Can Psychology Ever Be a Science?

[Metamorph]

Once upon a time, people such as @Sir Isaac Newton practiced "natural philosophy." Now, "natural philosophy" is called "natural science" and "philosophy" refers to a very different field of study. If you're Stephen Hawking, you say, "philosophy is dead..." but "philosophy" used to refer to science. Even phenomenology, which was big in the 20th century, was often referred to as a science of subjective experience rather than a philosophy. Now, it seems to be the case that there has been some good research done under the label of "psychology," "sociology," etc... However, nothing important is being done there any more.

My opinion tends to be... death to the so-called social sciences. Maybe we can have psychology and sociology and anthropology and economics, but the real issue seems to be that people have no idea how to work the scientific method, or how to do mathematics. If people learned, all the former "social sciences" would rather closely resemble chemistry and physics, or become chemistry and physics. For example, even neurology seems to be mostly bogus in its historical form, and completely incapable of explaining anything, but now many MIT researchers have proven that the brain uses electromagnetism rather than chemical reactions, for example. I see many neurologists will lose their jobs if they cannot do enough mathematics to understand classical electromagnetic theory, which is probably the vast majority of neurologists. Or not, since, even though the Big Bang Theory was discovered in the Middle Ages, one-third of millennials somehow believe that the Earth is flat.

So, do you think psychology can be a science? Or is all the terrible non-replicable psychology simply Sturgeon's Law in action and psychology is already a science? I think possibly psychology might be a valid name for a form of biophysics, but this would be very different from the quasi-humanities studies-like programs that are being taught today. The harmful idea is probably that one does not need to be able to do advanced mathematics and logic to study a science, not necessarily the label of psychology or any other labels used in the so-called social sciences.

[Metamorph]

This is an interesting paper from Nature, which basically explains that the main problem is simply that most psychology (and other social science) findings aren't interesting so people don't particularly care to reproduce them. For example, the idea that turning a crank clockwise rather than counterclockwise will increase people's openness to experience. That's just not interesting since it's not really all that important or useful, nor does it confirm or deny another theory without being part of a wider explanation that it's invariably not integrated into.

Low replicability can support robust and efficient science | Nature Communications

[Bethanyclaire]

It could be more of an art form..more sophisticated

[godslave]

Man has the tendency to try to turn everything into a weapon. Some believed that psychology can be a weapon and I agree. I think however (and Time has confirmed it) that in term of weaponization, using mass psychology knowledge is easier and more efficient than individual reconditioning (unless a particular individual has a great influence on the masses). Things like subliminal messages are used everyday and everywhere. Commercials for instance are full of insidious subliminal messages and it's perfectly legal although extremely unethical imho because it raises the question of consentment. One can consider subliminal messages as some kind of rape of the mind. It's not a coincidence that in this age of social media "influencers" are highly valued by politicians esp in time of elections.

So to answer the initial question, I would say that Psychology is almost a science because it doesn't conforms to the scientific method a bit like a wild and stubborn horse that refuses to be domesticated. The question of reproducibility in psychology is the problem because of complex intricacies and inter-influences between several areas of "human sciences" and the Ethical considerations which limits the field or research. Not to mention the crucial environmental, genetic and social factors. We can only go so far before falling into the domain of "mad scientists" who practice experimentations on Human beings....

[Bethanyclaire]

It needs more data..and you can use technology for that surely

[Metamorph]

It needs more data..and you can use technology for that surely

We don't have the technology. The last time anyone tried anything with that we got Cambridge Analytica. EEGs don't do much anything. You could get a machine to read minds but people would probably be even more opposed to that than Cambridge Analytica even though I don't think they necessarily should be. I don't think people mostly understand this, but you can target specific thoughts, so you could target, say, someone's opinion of something and leave the rest alone. In fact, it'd probably take an inordinate amount of energy to get to the rest, rather than something you simply get by accident. I think people overestimate how easy it would be for machines to parse thoughts based on how easy it usually seems to them to parse their own thoughts. Machines haven't done it at all; isn't that evidence enough it wouldn't be easy? The real issue seems like the physics, though. Neurologists still like pushing the chemical model of consciousness, and that's not even starting on the fact that consciousness and awareness are not quite the same.

If psychologists have let us down, it's probably because of the whole regressive religious thing Jung did, combined with Freud's own kind of regressiveness. Smash your idols.

[Bethanyclaire]

@Coeruleum Blue

a former poster on how to make socionics more scientific:

‘Go back to the original observations/classifications and adapt modern information control system definitions and structures (like those used in artificial intelligence technology) to produce new models.

a.k.a. I/O’

i don’t know what it means but his posts were generally brilliant

We don’t need to read minds, we need to pool the data we already have and come up with something new?

socionics could be part of it

(amazed I managed to find that quote so
easily, not sure I’ve even read that one before )

[Metamorph]

@Coeruleum Blue

a former poster on how to make socionics more scientific:

‘Go back to the original observations/classifications and adapt modern information control system definitions and structures (like those used in artificial intelligence technology) to produce new models.

a.k.a. I/O’

i don’t know what it means but his posts were generally brilliant

We don’t need to read minds, we need to pool the data we already have and come up with something new?

socionics could be part of it

(amazed I managed to find that quote so
easily, not sure I’ve even read that one before )

Why should we use IT categories that don't necessarily exist in the real world, though? That's not how it's done in any other branch of science. That would probably make things worse, not better.

[Bethanyclaire]

Why should we use IT categories that don't necessarily exist in the real world, though? That's not how it's done in any other branch of science. That would probably make things worse, not better.

what’s an IT category? I think it’s more about reshaping information that already exists..using technology to pick it out and re-sort it (?) someone work with me here lol

[ouronis]

It can, but it stopped theory too soon and instead dove into mythologizing whatever we already had and sticking it into the DSM. I think with a lot of social sciences we tend to bury the lead and forget that the motivation for what we're doing is the crux of the instruments we need to create, which makes people feel hemmed in to existing theories when free-form exploration is needed. This applies to the mainstream, there is still plenty of exploratory side research going on.

