week 2 dq post

“What do I have to believe about the world and about human beings in order for me to accept or use this theory”

Rule of Thumb the Scientific Method. Misquoting a movie from the 90s “Show me the evidence”.

The Scientific Method

Ideas; test it

Hypothesis; test it

hard point by point test it. Every review needs to be a harder examination of each variable. Hence the scientific term “tear it apart”. It the idea can stand up to basic scientific examination, than it has a chance of being an accurate idea to progress to being a theory.

Theory; test it

Conclusion; test it

Fact; test it

However, in Psychology, the field has a huge draw back in the form of a political and military organization which has a soul desire to use the tools for population control. They do not like most any other research. This organization has extremely deep pockets to pay for said research. They pay great for what research they like, and work hard to discredit ideas they do not.

In the video I have heard bad explanations for the Scientific Method before, but I am not sure if the first minute of that video could have been any worse (Laureate Education (Producer), 2009f).

Belief should have less than zero to do with any one or other theories. Although in Psychology there are very few theories, most are ideas and some are hypothesis. But few qualify under the definition of the scientific method as being an actual theory.

“Popular usage of the word ‘theory’ may sometimes imply a singular, often grand idea”

The dictionary is very clear as to the definition of theory. The field of psychology itself has a different more philosophical/theocratic concept as to what ideas have merit and what ideas are groundless. This question does not apply to me at all. However what field for this degree am I most drawn to. That is relatively simple, that field is historiography.

If I had to choose one concept to explore, I choose historiography. Although I like neuropsychology more than history. But neuro is very difficult to bring up in a dq. History is also easier to add humor. Neuro and cognition venture too quickly into quantum physics and areas which are much more difficult to make entertaining. I could write all kinds of stuff about research, research methodologies, add in for this specific week theories and philosophy and the field of neuro becomes almost impossible to write entertaining things.

Historiography; the study of history as it applies to both the field of psychology and the human condition regarding how humans think.

I am not a fan of the premise of the question since the concept of theory does not apply correctly to most of the ideas and hypothesis present in the field of psychology.

We know that a Conditioned Response is not a theory, it is a hard-double blind proven fact.

We know that the sequence of Operative Conditioning is also correct since academics has more than a century of double-blind studies and most of the last 5000 years of documented history to back up torture is an effective strategy to get what you want done.

However how OC’s are applied that does not qualify as a Theory, it hardly qualifies as a Hypothesis. Empirical data as to how to apply OC’s is unreliable at best, and pure fiction at worst. A human cannot have their nature altered, only redirected. The stronger the person the less OC’s work unless the person wants to redirect their OC to non-destructive behavior patterns. The weaker the person the less nature behavior patterns they have and consequently the easier they are to perform the actions leaders and/or strong people want others to perform. But there is no way to measure and determine in a scientific way personality “unless” sequences. Is a person’s behavior nurture or nature, is it a combination of both. How strong with nature are they. How strong with nurture are they. The number of variables which can and cannot be easily identified which make up how effective an OC can be applied to any one given person makes the application of said a hypothesis at best and fiction at worst.

Most of the rest of the ideas which have come from the field of Psychology research range from bad ideas through ok hypothesis to solid hypothesis, but few if any qualify as theories.

Any person who has any military experience at all can tell you with absolute definitive that a military operation involving moving a library through enemy lines is a bad idea at best, and suicide at worst. The library Wilhelm Wundt was forced to gain access to was not in Prussia. That is pure fiction. The library he was assigned to study from and translate was not in Europe at all. The library was in Tiffin Ohio and had in the previous years belonged to a specific family with an extremely long history of possessing huge libraries going back 1000s of years. No less than 5 world class Universities are directly from that families library being seized and taken over by to make it easier to understand the “English”. But they were mostly just name changed Romans. The Prussians in Ohio were operating in partnership with English first then the Americans. The Hessians being one Prussian paramilitary spy organization from the Prussians, the FreiKorp being another one. Both operated on American soul clandestinely (Campbell, n.d.).

As the Prussian army paramilitary operations branch the FreiKorp had a task. Spy and find WMDs that the British had been hiding since before Romulus and Remus were born. That was still playing itself out in Tiffin, Ohio Heidelberg University from Fort Ball. Which was a Prussian military fortification that the American government was allowed to station some troops there as well.

What does this have anything at all to do with the question. What makes anyone think that the power and control over Wundt when he was a child operating as their indentured servant stopped with Wundt. William James also spent years at Heidelberg U Tiffin, Ohio years later to learn where Wundt had learned. but the Prussians present at Fort Ball were still just as interested in telling the truth of their involvement with the foundation of Psychology in the 1890s as they were in the 1840s. The answer is “tell anyone about us, and we will kill you, kill yoru family, and kill those you might have told about it.” What makes anyone think they stopped being jerks from 1754-present. Every single day the FreiKorp have done something either nasty or outright genocide. They have been guilty of genocide on 2 separate large-scale occasions. Their Munich branch 1920-1945, then name changed and continued being jerks into the present. Their New York branch name changed to Tammany Hall, which changed names in 1970 to one can only guess. Every piece of evidence I can find about the Prussian empire and its current operations points to they are still rather strongly pushing academics and scholars to “tell us what we want to hear”. Ignoring flat out real science and good theories.

Understanding that structure is key to understanding what and how each concept in psychology came about. How each concept has limitations which have been depending on idea and year ignored. From a lot of ignoring details and key variables to ignoring most if not 99% of them in order to make those in power happy.

Most of the question of this week does not apply to the way I perform scholastics. It does not take much digging into each idea in psychology to find between nasty Prussian influences to outright crimes against humanity oppression of what they do not like. Just because the Prussians after 1946 name changed again and moved their capital city from Europe to America, does not make them any less real or any less dangerous than when they were calling themselves Nazi. Of course, that was specifically the Munich branch of the FreiKorp. The New York Branch name changed to Tammany Hall, and their record of violent/inappropriate behavior is beyond too much to consider that organization anything other than a terrorist group. Every major “settlement” where Prussian’s have a large population made huge influence over the field of Psychology. Does not take much research to find large populations of Prussians in direct influence of the universities which produce some of those ideas which have turned into accepted facts. Most of the IQ tests came from said influence.

References

(Babbie, 2017) (Burkholder, Cox, & Crawford, 2016) (Ruzhansky, & Suragan, 2019)

Babbie, E. (2017). Basics of social research (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., & Crawford, L. M. (2016). The scholar-practitioner’s guide to research design. Baltimore, MD: Laureate Publishing.

Campbell, B. (n.d.). Mercenaries on the Way to the Third Reich. On the Genesis and Change of the Freikorps Myth. CENTRAL EUROPEAN HISTORY, 45(1), 160–162. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edswah&AN=000301869000021&site=eds-live&scope=site

Laureate Education (Producer). (2009f). Theory [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education (Producer). (2016a). Introduction to research design [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Ruzhansky, M., & Suragan, D. (2019). Critical hardy inequalities. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Mathematica, 44(2), 1159–1174. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.5186/aasfm.2019.4467