f********e
发帖数: 5 | 1 我现在在国内大二，如果想要两年后申请美国心理方向的MASTER或PHD，除了考托福和
GRE还要做什么额外的准备呢？还有，不知道这个方向的奖学金会不会很难申请。请师
兄师姐们赐教，谢谢 |
f********e
发帖数: 5 | 2 怎么没人理呢？真的很需要师兄师姐们的帮助
【在 f********e 的大作中提到】
: 我现在在国内大二，如果想要两年后申请美国心理方向的MASTER或PHD，除了考托福和
: GRE还要做什么额外的准备呢？还有，不知道这个方向的奖学金会不会很难申请。请师
: 兄师姐们赐教，谢谢
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 3 搞明白心理学是咋回事先。
我个人不看好学生物的转心理学。呵呵。
【在 f********e 的大作中提到】
: 我现在在国内大二，如果想要两年后申请美国心理方向的MASTER或PHD，除了考托福和
: GRE还要做什么额外的准备呢？还有，不知道这个方向的奖学金会不会很难申请。请师
: 兄师姐们赐教，谢谢
|
r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 4 Even God only helps who help themselves.
You have a lot of homework to do before crying for help.
It's big deal for your life. Don't be lazy.
【在 f********e 的大作中提到】
: 怎么没人理呢？真的很需要师兄师姐们的帮助
|
j********i
发帖数: 2412 | 5 对，大二学生先搞清楚为啥要转心理
是不是觉得有钱途？而不是有兴趣
才大二，学什么都可以转
【在 h*i 的大作中提到】
: 搞明白心理学是咋回事先。
: 我个人不看好学生物的转心理学。呵呵。
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 6 呵呵，个人认为心理不见得比生物有前途，别看现在生物一片劝退的样子。但是心理学
科明显比生物年轻简单，而且似乎更容易激发兴趣。 |
r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 7 心理学怎么个比生物学年轻简单？让大家受受教育。
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，个人认为心理不见得比生物有前途，别看现在生物一片劝退的样子。但是心理学
: 科明显比生物年轻简单，而且似乎更容易激发兴趣。
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 8 见笑，还是不多说了。
生物，尤其是以应用为目的的生物学由于资金大量涌入，前期研究过于微观，繁复，
sometime in a wrong way。其
实对老鼠有效的药，对狗不见得有效，在猴子上成立的，在人可能有问题。男人和女人
也不同。前期那些东西玩玩就是
了，应用研究还是别从那开始。个人认为别想着先做一堆再靠data mining 来排除。
而心理学的试验对象大多是人，无可非议，做起来很直接。认知科学上的发现，从猴子
上得到的结论assume在人上也可以是成立的。
我说的simple young 与历史无关， 是 in a good way. 说明心理学还比较直指人心，
容易引起兴趣。
【在 r******s 的大作中提到】
: 心理学怎么个比生物学年轻简单？让大家受受教育。
|
h***3
发帖数: 26 | 9 我个人认为生物的基础研究是应用研究的基础和前沿，怎么就能说生物基础研究太微观
，和应用没关系呢？？杂交水稻，乙肝疫苗，能救多少人你知道么？
只能是说生物太复杂，人类还有很长很长的路要走。如果你说生物前期研究没用，那你
说说，想要发展医学，农业，甚至工业什么的要怎么研究，你给nih指点一下呢
心理学起源于哲学，你能说哲学比生物简单么？好像这种比较本身就不成立，有时候人
们试图给心理学界定field，可是这不容易，为什么非要界定呢？
脑科学与心理学的严格分界线又在哪里呢？ |
r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 10 年轻怎么会和历史无关呢？
生物学和心理学作为独立的科学都开始于19世纪。
说心理学比生物学简单就不知道从何说起了。
我还没见到那个比较心理家assume猴子用猴子作认知实验就可以了，
反正在人身上是可以成立的。
You got to do better than this to make big claims like those.
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: 见笑，还是不多说了。
: 生物，尤其是以应用为目的的生物学由于资金大量涌入，前期研究过于微观，繁复，
: sometime in a wrong way。其
: 实对老鼠有效的药，对狗不见得有效，在猴子上成立的，在人可能有问题。男人和女人
: 也不同。前期那些东西玩玩就是
: 了，应用研究还是别从那开始。个人认为别想着先做一堆再靠data mining 来排除。
: 而心理学的试验对象大多是人，无可非议，做起来很直接。认知科学上的发现，从猴子
: 上得到的结论assume在人上也可以是成立的。
: 我说的simple young 与历史无关， 是 in a good way. 说明心理学还比较直指人心，
: 容易引起兴趣。
|
|
|
h*****t
发帖数: 1478 | 11 我怎么觉得你好像说反了。
用动物做的实验，很多时候对CONFOUND VARIABLES比较好控制，但是用人就很难了。
另外，从猴子身上得到的结论，还没人敢ASSUME可以延伸到人类。
最后，我同意你说的心理学似乎比较容易引起兴趣，尤其是对于没学过心理学的人来说。
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: 见笑，还是不多说了。
: 生物，尤其是以应用为目的的生物学由于资金大量涌入，前期研究过于微观，繁复，
: sometime in a wrong way。其
: 实对老鼠有效的药，对狗不见得有效，在猴子上成立的，在人可能有问题。男人和女人
: 也不同。前期那些东西玩玩就是
: 了，应用研究还是别从那开始。个人认为别想着先做一堆再靠data mining 来排除。
: 而心理学的试验对象大多是人，无可非议，做起来很直接。认知科学上的发现，从猴子
: 上得到的结论assume在人上也可以是成立的。
: 我说的simple young 与历史无关， 是 in a good way. 说明心理学还比较直指人心，
: 容易引起兴趣。
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 12 Anyway, I studied medicine first and then did research on neuroscience, and
then biophysics/biomedical engineering.
I also have some experience on drug development. So I
guess my argument is not in the vacuum. Some mentioned NIH as a successful
authority in his/her post, but I have to remind you that this is not necessarily
true. NIH might represent medical research during a period of time, but
please don't consider it the only "truth" in this realm, let alone the
mainstream for ever. With the |
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 13 I said these based on my own experience on both biology and medicine.
Modern biology consumes tons of money and resource, while more than 90%
of medical treatment is NOT based on development of biology. Agriculture
such as 杂交水稻 is NOT a fruit of modern biology either.