[Bethanyclaire]

I think this could be more of a discussion but perhaps need to discuss definition of science/ definitions of existing approaches to psychology. There are pockets of knowledge about psychology on the forum, I have thought about making a thread about conditions/approaches to dealing with them to try to learn from each other

[timber]

I thought there was a whole lot done past Jung anyway? This OP seems like a debate that occurred 40-50 years ago. Psychology uses the scientific method plenty, but maybe people are just that complex, that the field has not mastered is yet? Like physics, biology, ect.

[Metamorph]

I thought there was a whole lot done past Jung anyway? This OP seems like a debate that occurred 40-50 years ago. Psychology uses the scientific method plenty, but maybe people are just that complex, that the field has not mastered is yet? Like physics, biology, ect.

Except I know more about people than professional psychologists do and I really shouldn't. I don't know more about physics than professional physicists do, or more about wildlife than rangers and conservationists, or more about plants than botanists and farmers. It's not that people are unknowable, it's that the people who are supposed to know about people aren't doing their jobs and that's shameful. Another similar field, however, is economics. Most economists aren't rich just like most psychologists don't know anything about people. It's all a complete shame.

[timber]

Except I know more about people than professional psychologists do and I really shouldn't. I don't know more about physics than professional physicists do, or more about wildlife than rangers and conservationists, or more about plants than botanists and farmers. It's not that people are unknowable, it's that the people who are supposed to know about people aren't doing their jobs and that's shameful. Another similar field, however, is economics. Most economists aren't rich just like most psychologists don't know anything about people. It's all a complete shame.

can you be more clear about what the problem is?

[Metamorph]

can you be more clear about what the problem is?

Psychologists are stuck on silly nonsense like the Big Five system and rather banal experiments like trying to see if turning a level clockwise increases people's openness to experience by making people think of a clock. Psychologists should be doing big important things like studying synesthesia or trying to improve people's memory or making brain-machine interfaces that are non-stupid unlike Elon Musk's project, not seeing if turning a crank clockwise makes people 1.5% more open to experience for 2 minutes under controled laboratory conditions or giving people with more money than sense approval to take drugs that are more dangerous and less effective, albeit more legal, than street drugs.

[timber]

Psychologists are stuck on silly nonsense like the Big Five system and rather banal experiments like trying to see if turning a level clockwise increases people's openness to experience by making people think of a clock. Psychologists should be doing big important things like studying synesthesia or trying to improve people's memory or making brain-machine interfaces that are non-stupid unlike Elon Musk's project, not seeing if turning a crank clockwise makes people 1.5% more open to experience for 2 minutes under controled laboratory conditions or giving people with more money than sense approval to take drugs that are more dangerous and less effective, albeit more legal, than street drugs.

Seems like the problem is the scientific method itself. Not able to fully encompass with out being in a controlled, almost unnatural way. I think science method has done a lot of ground work, but I tend to agree with you here.

You collapse wave particle by looking at the results. Same thing happens inside and outside people.

On another note, are we all physical if you cut us up into the smallest qubits, or are we something else as well? The science of psychology is at the edge here, of physicality, neuro-chemical, physiological, and that of the sociological, cultural, ect.

I read psychology studies sometimes, I mean the algorithms bring them to me without my choosing (thanks you creepy AI creators).

I think it would be interesting to start researching the psychedelics.

[godslave]

Psychology is imho most and foremost a phenomena of interactions between human beings. We are a gregarious species we need each other to survive (from cradle to grave) It's about the influence of the environment (which includes people of course) on our psyche. We can say that Psychology is already a science from a certain point of view. There are direct correlations between our social interactions and the chemical dynamic and plasticity of our brain. We can observe those correlations in Brain imagery and a lot of papers have been published on the subject. This is very important like some people have already say it to emphasize that modern studies of the human "mind" is pluridisciplinary each specialisation brings new understanding about a part of the whole. The problem is that each branch of research is kinda doing its thing in its corner so there isn't a real coordination and the results are just correlated externally without any intention of real collaboration. Some are for the "It's all chemical" or "It's all neurology" or "it' all environmental and social interactions" or " it's all genetics" etc... The truth is that it's all that and a mysterious equilibrium plus the x factor. I think that the works on A.I. are naturally leaning toward an evolutive intelligence approach based on interaction. Maybe on day we will be able to simulate neuronal connections either with softwares or with some kind of nanotechnology like nanorobots or "nanocells" but I digress...

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Me and my family were dealing with a narcissist in our lives. Only the psychologist was able to see through what the narcissist was doing and call a spade a spade, but the narcissist had everybody else that wasn't us or the psychologist fooled. The best psychology can ever do is call a spade a spade... which isn't really that useful. ((as much as I value Se, I mean I think "Se" in socionics is kind of the ability to be effectively blunt like that but that's besides the point.))

I mean, I am thankful that the person was able to see through the person's narcissism but you didn't need a degree in 'psychology' to do this- and if it's not objective enough, there's little hope in anything good coming out of it anyway because the narcs will just keep on narcing. Something about that quote how it's so much easier to fool people than convince them they are being fooled.

Anyway's people sense of morals and boundaries... kinda get in the way of wanting to understand the psychology of other people as the human mind is darker and edgier than most people have the stomach for. Like how the court voted on completely burning Dahmer's belongings and his own body instead of having his brain used for research. I think it's more interesting when people decide to study sick people without getting grossed out or amused/"turned on" themselves- but naturally there comes a time when a person's own boundaries stops them from doing that and they just say something out of Wayne Dyer and Esther Hicks or Oprah's textbook instead. There will always be a pious person who thinks you don't have enough boundaries, and there will always be a Dahmer who thinks you're not being sick enough to get them off.

How people are is the biggest reason why psychology can't ever be a thing. A spade being a spade tells us to spot the narcissist, but you might not care to know how they work under the hood unless you were also a narc or wanted to compare notes or something. I get that- it sounds like I'm making fun of easily offended people ((and I am in a way)) but I also empathetically understand it: I don't really care to know how they work sometimes because it just angers me how they try to get away with it and project that onto other people.

[Metamorph]

Anyway's people sense of morals and boundaries... kinda get in the way of wanting to understand the psychology of other people as the human mind is darker and edgier than most people have the stomach for. Like how the court voted on completely burning Dahmer's belongings and his own body instead of having his brain used for research. I think it's more interesting when people decide to study sick people without getting grossed out or amused/"turned on" themselves- but naturally there comes a time when a person's own boundaries stops them from doing that and they just say something out of Wayne Dyer and Esther Hicks or Oprah's textbook instead. There will always be a pious person who thinks you don't have enough boundaries, and there will always be a Dahmer who thinks you're not being sick enough to get them off.

