As you said it goes deeper than not listened to, actually completely misunderstood too. It's such a strange mix of bad communication. No idea why this is happening but I have to admit that it's been brewing for years.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @tom_hartley
I'm a little surprised I haven't seen the "argument": Rich is old so he's wrong. We've seen so much else. The issue isn't anything to do with Rich per se IMHO.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @tom_hartley
Like I'd agree with the ideas if his 7-year-old grandson said them, the issue is that some people might be in psychology and have a different take not because of a fear or prereg (whatever that means TBH) but because there's a deep illogic there for our work.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
In my view the nature of the argument has more to do with general human failings (we fall back on "us" v "them" when we need to change people's minds), but yes, I think scientists in general sometimes fear to go too deep (philosophy)...
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @tom_hartley @o_guest
... and of course we can point to the overall success of the enterprise as evidence that not thinking too deeply works. At least Physics, Chemistry and Biology can.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @tom_hartley @o_guest
... But those disciplines have well developed theories. Psychology has not really got that far, yet. Understandable for the first 100 years, not so much now.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @tom_hartley
I'm not convinced biology has better theories than psychology to be honest.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest
Ha! Well, you know - DNA, RNA, genes, selection etc. Admittedly many of these feel like established empirical facts already, but they started as theories. I struggle to think of comparable ideas in Psychology.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @tom_hartley
If "DNA" is a good example in your opinion of a theory what stops "memory" from being a good one, or "neurons" or "learning"? Asking because I genuinely don't think psych is that bad for theories given these comparisons, but we can improve a lot.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
I am not trying to antagonize you though, and I know what you mean - Physics/Chemistry are older and the theories are correspondingly more mature.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
NGL but I think psych especially in the areas with the heavy modelling has some pretty amazing theories. Especially given how far up "we" are in the levels of the analysis of the universe, I think we're on good track if we continue with modelling. That's what worries me though...
-
-
Replying to @o_guest
Yes. I agree. I think our limited efforts at modelling have borne fruit. But there's not enough modelling happening.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.