Medicine and agriculture have their own history and developing pathes, I have
to say they are independent from modern biology. Biology might help these two
attractive subjects if human beings are lucky, but you should not expect to
【在 h***3 的大作中提到】
: 我个人认为生物的基础研究是应用研究的基础和前沿，怎么就能说生物基础研究太微观
: ，和应用没关系呢？？杂交水稻，乙肝疫苗，能救多少人你知道么？
: 只能是说生物太复杂，人类还有很长很长的路要走。如果你说生物前期研究没用，那你
: 说说，想要发展医学，农业，甚至工业什么的要怎么研究，你给nih指点一下呢
: 心理学起源于哲学，你能说哲学比生物简单么？好像这种比较本身就不成立，有时候人
: 们试图给心理学界定field，可是这不容易，为什么非要界定呢？
: 脑科学与心理学的严格分界线又在哪里呢？
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 14 我对clinical trial了解不多，所以不敢说“clinical
trials are theoretically and practically much more rigorous than
psychological experiments”这样的话。跟两个心理学研究生聊聊
天就可以得出这样的结论未免有点可笑吧？
首先，心理学实验和clinical trial的统计学理论依据是完全一样的，
都是, Fisher, Pearson等人传下来的这一套，没有任何区别。倒是
搞心理学的对这一套更精通一些。不说搞心理测量，数量心理的都
是专家，一般学实验心理学的， 统计学的也比一般学生物学的学的
深。
心理学实验和clinical trial要比那个更rigorous的话，显然是有控制
的实验更rigorous。clinical trial说到底就是quasi-experiment，不会
比experiment更rigorous,这点基本常识都没有，谈什么作研究？
至于说到实践，这差别就大了。心理学基本上还是维持了科学的严肃
性的。作假的有没有？当然有，我个人知道的一个中国的搞认知的
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: I said these based on my own experience on both biology and medicine.
: Modern biology consumes tons of money and resource, while more than 90%
: of medical treatment is NOT based on development of biology. Agriculture
: such as 杂交水稻 is NOT a fruit of modern biology either.
: Medicine and agriculture have their own history and developing pathes, I have
: to say they are independent from modern biology. Biology might help these two
: attractive subjects if human beings are lucky, but you should not expect to
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 15 你对生物学的见解倒和我很一致，呵呵。
不过你可不要以己度人，心理学和生物学是两码事，你们的问题是你们自己的问题。心
理学没钱，但也没有那么多乱七八糟的东西，还轮不到你来说三道四。呵呵。
真正有野心的心理学家眼里看得上的是物理学，现在这些往生物上靠的都是些短视的见
钱眼开的家伙，你还以为那些人是主流啊？不过是一时的时髦而已。跟风的人永远都是
跟风的，永远也成不了主流。
have
two
too
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: I said these based on my own experience on both biology and medicine.
: Modern biology consumes tons of money and resource, while more than 90%
: of medical treatment is NOT based on development of biology. Agriculture
: such as 杂交水稻 is NOT a fruit of modern biology either.
: Medicine and agriculture have their own history and developing pathes, I have
: to say they are independent from modern biology. Biology might help these two
: attractive subjects if human beings are lucky, but you should not expect to
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 16 Clinical trials are very different from biological experiments you know.
Multi-centered, controlled, randomized and double-blind experiments are
essential in clinical trials.
Please learn sth about it before making a judgement.
【在 h*i 的大作中提到】
: 我对clinical trial了解不多，所以不敢说“clinical
: trials are theoretically and practically much more rigorous than
: psychological experiments”这样的话。跟两个心理学研究生聊聊
: 天就可以得出这样的结论未免有点可笑吧？
: 首先，心理学实验和clinical trial的统计学理论依据是完全一样的，
: 都是, Fisher, Pearson等人传下来的这一套，没有任何区别。倒是
: 搞心理学的对这一套更精通一些。不说搞心理测量，数量心理的都
: 是专家，一般学实验心理学的， 统计学的也比一般学生物学的学的
: 深。
: 心理学实验和clinical trial要比那个更rigorous的话，显然是有控制
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 17 学是一门年轻有前途的科学啊，虽然最早的帖子可能言辞过激，过意不去。但是你
们也应当正视自己的问题，做更严谨的研究。
说到统计, 不是瞎说的，我见过的名校心理学研究生朋友都已经有了美国／中国的
硕士学位，可是脑子里还真是缺少control这根弦啊。面对明显的漏洞视而不见。
基础生物学界的风气和导向虽然让人失望，但充分的control的必要性绝对深入人心。
基本上没有哪个没有控制，没有对照的生物学文章可以发表。
应用方面制药界见钱眼开不假，但是clinical trials的严谨还是值得一学的。这些都
是先行者用各种教训换来的经验，不妨参考一下了。
我本身还算是受过一点物理和工程的训练，也实践过一点，见笑。 |
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 18 I said, the training in research methodology in biology is not as rigorious
as in experimental psychology. It shows.
Clinical trial, by definition, is a quasi-experiment. Quasi-experiment, by
definition, cannot control everything, therefore, cannot be as rigorious as
an experiment.
Why is clinical trial a quasi-experiment? Because you cannot assign subjects
to a group as you wish. Why is it so? You may ask. I left this for you as a
homework.
LOL. This is stupid.
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: Clinical trials are very different from biological experiments you know.
: Multi-centered, controlled, randomized and double-blind experiments are
: essential in clinical trials.
: Please learn sth about it before making a judgement.
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 19 Name one published experiment in psychology, that is meant to compare things
, that doesn't have control. You couldn't find any.
Talking about control, you don't even understand the difference between an
experiment and a quasi-experiment, it's laughable.
Let me tell you, there are plenty of clueless psychology students, but they
will learn their lessons soon enough. The best training an experimental
psychologist can get is how to criticize other people's research method.
That's why most psycholo
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: 学是一门年轻有前途的科学啊，虽然最早的帖子可能言辞过激，过意不去。但是你
: 们也应当正视自己的问题，做更严谨的研究。
: 说到统计, 不是瞎说的，我见过的名校心理学研究生朋友都已经有了美国／中国的
: 硕士学位，可是脑子里还真是缺少control这根弦啊。面对明显的漏洞视而不见。
: 基础生物学界的风气和导向虽然让人失望，但充分的control的必要性绝对深入人心。
: 基本上没有哪个没有控制，没有对照的生物学文章可以发表。
: 应用方面制药界见钱眼开不假，但是clinical trials的严谨还是值得一学的。这些都
: 是先行者用各种教训换来的经验，不妨参考一下了。
: 我本身还算是受过一点物理和工程的训练，也实践过一点，见笑。
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 20 If clinical trials are so rigorous, we won't be recalling drugs off market.
If you still don't understand why clinical trials can never be as rigorous
as an experiment, you should consult a statistician.
BTW, don't talk about engineering. I work in computer science field, I know
fully well how clueless engineers can be regarding research methods. In fact
, my experimental psychology training is what earned my research position in
this computer science department. If they know how to do good rese
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: 学是一门年轻有前途的科学啊，虽然最早的帖子可能言辞过激，过意不去。但是你
: 们也应当正视自己的问题，做更严谨的研究。
: 说到统计, 不是瞎说的，我见过的名校心理学研究生朋友都已经有了美国／中国的
: 硕士学位，可是脑子里还真是缺少control这根弦啊。面对明显的漏洞视而不见。
: 基础生物学界的风气和导向虽然让人失望，但充分的control的必要性绝对深入人心。
: 基本上没有哪个没有控制，没有对照的生物学文章可以发表。
: 应用方面制药界见钱眼开不假，但是clinical trials的严谨还是值得一学的。这些都
: 是先行者用各种教训换来的经验，不妨参考一下了。
: 我本身还算是受过一点物理和工程的训练，也实践过一点，见笑。
|
|
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 21 但是你们也应当正视自己的问题，做更严谨的研究。
___________________________________________
This is an outrage. A biology guy who never read a single one psychology
paper comes here telling us to do more rigorious research. I am out of words
.
