I get the downvotes, I understand. I stand by it. I did a 3 year bachelor in it and some select master courses. There are still some theories that I use and find useful (self-determination theory and the five factor model if personality). I use those theories to make my life better. I use the theories of clinical psychology in very rare cases to tell people that a conversation with the doctor might help and won’t do any harm (in The Netherlands at least, in my experience). I can’t rely on clinical theories more than that though because the science of it is too vague.
Relying on psychological theories becomes problematic when the results are like normal studies (e.g. n = 100). A benign example: I am sure that the overjustification effect and self-determination theory have a link. In both bodies of literature I have never seen that link being investigated. If it would be investigated then there is a chance that the effect might be rebranded to something else in the name of precision. IMO it seems to be used too often as a euphemism to carve out your own research space.
Most cognitive biases are not substantiated enough to be relied upon as psychological theories (there was a good HN post about this as well). And for me, that’s problematic and something to get angry about because media but also university professors tell with too much confidence that these ideas are true and are the best knowledge we currently have. I found personally, that I can better rely on how humans work by using my own mind (a combination of common sense and experience for edge cases).
Science should be about uncovering what is true, as best as it possibly can. When it comes to the field of psychology, I feel that spirit has been mostly lost.
Feel free to disagree, but if you do then I ask you: have you tried to rely on psychological theories to improve your life and take their advice to heart? If not, then you might want to give it a try. And I hope that it has a more positive effect on you than it did on me. The effect on me has an amazing silver lining but ultimately it is very bitter sweet. Contrast this with computer science which was painful but ultimately delightfully sweet because most of what was taught can be programmed into a computer and is therefore true (at least, true on some level).
Relying on psychological theories becomes problematic when the results are like normal studies (e.g. n = 100). A benign example: I am sure that the overjustification effect and self-determination theory have a link. In both bodies of literature I have never seen that link being investigated. If it would be investigated then there is a chance that the effect might be rebranded to something else in the name of precision. IMO it seems to be used too often as a euphemism to carve out your own research space.
Most cognitive biases are not substantiated enough to be relied upon as psychological theories (there was a good HN post about this as well). And for me, that’s problematic and something to get angry about because media but also university professors tell with too much confidence that these ideas are true and are the best knowledge we currently have. I found personally, that I can better rely on how humans work by using my own mind (a combination of common sense and experience for edge cases).
Science should be about uncovering what is true, as best as it possibly can. When it comes to the field of psychology, I feel that spirit has been mostly lost.
Feel free to disagree, but if you do then I ask you: have you tried to rely on psychological theories to improve your life and take their advice to heart? If not, then you might want to give it a try. And I hope that it has a more positive effect on you than it did on me. The effect on me has an amazing silver lining but ultimately it is very bitter sweet. Contrast this with computer science which was painful but ultimately delightfully sweet because most of what was taught can be programmed into a computer and is therefore true (at least, true on some level).