How people are is the biggest reason why psychology can't ever be a thing. A spade being a spade tells us to spot the narcissist, but you might not care to know how they work under the hood unless you were also a narc or wanted to compare notes or something. I get that- it sounds like I'm making fun of easily offended people ((and I am in a way)) but I also empathetically understand it: I don't really care to know how they work sometimes because it just angers me how they try to get away with it and project that onto other people.

Yes, earlier I was thinking common interpretations of religion tend to be the obstacle to most interesting research, because people want to say anything out of the ordinary is angelic or demonic instead of studying it. Well, even if it really were angelic or demonic, can't we be like Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz, and the scholastics and study it anyway? But then we have the mainstream interpretation of Christianity which is that eating the apple of knowledge and being inquiring is the original sin of Adam and Eve, so the apple that fell on Isaac Newton's head must be Satanic too, even though I tend to think that's probably a complete misinterpretation of that story, they were supposed to eat the apple eventually, just later when God would give them the fruit of the tree of life too. So I tend to see that story as being about how knowledge without the ability to act on it (fruit of the tree of life) is hellish, not about how knowledge itself should be inherently forbidden. Then you have people like Tolkien who seemed to completely revise the story so the original sin is idolatry like something from Islam instead of knowledge, though eating the fruit of knowledge when they couldn't have the fruit of life so they can live in accordance with what they knew can be seen as being, well, the fruit of idolatry, so those things maybe aren't mutually exclusive at all even if it isn't the common interpretation.

But yes, whenever you have an event out of the ordinary, do we usually get scientists in to study it? No, we don't even usually call James Randi and Penn and Teller in to try to debunk it, what we usually do is call in the Catholic Church or another religious organization in to verify whether or not there's been miraculous or demonic activity. All the parapsychologists, cryptozoologists, astrologers, alternative medicine practicioners, and other fringe scientists shouldn't be aiming their ire at the professional and amateur debunkers in the first place, they should be looking through the notes of Isaac Newton, Gottfriend Leibniz, and the scholastics and asking religions organizations respectful questions even if they don't believe in that particular religion or any religion at all themselves, because most people do believe in angels, demons, miracles, and magic even if they might not believe in remote viewing, Bigfoot, or aliens. It's probably less the case that remote viewing, Bigfoot, or aliens are considered definitely not to exist as that the real religious stuff is considered more important, such as what @godslave mentioned a while ago how if you talk to people about God they might be more willing to consider God created aliens than if you talk to people about aliens first then they won't consider a God, despite all the people who think we definitely live in a simulation. I'm not even really trying to argue for God here, but if you can believe we definitely live in a simulation or other Scientology-like ideas, the idea of forms of religion that include scientific ideas and paranormal science fiction type ideas seems a lot more credible to me too.

I think the real issue, however, is mostly pure pride. When people see something really good or really evil people want to feel like they completely understand it because of their pride, not because of some sense of taboo derived from religion. People have causes for believing in religion, religion itself is not the cause. That's why you can see mainstream Christian-like thinking, "otherworldliness," and "slave morality" even among most self-proclaimed enemies of Christianity while a handful of Christians and other similar religious people who just believe the metaphysical claims about God aren't afraid of reading atheist thinkers such as Nietzsche, Marx, or Freud and even accepting some of their points (not trying to argue for Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud as a whole, by the way.) People don't want to understand things because they think they already know enough, in which case, people need to have it demonstrated to them that they don't, and to have the fear of the unknown put back into them, because fear isn't always a bad thing or there wouldn't be phrases like "God-fearing" or people who are attracted to scary things like the horror genre.

[godslave]

Yes, earlier I was thinking common interpretations of religion tend to be the obstacle to most interesting research, because people want to say anything out of the ordinary is angelic or demonic instead of studying it. Well, even if it really were angelic or demonic, can't we be like Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz, and the scholastics and study it anyway? But then we have the mainstream interpretation of Christianity which is that eating the apple of knowledge and being inquiring is the original sin of Adam and Eve, so the apple that fell on Isaac Newton's head must be Satanic too, even though I tend to think that's probably a complete misinterpretation of that story, they were supposed to eat the apple eventually, just later when God would give them the fruit of the tree of life too. So I tend to see that story as being about how knowledge without the ability to act on it (fruit of the tree of life) is hellish, not about how knowledge itself should be inherently forbidden. Then you have people like Tolkien who seemed to completely revise the story so the original sin is idolatry like something from Islam instead of knowledge, though eating the fruit of knowledge when they couldn't have the fruit of life so they can live in accordance with what they knew can be seen as being, well, the fruit of idolatry, so those things maybe aren't mutually exclusive at all even if it isn't the common interpretation.

But yes, whenever you have an event out of the ordinary, do we usually get scientists in to study it? No, we don't even usually call James Randi and Penn and Teller in to try to debunk it, what we usually do is call in the Catholic Church or another religious organization in to verify whether or not there's been miraculous or demonic activity. All the parapsychologists, cryptozoologists, astrologers, alternative medicine practicioners, and other fringe scientists shouldn't be aiming their ire at the professional and amateur debunkers in the first place, they should be looking through the notes of Isaac Newton, Gottfriend Leibniz, and the scholastics and asking religions organizations respectful questions even if they don't believe in that particular religion or any religion at all themselves, because most people do believe in angels, demons, miracles, and magic even if they might not believe in remote viewing, Bigfoot, or aliens. It's probably less the case that remote viewing, Bigfoot, or aliens are considered definitely not to exist as that the real religious stuff is considered more important, such as what @godslave mentioned a while ago how if you talk to people about God they might be more willing to consider God created aliens than if you talk to people about aliens first then they won't consider a God, despite all the people who think we definitely live in a simulation. I'm not even really trying to argue for God here, but if you can believe we definitely live in a simulation or other Scientology-like ideas, the idea of forms of religion that include scientific ideas and paranormal science fiction type ideas seems a lot more credible to me too.