Most psychologists are low key, and they won't be fighting back because they
are poor and need the money. Since I am not earning my paycheck pleasing
NIH or NSF, I really don't care. Let me tell you, biology is wasting our
money (like you said yourself). You guys should just fuck |
r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 22 Glad to see you still have so much fire power in you. @_^
words
they
drag
【在 h*i 的大作中提到】
: 但是你们也应当正视自己的问题，做更严谨的研究。
: ___________________________________________
: This is an outrage. A biology guy who never read a single one psychology
: paper comes here telling us to do more rigorious research. I am out of words
: .
: Most psychologists are low key, and they won't be fighting back because they
: are poor and need the money. Since I am not earning my paycheck pleasing
: NIH or NSF, I really don't care. Let me tell you, biology is wasting our
: money (like you said yourself). You guys should just fuck
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 23 "Most psychologists are low key, and they won't be fighting back because
they
are poor and need the money. " hehe i know this, and i don't want to
mention
it, because i still think psychology has potential to be better.
words
they
drag
【在 h*i 的大作中提到】
: 但是你们也应当正视自己的问题，做更严谨的研究。
: ___________________________________________
: This is an outrage. A biology guy who never read a single one psychology
: paper comes here telling us to do more rigorious research. I am out of words
: .
: Most psychologists are low key, and they won't be fighting back because they
: are poor and need the money. Since I am not earning my paycheck pleasing
: NIH or NSF, I really don't care. Let me tell you, biology is wasting our
: money (like you said yourself). You guys should just fuck
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 24 "Because you cannot assign subjects to a group as you wish? " please read
sth about clinical pharmacology before you talk about this. you should be
able tell me what are multicentered, randomized, controlled, double blind
trials if you have some backgrounds.
BTW, i know quasi-experiments. you are so judgemental that i should stop
wasting time here. You don't even realize that we are focused on apples
and oranges about clinical trials when we "debate".
How do you know i haven't read a single pysc
【在 h*i 的大作中提到】
: I said, the training in research methodology in biology is not as rigorious
: as in experimental psychology. It shows.
: Clinical trial, by definition, is a quasi-experiment. Quasi-experiment, by
: definition, cannot control everything, therefore, cannot be as rigorious as
: an experiment.
: Why is clinical trial a quasi-experiment? Because you cannot assign subjects
: to a group as you wish. Why is it so? You may ask. I left this for you as a
: homework.
: LOL. This is stupid.
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 25 All experiments are randomized, controlled, and double-blind. But quasi-
experiment cannot be really randomized and full controlled. Can you tell me
why all clinical trials are quasi-experiment, not experiment? If you can't
tell me a straight answer, I am assuming you don't know the answer.
If you know the answer, then how can you say clinical trial are more
rigorious, it's simply laughable.
How should a psychologist act? I think it is high time for psychologists to
act more assertively. This st
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: "Because you cannot assign subjects to a group as you wish? " please read
: sth about clinical pharmacology before you talk about this. you should be
: able tell me what are multicentered, randomized, controlled, double blind
: trials if you have some backgrounds.
: BTW, i know quasi-experiments. you are so judgemental that i should stop
: wasting time here. You don't even realize that we are focused on apples
: and oranges about clinical trials when we "debate".
: How do you know i haven't read a single pysc
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 26 Of course I don't act like a typical psychologist. A typical psychologist
doesn't earn six figure salary, isn't that simple? LOL.
How's my act relevant to this discussion? No, your are right. This is not
a discussion,more like a thorough beating. This isn't pretty. I have to
admit.
read
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: "Because you cannot assign subjects to a group as you wish? " please read
: sth about clinical pharmacology before you talk about this. you should be
: able tell me what are multicentered, randomized, controlled, double blind
: trials if you have some backgrounds.
: BTW, i know quasi-experiments. you are so judgemental that i should stop
: wasting time here. You don't even realize that we are focused on apples
: and oranges about clinical trials when we "debate".
: How do you know i haven't read a single pysc
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 27 Looks like hints are not enough, I have to give you the answer key.
In clinical trial, a subject cannot be randomly assigned to a group because.
..
...you can't assign anyone to the cancer group, can you?
Is that simple. Got it?
I find your lack of intellect disturbing.
studies.
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: "Because you cannot assign subjects to a group as you wish? " please read
: sth about clinical pharmacology before you talk about this. you should be
: able tell me what are multicentered, randomized, controlled, double blind
: trials if you have some backgrounds.
: BTW, i know quasi-experiments. you are so judgemental that i should stop
: wasting time here. You don't even realize that we are focused on apples
: and oranges about clinical trials when we "debate".
: How do you know i haven't read a single pysc
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 28 Just submitted a CHI paper, got nothing else to do. LOL.
BTW, I am going back to China in a few weeks :)
【在 r******s 的大作中提到】
: Glad to see you still have so much fire power in you. @_^
:
: words
: they
: drag
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 29 Did I ever say that biology experiments don't have control? You are the one
accusing psychology that.
I am talking about clinical trial not being experiment, therefore, less
rigorous, therefore, more care need to be taken. Which part of that you don'
t understand?
studies.
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: "Because you cannot assign subjects to a group as you wish? " please read
: sth about clinical pharmacology before you talk about this. you should be
: able tell me what are multicentered, randomized, controlled, double blind
: trials if you have some backgrounds.
: BTW, i know quasi-experiments. you are so judgemental that i should stop
: wasting time here. You don't even realize that we are focused on apples
: and oranges about clinical trials when we "debate".
: How do you know i haven't read a single pysc
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 30 be assertive? then i guess you guys will copy the tragedy of biology,
haha. That is not worthy.
As for clinical trials and quasi-experiments, please read Page 2 of
this book, and you will know why i think you are wrong.
Also you may first think about the different usages of 4 phases of
clinical trials before making further argument.
http://books.google.com/books?
id=5Lzme0a7j1wC&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=clinical+trials+quasi+experiment&
source=web&ots=
GsuIxnrG2J&sig=vEbYMjOqW6bL3qmBaEDZOvXJaSE&h |
|
|
r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 31 No intention to get into this debate right now.
But yeah, giving the other guy a book to read is the right way
to argue your point!!!
If you can't finish, don't start it.
resnum=
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: be assertive? then i guess you guys will copy the tragedy of biology,
: haha. That is not worthy.
: As for clinical trials and quasi-experiments, please read Page 2 of
: this book, and you will know why i think you are wrong.
: Also you may first think about the different usages of 4 phases of
: clinical trials before making further argument.
: http://books.google.com/books?
: id=5Lzme0a7j1wC&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=clinical+trials+quasi+experiment&
: source=web&ots=
: GsuIxnrG2J&sig=vEbYMjOqW6bL3qmBaEDZOvXJaSE&h
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 32 You finally googled, good for you.
Unfortunately, you still didn't understand why clinical trials are not
experiments, therefore, all those phases are necessary in order to get an
acceptable result.
