Asexuality needs a narrower standard of definition

[a minor triad]

3 hours ago, Éowyn21 said:

It's clear not everything in the history of psychology has proven to be true, despite having value. I'm already aware of this. This is the case for any field.  But there are some psychological findings that have objective value. My AP psych teacher was once talking about how my bio teacher believes psychology is a pseudoscience. The bio teacher claims, if all the written records in the world were destroyed, what people would discover again about nature would be "science". My ap pysch counters by saying many of the findings in psychology would also be discovered again. He of course would agree that if we're talking about Freud's theory of psychoanalysis then it's clear that would be gone because it's not empirical. Psychology and it's history is not monolithic. I agree with you that there is subjectivity in psychology, particularly in the early days, but I don't agree with the emphasis of subjectivity you put on the nature of psychology when compared to the hard sciences. Many theories in the "hard" sciences have been proven false or are disputed. Some theories are almost impossible to prove like in quantum physics. 

I think you misunderstand me. I like psychology. I am studying psychology. I chose to study psychology over biology, of all things. I am not bashing it or calling it a pseudoscience. And earlier, I said that all sciences have subjectivity, and you did not seem to like that statement. (Granted, I wrote it in an absolute...) I am aware other sciences are subjective too, but I decided to direct my attention only to psychology because 1) I'm more familiar with it and 2) the definition debate is now relying heavily on psychological literature. I don't think a science loses validity if it is subjective and I think there is value when a science and its researchers admit to their subjectivity like many psychologists do. Being aware that their own biases will always get involved (even if only subconsciously) adds to the field of psychology, in my opinion. I think it would be better if other "harder" sciences would follow suit, but as I mentioned before, it is a hard reality to accept that what seems objective is colored with personal beliefs and biases. Also, did you see the new things I wrote? Because the passage you quoted was from an older post, not my newer one hidden in the spoiler.

 

Quote

Moreover, when I talked about Pramana putting her own bias on these findings, I was referring to her attitude that the research she provided on sexual orientation proves without a doubt that so-called "sexual asexual" people exist.  Based on the information I was reading there was no warrant to make that argument from. I didn't read the whole paper, but I strongly doubt that it even mentioned "sexual asexuals". If the research paper did describe the phenomenon, she could have based her argument on that , however I would still disagree with both the paper and her arguement. (So, here again I agree that not all psychological assertions are true. This is obvious. I just thinks its unfair to overemphasize the nature of psychology as subjective, yet not "hard" sciences that can actually have plenty of subjective aspects to them). My problem was that her argument is based entirely on her own opinion, but then she goes on to boast about having outside research that support her claim, when they actually don't. What's frustrating is at the same time she behaves as if that my beliefs are inferior to hers, simply because she has copy and pasted links to research articles that neither excliptly nor implicitly support her claim. It's arrogant and hypocritical. Psychologists having their own biases is not relevant  to what I was trying point out. However, I would say good psychological researchers should not just being going out thejr way to prove an hypothesis, but actually trying to prove it false first. Falsifiability is important to any theory or hypothesis. 

Yes, after reading through your comment several times through at this point, I realize now what you were getting at, however, I still think psychologists/researchers' biases and subjectivity are important to talk about within this debate. I don't know how Pramana is doing his research, but I agree that when we research we have to go in with an open mind, not expecting to find something specific one way or another. That helps with finding a better mix of resources. Honestly, I haven't read any of the article Pramana has posted, so I can't say whether or not the articles supports what he is claiming. I do know however, that the same results of on study can produce very different conclusions, depending on who is making them.

[Éowyn21]

14 hours ago, a minor triad said:

I think you misunderstand me. I like psychology. I am studying psychology. I chose to study psychology over biology, of all things. I am not bashing it or calling it a pseudoscience. And earlier, I said that all sciences have subjectivity, and you did not seem to like that statement. (Granted, I wrote it in an absolute...) I am aware other sciences are subjective too, but I decided to direct my attention only to psychology because 1) I'm more familiar with it and 2) the definition debate is now relying heavily on psychological literature. I don't think a science loses validity if it is subjective and I think there is value when a science and its researchers admit to their subjectivity like many psychologists do. Being aware that their own biases will always get involved (even if only subconsciously) adds to the field of psychology, in my opinion. I think it would be better if other "harder" sciences would follow suit, but as I mentioned before, it is a hard reality to accept that what seems objective is colored with personal beliefs and biases. Also, did you see the new things I wrote? Because the passage you quoted was from an older post, not my newer one hidden in the spoiler.

 

Yes, after reading through your comment several times through at this point, I realize now what you were getting at, however, I still think psychologists/researchers' biases and subjectivity are important to talk about within this debate. I don't know how Pramana is doing his research, but I agree that when we research we have to go in with an open mind, not expecting to find something specific one way or another. That helps with finding a better mix of resources. Honestly, I haven't read any of the article Pramana has posted, so I can't say whether or not the articles supports what he is claiming. I do know however, that the same results of on study can produce very different conclusions, depending on who is making them.

I agree with you a lot more than I realized at first. I'm really sorry for coming off as harsh or angry in what I was expressing . Oh yeah I did read you're hidden passage, but I think I mistakenly quoted the older one.