| My 5 cents. There is not one but two psychological sciences at the moment. One is public, publicly funded and in very bad shape, with most of its results being not reproduceable (reproduction crisis), and a partial destruction happening via neuro-sciences. Who destroy, but do not offer large-scale replacement theories, that could encompass the whole species and are not in contradiction to other neuro-science results. And then there is the second faction (Disclaimer: I can not proof what is deduced after this disclaimer.) There are several cooperations and at least one government, which had the chance to large scale collect data on the population. This data is a psychological gold-mine, if explored properly. One could query such a behavioral database and more important - enact virtual experiments. Out of all male humans, who curse in front of the tv in the evening, filter out those who get into a car accident, plot the increase in cursing in front of the tv. If taken to the extreme, this new, data-mining behavior sciences, could create a agent based model of the species in all variations and collect data only to check the expected outcome of a societal change against the real outcome, with spot samples. I have my own little pet theories, how humanity would look to this privatized psychology, but i digress. I think, academic psychology should have full access to all cooperation databases that contain behavioral data. |
No thanks. We already have quack science from the 1950s still driving policy discussions on wedge issues today. I don’t want more convincing shit, I want less shit.