Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Psychology wider reading :)

Scroll to see replies

mya369

well its not like you need them :smile:

what other subjects are you doing?

I thought maybe law ( a career in being pedantic!!) or I could possibly go on to do a degree in medicine/ neuroscience/ or go on to further research in psychology, or even clinical psychology....

You can tell I really don't have a clue! :p:

How about you?

i'm doing maths, economics and chemistry lol kinda random i don't know many people doing the same subjects as me! lol yeah i thought about law too but i can decide on that stuff later lol research really appeals to me too but don't really know much about it and i just reaaaaally want to travel! lol so yeah i'm kinda clueless too haha

Reply 21

Summer24

GodspeedGehenna

Are you not aware that neuroscience makes up rather a large proportion of Psychology these days? The research produced at the Psych dept. at Rhul almost entirely uses fMRI, TMS and EEG studies. I mean, look at my third year modules:

Human Neuropsychology
Advanced Cognitive Neuroscience
Cell and Molecular Neuroscience
Perception, Movement and Developmental Disorders
Adult Psychological Problems
Research and Statistical Methods
etc etc..

As well as consistantly throughout there degree about 1/3rd being Biological and 1/3rd maths.

And I also think the BPS would strongly disagree with your description of Psychology not being a science, considering the tear-renderingly strict level of scientific methodology hammered into us from day one.

So yeah, what were you saying? Are you even at university yet? Looking at your profile, you have neither studied Psychology nor Neuroscience, so it does nothing more than support the possibility that you have no idea what you're talking about.

First of all, if you are trying to debate a point, then I don’t think making premature conjectures in regards to what I have studied or haven’t studied is going to proof you point and it does not mean I don’t know what I am talking about. I have never studied politics or philology and that does not mean I can’t debate on the topics! So please think before you write.

I appreciate the fact that you may be studying neuroscience in psychology, but I can say that I’ve studied ethics in Genetics- Biology However that does not make Biology a philosophical subject. Neuroscience is an independent field which comes under science (Mammalian Physiology -Bio) more than psychology. the man who mistook his wife for a hat therefore is more of a science (neuroscience) book than psch’. and for god sakes it was written by Dr Sacks who is a neuroscientist!

I am not sure how we came to this but in my opinion psychology does not and will not ever come under science. A behaviourist would argue with this because they firmly believe that psych’ is science. However this idea of psych’ been a science is not shared by other psychologist such as Humanistic psychologists or social constructionists therefore this idea is not universalistic!

also psychology cannot be a science because in my mind natural science, will always be based on systematic empiricism and objectivity. something psych’ lacks. e.g. Freud (father of all psych’ whom I personally admire) argued this psychosexual development based on one case (little Hans) this will not ever be sufficient enough for science.

Finally psych lacks both internal and external validty- finding from experiments are not always supported by real life.

p.s I am going to university this year hopefully and guess what! I am coming to yours :eek:

Reply 22

GodspeedGehenna

Summer24

I appreciate the fact that you may be studying neuroscience in psychology, but I can say that I’ve studied ethics in Genetics- Biology However that does not make Biology a philosophical subject. Neuroscience is an independent field which comes under science (Mammalian Physiology -Bio) more than psychology.

That's like saying "Physics is an independent field which comes under science more than Maths". You're trying to tell me that subjects have clear cut black and white boundaries. This just isn't true and it's far too simplistic to think so. Neuroscience makes up a large part of Psychology as I have showed you, something you are choosing to ignore for the sake of your argument.

You've chosen to use your Biology/Philosopy argument. Yes, I wouldn't describe Biology to be a philosophical subject, however I can't imagine it made up much of your studies. Look back to my modules, 5 of them were neuroscience based, with the others being my own research and statistical and methodological lectures. It's not comparable.

Summer24

I am not sure how we came to this but in my opinion psychology does not and will not ever come under science. A behaviourist would argue with this because they firmly believe that psych’ is science. However this idea of psych’ been a science is not shared by other psychologist such as Humanistic psychologists or social constructionists therefore this idea is not universalistic!