Why? Because full randomization is impossible. A normal person cannot be
assign to cancer group, right? There's no randomization in that. Therefore,
there could be uncontrolled systematic factors...
Why am I teaching you this?
Going home now. This is really stupid.
resnum=
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: be assertive? then i guess you guys will copy the tragedy of biology,
: haha. That is not worthy.
: As for clinical trials and quasi-experiments, please read Page 2 of
: this book, and you will know why i think you are wrong.
: Also you may first think about the different usages of 4 phases of
: clinical trials before making further argument.
: http://books.google.com/books?
: id=5Lzme0a7j1wC&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=clinical+trials+quasi+experiment&
: source=web&ots=
: GsuIxnrG2J&sig=vEbYMjOqW6bL3qmBaEDZOvXJaSE&h
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 33 You are crazy, hehe. You should not have argued about clinical trials
which you don't real know. Read the first two paragraphs on
page 2 of the book i googled for you. Maybe tell us why we need
phase 4 in American clinical trials.
Just to remind you how expensive it is to run a full clinical trials,
or let's say, a thorough experiment on human beings. The truth
is all the money we waste on basic research is considered nothing
compared to those put into clinical trials. Only economic interests
【在 h*i 的大作中提到】
: Looks like hints are not enough, I have to give you the answer key.
: In clinical trial, a subject cannot be randomly assigned to a group because.
: ..
: ...you can't assign anyone to the cancer group, can you?
: Is that simple. Got it?
: I find your lack of intellect disturbing.
:
: studies.
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 34 You are right. hehe
Thanks for your comment.
【在 r******s 的大作中提到】
: No intention to get into this debate right now.
: But yeah, giving the other guy a book to read is the right way
: to argue your point!!!
: If you can't finish, don't start it.
:
: resnum=
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 35 You are stupid. That book you googled just proves my point: clinical trial
is not rigorious, therefore, more care need to be taken, therefore, more
expensive to do.
Why clinical trial is not rigorious? Because real control is not possible.
If you want to have real control in medicine, you will have to commit anti-
humanity crimes, like Japanese 731 did in the 1940s (that's why US got their
data and saved those war criminals' ass).
Which part of that you don't understand? Your stupidity is beyond
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: You are crazy, hehe. You should not have argued about clinical trials
: which you don't real know. Read the first two paragraphs on
: page 2 of the book i googled for you. Maybe tell us why we need
: phase 4 in American clinical trials.
: Just to remind you how expensive it is to run a full clinical trials,
: or let's say, a thorough experiment on human beings. The truth
: is all the money we waste on basic research is considered nothing
: compared to those put into clinical trials. Only economic interests
|
d**e
发帖数: 9591 | 36 ###此帖已应当事人要求删除###
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，个人认为心理不见得比生物有前途，别看现在生物一片劝退的样子。但是心理学
: 科明显比生物年轻简单，而且似乎更容易激发兴趣。
|
d**e
发帖数: 9591 | 37 ###此帖已应当事人要求删除###
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: You are right. hehe
: Thanks for your comment.
|
y******g
发帖数: 317 | 38 hehe,
严重同意
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: 见笑，还是不多说了。
: 生物，尤其是以应用为目的的生物学由于资金大量涌入，前期研究过于微观，繁复，
: sometime in a wrong way。其
: 实对老鼠有效的药，对狗不见得有效，在猴子上成立的，在人可能有问题。男人和女人
: 也不同。前期那些东西玩玩就是
: 了，应用研究还是别从那开始。个人认为别想着先做一堆再靠data mining 来排除。
: 而心理学的试验对象大多是人，无可非议，做起来很直接。认知科学上的发现，从猴子
: 上得到的结论assume在人上也可以是成立的。
: 我说的simple young 与历史无关， 是 in a good way. 说明心理学还比较直指人心，
: 容易引起兴趣。
|
d**e
发帖数: 9591 | 39 ###此帖已应当事人要求删除###
【在 y******g 的大作中提到】
: hehe,
: 严重同意
|
A***A
发帖数: 98 | 40 Wow. I haven't checked back here for a while and missed out a fierce debate
. |
|
|
s*******g
发帖数: 41 | 41 u should join this, lol
debate
【在 A***A 的大作中提到】
: Wow. I haven't checked back here for a while and missed out a fierce debate
: .
|
f********e
发帖数: 5 | 42 我现在在国内大二，如果想要两年后申请美国心理方向的MASTER或PHD，除了考托福和
GRE还要做什么额外的准备呢？还有，不知道这个方向的奖学金会不会很难申请。请师
兄师姐们赐教，谢谢 |
f********e
发帖数: 5 | 43 怎么没人理呢？真的很需要师兄师姐们的帮助
【在 f********e 的大作中提到】
: 我现在在国内大二，如果想要两年后申请美国心理方向的MASTER或PHD，除了考托福和
: GRE还要做什么额外的准备呢？还有，不知道这个方向的奖学金会不会很难申请。请师
: 兄师姐们赐教，谢谢
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 44 搞明白心理学是咋回事先。
我个人不看好学生物的转心理学。呵呵。
【在 f********e 的大作中提到】
: 我现在在国内大二，如果想要两年后申请美国心理方向的MASTER或PHD，除了考托福和
: GRE还要做什么额外的准备呢？还有，不知道这个方向的奖学金会不会很难申请。请师
: 兄师姐们赐教，谢谢
|
r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 45 Even God only helps who help themselves.
You have a lot of homework to do before crying for help.
It's big deal for your life. Don't be lazy.
【在 f********e 的大作中提到】
: 怎么没人理呢？真的很需要师兄师姐们的帮助
|
j********i
发帖数: 2412 | 46 对，大二学生先搞清楚为啥要转心理
是不是觉得有钱途？而不是有兴趣
才大二，学什么都可以转
【在 h*i 的大作中提到】
: 搞明白心理学是咋回事先。
: 我个人不看好学生物的转心理学。呵呵。
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 47 呵呵，个人认为心理不见得比生物有前途，别看现在生物一片劝退的样子。但是心理学
科明显比生物年轻简单，而且似乎更容易激发兴趣。 |
r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 48 心理学怎么个比生物学年轻简单？让大家受受教育。
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，个人认为心理不见得比生物有前途，别看现在生物一片劝退的样子。但是心理学
: 科明显比生物年轻简单，而且似乎更容易激发兴趣。
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 49 见笑，还是不多说了。
生物，尤其是以应用为目的的生物学由于资金大量涌入，前期研究过于微观，繁复，
sometime in a wrong way。其
实对老鼠有效的药，对狗不见得有效，在猴子上成立的，在人可能有问题。男人和女人
也不同。前期那些东西玩玩就是
了，应用研究还是别从那开始。个人认为别想着先做一堆再靠data mining 来排除。
而心理学的试验对象大多是人，无可非议，做起来很直接。认知科学上的发现，从猴子
上得到的结论assume在人上也可以是成立的。
我说的simple young 与历史无关， 是 in a good way. 说明心理学还比较直指人心，
容易引起兴趣。
【在 r******s 的大作中提到】
: 心理学怎么个比生物学年轻简单？让大家受受教育。
|
h***3
发帖数: 26 | 50 我个人认为生物的基础研究是应用研究的基础和前沿，怎么就能说生物基础研究太微观
，和应用没关系呢？？杂交水稻，乙肝疫苗，能救多少人你知道么？
只能是说生物太复杂，人类还有很长很长的路要走。如果你说生物前期研究没用，那你
说说，想要发展医学，农业，甚至工业什么的要怎么研究，你给nih指点一下呢
心理学起源于哲学，你能说哲学比生物简单么？好像这种比较本身就不成立，有时候人
们试图给心理学界定field，可是这不容易，为什么非要界定呢？
脑科学与心理学的严格分界线又在哪里呢？ |
|
|
r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 51 年轻怎么会和历史无关呢？
生物学和心理学作为独立的科学都开始于19世纪。
说心理学比生物学简单就不知道从何说起了。
我还没见到那个比较心理家assume猴子用猴子作认知实验就可以了，
反正在人身上是可以成立的。
You got to do better than this to make big claims like those.
