Psyscology Discussion

  julieclipse still wants to talk about dolphins
 :Elwood: hee!
 :Elwood: I was thinking about working with dolphins, today.
  Elwood grins
 :julieclipse: In what capacity?
 :Elwood: I don't know what capacities people work with dolphins in
 :julieclipse: Trainers, researchers, veterenarians, with the very
occasional therapist or musician.
 :Elwood: I would like to get wet :)
 :Elwood: playing music is nice, too.
 :julieclipse: You could be a trainer.
 :julieclipse: Or if you don't want to work with dolphins in a long termish
fashion, you could do volunteer work.
 :julieclipse: It's not really an easy field to break into.
 Elwood nods.
 :julieclipse: But it's certainly possible, even reasonable.
 :julieclipse: You'd probably want a BA in psychology and a lot of volunteer
experience.
 :Elwood: ugh
 :Elwood: I will never study psycology again
 :Elwood: what crock
 :julieclipse: HEY!
  julieclipse is outraged
 :zack: hehe... the joys of prerequisits...
 :zack: try jungian psycology...
 :julieclipse: Alright, let's go... what's wrong with psychology?
 :julieclipse: ...Jungian psychology isn't considered psychology anymore,
for the most part.
 :Box-Of-Rain: not nearly as much as what's wrong with Phychiatry...
 :zack: hehehe... I actually have a few questions about it for you julia, if
you know such things, about what training is required to be allowed what
scope of practise (with humans) but I have to go.. right now...
 :julieclipse: If anything, it's literature.
 :Elwood: Box-Of-Rain: I have much more of a problem with psychiatry
  julieclipse is resentful..
 :julieclipse: Psychiatry and psychology aren't as closely related as they
ought to be.
 :Box-Of-Rain: Elwood: That's what I meant... I just spelled it wrong...
 :Elwood: julieclipse: if you feel that you're doing something worthwhile,
then there is no need to be resentful.
 :Elwood: I'm not interested in having a debate about religion.
  julieclipse is resentful that so many people think "psychiatry" when they
hear "psychology"
  Box-Of-Rain agrees
 :julieclipse: Worthwhile?  I don't know.
 :Box-Of-Rain: Don't just pump em full of drugs and tell them their head is
fixed...
 :julieclipse: I think so though.  There's a tremendous amount we don't know
about dolphins.
 :Box-Of-Rain: we don't even know diddily-squat about Lab Rats...
 :julieclipse: And at the same time, what we do know is intriguing--some of
it is so unusual or similar to us.
 :julieclipse: Mmmm... I would have to disagree with that. I think we know
quite a bit about rats.
 :julieclipse: Yes, I do think that what I'm doing is worthwhile, but I
really do want to hear from people who disagree.
 :Box-Of-Rain: quite a bit, but there's still a lot we don't know... like
weather feeding them cell-phones causes cancer in them, and such...
 :julieclipse: Haha.
 :Box-Of-Rain: My theory is that if you feed a rat *anything* for 10 to 12
months, with nothing else it will get cancer...
 :Elwood: julieclipse: What are you studying?
 :julieclipse: I'm studying comparative cognition.
 :Elwood: Can you be more specific?
 :Box-Of-Rain: I've heard of it, but I'm not sure, exactly what it is...
could you explain?
 :julieclipse: More specifically, I'm interested in marine mammal cognition,
more specifically, delphinid cognition.
 :julieclipse: Comparative cognition is a branch of psychology.
 :julieclipse: The purpose of which is the study of cognition in (primarily)
nonhuman animals.
 :Elwood: julieclipse: I don't consider cognitive neuroscience to be
psychology.
 :Box-Of-Rain: Okay... what's cognition, exactly?
 :julieclipse: It's not neuroscience.
 :julieclipse: Neuroscience is biology.
  Elwood nods
 :julieclipse: Cognition is what brains do. *giggle*
 :julieclipse: Memory is a cognitive function..
 :Elwood: Are you studying brains or minds?
 :julieclipse: Representation is.
 :julieclipse: Minds.
  Elwood nods
 :Elwood: I consider studying brains useful.