Great, you've noticed that Psych consists of a lot of subfields with a massive array of approaches and theories. Thus, it doesn't take a genius to work out that claiming the entire field either scientific or unscientific isn't really possible. Some of the older approaches were unscientific, yes, however, these approaches are being abandoned in favour of harder research produced in cognitive and neuroscientific branches.

Summer24

also psychology cannot be a science because in my mind natural science, will always be based on systematic empiricism and objectivity. something psych’ lacks. e.g. Freud (father of all psych’ whom I personally admire) argued this psychosexual development based on one case (little Hans) this will not ever be sufficient enough for science.

So you've pretty much based your whole post on Freud, who's work has again, largely been abandoned by a lot of Psych departments. Psychology has come miles, and you are basing your post on its early history.

You describe Psychology as "lackng systematic empiricism".. Jesus christ don't let the BPS hear you say that. This is the basis of modern day Psychology and its research guidelines. If you have had actually sat in our methodology and statistical lectures, you would see how strictly research is performed in order not to be laughed out of academia and be completely shredded by peer reviewers.

As I said before, the majority of Rhul's Psych research is produced with fMRI, TMS and EEG studies. I would hardly describe those as lacking systematic empiricism and objectivity.

Summer24

Finally psych lacks both internal and external validty- finding from experiments are not always supported by real life.

Yeah, its just all done for giggles. Do you actually know of the process required to get a research paper published? The level of methodological critique and scrupulation are astronomical in order to meet the level of validity that peer reviews and the research journals ask for.

To deem all Psych experiments to be internally and externally invalid just isn't really sensible now, is it? And do you honestly think that every single scientific experiment are supported by "real life"?

To be honest, I wouldn't be so arrogant infront of your lecturers or researchers at the university. If they (either Psych or Neuro) were to hear you say such things you would be torn apart.

Reply 23

Jimbu

@summer24

Its all good touching on psychology in your studies but alot of what you are presented about various divisions are purist view points and opinions. You never get presented with what connects them together.

Let me break this down into something logical. Psychology itself is a very broad field studying different ends of the spectrum either the end result or the source(Ranging from pure social to pure neuro), but one thing common within the fields is that they study the mind and behaviour in various applications and settings.

Both the mind and behaviour are both products of departmentalisation of the brain. This is why a huge aspect of psychology is biology. Now why is it apart of neuroscience? Neurology deals with the study of the disorders of the brain and its treatment a fundamental aspect is that when the brain is damaged behaviour and cognition changes (also vise versa) and this is observed and measured by neuropsychiatrists, neuropsychologists and biopsychiatrists.

Freud is oldschool psychology and is very much a joke in his methods, yes he did provide the framework and basis to modern day psychology but his work was all theorised and biased.

Edit: Back on topic

If your not afraid to get into some of the advanced stuff and can read old medical english try
'General Psychopathology volume1' by Karl Jaspers. It goes into every category of psychological experience and descripes the very detailed from accounts of people with disorders and doctors who drugged themselves. You really wont be able to read the whole book but the individual accounts of various experiences is amazing from changes in perception of time( slowing and speeding up) to deja vu.

Reply 24

omgmanthissucks

anyone know any social or developmental psych books?

Reply 25

adamned

Heya, ooo my first post :smile:

For social psychology 'The Lucifer Effect' by Philip Zimbardo is a good read, albeit not a very happy book. I'm guessing you covered his Stanford Prison Experiment in your AS Psychology course, so you'll already have a good base to read it from related to all the significance of situational influence over individual behavior.

'Why Love Matters' by Sue Gerhardt is great for developmental psychology, though I found it a bit heavy on neuroscience at the start.

Anyway, you manage to attend the Oxford open day by any chance?

Reply 26

omgmanthissucks

oo thank you! yep i went did you?

Reply 27

Geritak

"Children's Minds" by Margaret Donaldson. It's a bit dense, but fairly comprehensive for such a short book.

"Snoop" by Sam Gosling - it's the result of a series of studies into how the way you deliberately or inadvertently arrange your personal spaces can say a lot about your personality. Quite interesting reading, and a good example of Social Psych in action.

Just my two cents.