, I think that you may not be defining psychology the same way as many of the commentators here.
Can you post a study you feel shows that nothing in psychology is reproducible?