 :julieclipse: Mind is what the brain does, but right now, we don't know HOW
mostly.
 :julieclipse: So it's in our best interest to study mind and brain both.
 :Elwood: how do you study the mind?
 :julieclipse: By making inferences from behavior.
 :Box-Of-Rain: A full understanding of the brain's workings, might not, lead
to any real understanding of the mind...
 :Elwood: Box-Of-Rain: consciousness seems to be the product of our brains'
functioning.
 :Box-Of-Rain: The mind is studied by observing behavior...
 :Elwood: (which I think is laughable)
 :Box-Of-Rain: There's definately a link between the brain and consiousness.
but I don't think they are one and the same.
  Enigma wishes she were self-aware.
 :Box-Of-Rain: Good timing Niggy!
 :PaperMoon: Niggy has almost... conscious timing.
 :julieclipse: They're not one and the same... the same way that the process
of digestion is not the same as the digestive system.
 :Box-Of-Rain: sometimes she gets lucky...
 :PaperMoon: I know, I'm kidding.
 :Box-Of-Rain: yeah
 :julieclipse: Elwood: are you saying you don't think it's possible to study
cognitive processes by observing behavior?
 :Elwood: sure it's possible to study them
 :Elwood: Is it possible to derive useful information?
 :julieclipse: Yes, I think so.
 :Elwood: Okay.  I don't.
 :julieclipse: You don't think the magic number seven paper was useful?
 :Box-Of-Rain: Okay, Elwood, here's an example... Computers... The brain is
like the hardware,  just because you have a compleat grasp of everything the
hardware does, doesn't mean you can understand any software code...
 :Elwood: Box-Of-Rain: please don't patronize me.
 :Box-Of-Rain: okay, sorry...
 :Platypus: heh
 :Elwood: julieclipse: knowing why people have a capacity of 7 memories in
their immediate memory would be much more useful.
 :Elwood: I consider that paper to be an incidental observation, not a fruit
of a useful field of study.
 :Elwood: but yes, it certainly can be derived from watching people
 :julieclipse: And I guess mental rotation isn't useful either?
 :Elwood: Explain how it is useful.
 :julieclipse: What about priming effects?  What about mental mapping?
 :Elwood: Pick one, and explain how it is useful.
 :Elwood: How does it help me understand how the mind works?
 :Elwood: How does it make me happier, live longer?
 :Elwood: Please tell me.
 :julieclipse: Ah.
 :Elwood: I did tell you that I'm not interested in arguing religion, and
you're trying to provoke me into arguing.
 :julieclipse: In that case, no sceience is useful.
 :Elwood: I don't appreciate that.
 :Elwood: I don't think psychology is useful.
 :Elwood: I think that cognitive neuroscience is useful.
 :Elwood: I think that certain subsets of psychology are useful
 :Box-Of-Rain: Any and all knowlage that can be aquires is usefull.  
 :julieclipse: I think that basic research is worthwhile.
  Elwood blinks.
 :Elwood: Box-Of-Rain: bull-shit.
  Elwood rolls his eyes.
 :Box-Of-Rain: Find a useless fact.
 :julieclipse: I think that mental rotation is useful because pigeons don't
seem to do it.
 :Elwood: Box-Of-Rain: knowing does not include either being able to
conceive of things or being able to do them
 :Elwood: 'knowing' is nothing
 :Elwood: 'knowledge' is incidental to the processing of information
 :Box-Of-Rain: now -that- is Bull-Shit
 :julieclipse: Pigeons seem to have a different and faster method of
identity matching rotated objects.
 :Enigma: He's as fast as a buttered weasel on a water slide!
  Elwood sets mode: +o Alex
 :Elwood: Box-Of-Rain: okay, I'm going to lock you up.  Know yourself out of
the situation.
  Elwood waits.
 :Box-Of-Rain: If you aquire enough facts, little bits of random knowlage on
any given subject an understansing will form.
 :julieclipse: Well, their method would be useful for applications where
very rapid identity matching in three dimensions is worthwhile.
 :Box-Of-Rain: I need more information then simply that I am going to be
locked up...