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: 见笑，还是不多说了。
: 生物，尤其是以应用为目的的生物学由于资金大量涌入，前期研究过于微观，繁复，
: sometime in a wrong way。其
: 实对老鼠有效的药，对狗不见得有效，在猴子上成立的，在人可能有问题。男人和女人
: 也不同。前期那些东西玩玩就是
: 了，应用研究还是别从那开始。个人认为别想着先做一堆再靠data mining 来排除。
: 而心理学的试验对象大多是人，无可非议，做起来很直接。认知科学上的发现，从猴子
: 上得到的结论assume在人上也可以是成立的。
: 我说的simple young 与历史无关， 是 in a good way. 说明心理学还比较直指人心，
: 容易引起兴趣。
|
h*****t
发帖数: 1478 | 52 我怎么觉得你好像说反了。
用动物做的实验，很多时候对CONFOUND VARIABLES比较好控制，但是用人就很难了。
另外，从猴子身上得到的结论，还没人敢ASSUME可以延伸到人类。
最后，我同意你说的心理学似乎比较容易引起兴趣，尤其是对于没学过心理学的人来说。
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: 见笑，还是不多说了。
: 生物，尤其是以应用为目的的生物学由于资金大量涌入，前期研究过于微观，繁复，
: sometime in a wrong way。其
: 实对老鼠有效的药，对狗不见得有效，在猴子上成立的，在人可能有问题。男人和女人
: 也不同。前期那些东西玩玩就是
: 了，应用研究还是别从那开始。个人认为别想着先做一堆再靠data mining 来排除。
: 而心理学的试验对象大多是人，无可非议，做起来很直接。认知科学上的发现，从猴子
: 上得到的结论assume在人上也可以是成立的。
: 我说的simple young 与历史无关， 是 in a good way. 说明心理学还比较直指人心，
: 容易引起兴趣。
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 53 Anyway, I studied medicine first and then did research on neuroscience, and
then biophysics/biomedical engineering.
I also have some experience on drug development. So I
guess my argument is not in the vacuum. Some mentioned NIH as a successful
authority in his/her post, but I have to remind you that this is not necessarily
true. NIH might represent medical research during a period of time, but
please don't consider it the only "truth" in this realm, let alone the
mainstream for ever. With the influence of NIH, basic medical sciences
became very misleading and controversial in the past decades. Let's wait and
see whether I am wrong about NIH and biology, and what will happen in this century.
I might be wrong especially "认知科学上的发现，从猴子上得到的结论assume在人
上也可以是成立的 ", but that was exactly what a graduate student from a
prestigious psychology department told me when I questioned his project.
Also, when I discussed their projects with my roommate from psychology
department, she gave me the same feeling. To put it more precisely, clinical
trials are theoretically and practically much more rigorous than
psychological experiments.
Biology papers published even on Nature or Science can
be deadly wrong and unrepeatable. I guess this is abnormal in psychology.
That is why I think psychology is still a young and promising science.
Thanks for all the replies and sorry for my belated and inconvenient
response. My previous note definitely need polishing, especially in front of
such a professional audience here. |
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 54 I said these based on my own experience on both biology and medicine.
Modern biology consumes tons of money and resource, while more than 90%
of medical treatment is NOT based on development of biology. Agriculture
such as 杂交水稻 is NOT a fruit of modern biology either.
Medicine and agriculture have their own history and developing pathes, I have
to say they are independent from modern biology. Biology might help these two
attractive subjects if human beings are lucky, but you should not expect too
much from biology when you give credits and funds to this pure science.
【在 h***3 的大作中提到】
: 我个人认为生物的基础研究是应用研究的基础和前沿，怎么就能说生物基础研究太微观
: ，和应用没关系呢？？杂交水稻，乙肝疫苗，能救多少人你知道么？
: 只能是说生物太复杂，人类还有很长很长的路要走。如果你说生物前期研究没用，那你
: 说说，想要发展医学，农业，甚至工业什么的要怎么研究，你给nih指点一下呢
: 心理学起源于哲学，你能说哲学比生物简单么？好像这种比较本身就不成立，有时候人
: 们试图给心理学界定field，可是这不容易，为什么非要界定呢？
: 脑科学与心理学的严格分界线又在哪里呢？
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 55 我对clinical trial了解不多，所以不敢说“clinical
trials are theoretically and practically much more rigorous than
psychological experiments”这样的话。跟两个心理学研究生聊聊
天就可以得出这样的结论未免有点可笑吧？
首先，心理学实验和clinical trial的统计学理论依据是完全一样的，
都是, Fisher, Pearson等人传下来的这一套，没有任何区别。倒是
搞心理学的对这一套更精通一些。不说搞心理测量，数量心理的都
是专家，一般学实验心理学的， 统计学的也比一般学生物学的学的
深。
心理学实验和clinical trial要比那个更rigorous的话，显然是有控制
的实验更rigorous。clinical trial说到底就是quasi-experiment，不会
比experiment更rigorous,这点基本常识都没有，谈什么作研究？
至于说到实践，这差别就大了。心理学基本上还是维持了科学的严肃
性的。作假的有没有？当然有，我个人知道的一个中国的搞认知的院士，
名字就不提了，就作假。被不被国际学术界承认？没人认。
心理学没有生物学那样的恶性竞争，心理学也没有炸药奖这样的大奖，
也就没有生物学现在那样的恶性腐败。一个东西作出来，不能replicate
的话，是不会有人认的。
我很讨厌心理学往生物靠的还有一个原因，就是不希望心理学沾上生物
学的恶习。生物学滚远点。呵呵。
and
necessarily
and
this century.
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: I said these based on my own experience on both biology and medicine.
: Modern biology consumes tons of money and resource, while more than 90%
: of medical treatment is NOT based on development of biology. Agriculture
: such as 杂交水稻 is NOT a fruit of modern biology either.
: Medicine and agriculture have their own history and developing pathes, I have
: to say they are independent from modern biology. Biology might help these two
: attractive subjects if human beings are lucky, but you should not expect too
: much from biology when you give credits and funds to this pure science.
