Metrology: A Treasure Trove of Potential in the Psychology Sciences

[blogsterinhodo]

Western science dictates that numbers are the basis for mathematics, and thus function as foundational to any technology, manufacturing, or science in 2019 and beyond. Actuary mathematics and quantum physics are fields in which the seemingly endless potential and application of number sciences and quantification are explored. But what are the applications of these sciences to areas of business and industry? 

As a psychologist, I am intimately familiar with the protocols for using statistics in research and experimentation to test the validity of a given phenomenon. A decade ago, a psychological study with a million participates would have been a singular achievement of generational importance, but today using big data to extract data is as commonplace as tying one’s shoes. This does though beg the question of whether the field of psychology is up to the task of taming the wild forces present in number sets at such a scale. One thing I had already encountered with increasing regularity, however, was the limitations imposed on the field of psychology by its out of date metrology--that is, the study of measurement that governs the way we qualify data sets. In other words, what I found to be a prevailing struggle among psychologists was their differing command of statistics, thus contributing to issues of misinterpretations and the proliferations of tainted data. 

This topic is of significant import currently due to the increasing criticisms levied at the field of psychology and other social sciences. To sum up these criticisms is to say that in the court of public opinion psychology is becoming more and more of an echo chamber where the doctrine of logical deduction by empirical observation is being worn thin by flimsy statistics, and where the objectives of validity and repeatability are forgone in favor of tapping into hot button issues and the click-bait version of psychological studies. In short, cherry-picking data has always been a tremendously alarming pitfall of the social sciences, however, in the age of the internet, fake news, and pay-per-click there are more motivations--both seen and unseen--that work at the average psychologist, and thus present an even greater threat to the integrity of this beloved field of science. 

This is a harsh criticism to be sure, and the goal here is not to lambast any particular group, rather the intention is to demonstrate that there is in fact a systemic problem developing within, at least, popular psychology. Demonstrating the reality of this problem is the first step in procedure to dismantle the problem and offer substantial solutions. And this is where metrology takes center stage. 

What is the Problem? 

When levying a criticism towards a field of science as large and popular as psychology, it is important to avoid the two polarities in which such arguments fail. That is, either the argument becomes too general so as to become nebulous and thus non-applicable, or the argument becomes so specific that in its granularity one fails to see the value of the criticism towards the field as a whole. With that in mind, let’s look at what makes psychology such a unique field of study. 

Foremost among these attributes is its quality of application. In other words when we look at a field of science, we tend to ask ourselves what can this contribute to my understanding and participation in this life on planet earth. And considering the fact that literally every experience of mankind, thought, and development of human history originated in the mind, makes psychology potentially the most relevant science to human experience ever, full-stop; but therein lies the catch. It is exactly because psychology seemingly applies to everything under the sun that it fails to achieve a true command of any of these areas at once. 

To grasp this fact we need only look at the history of the treatment of depression, one of the most prevalent forms of mental illness, and more importantly turn our eye to the effectiveness of antidepressants. According to research from 2014, the therapeutic offerings of antidepressants do not demonstrate anything greater than the benefits of a sugar pill or the placebo effect. And yet a recent study from the National Center for Health Statistics reports that a simply staggering number of people use antidepressants, which offer virtually no proven benefits, yet dominate treatment regimens for doctors who are financially motivated to leave the status quo unchallenged. 

In 2019, 12.7% of the US population over the age of 12 took an antidepressant within the last month. Between 1999 and 2014 there was already a jump of 64% in the prevalence of this medication, and sadly the population most impacted by this rise is our elderly with 19.1% of the US population over 60 having taken an antidepressant in the last month alone. Moreover, this area is also one where the gender divide is shocking demonstrable--with twice as many women taking antidepressants as men across every age group (an average of 16.5% in women as compared to 8.6% in men).