 :Elwood: Box-Of-Rain: There's no point in debating this until you can tell
me how to know yourself out of a jail cell.
 :Elwood: there's a difference between 'knowledge' and 'ability' and
'experience' and 'understanding'
 :Elwood: I am a big fan of 'understanding'.
  Elwood sets mode: +o Ananda
 :julieclipse: I'm a big fan of all four.
 :Box-Of-Rain: All four of those will aid in eachother's development...
 :Box-Of-Rain: they arn't really seperated by much other then
definitions...
 :Elwood: julieclipse: I said that because Neal is saying that knowledge is
the most important thing ever.
 :julieclipse: What do you care about dolphins if you don't want to know
anything about how they experience the world?
 :Box-Of-Rain: Platty... Elwood is putting words in my mouth... make him
stop!
 :Elwood: julieclipse: I do want to know how they experience the world.  The
pseudo-science of psychology is one way of attempting to pursue that.
 :julieclipse: What are your grounds for considering it a pseudo-science?
 :Elwood: julieclipse: not every inquiry into behaviour is 'psychology'
 :Elwood: because it isn't studying anything that can be proven.
 :Box-Of-Rain: Knowlage, will lead to understanding, Ability and Experince
will help develope knowlage and understanding... 
 :julieclipse: No.  Scientific inquiry into behavior is psychology.
 :Box-Of-Rain: Try to understand somthing without actually knowing anything
about it?
 :julieclipse: Nothing can be proven.
 :julieclipse: I think what you mean is that, so far it isn't studying
anything that can be derived from first principles.
  :julieclipse: Which is true.  It was also true in biology up until the
last few decades.
 :julieclipse: And has at some point been true of every area of science
(obviously)
 :Alex: hello
 :Enigma: Hello, my furry friends. And what have we here, eh?
 :Elwood: julieclipse: I should correct what I've said.  I think psychology
is obviously useful, worthwhile, and interesting.  When I expressed distaste
at "psychology", I was expressing distaste at studying it.
 :Elwood: Because studying it involves learning a lot of bullshit theories
 :julieclipse: Like what?
 :Charlie: Um. So does anything, yes?
 :PaperMoon: sorry, bullshit?
 :julieclipse: (I ask curiously, not to argue)
 :Platypus: the point, I believe, is to eventually produce new, better
theories... that's what we do...
 :julieclipse: (because if you simply don't enjoy studying it, our
difference is purely one of personal taste)
 :julieclipse: (also, your studies may have differed drastically from mine)
 :Elwood: Probably
 :Elwood: I suspect you would have been just as put off as I was from my
studies
 :Elwood: And, a lot of my distaste comes from the psychologists I have
interacted with, and not from the field itself
 :Elwood: I don't like how people who practice psychology cram people into
models
 :julieclipse: That's definitely a distinction.
 :Elwood: And I don't particularly like studying from people who do that.
 :julieclipse: I'm friends with all of our psych staff.
 :julieclipse: (five professors)
 :Elwood: I've studied at a bad liberal arts school, but I've also tutored
with professors from Harvard Medical School
  Elwood nods
 :julieclipse: One of whom is one of my very favorite human beings in the
world, so far.
 :Box-Of-Rain: OKay... That's bad phycholigy...  Each person is unique,
andone who doesn't realizr that should not be working with people...
 :Elwood: julieclipse: I'm out of my depth to argue theories with you.  I
don't remember most of what I studied, either.
 :Elwood: I don't value knowledge because I don't retain it.
 :Elwood: I value my ability to find and process knowledge
 :Elwood: and to do things with it
 :Elwood: but not to retain it, to have it.
 :julieclipse: I've been studying this intently (though certainly not
exclusively!) for three years.
  Elwood nods
 :julieclipse: And studying it generally for 7.
 :Elwood: I spent a couple of years studying it generally
 :Elwood: and a few months were intense, and covered a lot of material
 :Elwood: being months of private tutorage
 :julieclipse: All of my studies have centered around dolphins, and my
knowledge in most areas is biased in that direction.
 :julieclipse: Though I would make a strong argument that I'm not a
specialist.
 :Elwood: julieclipse: My real distaste comes from sitting in a classroom or
lecture hall instead of interacting with people as a way of understanding
them.