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 56 你对生物学的见解倒和我很一致，呵呵。
不过你可不要以己度人，心理学和生物学是两码事，你们的问题是你们自己的问题。心
理学没钱，但也没有那么多乱七八糟的东西，还轮不到你来说三道四。呵呵。
真正有野心的心理学家眼里看得上的是物理学，现在这些往生物上靠的都是些短视的见
钱眼开的家伙，你还以为那些人是主流啊？不过是一时的时髦而已。跟风的人永远都是
跟风的，永远也成不了主流。
have
two
too
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: I said these based on my own experience on both biology and medicine.
: Modern biology consumes tons of money and resource, while more than 90%
: of medical treatment is NOT based on development of biology. Agriculture
: such as 杂交水稻 is NOT a fruit of modern biology either.
: Medicine and agriculture have their own history and developing pathes, I have
: to say they are independent from modern biology. Biology might help these two
: attractive subjects if human beings are lucky, but you should not expect too
: much from biology when you give credits and funds to this pure science.
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 57 Clinical trials are very different from biological experiments you know.
Multi-centered, controlled, randomized and double-blind experiments are
essential in clinical trials.
Please learn sth about it before making a judgement.
【在 h*i 的大作中提到】
: 我对clinical trial了解不多，所以不敢说“clinical
: trials are theoretically and practically much more rigorous than
: psychological experiments”这样的话。跟两个心理学研究生聊聊
: 天就可以得出这样的结论未免有点可笑吧？
: 首先，心理学实验和clinical trial的统计学理论依据是完全一样的，
: 都是, Fisher, Pearson等人传下来的这一套，没有任何区别。倒是
: 搞心理学的对这一套更精通一些。不说搞心理测量，数量心理的都
: 是专家，一般学实验心理学的， 统计学的也比一般学生物学的学的
: 深。
: 心理学实验和clinical trial要比那个更rigorous的话，显然是有控制
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 58 :) 我们在此文人相轻了，惹人笑话，可能是我造成的。不过我可是一再强调心理
学是一门年轻有前途的科学啊，虽然最早的帖子可能言辞过激，过意不去。但是你
们也应当正视自己的问题，做更严谨的研究。
说到统计, 不是瞎说的，我见过的名校心理学研究生朋友都已经有了美国／中国的
硕士学位，可是脑子里还真是缺少control这根弦啊。面对明显的漏洞视而不见。
基础生物学界的风气和导向虽然让人失望，但充分的control的必要性绝对深入人心。
基本上没有哪个没有控制，没有对照的生物学文章可以发表。
应用方面制药界见钱眼开不假，但是clinical trials的严谨还是值得一学的。这些都
是先行者用各种教训换来的经验，不妨参考一下了。
我本身还算是受过一点物理和工程的训练，也实践过一点，见笑。
【在 h*i 的大作中提到】
: 你对生物学的见解倒和我很一致，呵呵。
: 不过你可不要以己度人，心理学和生物学是两码事，你们的问题是你们自己的问题。心
: 理学没钱，但也没有那么多乱七八糟的东西，还轮不到你来说三道四。呵呵。
: 真正有野心的心理学家眼里看得上的是物理学，现在这些往生物上靠的都是些短视的见
: 钱眼开的家伙，你还以为那些人是主流啊？不过是一时的时髦而已。跟风的人永远都是
: 跟风的，永远也成不了主流。
:
: have
: two
: too
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 59 I said, the training in research methodology in biology is not as rigorious
as in experimental psychology. It shows.
Clinical trial, by definition, is a quasi-experiment. Quasi-experiment, by
definition, cannot control everything, therefore, cannot be as rigorious as
an experiment.
Why is clinical trial a quasi-experiment? Because you cannot assign subjects
to a group as you wish. Why is it so? You may ask. I left this for you as a
homework.
LOL. This is stupid.
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: Clinical trials are very different from biological experiments you know.
: Multi-centered, controlled, randomized and double-blind experiments are
: essential in clinical trials.
: Please learn sth about it before making a judgement.
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 60 Name one published experiment in psychology, that is meant to compare things
, that doesn't have control. You couldn't find any.
Talking about control, you don't even understand the difference between an
experiment and a quasi-experiment, it's laughable.
Let me tell you, there are plenty of clueless psychology students, but they
will learn their lessons soon enough. The best training an experimental
psychologist can get is how to criticize other people's research method.
That's why most psychology experiments are so boring to read, because most
of the attention is on how to defend yourself from attacks. LOL.
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: 学是一门年轻有前途的科学啊，虽然最早的帖子可能言辞过激，过意不去。但是你
: 们也应当正视自己的问题，做更严谨的研究。
: 说到统计, 不是瞎说的，我见过的名校心理学研究生朋友都已经有了美国／中国的
: 硕士学位，可是脑子里还真是缺少control这根弦啊。面对明显的漏洞视而不见。
: 基础生物学界的风气和导向虽然让人失望，但充分的control的必要性绝对深入人心。
: 基本上没有哪个没有控制，没有对照的生物学文章可以发表。
: 应用方面制药界见钱眼开不假，但是clinical trials的严谨还是值得一学的。这些都
: 是先行者用各种教训换来的经验，不妨参考一下了。
: 我本身还算是受过一点物理和工程的训练，也实践过一点，见笑。
|
|
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 61 If clinical trials are so rigorous, we won't be recalling drugs off market.
If you still don't understand why clinical trials can never be as rigorous
as an experiment, you should consult a statistician.
BTW, don't talk about engineering. I work in computer science field, I know
fully well how clueless engineers can be regarding research methods. In fact
, my experimental psychology training is what earned my research position in
this computer science department. If they know how to do good research, I
won't be here earning their six figure salary. LOL.
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: 学是一门年轻有前途的科学啊，虽然最早的帖子可能言辞过激，过意不去。但是你
: 们也应当正视自己的问题，做更严谨的研究。
: 说到统计, 不是瞎说的，我见过的名校心理学研究生朋友都已经有了美国／中国的
: 硕士学位，可是脑子里还真是缺少control这根弦啊。面对明显的漏洞视而不见。
: 基础生物学界的风气和导向虽然让人失望，但充分的control的必要性绝对深入人心。
: 基本上没有哪个没有控制，没有对照的生物学文章可以发表。
: 应用方面制药界见钱眼开不假，但是clinical trials的严谨还是值得一学的。这些都
: 是先行者用各种教训换来的经验，不妨参考一下了。
: 我本身还算是受过一点物理和工程的训练，也实践过一点，见笑。
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 62 但是你们也应当正视自己的问题，做更严谨的研究。
___________________________________________
This is an outrage. A biology guy who never read a single one psychology
paper comes here telling us to do more rigorious research. I am out of words
.
Most psychologists are low key, and they won't be fighting back because they
are poor and need the money. Since I am not earning my paycheck pleasing
NIH or NSF, I really don't care. Let me tell you, biology is wasting our
money (like you said yourself). You guys should just fuck off and don't drag
psychology into your conversation.
