Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: Any good sports pyschology books?

  1. #41
    Possibly Killed Micheal Jackson
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,272

    Default

    Been reading the link you posted Rosi, some interesting stuff there.Need to print the rest off and work through it this week. Thanks

    I have actually been reading a few psychology/self help (though I swore I would never read a self help book) books recently,not sport based but regarding my career and have found it pretty useful in everyday life too.

  2. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander1980 View Post
    The problem with psychology is that it is based on generalisation of mean population and is not a science at all.
    Given your hypothesis, what they suggest would only be approriate to the majority of people. seems like they could be hitting the target for most people out there?


    Quote Originally Posted by highlander1980 View Post
    You are better off chatting to your coach or a more experienced fighter
    and by this measure you are limiting yourself to the learnings and experiences of your coach and the people that he has met as opposed to the "generalisation of the mean peoplulation"?

  3. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlameBoy View Post
    Given your hypothesis, what they suggest would only be approriate to the majority of people. seems like they could be hitting the target for most people out there?




    and by this measure you are limiting yourself to the learnings and experiences of your coach and the people that he has met as opposed to the "generalisation of the mean peoplulation"?
    the point is that experience of something is usually better than a theoretical grasp when talking about emotional response to a high stress situation. Thats why a lot of the best counsellors for addiction are former addicts themselves.

    My major concern with psychology is that the tests and experiments are not conducted in a scientific manner (double blind for example) and therefore are usually skewed by the methods used to get the results as they are trying to support their own hypothesis. Most psychology studies would be thrown out of a medical or scientific journal of note due to the way they are conducted.

    And as for a rule being generally true helping thats not the way that science works. if a theory is shown to be incorrect for one case then either the theory is modified or the theory is thrown out. This is not done in psychology which is why it is not science.

    I am not denying that psychologist can help certain people but it is no more than the placebo effect of believing you are being treated, For anything serious peopl are refered to psychaitrists who are qualified doctors and therefore are subject to proper checks and balances by the british medical council, Anyone can set themselves up as a psychologist as it is an unregulated industry.

  4. #44
    Rosi Sexton
    Pro Fighter
    Female MMA Mod
    Rosi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Manchester and Liverpool
    Posts
    2,022

    Default

    And as for a rule being generally true helping thats not the way that science works. if a theory is shown to be incorrect for one case then either the theory is modified or the theory is thrown out. This is not done in psychology which is why it is not science.
    Different branches of science have different methodology. In physics, for a law to be true, it needs to be true all the time. Medicine, for example, is a different case - the studies are based on a statistical analysis of the results: in other words, the result may not be true for all of the subjects. As is psychology.

    Many studies published in medical journals are epidemiological, for example. And that opens up a whole can of worms when it comes to validity. But it's still done, because it is one way to get at information that is very hard to get at in other ways. On the other hand, many psychological studies are extremely well designed and the people conducting them go to great lengths to eliminate sources of bias.

    As for the objection about studies being "double blind" - this is not the only scientifically valid way to conduct a trial. It is the gold standard in medicine, for example, but it's not possible to apply it in all cases, which is why there are other methods available - whether in medicine, psychology or other branches of science. To suggest that double blind trials are the only scientifically valid ones and that if you can't do a double blind trial then you might as well not bother is simply ignorant of how science works.

    I am not denying that psychologist can help certain people but it is no more than the placebo effect of believing you are being treated, For anything serious peopl are refered to psychaitrists who are qualified doctors and therefore are subject to proper checks and balances by the british medical council, Anyone can set themselves up as a psychologist as it is an unregulated industry.
    Psychology and psychiatry are like apples and oranges. Psychiatrists treat people with diagnosed mental illnesses. Sports psychology deals with mentally healthy people who wish to improve their performance. Two entirely different things.

    Incidentally if you think that psychology is all "unscientific", then you'd be shocked at some of the things that go on in medicine... but that's another story.
    Last edited by Rosi; 16-10-2008 at 02:38 PM.
    Looking for injury, rehab or nutrition advice? visit combatsportsclinic.com

    Fighting out of Next Generation

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This website uses cookies to enhance user experience. They can be disabled at any time. Please see our FAQ's for details.