 :Charlie: Elwood, is your abliity to think not itself knowlege?
 :Elwood: Charlie: no, I do not 'know' how to think
 :Elwood: I cannot tell you how I think, nor can I tell you how to think.
 :Elwood: My process of thought seems to be the sum of my experiences.
 :Platypus: no interest in figuring that out?
 :Charlie: But aren't you arguening against experience?
 :Elwood: Platypus: That's a brash assumption to make.
 :Platypus: that's not an answer
 :Elwood: Charlie: I'm arguing against mistaking knowledge for experience
 :julieclipse: I've never encountered a psychology professor, book, or paper
that has said how people think.
 :Charlie: How is one disinguishible from the other?
 :Elwood: Platypus: I spend most of my time thinking about and studying
people
 :Elwood: Charlie: knowledge can be shared after the fact
 :Elwood: Knowing knowledge is less than knowing experience.
  Elwood shrugs
 :Elwood: I can't -prove- that
 :Charlie: Elwood: I tell people lots of stories about my experiences, and I
learn from others'.
 :Elwood: but that is what I have come to think
 :julieclipse: Yes, but the stories are knowledge.
 :Elwood: Charlie: indeed, but you know about their experiences--you have
not experienced them
 :julieclipse: They're representation.
 :julieclipse: They're not experiences.
 :Charlie: Elwood: indeed, but I think that's on the same spectrum of
value.
 :Charlie: I fail to have any idea where one would draw a line between
representation and experience.
 :Elwood: Charlie: then you obviously need to go out and have more
experiences.
  Elwood grins.
 :Charlie: You could argue that everything is one or the other, and no one
would be able to disprove you.
 :Elwood: Charlie: I climbed a frozen waterfall yesterday.
 :Elwood: I can tell you how I did it.
 :Elwood: Do you think that from that, you would be able to figure out how
to do it?
 :Charlie: I'm not sure either way.
 :Charlie: Perhaps.
 :Elwood: Would my telling you be the same as you having done it?
 :Charlie: No.
 :Charlie: But it would be similar.
 :julieclipse: I don't think that it's similar.
 :PaperMoon: not very charlie
 :Charlie: Just as my rememebring having done it is similar to doing it.
 :PaperMoon: would my telling how to rollerblade teach you?
 :Charlie: You reject the idea of gaining any experience from anything your
own body hasn't done?
 :PaperMoon: no.
 :Charlie: PaperMoon: yes. So would putting on some 'blades and trying it.
 :Elwood: All you have is the experience of hearing, reading the words. 
Seeing the pictures.
 :julieclipse: I don't think that anyone could tell someone else something
in such a way as it would be equivalent to remembering doing it.
 :Elwood: All you have learned is how to listen, how to read, how to look.
 :Charlie: Which, in my mind, can be expanded into something like a memory.
 :Charlie: Not at all.
 :Elwood: Charlie: let me tell you how to play the violin.
 :Elwood: Charlie: let me tell you how to play the piano
 :PaperMoon: Charlie: I think you;d find it a bit harder than that. the
mechanics are one thing that I can explain... the practice is different.
 :julieclipse: Let me tell you about a dream I had the other night.
 :Elwood: Charlie: And you will perform tomorrow..
 :Charlie: If I tell you how to do something abstract, you can do it onthe
first try from directions. If I tell you how to do something concrete, you
probably won't. Quick, draw a line between abstract and concrete.
 :PaperMoon: here!
 :Elwood: still, bullshit
 :Platypus: Elwood: did you have a violin teacher at some point? Did they
grab your hands and play for you until you "knew" how to play yourself, or
did they give you verbal feedback and instructions?
 :Elwood: Platypus: Charlie is arguing that I could tell him how to be first
chair overnight
 :Enigma: He sure is!
 :Charlie: Nope.
 :julieclipse: Platty: ...but imagine the instructions without the violin!
 :Charlie: I'm arguing that i could be a better first chair if you told me
how.
 :julieclipse: Sure.
 :Charlie: Therefore it's a direction, not a place.
 :julieclipse: But the telling can never replace the experience.