And you need to learn psy101 beforing come here talking about rigorious
research. You are such a joke that it isn't even funny. |
r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 63 Glad to see you still have so much fire power in you. @_^
words
they
drag
【在 h*i 的大作中提到】
: 但是你们也应当正视自己的问题，做更严谨的研究。
: ___________________________________________
: This is an outrage. A biology guy who never read a single one psychology
: paper comes here telling us to do more rigorious research. I am out of words
: .
: Most psychologists are low key, and they won't be fighting back because they
: are poor and need the money. Since I am not earning my paycheck pleasing
: NIH or NSF, I really don't care. Let me tell you, biology is wasting our
: money (like you said yourself). You guys should just fuck off and don't drag
: psychology into your conversation.
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 64 "Most psychologists are low key, and they won't be fighting back because
they
are poor and need the money. " hehe i know this, and i don't want to
mention
it, because i still think psychology has potential to be better.
words
they
drag
【在 h*i 的大作中提到】
: 但是你们也应当正视自己的问题，做更严谨的研究。
: ___________________________________________
: This is an outrage. A biology guy who never read a single one psychology
: paper comes here telling us to do more rigorious research. I am out of words
: .
: Most psychologists are low key, and they won't be fighting back because they
: are poor and need the money. Since I am not earning my paycheck pleasing
: NIH or NSF, I really don't care. Let me tell you, biology is wasting our
: money (like you said yourself). You guys should just fuck off and don't drag
: psychology into your conversation.
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 65 "Because you cannot assign subjects to a group as you wish? " please read
sth about clinical pharmacology before you talk about this. you should be
able tell me what are multicentered, randomized, controlled, double blind
trials if you have some backgrounds.
BTW, i know quasi-experiments. you are so judgemental that i should stop
wasting time here. You don't even realize that we are focused on apples
and oranges about clinical trials when we "debate".
How do you know i haven't read a single pyscho paper? The first research
paper I read as a sophomore was a Science paper on cognitive studies.
And it was a good one.
I guess you won't be able to name one published biology paper without controls
either. However, an experiment with controls is still different from an experiment
with adequate controls. You should have known that.
You don't act like a psychologist, just as you said. This is a quarrel rather than a
discussion.
rigorious
as
subjects
a
【在 h*i 的大作中提到】
: I said, the training in research methodology in biology is not as rigorious
: as in experimental psychology. It shows.
: Clinical trial, by definition, is a quasi-experiment. Quasi-experiment, by
: definition, cannot control everything, therefore, cannot be as rigorious as
: an experiment.
: Why is clinical trial a quasi-experiment? Because you cannot assign subjects
: to a group as you wish. Why is it so? You may ask. I left this for you as a
: homework.
: LOL. This is stupid.
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 66 All experiments are randomized, controlled, and double-blind. But quasi-
experiment cannot be really randomized and full controlled. Can you tell me
why all clinical trials are quasi-experiment, not experiment? If you can't
tell me a straight answer, I am assuming you don't know the answer.
If you know the answer, then how can you say clinical trial are more
rigorious, it's simply laughable.
How should a psychologist act? I think it is high time for psychologists to
act more assertively. This stupid century of biology stuff are wasting too
much of our money and taking money away from more worthy cause.
read
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: "Because you cannot assign subjects to a group as you wish? " please read
: sth about clinical pharmacology before you talk about this. you should be
: able tell me what are multicentered, randomized, controlled, double blind
: trials if you have some backgrounds.
: BTW, i know quasi-experiments. you are so judgemental that i should stop
: wasting time here. You don't even realize that we are focused on apples
: and oranges about clinical trials when we "debate".
: How do you know i haven't read a single pyscho paper? The first research
: paper I read as a sophomore was a Science paper on cognitive studies.
: And it was a good one.
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 67 Of course I don't act like a typical psychologist. A typical psychologist
doesn't earn six figure salary, isn't that simple? LOL.
How's my act relevant to this discussion? No, your are right. This is not
a discussion,more like a thorough beating. This isn't pretty. I have to
admit.
read
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: "Because you cannot assign subjects to a group as you wish? " please read
: sth about clinical pharmacology before you talk about this. you should be
: able tell me what are multicentered, randomized, controlled, double blind
: trials if you have some backgrounds.
: BTW, i know quasi-experiments. you are so judgemental that i should stop
: wasting time here. You don't even realize that we are focused on apples
: and oranges about clinical trials when we "debate".
: How do you know i haven't read a single pyscho paper? The first research
: paper I read as a sophomore was a Science paper on cognitive studies.
: And it was a good one.
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 68 Looks like hints are not enough, I have to give you the answer key.
In clinical trial, a subject cannot be randomly assigned to a group because.
..
...you can't assign anyone to the cancer group, can you?
Is that simple. Got it?
I find your lack of intellect disturbing.
studies.
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: "Because you cannot assign subjects to a group as you wish? " please read
: sth about clinical pharmacology before you talk about this. you should be
: able tell me what are multicentered, randomized, controlled, double blind
: trials if you have some backgrounds.
: BTW, i know quasi-experiments. you are so judgemental that i should stop
: wasting time here. You don't even realize that we are focused on apples
: and oranges about clinical trials when we "debate".
: How do you know i haven't read a single pyscho paper? The first research
: paper I read as a sophomore was a Science paper on cognitive studies.
: And it was a good one.
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 69 Just submitted a CHI paper, got nothing else to do. LOL.
BTW, I am going back to China in a few weeks :)
【在 r******s 的大作中提到】
: Glad to see you still have so much fire power in you. @_^
:
: words
: they
: drag
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 70 Did I ever say that biology experiments don't have control? You are the one
accusing psychology that.
I am talking about clinical trial not being experiment, therefore, less
rigorous, therefore, more care need to be taken. Which part of that you don'
t understand?
studies.
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: "Because you cannot assign subjects to a group as you wish? " please read
: sth about clinical pharmacology before you talk about this. you should be
: able tell me what are multicentered, randomized, controlled, double blind
: trials if you have some backgrounds.
: BTW, i know quasi-experiments. you are so judgemental that i should stop
: wasting time here. You don't even realize that we are focused on apples
: and oranges about clinical trials when we "debate".
: How do you know i haven't read a single pyscho paper? The first research
: paper I read as a sophomore was a Science paper on cognitive studies.
: And it was a good one.
|
|
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 71 be assertive? then i guess you guys will copy the tragedy of biology,
haha. That is not worthy.
As for clinical trials and quasi-experiments, please read Page 2 of
this book, and you will know why i think you are wrong.
Also you may first think about the different usages of 4 phases of
clinical trials before making further argument.
http://books.google.com/books?
id=5Lzme0a7j1wC&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=clinical+trials+quasi+experiment&
source=web&ots=
GsuIxnrG2J&sig=vEbYMjOqW6bL3qmBaEDZOvXJaSE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=
3&ct=resul
t#PPA224,M1
I believe you are a strong and knowledgeable person, but please don't
be so acidic, otherwise it sounds like you are oversensitive.
I should go back to work. I shouldn't have watered so much before
making a 6-digit salary.