I think the real issue, however, is mostly pure pride. When people see something really good or really evil people want to feel like they completely understand it because of their pride, not because of some sense of taboo derived from religion. People have causes for believing in religion, religion itself is not the cause. That's why you can see mainstream Christian-like thinking, "otherworldliness," and "slave morality" even among most self-proclaimed enemies of Christianity while a handful of Christians and other similar religious people who just believe the metaphysical claims about God aren't afraid of reading atheist thinkers such as Nietzsche, Marx, or Freud and even accepting some of their points (not trying to argue for Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud as a whole, by the way.) People don't want to understand things because they think they already know enough, in which case, people need to have it demonstrated to them that they don't, and to have the fear of the unknown put back into them, because fear isn't always a bad thing or there wouldn't be phrases like "God-fearing" or people who are attracted to scary things like the horror genre.

I would add that Imho Religion don't take into account psychology and of course it would be anachronic to even consider that Religion could have an even remotely close understanding to our modern Psychology in any way shape or form. Organized religions classify people in small categories :

Believer/Infidels
Good/Bad
Ignorants/Enlightened
Doomed/Saved (redemption arc).
Strong/Weak.
Holy/Evil

God says that most of the Humanity is Ignorant, Unreasonable and Corrupted. Only few will be saved and Hell is a priori the default final destination. That's a pretty dark scenario ! So in Organized religion, the nature of Human beings is closer to that of an animal. Jesus said "Father Forgive Them for They Know Not What They Do " meaning "They" (Human Beings) are a bunch of ignorants (they have eyes but don't see etc..).

It's true that this notion of "Knowledge" is of great importance in Islam because when God taught his new creation "the names of things" Adam had de facto the "upper-Hand" over the Angels who considered themselves superior to Man so God shows them their ignorance. I don't want to elaborate on that but I'm sure you get all the implications. So basically in Organized religions, Human beings are more or less the same.

Finally the living in a Simulation thing is indeed not falsifiable and as such it exists in the field of possibilities. Actually it has a greater unfalsifiability power than Organized religion because in that scenario nothing points to Human attributes in the entity behind the creation of said simulation. In other words That creator would be closer to an A.I. than the God we are familiar with which is closer to a Beta NF. The question though is : Why a "simulation" it could be a cosmic program running yes but I don't get this "a priori" because simulation is a preparation to a possible situation so what would be the next step ? There is an implied and ironically rather religious notion of "a before and an after" in it. I think that it is not justified but maybe that's the whole point and in such case maybe a nihilistic view on this world would be absolutely justified ahah !

[Exodus]

Once upon a time, people such as @Sir Isaac Newton practiced "natural philosophy." Now, "natural philosophy" is called "natural science" and "philosophy" refers to a very different field of study. If you're Stephen Hawking, you say, "philosophy is dead..." but "philosophy" used to refer to science. Even phenomenology, which was big in the 20th century, was often referred to as a science of subjective experience rather than a philosophy. Now, it seems to be the case that there has been some good research done under the label of "psychology," "sociology," etc... However, nothing important is being done there any more.

My opinion tends to be... death to the so-called social sciences. Maybe we can have psychology and sociology and anthropology and economics, but the real issue seems to be that people have no idea how to work the scientific method, or how to do mathematics. If people learned, all the former "social sciences" would rather closely resemble chemistry and physics, or become chemistry and physics. For example, even neurology seems to be mostly bogus in its historical form, and completely incapable of explaining anything, but now many MIT researchers have proven that the brain uses electromagnetism rather than chemical reactions, for example. I see many neurologists will lose their jobs if they cannot do enough mathematics to understand classical electromagnetic theory, which is probably the vast majority of neurologists. Or not, since, even though the Big Bang Theory was discovered in the Middle Ages, one-third of millennials somehow believe that the Earth is flat.

So, do you think psychology can be a science? Or is all the terrible non-replicable psychology simply Sturgeon's Law in action and psychology is already a science? I think possibly psychology might be a valid name for a form of biophysics, but this would be very different from the quasi-humanities studies-like programs that are being taught today. The harmful idea is probably that one does not need to be able to do advanced mathematics and logic to study a science, not necessarily the label of psychology or any other labels used in the so-called social sciences.

There are two questions here. One is, can we achieve knowledge about the mind (the psyche)? And the second question is, will this knowledge fall under the definition of an empirical science.

The mind is not directly observable or easily quantifiable so the methods of empirical science are not well-suited to study it. This is why socionics is something more like metaphysics or math, it's quite difficult to translate into numerical measurements. Multiple-choice questionnaires are maybe the easiest way but obviously there are issues with self-report and they aren't entirely replicable because they depend on how you interpret the questions. Then you have neurology but our understanding of neurology is still in its infancy and doesn't seem to connect easily to a lot of areas including socionics.

To be honest, there needs to be more a priori work in modeling the mind before any major progress will manifest empirically. This is where socionics can be helpful.

I would add that Imho Religion don't take into account psychology and of course it would be anachronic to even consider that Religion could have an even remotely close understanding to our modern Psychology in any way shape or form. Organized religions classify people in small categories :

Believer/Infidels
Good/Bad
Ignorants/Enlightened
Doomed/Saved (redemption arc).
Strong/Weak.
Holy/Evil

God says that most of the Humanity is Ignorant, Unreasonable and Corrupted. Only few will be saved and Hell is a priori the default final destination. That's a pretty dark scenario ! So in Organized religion, the nature of Human beings is closer to that of an animal. Jesus said "Father Forgive Them for They Know Not What They Do " meaning "They" (Human Beings) are a bunch of ignorants (they have eyes but don't see etc..).

It's true that this notion of "Knowledge" is of great importance in Islam because when God taught his new creation "the names of things" Adam had de facto the "upper-Hand" over the Angels who considered themselves superior to Man so God shows them their ignorance. I don't want to elaborate on that but I'm sure you get all the implications. So basically in Organized religions, Human beings are more or less the same.

Islamic psychology has quite a sophisticated understanding of the psyche and has had for hundreds of years before Western psychology even existed. For example, the various lata'if or subtle centers - the ruh (spirit), the nafs (ego), the aql (intellect), the qalb (heart), as well as the various levels of the nafs, which are not just a binary "good/bad" distinction as you imply.

Western psychology too is also largely geared towards pathology and categorizing mental illness (and then usually attempting to treat it with therapy or drugs), but without any understanding of the ontology or essential causes.