 :Platypus: julieclipse: you're reading the same assumption into my
statement that elwood is reading into charlie's
 :Charlie: I think it can, in theory.
 :Charlie: Practically, it can never -- for most things.
 :Elwood: Charlie: It's certainly cheaper to buy a book instead of going on
the journey.
  Box-Of-Rain sets mode: +o Silverspring
 :Platypus: even if it can't be a direct replacement, that doesn't make it
useless
 :julieclipse: Platty: I'm trying to clean up the argument... it's not about
whether telling things is more or less useful than experience, per se...
it's about whether there's a fundamental difference between the two.
 :Elwood: Charlie: if they are one in the same for you, you will lead a
simple life in the library.
 :julieclipse: And I think there is.
 :Charlie: Elwood: oooh, profound. I read Alan Watts too. Are you listening
to what I'm saying?
 :Charlie: They are not the same.
 :Charlie: They are on ends of the same spectrum.
 :julieclipse: How is there a spectrum?
 :Enigma: At that moment, julieclipse became enlightened.
 :Charlie: I can't replace one with the other in most of my life, but I have
the feeling that they fade together.
 :Charlie: A spectrum for abstract knowledge to vivid experience.
 :Charlie: s/for/from/
 :julieclipse: ...what's in between?
 :Charlie: Vivid stories, and abstract things I have an intuitive feel for.
 :julieclipse: And what does it mean for an experience to be vivid?
 :Box-Of-Rain: OKay, I'm going to play drums for a wjile...
 :Charlie: That it has concrete and direct meaning for me.
 :Charlie: (Or something.)
 :Charlie: In practice, I cannot learn to play first violin through advice,
and I cannot understand higher math by playing with a pocket calculator. But
there are things in between. I don't see an essential break between doing
something and hearning about something, or between intelligence and
knowlege, or and such two things.
 :Charlie: Heya.
 :julieclipse: I guess I feel that all of my life is equally...experienced.
 :Charlie: s/or and two/or any two/
 :Charlie: Hmm. How so?
 :julieclipse: Well, I have no confusion between who I am and what sort of
informations I'm getting...
 :julieclipse: ...and who other people I talk to are and what informations
they're getting.
 :julieclipse: If I'm reading a book, I'm having the experience of reading
the book, not the experiences that the individuals in the book are having.
 :julieclipse: Now, my experience of reading a good book is such that I
represent the goings on conveyed in the book in my mind..
 :Charlie: Interesting. I most certainly do, though not to the extent than i
confuse myself with fictional characters.
 :Platypus: if you ever find yourself in a similar situation to those
described in the book, you have something to draw on that people who did not
read the book won't have..
 :julieclipse: But I never find myself unable to lift my eyes up off the
page.
 :julieclipse: Sure.
 :julieclipse: I don't think that's at issue here.
 :Platypus: perhaps not any more... I just offended by the notion that
indirect knowledge is "useless"
 :Platypus: s/I/I'm/
 :pellik: If I read a book titled 'how to ski', or 'skiing for dummies', and
I then go skiing for the first time, I will do a considerably better job
skiing then if I just put on skiis and fall down a hill
  julieclipse giggles
 :pellik: so how is that not experience?
 :julieclipse: Duh.  Come on, you really think there's anyone here who
doesn't agree with that?
 :Charlie: It looked like Elwood didn't. I'm not sure.
 :julieclipse: Because if reading about skiing was the SAME THING as skiing,
then why ski?
 :Charlie: It's not the same thing!
 :pellik: because skiing is fun
 :Charlie: No one ever said it was!
 :julieclipse: We've agreed that it's not the same thing.
  Platypus wonders if Elwood is still paying attention
 :julieclipse: That happened pages ago.
 :Charlie: They just said that hearing about something in related to doing
it.
 :Charlie: Pardon me, then.
 :julieclipse: Now we're discussing whether the difference is quantitative,
or qualitative.
 :julieclipse: ...or we're discussing something else and I don't understand
it at all!
