For those who believe Psychology is a "soft subject"

Aren't you basically saying that psychology is so complex that we do not have easily definable variables which any person can pick up and instantly measure?

Just because something can't be measured in numbers doesn't mean it isn't important or useful as a science.

And are statistics not numbers? We measure effectiveness of treatments. Okay so we can't sit and individually count the number of neurons behaving abnormally just to give a numerical variable. But we can tell you what percentage of a population respond to a treatment. We can rule out confounding variables. We can predict behaviour (all other things being equal). It's a science. Whether there are numerical variables or not.

At the end of the day, people are still gonna study it so...

Basically. But you can't claim to know something so complex in enough depth to treat it as you would chemistry or physics, where you can say x amount + y amount = z amount.

I have only recently come to realise that psychology is more mathematically defined than I originally thought, so do forgive me, but in my opinion it's not sufficient to only apply quantification to parts of the field of study.

I have nothing against psychology. It is useful for something, but I do not think it deserves to be labelled a science the same as physics.
It would be bad practise for me, as a physicist, to qualitatively put forward the idea that you can condition a dog to salivate when a bell is rung. As a physicist, I would have to say that the amount of saliva produced by a dog in cubic metres is proportional to the intensity of the bell ringing in decibels, but inversely proportional to the time taken to condition the dog in seconds (sorry. Pavlov's dogs is the only psychology I know about).

Unless it can be measured, and expressed in terms of fundamental units, it (to me as a physicist) cannot be said to be a scientific description of something. It is how I've been indoctrinated and I apologise for that, by psychology isn't a science in the same vein as physics in my opinion.

That's not to say that it's unimportant or it shouldn't be studied, but that's not what the original question was.

I have no idea about the 'hardness' of Psychology in comparison to other subjects at A-level. As a Scottish student from a traditional school we didn't have any other sciences past the bog standard maths, physics, biology and chemistry (all of which I have done so I do have experience of them, some up to Advanced Higher level). So I have no experience with how difficult it may have been in comparison during high school.

I can however say that I find it to be just as difficult as Biology at degree level. I'm studying both Biology and Psychology, and currently in the third year of my degree. So I like to think I'm in a position to compare the two.

At the end of the day it's really going to come down to a p*ssing contest, which really isn't all that exciting.

I don't quite agree with you there. Each brain is different, if there's one thing Psychology has taught us, it's that. While we identify areas of the brain common for specific activity, and while we identify treatments effective for the majority, each brain is different. I don't know that we will ever truly understand the full complexity. With the number of neural connections, the number of activities the brain carries out and the multitude of ways our brain can function abnormally... I just find it staggering.

As the joke goes, is the brain complex enough to understand itself?

I suppose the difference between trying to unlock the brain and unlock the Uni(multi?)verse is that with the brain its all there. Its unimaginable complex, but we have all the data right there. We have all the starting variables, and we can measure it as we go along.
With the Universe we can't properly measure most of it, we can't even see over 95% of it, and we don't even know the laws which govern it.

That's not to say I think physicists are 'cleverer' that psychologists. I think their challenge is ultimately greater, but whether or not we ultimately solve the problems 10,000 years down the line doesn't make the problems facing us today any easier.

I find it absolutely hilarious that some people are using Psychology as an overall academic discipline to try to defend Psychology A-level, which is an exercise in simplistic rote-learning about as challenging as Geography GCSE.

I'm assuming because anybody can memorise a bunch of stuff, if they really tried. I doubt i'll ever *quite* understand what goes on in Physics no matter how hard I try

But at least when I did Physics and Maths, a lot of the exams were just memorising stuff. It was only a few questions where you actually needed to understand it.
Its not something that is limited to Pschology, and is actually quite widespread throughout most A level subjects.

I understand your point that other subjects involve memorisation at one point or another however, with psychology, no understanding is involved. you can read the text book, memorise the information, take the exam, spew out the information appropriately and pass. whereas with chemistry, physics and maths you have to understand concepts, manipulate them, and apply you understanding to novel situations.

In psychology, the only application of knowledge is (at AS level) where you are given a scenario such as 'Sally finds herself repeatedly washing her hands for 15+ hours a day.....blahblahblah....' - Outline and evaluate the successive stages after attending a psychiatrists meeting.

In this case. you get one mark for writing down the patients name. this is neither understanding nor manipulation.

Scientists take it as a joke.
It is usually taken at A-level by people who can't do proper science.
It is not a very hard A-level.

Maybe its because I am more of a mathsy person than a humanities person, but I can assure you that for me, my girlfriends Pscyology A level she is currently doing is a lot harder than my physics A level I did 3 years ago.

As I said, even in maths you didn't need to understand things. It was mainly memorisation. As long as you could remember the formulas and remember roughly what order you needed to do things in (which could be memorised from examples), then you were able to get decent marks.

Actually, the memorisation thing is even more true in History, yet because it is a more "traditional" subject, no one cares.

Ahh yes, but psychology is PURELY memorisation. the only part that makes it a science is they chuck a little statistics in there, even then, they test for statistical knowledge based on whether you can recognise a psychological experiment as being one tailed / two tailed / independent groups design / matched pairs etc and picking the appropriate test. there is no maths involved and it simply memorising which test goes with which design

Actually, the memorisation thing is even more true in History, yet because it is a more "traditional" subject, no one cares.

In fact, go read about the origins of consciousness in the cerebral cortex where it's possibly derived from modalities within the visual and olfactory system and the binding of information through neural oscillations of synaptic threshold in action potential localising within the cerebral cortex. Then tell me if a) you even understand and b) psychology is not a science.

Scientists take it as a joke.

I understand your point that other subjects involve memorisation at one point or another however, with psychology, no understanding is involved. you can read the text book, memorise the information, take the exam, spew out the information appropriately and pass. whereas with chemistry, physics and maths you have to understand concepts, manipulate them, and apply you understanding to novel situations.

In psychology, the only application of knowledge is (at AS level) where you are given a scenario such as 'Sally finds herself repeatedly washing her hands for 15+ hours a day.....blahblahblah....' - Outline and evaluate the successive stages after attending a psychiatrists meeting.

In this case. you get one mark for writing down the patients name. this is neither understanding nor manipulation.

But there is a distinction between psychology and neuroscience. If you was science of the brain, you want neuroscience, really.