[godslave]

Islamic psychology has quite a sophisticated understanding of the psyche and has had for hundreds of years before Western psychology even existed. For example, the various lata'if or subtle centers - the ruh (spirit), the nafs (ego), the aql (intellect), the qalb (heart), as well as the various levels of the nafs, which are not just a binary "good/bad" distinction as you imply.

I'm aware of that (thank you for pointing it out), in fact I classified those notions the same way you did and had a lot of discussions with my brother about that back in the days. I also considered the "Fitra" (natural state of purity (innocence) ). It's easy and tempting to establish retroactive correspondences between distant (in time) concepts. I used to do that in order to make connection between modern sciences and some verses of the Quran (like sheikh al Zindani) but tbh it's a confirmation biases at work. With that said, all those notions are not inherent to Islam or "Islamic psychology" but rather part of the pre-Islamic Arabs cultural and philosophical traditions. That "Islamic psyche structure" (let's call it that) is supposed to be be universal though so in a way, we are all the same (at least Men..). Note that some esoteric branches of Islam like sufism have extrapolated and developed those idea further through time.

When I said "good/bad" I was simplifying but at the end of the day the "mizan" ("Balance" ) has two sides one for the good actions and one for the bad actions

Western psychology too is also largely geared towards pathology and categorizing mental illness (and then usually attempting to treat it with therapy or drugs), but without any understanding of the ontology or essential causes.

There are plenty of psychological conditions of which we know the mechanisms and the causes esp mental illnesses of Genetical or Brain pathology origin. The psycho litterature is full of works explaining some patterns and mechanism at the origin of certain constructs ( Biography (ontology) Attachment theory, (C)PTSD, child abuse etc..). Maybe you were talking about western psychology of distant past and stuff like Humor Theory (?). Anyway, it's true that a great evolution has occurred between the archaic conceptualization of psychology and the post Freudian one.

[Exodus]

I'm aware of that (thank you for pointing it out), in fact I classified those notions the same way you did and had a lot of discussions with my brother about that back in the days. I also considered the "Fitra" (natural state of purity (innocence) ). It's easy and tempting to establish retroactive correspondences between distant (in time) concepts. I used to do that in order to make connection between modern sciences and some verses of the Quran (like sheikh al Zindani) but tbh it's a confirmation biases at work. With that said, all those notions are not inherent to Islam or "Islamic psychology" but rather part of the pre-Islamic Arabs cultural and philosophical traditions. That "Islamic psyche structure" (let's call it that) is supposed to be be universal though so in a way, we are all the same (at least Men..). Note that some esoteric branches of Islam like sufism have extrapolated and developed those idea further through time.

There is nothing biased about it. Regardless of whether these concepts existed before Islam, it disproves the simple notion that religion "don't take account psychology" as you said.

There are plenty of psychological conditions of which we know the mechanisms and the causes esp mental illnesses of Genetical or Brain pathology origin. The psycho litterature is full of works explaining some patterns and mechanism at the origin of certain constructs ( Biography (ontology) Attachment theory, (C)PTSD, child abuse etc..). Maybe you were talking about western psychology of distant past and stuff like Humor Theory (?). Anyway, it's true that a great evolution has occurred between the archaic conceptualization of psychology and the post Freudian one.

No, I'm talking about modern Western psychology. The DSM explicitly structures the definitions of mental illness and personality disorders etc. as lists of symptoms, there is no essential definition that the symptoms come out of. Pick any disorder, even if some triggers or patterns are known there is likely not a very good understanding of what's going on structurally with it. To define psychological illness you first need to define psychological health, and there is no unifying ontology for that, only operational, subjective ones (such as "preventing normal activities" or the like).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxJzWcwcRd0

[xerx]

Socionics could be hinting at something real. But whatever mature 'theory of personality' eventually emerges, even if it incorporates some elements of Socionics, won't necessarily look very much like it.

[godslave]

There is nothing biased about it. Regardless of whether these concepts existed before Islam, it disproves the simple notion that religion "don't take account psychology" as you said.

Islamic psychology has quite a sophisticated understanding of the psyche and has had for hundreds of years before Western psychology even existed. For example, the various lata'if or subtle centers - the ruh (spirit), the nafs (ego), the aql (intellect), the qalb (heart), as well as the various levels of the nafs, which are not just a binary "good/bad" distinction as you imply.

.

Anyway, fair enough ! I would agree that when you make a parallel between the different notions of the Ancient representation of the psyche from which that of Islam is based on (Ruh, Nafs, Aql, el Qalb etc..) with that of Freud we find similarities in the way it is categorized but of course Freud (and some of his contemporaries ) added the notion of unconscious in his conception of the psyche which was a revolution.

No, I'm talking about modern Western psychology. The DSM explicitly structures the definitions of mental illness and personality disorders etc. as lists of symptoms, there is no essential definition that the symptoms come out of. Pick any disorder, even if some triggers or patterns are known there is likely not a very good understanding of what's going on structurally with it. To define psychological illness you first need to define psychological health, and there is no unifying ontology for that, only operational, subjective ones (such as "preventing normal activities" or the like).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxJzWcwcRd0

Well, imho Psychological health had always been built around a set of simple principles. Like the ability to learn from experience for instance. There are development and stages of life which are considered "normal" like the acquisition of Language by the age of three or the ability to walk around the Age of two (motor skills). Any significant delay in Psychomotor development is considered unhealthy and/or a handicap. That was the case even before modern Psychology. There are things inherent to our species that are expected throughout our development. So there is already a set of skills (both intellectual and physical) that nature provided us with that we are expected to manifest. We are not equal as individual in regards to the distributions of strengths of those set of skills but people have always been able to separate the expected from the unexpected and the exceptional from the conventional, the healthy from the unhealthy. I would say that it's a natural ability, a woman instinctively knows if her new born child is healthy or not at least physically and she'll be the first to notice if something is wrong in the child cognitive development.

