I am asking because I see at least most of psychology as an embodiment of bad approaches: hinging clearly and mainly on intellectual speculations (heck, it seems as if philosophers do much of the work); formalizations (systems, frameworks, models) done in the abstract without added research and certainly lacking any key (foundational) research (sometimes even intentionally lacking in citing any process(es)); and presumptive/presumptuous positions (e.g. seeming to emphasize a "pure" type of learning and/or presuming all innate stuff is present in infancy). I am open to nominations of approaches clearly NOT in any of those categories (I am looking for maybe a bit better stuff to read). (And, P.S. I am not interested in any comparative or evolutionary 'approaches' that do not cite specific, clear and very-likely behaviors shown by past organisms OR clearly shown in another species AND specifically and presently shown in existing organism(s). And, please, nothing that is not empirically grounded in all key aspects OR potentially so, upon direct investigation(s).)
Let me say some words, not about applied psychology, but about research psychology (this, of course, is related to applied psychology):
I cannot understand why psychology researchers do research on what seem like specific predictions of a theory or model, when the necessary contextual factors (that in large part define any relevant or predicted behaviors) are not understood. This is to say that often a model's or theory's assumptions or general (and necessarily relevant) propositions are not well understood [ factually, objectively (proven inter-rater reliability in understandings of definitions), and empirically ]; yet researchers go ahead and do research on what they see as specific 'predictions' (often adding their own confounds, through their own skew on definitions, to this already-bad situation).
THEN: One should appreciate that it is NOT hard to show trends at p
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Mental Processes
- Learning