:)
me
to
【在 h*i 的大作中提到】
: All experiments are randomized, controlled, and double-blind. But quasi-
: experiment cannot be really randomized and full controlled. Can you tell me
: why all clinical trials are quasi-experiment, not experiment? If you can't
: tell me a straight answer, I am assuming you don't know the answer.
: If you know the answer, then how can you say clinical trial are more
: rigorious, it's simply laughable.
: How should a psychologist act? I think it is high time for psychologists to
: act more assertively. This stupid century of biology stuff are wasting too
: much of our money and taking money away from more worthy cause.
:
|
r******s
发帖数: 2155 | 72 No intention to get into this debate right now.
But yeah, giving the other guy a book to read is the right way
to argue your point!!!
If you can't finish, don't start it.
resnum=
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: be assertive? then i guess you guys will copy the tragedy of biology,
: haha. That is not worthy.
: As for clinical trials and quasi-experiments, please read Page 2 of
: this book, and you will know why i think you are wrong.
: Also you may first think about the different usages of 4 phases of
: clinical trials before making further argument.
: http://books.google.com/books?
: id=5Lzme0a7j1wC&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=clinical+trials+quasi+experiment&
: source=web&ots=
: GsuIxnrG2J&sig=vEbYMjOqW6bL3qmBaEDZOvXJaSE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 73 You finally googled, good for you.
Unfortunately, you still didn't understand why clinical trials are not
experiments, therefore, all those phases are necessary in order to get an
acceptable result.
Why? Because full randomization is impossible. A normal person cannot be
assign to cancer group, right? There's no randomization in that. Therefore,
there could be uncontrolled systematic factors...
Why am I teaching you this?
Going home now. This is really stupid.
resnum=
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: be assertive? then i guess you guys will copy the tragedy of biology,
: haha. That is not worthy.
: As for clinical trials and quasi-experiments, please read Page 2 of
: this book, and you will know why i think you are wrong.
: Also you may first think about the different usages of 4 phases of
: clinical trials before making further argument.
: http://books.google.com/books?
: id=5Lzme0a7j1wC&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=clinical+trials+quasi+experiment&
: source=web&ots=
: GsuIxnrG2J&sig=vEbYMjOqW6bL3qmBaEDZOvXJaSE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 74 You are crazy, hehe. You should not have argued about clinical trials
which you don't real know. Read the first two paragraphs on
page 2 of the book i googled for you. Maybe tell us why we need
phase 4 in American clinical trials.
Just to remind you how expensive it is to run a full clinical trials,
or let's say, a thorough experiment on human beings. The truth
is all the money we waste on basic research is considered nothing
compared to those put into clinical trials. Only economic interests
can urge such actions. That is the dirty kitchen of pharmaceutical
companies. Also, don't expect the same amount of input in the near
future that goes to either biology or psychology, because no direct
interest can be generated from pure science.
Good luck! Here is the end of my watering.
because.
【在 h*i 的大作中提到】
: Looks like hints are not enough, I have to give you the answer key.
: In clinical trial, a subject cannot be randomly assigned to a group because.
: ..
: ...you can't assign anyone to the cancer group, can you?
: Is that simple. Got it?
: I find your lack of intellect disturbing.
:
: studies.
|
g**a
发帖数: 953 | 75 You are right. hehe
Thanks for your comment.
【在 r******s 的大作中提到】
: No intention to get into this debate right now.
: But yeah, giving the other guy a book to read is the right way
: to argue your point!!!
: If you can't finish, don't start it.
:
: resnum=
|
h*i
发帖数: 3446 | 76 You are stupid. That book you googled just proves my point: clinical trial
is not rigorious, therefore, more care need to be taken, therefore, more
expensive to do.
Why clinical trial is not rigorious? Because real control is not possible.
If you want to have real control in medicine, you will have to commit anti-
humanity crimes, like Japanese 731 did in the 1940s (that's why US got their
data and saved those war criminals' ass).
Which part of that you don't understand? Your stupidity is beyond
comprehension, no common sense at all. No wonder you guys are wasting so
much of our money. I can live with your greed, but I can't stand the
stupidity.
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: You are crazy, hehe. You should not have argued about clinical trials
: which you don't real know. Read the first two paragraphs on
: page 2 of the book i googled for you. Maybe tell us why we need
: phase 4 in American clinical trials.
: Just to remind you how expensive it is to run a full clinical trials,
: or let's say, a thorough experiment on human beings. The truth
: is all the money we waste on basic research is considered nothing
: compared to those put into clinical trials. Only economic interests
: can urge such actions. That is the dirty kitchen of pharmaceutical
: companies. Also, don't expect the same amount of input in the near
|
d**e
发帖数: 9591 | 77 ###此帖已应当事人要求删除###
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵，个人认为心理不见得比生物有前途，别看现在生物一片劝退的样子。但是心理学
: 科明显比生物年轻简单，而且似乎更容易激发兴趣。
|
d**e
发帖数: 9591 | 78 ###此帖已应当事人要求删除###
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: You are right. hehe
: Thanks for your comment.
|
y******g
发帖数: 317 | 79 hehe,
严重同意
【在 g**a 的大作中提到】
: 见笑，还是不多说了。
: 生物，尤其是以应用为目的的生物学由于资金大量涌入，前期研究过于微观，繁复，
: sometime in a wrong way。其
: 实对老鼠有效的药，对狗不见得有效，在猴子上成立的，在人可能有问题。男人和女人
: 也不同。前期那些东西玩玩就是
: 了，应用研究还是别从那开始。个人认为别想着先做一堆再靠data mining 来排除。
: 而心理学的试验对象大多是人，无可非议，做起来很直接。认知科学上的发现，从猴子
: 上得到的结论assume在人上也可以是成立的。
: 我说的simple young 与历史无关， 是 in a good way. 说明心理学还比较直指人心，
: 容易引起兴趣。
|
d**e
发帖数: 9591 | 80 ###此帖已应当事人要求删除###
【在 y******g 的大作中提到】
: hehe,
: 严重同意
|
|
|
A***A
发帖数: 98 | 81 Wow. I haven't checked back here for a while and missed out a fierce debate
. |
s*******g
发帖数: 41 | 82 u should join this, lol
debate
【在 A***A 的大作中提到】
: Wow. I haven't checked back here for a while and missed out a fierce debate
: .
|
t*****l
发帖数: 5477 | 83 看了半天没见人回答楼主问题……不知道为啥有人说让楼主自己找答案，别等着吃现成
的，上mit问牛人不算自己找答案吗？知道就说呗，点一点后辈很累吗？ |
l**********o
发帖数: 2758 | 84 大概这里没有从生物学转的。。
【在 t*****l 的大作中提到】
: 看了半天没见人回答楼主问题……不知道为啥有人说让楼主自己找答案，别等着吃现成
: 的，上mit问牛人不算自己找答案吗？知道就说呗，点一点后辈很累吗？
|
L*****C
发帖数: 157 | 85 If physiological psychology or behavioral neuroscience is the field you want
to get into, it may not be difficult at all to switch from biology to
psychology. |
c********n
发帖数: 56 | 86 I was really excited about the debate while at the same time worried about
that no body would answer the question raised at the beginning. Finally
someone did, which is so good! |