Functioning in society also implies "acceptance" the fear of ostracisation is something expected to be integrated by the individual in childhood via a set of instructions or laws (Freudian Superego) like for instance some taboos (which Freud considered universal). Those laws can come from religion too “I have been sent to perfect good character.” -Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

As I was saying in my initial post, the conceptualisation of Human psyche i.e. its "structure" in Religions is set to be universal so there is no reasons to assume the existence in that framework of a more complex and dynamic states when it comes to the "mind" because that construct is implicitly "static" i.e. set and universal, at least so it seems to me. However, there are some ideas which point to potential alterations (or exceptional cases) of the psyche in Islam that I find interesting :

First, there is the Idea of the sick heart and the "Ran" heart (Quran Verse 83:14) meaning a Heart which became impermeable to the light of Allah and therefore "Black" because of the accumulation of sins. It implies that sins makes you Bad and corrupts your soul. But again there is no explanations other that the will of Allah upon those Souls to be doomed which contrast in a confusing way with the notion of "Amana" (free will/ Accountability) which is I think, the closest Islamic version of the concept of original sin .

Secondly, there is this Idea of "tarfi' al Qalam" (Al "Qalam" means the "pen" and Tarfi' means "elevation" or in this context i would translate it as "disconnection" ) wich mean that the Angel stop writing one's actions (good and bad) in one's Kitab (book ). This is also a popular expression to design unhealthy people. For this to happen a person must be declared as "unreasonable" or "unresponsible" of his or her actions. That person is either "crazy", "senile" or "Possessed" by a Djinn (this is a controversial topic among Islamic scholars) ). My point is that those "psychological" states are like I said, special cases, and making them so is a way to maintain a certain consistency (however flawed) within the whole explanation of the Human psyche in the Religion Narrative.

Finally, Here is how I see things about religion : There are no scientific knowledge (including Psychology) that were not in accordance with that of the time of the instoration of any religion. Meaning no scientific breakthrough has ever came from religion. Observation of the environment and the nature of things coming from the scriptures were correlated to the knowledge and misconceptions of their time. This is my opinion but it is not an opposition to faith. What I see a lot is what I called retrospective correlations which consist of taking a modern "concept" like for instance the idea of the "Big Bang" and say that idea has already been written in the Holy scripture via intricate processes and extrapolations. Edit: When I talked about confirmation biases, I was referring to the tendency in some people to believe (a priori ) those claims.

Edit 2 : If you have understood something in all this, props to you ! because I didn't !! I will edit this mess later sorry about that guys !

Edit 3 : It a bit clearer now, at least I hope so...

Edit 4 : OMG, my previous unedited version has been quoted... Well I prefer this one anyway sorry !!

[Metaphor]

Some psychology subjects are science, but some are not. Such as analytical psychology, for example, which is considered as a pseudo-science.

[Exodus]

. Anyway, fair enough ! I would agree that when you make a parallel between the different notions of the Ancient representation of the psyche from which that of Islam is based on (Ruh, Nafs, Aql, el Qalb etc..) with that of Freud we find similarities in the way it is structured but of course Freud (and others before him) added the notion of unconscious in that structure which is a huge opposition to the notion of "Amana" (responsability /"Free choice"-ish) which in the Quran metaphorically implies that humanity has to face the consequences of its ignorance and vanity for having underestimated the weight of accountability and thus is fully responsible in its choices including that of belief or disbelief.

I don't see the problem. It's obvious that certain actions we take are intentional and reasoned out, and others are effectively automatic or habit-based. We don't think about each individual breath that we take, it's unconscious. The difference between fi`l and `amal is present in Arabic, unintentional vs intentional action. "Actions (a`maal) are by intentions and for every person is what he intended." And Jung's collective unconscious is not too different from the khayal mentioned by ibn `Arabi which is a universal kind of imagination that belongs to Allah and only secondarily to human beings.

Well, imho Psychological health (which is of course approached from a social notion POV) had always been built around a set simple principles. Like the ability to learn from experience for instance. There are development and stages of life which are considered healthy because "normal" like the acquisition of Language by the age of three which is an abstract notion or the ability to walk around the Age of two which is a physical ability (motor skills). Any significant delay in Psychomotor development is considered unhealthy and/or a handicap. That was the case even before modern Psychology, there are things inherent to our species that are expected throughout our development. So their are already a set of skills (both intellectual and physical) nature provides us that we are expected to manifest. We are not equal as individual in regards to the distributions in term of strengths of those set of skills but there are thresholds to separate the expected from the unexpected and the exceptional from the conventional. Functioning in society also implies "acceptance" the fear of ostracisation is something expected to be integrated by the individual in childhood via a set of instructions or laws (Freudian Superego) like for instance some taboos (which Freud considered universal). Those laws can come from religion too

Sure, this is all common sense stuff, but we're talking about getting a deeper understanding.

As I was saying in my initial post, the conceptualisation of Human psyche i.e. its "structure" in Religions is set to be universal so there is no reasons to assume the existence of a more complex and dynamic "mental health" states because the construct is "static" or so it seems to me. However, there are two ideas which point to alterations (or exceptional cases) of the psyche in Islam in particular and other Abrahamic religions in general that I find interesting :

First, there is the Idea of "al qalb al maridh" (the sick heart ) or "al Qalb al lathi rana aleih" ("Rana ala qulubihim..." Quran) meaning a Heart which became impermeable to the light of Allah and therefore "Black" because of the accumulation of sins (I guess) But again there is no explanations other that the will of Allah upon those Souls to be doomed (or particularly stubborn ahah!) which contrast in a confusing way with the notion of "Amana" I talked about above which is in a way the closest Islamic version of the original sin .

The blackness on their hearts is from the sinful actions that they were doing. This is very different from original sin...

Secondly, there is this Idea of "tarfi' al Qalam" (Al "Qalam" means the "pen" think of ancient Mesopotamia and cuneiform scripting) wich mean that the Angel stop writing your Actions (good and bad) in your Kitab (book ) (which is a process that begins with the age of puberty). For this to happen a person must be declared as "unreasonable" or "unresponsible" of his or her actions because that person is either "crazy", "senile" or "Possessed" by a Djinn (this is a controversial topic among Islamic scholars) which incidentally is the term used in the popular arabic language to say "crazy" (Madjun (male) or Madjuna (female)). My point is that those "psychological" states are like I said, special cases, and making them so is a way to maintain a certain consistency (however flawed) within the whole explanation of the Human psyche in the Religion Narrative.

Well, if Western psychology comes up with a plausible and demonstrable origin for schizophrenia, then we will see. (I should note that there is a difference between being "possessed" and being afflicted by a Jinn, obviously the former is much rarer.)