 :pellik: Reading about skiing is not skiing, but they both give me
expierince at skiing, although reading about it takes considerably more
effort to gain the same amount of experience
 :Platypus: pellik: reading about skiing isn't the same as the experience of
skiing.. but by reading about it, you acquire information that you can later
apply to the experience, should you have it
 :Charlie: (And vice versa, which I think is as important.)
 :Platypus: it's not, strictly speaking, "skiing experience"
  Elwood shrugs
 :Elwood: I have been reading
 :pellik: so why is the information I gained by skiing different then the
information I gained by reading?
 :Elwood: this conversation, that is
 :pellik: the act of reading is obviously different then skiing, but how
does the information differ?
 :Elwood: I'm not very interested anymore.  I never said that indirect
knowledge is useless.
 :Elwood: I thought Charlie was saying that indirect knowledge was just as
useful as direct experience/knowledge.
 :Elwood: If he does not think that, there is no argument.
 :Charlie: And I almost was.
 :Platypus: hmm.. I'm fairly certain I could scroll up and find you saying
almost exactly that, but if you don't care anymore I'll let it go
 :Elwood: Platypus: I would be interested in seeing myself having said
that.
 :Charlie: s/indirect/abstract (or personal)/; s/direct/concrete (or
personal)/ s/useful/interesting/, yes.
 :Platypus: :Elwood: I don't value knowledge because I don't retain it.
 :Platypus: :Elwood: I value my ability to find and process knowledge
 :Platypus: :Elwood: and to do things with it
 :Platypus: :Elwood: but not to retain it, to have it.
 :Platypus: I see you clarified that later on that... apologies, I was
distracted
 :Elwood: well, and I would say that again.
 :Elwood: and mean it
 :Elwood: I should amend the first line, though
 :Platypus: how do you define "knowledge"?
 :Elwood: I do value knowledge
 :Elwood: synonymous with cognition
 :Platypus: hmm.. what is it you don't value then?
 :Elwood: the result of having experienced or understood something
 :Elwood: facts
 :Elwood: well
 :Elwood: I don't value having it inside of me
 :Elwood: I value having it as easily accessible as possible!
 :Platypus: hmm.. I'd argue that it's possible to retain information that
will only be (fully) understood once you've acquired further information
and/or experience at a later point
  Elwood nods
 :Elwood: hmm
 :Platypus: which, to my thinking, makes most any information useful in some
respect
 :Charlie: Indeed. Or that all information is good outside its eventual
applicability because it stretches your mind.
 :Elwood: I havn't thought this through enough to really argue about it.
 :julieclipse: ...wait, don't you value the experience of cognition?
 :Elwood: julieclipse: asking me?
 :julieclipse: Yes, you.
 :Elwood: I value it most than most things.
 :julieclipse: Just checking.
 :Elwood: But I like to keep experiencing it, instead of hanging on to past
knowledge ;)
 :julieclipse: Well, memory is cognition..
 :Platypus: cognition.. bah! What has it done for me?
 :julieclipse: I like the experience of remembering things.
 :Elwood: I also think that cognition only really occures when we have
enough knowledge
 :Elwood: occurs, rather
 :Platypus: I like to apply past knowledge while simultaneously
experiencing/learning new things
 :Elwood: but knowledge for the sake of knowledge isn't particularly
interesting ;)
 :Platypus: I also need to go pay rent before it's too late.. bbl
 :julieclipse: I think that's a useless sort of thing to say, unless you're
talking about the sort of knowledge that can be had from not spending the
first few months of one's life in a silent black box.
 :Charlie: No worries.It seems to me that in the end there's nt such thing
as knowledge only for the sake of knowledge.
 :Platypus: I think it's interesting as potential understanding
 :julieclipse: I think it's fun to know things.
 :PaperMoon: Miss Emily?
 :Elwood: I think it's fun to understand things.
 :Elwood: I think it's even more fun to be able to understand things.
 :Charlie: I defy you to find a fact that isn't eventually useful somehow,
no matter how tinily, in experience.
 :Elwood: Charlie: I was disputing the usefulness of facts only because it
seemed you were placing great priority on them.
 :Elwood: My process of cognition isn't even primarily rational, I think.
 :Charlie: I wasn't trying to place priority on them, only defend them.