Intuition
Gut instinct
Heuristics (mental short cuts) that are the result of evolution. In order for us to have recieved a heuristic evolutionarily it does not need to be right all of the time- just enough to ensure that it was enough of the time for it to allow individuals to live to the age of reproduction and pass it on to their children
Often evolutionary heuristics are mismatched for modern society - ie living in small tribes where people looked like us and people who looked different were considered enemies - now not at all the case
Authority
what we teach kids- listen to your elders
As adults you should question authority bc authority figures can be wrong/decieving
Rationalism
uses logical analysis
in order for it to be correct need the base premise to be correct
empricism
Data collected from objective observations (from what multiple people would determine to be the case from their senses)
need to have accurate methods of measurement for data to be correct, ie it would be an objective observation that there is sky which appears to curve over land which looks straight (this would be objective bc if we all look outside the majority of us would interpret the data from our sight to mean this- so this interpretation of sensory information is not heavily skewed by personality) - this might lead us to conclude that the earth is flat however this is not correct - this is bc our senses are not capturing the full picture. In order for empiricism to be accurate we need good measurments of our variables in order to avoid being decieved by our senses
What does a conclusion need in order to not be considered an anecdote
metadata - we need to know how that conclusion was reached in order to not consider it an anecdote
Scientific method
uses rationalism (idea that we find out information based on the wrold through logical reasoning with existing principles) to analyze problems (makes sense if we want to know something specific we need base levels of facts to create the confines of possibility) and collects empirical data (makes sense if we are observing - determining through our senses and measures of our senses that it is empirical)
needs for our question to be able to be proven true or false (empirical question - a question that can be observed to be true or false- not something whose answere is out of the range of anything that can be proven objectively from our senses - ie is god real or not can’t be proven true or false in a consistent way based on the same sensory experiences)
for our experiment to be able to be done again (replicability)
involves sharing knowledge with the greater population to ensure that ideas dont go unchallenged (public knowledge)
important to be skeptical. All scientists have incentives to be skeptical of other scientists bc it is easier to replicate an experiment rather then create your own and if they can prove another scientist false it will supercharge their career
cons: may not produce conclusive results (however minimizes the chances of producing a wrong conclusion), may take lots of money
pseudoscience
often uses scientific sounding words that people will not easily understand (gives sense of authority and people might not feel like looking up all the words in their statements and therefore might not realize what exactly it is that they are saying in an authoratiative way and what flaws might exist within that)
is a lot easier to do then actual science
violates the scientific method in at least one of the following ways
- not using empirical data (ie no metadata making it an anecdote)
- does not use rational experimentalism - ie if doing an experiment do not have a control group or does not try to avoid having noise (confounding variables skew concluison)
- has unfalsifiable reasoning- ie I couldn’t read your mind because you don’t believe in my psychic powers - this makes it a lot harder for skeptics to prove them false
What are the goals of the scientific method
Describe - describe a subject using empirical validated methods of data collection
Predict aka application - if our understanding of how our subject works was correct we should be able to predict the outcomes of certain processes related to our subject
Explain- if we assume our initial conclusion was correct, and find that we can predict outcomes correctly then we can likely say that we can explain how our subject works
What is basic vs applied reasearch
Basic research
does not have a specific question it is trying to answere just trying to increase knowledge in general for a topic
harder to find funding for since it doesn’t have a specific
is where more breakthroughs happen (makes sense if you are examining a wider range of things rather then a specific thing and you are looking for possibilities that you don’t know about it could be conditions more conductive to making a discovery)
applied research
has a specific aim
What is experimental psychology
Involves trained scientists conducting experiments
aims to answer
what is normal human behavior
what is abnormal human behavior
how do people interact in different settings
what theraputic methods/interventions are effective
What is clinical psychology
The application of therapeutic methods to treat certain disorders