Here is how I see things about religion : There are no scientific knowledge (including Psychology) that were not in accordance to that of the time of the instoration of any religion. Meaning no scientific breakthrough has ever came from religion only speculation and observation of the environment and the nature of things according to the knowledge of their time. This is my opinion but it is not an opposition to faith. What I see a lot is what I called retrospective correlations which consist of taking a modern "concept" like for instance the idea of the "Big Bang" and say that idea has already been written in the Holy scripture via intricate processes and extrapolations. Edit: When I talked about confirmation biases, I was referring to the tendency in some people to believe (a priori ) those claims.

The Quran directly says "We are the expanders [of the heavens]", nothing intricate about it. Even if this is only recognized in retrospect to refer to the expansion of the universe it very clearly still refers to that. As recently as 2012 physicists proved that around a black hole there is a "firewall" that will incinerate anything that passes through it, and Allah says "If you are able to pass beyond the regions of the heavens and the earth, then pass. You will not pass except by authority....There will be sent upon you a flame of fire and smoke, and you will not defend yourselves." (Ar-Rahman 33,35)

Examples like this abound and at the very least they show the possibility of extracting such insights from the Quran to solve open scientific problems. Why do you think the Islamic world was the origin of so much math and science?

[godslave]

I don't see the problem. It's obvious that certain actions we take are intentional and reasoned out, and others are effectively automatic or habit-based. We don't think about each individual breath that we take, it's unconscious. The difference between fi`l and `amal is present in Arabic, unintentional vs intentional action. "Actions (a`maal) are by intentions and for every person is what he intended." And Jung's collective unconscious is not too different from the khayal mentioned by ibn `Arabi which is a universal kind of imagination that belongs to Allah and only secondarily to human beings.

The unconscious you describe here is just the fact of our autonomic nervous system which is very different from that of the Freudian model of the Psyche. Al fi'l wal a`maal are semantical considerations although distinguishable and interesting to be mentioned.
I haven't read Ibn `Arabi but to me Al Khayal is closer to Imagination we say that someone "yatakhayal" meaning imagining. However it was (and still is) a commun conception that there is a dimension to which we all kinda connect when we look for insights and understanding.

The blackness on their hearts is from the sinful actions that they were doing. This is very different from original sin...

Yes, I was referring the the "Amana" (Quran 33:72). I think that it's something similar to the original sin because of the implications. I think that it opens a reflexion on free will, and incidentally it reminds me of Frodo's mission from the lord of the rings and the burden he had to carry. .

Well, if Western psychology comes up with a plausible and demonstrable origin for schizophrenia, then we will see. (I should note that there is a difference between being "possessed" and being afflicted by a Jinn, obviously the former is much rarer.)

All hypothetical explanations are in accordance with their time. Not so long ago Demons, Jinn, Ghost Gods of all kinds were the reality of all people. That was their world. I don't know the origin of schizophrenia but whether I chose to believe that it's a manifestation of a foreign entity in somebody or a Brain dysfunctioning of some kind would be an a priori for the lack of falsifiability. I like paranormal stuff it's entertaining and less boring that the alternative but I also like scientific explanations the former has an easier access the latter is more complex and needs time and tools. I know that there is a whole lot of distinctions and discordances between scholars around the subject of Jinns (al ulum al rouhaniya). Some say that "al mes" in not possible and I agree but on the other hand I had some experiences with a "Azem" and I kinda studied a bit "ahkam al tanzeel" and all that esoteric stuff ! I think It's good for adventure and treasure hunting though.

The Quran directly says "We are the expanders [of the heavens]", nothing intricate about it. Even if this is only recognized in retrospect to refer to the expansion of the universe it very clearly still refers to that. As recently as 2012 physicists proved that around a black hole there is a "firewall" that will incinerate anything that passes through it, and Allah says "If you are able to pass beyond the regions of the heavens and the earth, then pass. You will not pass except by authority....There will be sent upon you a flame of fire and smoke, and you will not defend yourselves." (Ar-Rahman 33,35)

Yeah, I thought the same when I learned about the Van Allen Belt and the Asteroid belt.

Examples like this abound and at the very least they show the possibility of extracting such insights from the Quran to solve open scientific problems. Why do you think the Islamic world was the origin of so much math and science?

This is what I was talking about when I said "retrospective correlations". As for the Quran to solve scientific problem is a bit ambitious to say the least. I can see that the Quran can inspire some ideas that could be applied in the scientific domain though.

As for your last question I will remind you this : most of the Islamic scholars and erudites who have accomplished a great deal is the scientific domain were Living in a great empire and use a lot of forbidden knowledge (in the christian world during the Dark Age) namely the knowledge of Ancient greeks and some Asians upon which they developed their own works and breakthroughs. In other word scientific development was naturally easier in the Islamic world because prohibited in the Catholic World. However, in Domains like medecine Islamic scholars were risking their life because studying human dead bodies (dissections, Anatomy, Blood circulation etc...) was prohibited for a time and punished by death. So there is a little bit of Irony there. Anyway, Thank you for your time, this discussion remind me those I had with my older brother back in the days !

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Dude. Psychology already IS a science. Look it up if you think I'm wrong.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

It baffles me how some people discredit psychology while esteeming typology, when psychology is a science and typology is a pseudoscience. There's always one underlying reason, and that is lack of knowledge/education. Typology enthusiasts also seem prone to fallacious thinking patterns because they don't seem to recognize things like confirmation bias, Forer/Barnum Effect, and the various types of logical fallacies.

I used to wonder why I seemed so agitated and angry on the forums, but slow to anger and mostly chill everywhere else. My mood has significantly improved ever since distancing myself from the typology community. Turns out I was just beating my head against a wall because of the aforementioned uneducated thinking.

[Metamorph]

It baffles me how some people discredit psychology while esteeming typology, when psychology is a science and typology is a pseudoscience. There's always one underlying reason, and that is lack of knowledge/education. Typology enthusiasts also seem prone to fallacious thinking patterns because they don't seem to recognize things like confirmation bias, Forer/Barnum Effect, and the various types of logical fallacies.

I used to wonder why I seemed so agitated and angry on the forums, but slow to anger and mostly chill everywhere else. My mood has significantly improved ever since distancing myself from the typology community. Turns out I was just beating my head against a wall because of the aforementioned uneducated thinking.