You would think that if one of psychology’s flagship contributions to modern medicine represented one of the greatest fraudulencies in human history, it would become a field-wide area of focus to correct and rehabilitate the damage caused. Yet as mentioned above, psychology is only relevant when its applied to the common interests of the day. In the American Psychology Association’s 2019 edition of the 10 most important trends to watch it is clear that popular psychology has no mind for correcting errors of the past, but only fights to maintain its principle of namesake, that is popularity. Nowhere in the list is the misdiagnosis or mistreatment of depression mentioned, but instead we get the following: 

1. A call for psychologists to contribute to the battling of climate change. 
2. A call for psychologists to offer alternatives to pain treatment, in response to the opiate crisis. 
3. Coverage of the demand for sports psychologists. 
4. Coverage of the demand for psychologists in nutritional health. 
5. Coverage of the need for better long-term care of the elderly in response to Nursing Home reform trends. 
6. A call for psychologists to shine the spotlight on inequality. 
7. A call for psychologists to take the world of big data. (While we agree topically on this point, I am sure we mean different things)
8. Coverage of the need for psychology’s role in designing tech tools. 
9. Coverage of the need for treatment in the misuse of technological devices.
10. And lastly, coverage of the growing tendency of treatment regimens to go digital. 

One point to make here is that I am aware it is the prerogative of popular psychology to stay current on trends, but my point here is that is simply propagating the issues here and responsibility must be assigned. I am sure it is entirely possible to offer coverage on popular trends, while covering the field’s failures which continually erode the public’s trust minute by minute. While no group of scientists enjoy uncovering their worst mistakes, and indeed their complicity in the propagation of such mistakes, the alternative is that the public, who are able to grasp these issues, will sadly come to view the field as a joke, thus losing the integrity that is essential for any field of science to function in society. 

As a psychologist, I have had to defend my field of profession far more than I would have ever dreamed when I began my studies years ago. So in my opinion it is high time that we begin to correct our course, and head towards a future of greater self-awareness in psychology. While I know I am not alone in this sentiment, now comes the crucial component of any criticism where I must offer a solution to the problem which I have hopefully succeeded in illuminating.

Metrology: The Saving Grace of Surgical Precision

There is a reason that the profession of surgeon is one of the most competitive and difficult professions in the world. It is because of the fact that when a life is on the line, the precision required cannot be compromised. I use this simply as a metaphor to illustrate a parallel need for precision in psychology. Lives are indeed on the line before us psychologists, as much as they would be if they laid before us on an operating table--it is only the immediacy of the need that differs here; and it is my view that the lack of immediacy has led to complacency and a horrific decline in professional ethics. 

So how do we return to course then and reaffirm a commitment to true and objectively valid medicine? Unfortunately, I think the help must come from both within and without. We need the assistance of a third-party group of scientists whose only commitment is to the validity and reliability of the numbers within our work. I say this because I do not think it is realistically to suddenly require psychologists to obtain a doctorate in metrology--though honestly that is probably what should be required, because any sentiment or abstract conclusion is totally dependent on the statistics in the first place. 

Before going further, it is important to note that this is not something unique to psychology. With the internet and the advent of big data, nearly every field which employs such data is experiencing a recoil affect as the massive jumps in the responsibility involved in the approaching demand for dealing with titanic data and all the unique challenges represented therein. A good example here is the field of shipping freight and logistics, which with the assistance of big data, is only limited in efficiency by the technical abilities of companies to wield the data. 

Companies like Moxpage are creating new avenues for multi-level worldwide inventory management, and nearly every savvy tech startup has their eye on data management in one form or another. So while exploring the total picture of big data’s impact on industry and science is a topic best left to a more expansive format, suffice to say that the solution of increased importance placed on metrology and data management is not one unique to psychology, but is one that is uniquely placed to offer the redemptive stabilization that I believed is so crucial for the field’s future. 

Metrology offers such a strong solution to psychology, because it offers a way for the field to return to its roots in objectivism, because numbers don’t lie while interpretations can and do. This is not the failings of the average psychologist, although I would be remiss to absolve them of complicity, but the fact remains that these failings are simultaneously the result of psychology being a social science that historically fell victim to the problems which have subsequently been exacerbated on a tremendous scale by big data and the motivational nature of tapping into the popular social trends. As a psychologist, it gives me great sadness that my profession is one that conjures distrust in many of my friends and family, who do not know the redemptive areas of the field, but then it is not their responsibility to know those things--it is instead our responsibility to show them. 

[Odyssey13]

Hi @blogsterinhodo  what a long first post you made. Which Fitbit do you have and have you found it useful in your profession as a psychologist?