Uh, no, HN is perennially fascinated with the mind, and grabs up any verifiable bits of information it can. That's why we've been exposed to all the myriad ways the mind is genuinely hard to study. We've seen the rise and fall of lots of studies, some plausible, some not, and we're tired of being conned on something important to us.

That is a lot more even minded opinion on it that I've seen in the last few weeks. Typically Psychology is called a pseudoscience, garbage, a-kin to astrology, filled with out right liars, conmen. There is very little patience to let the scientific process work itself out. Somehow other fields are allowed to grow, but Psychology is judged very harshly. Some studies aren't able to be replicated, so the whole field is bad.

At least, that is what I've seen in last few weeks. Maybe it hasn't always been like this.

> we're tired of being conned on something important to us.

Sorry, but psychology as a field is in fact full of BS; probably not outright lies, but shoddy science. It's treated harshly compared to other fields because it cannot live up to the same standards they do, even considering times when those fields screw up badly. It's not a recent thing, either. The replication crisis is old, and I haven't seen any indication that the field has put any effort into deciding to "grow".

I haven't noticed a change in HN's attitude either, but maybe that's because I don't tend to bother with those threads anymore.

I misunderstood. I thought you were saying HN is interested in the mind. If HN is interested, what other field that is doing Psychology, but not called Psychology, is acceptable that they are following?

For this field, HN doesn't seem able to work through scientific issues. In other fields if a study is shoddy, it gets called out or modified. Hypothesis are re-formed, re-tested. But in HN, there is no second chance. The entire field is BS because of a few bad studies.

It seems like this field is ridiculed more because HN does NOT understand what they are talking about on the subject. Why do you think this subject is not important to others too, that are improving the field, and are making corrections. If people on HN finds this subject important, it's a pretty odd way to discuss it.

I can only assume this default reaction is very much a 'group-think' response. Kind of like how people stormed the capital to fight the 'woke-left', on HN it is a angry group fighting the 'shoddy Psychologist', both are similarly in the dark. Meaning, consumed by anger against a miss-understood other group. Seemingly just angry and very much not wanting to understand themselves.

>"That's why we've been exposed to all the myriad ways the mind is genuinely hard to study. "

Guess this is what I don't get. It seems like HN accepts that studying the mind is hard. But then seems equally to not understand that hard things take time and often have false starts and difficulty dialing in measurements.

The ancient Greeks thought atoms were made of earth, wind, fire, water. We don't call them BS because it doesn't replicate. Psychology is relatively new, yet we want instant results, instant gratification.

We've had centuries to figure out how to measure temperature. But Psychology takes a few decades and still struggles to measure the mind, and that means it is BS?

No, we actually do call BS on the Greeks. They didn't even have any experiments to replicate. It's sheer luck that they got the "atom" thing right, and no other aspects of matter.

When psychology is prepared to take its inherent difficulty seriously, we'll listen. But as far as we can tell, they're still trying to take shortcuts. (And even if you complain that's because they're underfunded or something, it doesn't matter. The results are just as compromised.)

Sorry. Don't get it. I did quick search and see dozen articles from Psychologist, discussing the replication problem and how to deal with it, how to create better experiments. And, another dozen discussing which ones DO REPLICATE, and which don't, and what is the difference.

50% of experiments do replicate, so maybe it is just taking a glass-half-full attitude.

The field is very much actively dealing on this and improving. So not sure what proof's HN would need.

That is why I'm saying, right now the attitude seems very much be "we really diss-like these fields (because we're so biased against anything that isn't STEM), so they really can't do anything right no matter the evidence".

Well, we'll see in 10 years I guess if it actually works, but we have no reason to trust that they'll actually attack the underlying problems, which are related to things like bad statistical modelling, publication bias, funding, etc. All easier to write articles about than do. They're going to have to re-earn our trust.