Typology is clearly nonsense, but typology's problems seem to stem with deeper issues relating to a lack of empiricism in psychology in general, e.g., the replication crisis. You could have read this thread instead of thinking it says socionics and enneagram are the answer to all our problems. Socionics and enneagram are a symptom of the problems, because people are desperate for answers and turn to things that aren't real solutions to try to get them.

[Metamorph]

And Jung's collective unconscious is not too different from the khayal mentioned by ibn `Arabi which is a universal kind of imagination that belongs to Allah and only secondarily to human beings.

How do you know what ibn Arabi said in the first place? Before you have attributed ibn Arabi with magic, but the similar attribution of magic to other Sufi authors, e.g. the Shams al-Ma'arif to al-Buni, seem to be false attributions done by Salafis to try to discredit Sufis by associating them with things that are clearly awful. Of course, this backfires. If you come up with the most horrible thing you can think of to try to pin it on someone else, you can basically Poe's Law the most horrible thing you can think of into existence, then you give it a built-in audience due to all the people who will think it really is by that person, but also assume everything allegedly done by them is amazing. Now, al-Buni did appear to write a book titled Shams al-Ma'arif (without the longer titles given to the grimoire,) but it also appears to be a book that's essentially nothing like the book usually given that title, either in content or style, and one usually given that title is considered by most scholars to almost certainly be apocryphal works compiled after his death and possibly written by the infamous Salafis instead. And it seems quite clear a medieval Muslim wouldn't have written half the things usually attributed to Shams al-Ma'arif. For one example, you're not even supposed to let the Qur'an touch the ground in Islam, so why would you write the opening lines to the Qur'an on paper and bury them underground? Many things don't add up regarding that book. So, when ibn Arabi has all these ideas about gematria, magic, and things that sound blasphemous to mainstream Islam attributed to him, and he's largely considered in the same camp as al-Buni and has the same detractors, why should we use it to create these magic square theories of reality rather than being skeptical it even was by him in the first place?

[Metaphor]

It baffles me how some people discredit psychology while esteeming typology, when psychology is a science and typology is a pseudoscience. There's always one underlying reason, and that is lack of knowledge/education. Typology enthusiasts also seem prone to fallacious thinking patterns because they don't seem to recognize things like confirmation bias, Forer/Barnum Effect, and the various types of logical fallacies.

I used to wonder why I seemed so agitated and angry on the forums, but slow to anger and mostly chill everywhere else. My mood has significantly improved ever since distancing myself from the typology community. Turns out I was just beating my head against a wall because of the aforementioned uneducated thinking.

Typology is pseudo-psychology, or in other words, a chronic disease.

[Metaphor]

Typology is clearly nonsense, but typology's problems seem to stem with deeper issues relating to a lack of empiricism in psychology in general, e.g., the replication crisis. You could have read this thread instead of thinking it says socionics and enneagram are the answer to all our problems. Socionics and enneagram are a symptom of the problems, because people are desperate for answers and turn to things that aren't real solutions to try to get them.

You overlooked things too much. Most of typology theories don't really correlate to psychology either, only Socionics and Jung so far.
However, speaking of the problem regarding empiricism, you could blame all of these to analytical psychology instead of psychology as a whole.
In other words, just blame Freud and Jung who invented this thingy that later evolved into something chronic called typology.

[Metamorph]

You overlooked things too much. Most of typology theories don't really correlate to psychology either, only Socionics and Jung so far.
However, speaking of the problem regarding empiricism, you could blame all of these to analytical psychology instead of psychology as a whole.
In other words, just blame Freud and Jung who invented this thingy that later evolved into something chronic called typology.

...Ah, but there's the rub: Freud and Jung are less bad, since they were just rehashing works of literature that were popular in Germany at the time and then contaminating their interpretations with their personal prejudices. Modern psychology is largely just prejudice, especially with how much it tends to be focused on trying to treat sick people and create drugs rather than improve life for healthy people and create things that aren't drugs. Typology is the opium of the masses and the alternative is largely just actual synthetic opium and studies on its efficacy funded by AstraZeneca.

[lookin4waifu]

The brain is not like any other organ; it is ultra-flexible, like my penis.

[Exodus]

How do you know what ibn Arabi said in the first place?

The same way anyone else does, by reading what he wrote. Yes there are some spurious attributions but I mainly refer to Fusus al-Hikam and what has been translated of the Meccan Openings.

Before you have attributed ibn Arabi with magic, but the similar attribution of magic to other Sufi authors, e.g. the Shams al-Ma'arif to al-Buni, seem to be false attributions done by Salafis to try to discredit Sufis by associating them with things that are clearly awful.

Audhu billah, I never attributed magic to him or any other shaykh. And I am certainly no Salafi. I am a murid of Shaykh Ahmad At-Tijani (ra).

[Metamorph]

The same way anyone else does, by reading what he wrote. Yes there are some spurious attributions but I mainly refer to Fusus al-Hikam and what has been translated of the Meccan Openings.



Audhu billah, I never attributed magic to him or any other shaykh. And I am certainly no Salafi. I am a murid of Shaykh Ahmad At-Tijani (ra).

OK, cool. I'm not sure what else sussyionics (as Reddit likes to call it) would qualify as since science models with lots of elements (e.g. the periodic table, the standard model of particle physics) aren't really ever über-symmetrical, but intent still matters.

On another topic, everyone watching videos and reading essays about the infamous magical Shams al-ma'arif is definitely to blame for all the planets aligning during a solar flare with global warming and freezing everyone. I've met people who tried to use Shams al-ma'arif in D&D games and their fantasy stories and novels to try to be "authentic" about other cultures. Guys, that's like trying to use the Ars Goetia to design wizards in your European settings... There are a bunch of YouTube videos of cursed books now that people who don't even pray to mitigate it see and then use as "folklore" and it's all your fault, YouTube and Twitter...

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Can typology ever be a pseudoscience?

The world may never know...
...how to use Google search.

[Bethanyclaire]

Lots of things were probably considered pseudo science or ‘silly’ before they had been properly developed..by scientists.

the science is right in front of your eyes- the existence of 16 types, as long as you can type..

Was always in front of our eyes