soar.

That's a very weak and unconvincing backpaddle, Garlog.
You even put scientifically proven in quotation marks. I can't imagine that anyone actually believes you said the above to mean that psychology IS a fullfledged science. Not at all. Just stop.. It's getting sad.
I'm going to stop because talking to you about this is clearly pointless.

This is YOUR quote:
@lihea
"scientifically been proven"
Psychology isn't particularly scientific.
.
Atleast own what you've said after you've been schooled.

You do understand that there is a difference between CLINICAL psychology and Psychological research?
While the research uses empirical methods to determine psychological processes, the treatment of these findings are still often evidence based. In other words, people are using different theories for treatment. There is quite a bit of debate over which treatment methods are the best. This however does not mean the the recorded phenomena as observed and tested, and re-tested by scientist are not "scientific". The research is absolutely scientific, and the conclusions drawn from them are as well. How people choose to handle and "solve" the issues is another matter completely.
Please learn the difference between clinical psychology and psychological research, like the experiments I've mentioned earlier.

Your statement makes very little sense. Do you understand that psychological theory is derived from psychological experiments, which has been widely regarded by scientists the world over as a bonafide empirical science?
Do you mind explaining why exactly you disagree with incredibly well educated and experienced scientists on this point?

You don't understand science as a whole if you can say that.
EVERY form of science has "reinvented" itself. That is the POINT of science. To research based on the latest discoveries and research methods, and I can guarantee you there is not a single branch of science exempt from that.

I can only assume psychology is not very well understood by you either, Korozco.
You're right on one thing; it isn't an exact science. Then again, neither is Neuro Science, for exemple. But most Neuro scientists I know are psychology majors. Why is that? Because when it comes to empirically studying the human mind, including the biological processes involved, next to the social processes, a psychology masters provides one of the best pre-electives available.
Neuroscientist often use the same experimental designs as "purely" psychologica researchers do. Although in practice they both do close to the same thing and the lines between each science is very unclear. I'm telling you this so you can understand that the lines you're drawing are arbitrary and, most of all, not founded in any understanding of either of these fields.

The results I have spoken of are, as always, done using empirical methods, well researched and replicated over large number of different groups and have consistently produced the SAME results. In Asia, in North America, in Europe, no matter where these studies are done, they produce the SAME results.
You can say you don't want to believe it, and that's your right, but scientifically these are well established FACTS.

Then you don't understand the way psychological studies are done. It IS a science, because it uses empirical research methods.

The above example is literally from a study were a group of scientist had 2 perfect healthy students work with eachother on a project, when one was told tbefore hand that he other had a mental disorder the way they treated them chnged significantly.
They same has been found when dealing with women, minorities and older people.
The MOST EFFECTIVE WAY to combat stereotyping and discrimination has scientifically been proven to be consistantly seeing the marginalised group in counter-stereotypical behaviour and roles. Unfortunately that is hard to put into practise because stereotypes continue to keep marginalised groups OUT of those roles.

Ok, from a psychological perspective I've got this to add:
Firstly let me say that discrimination is real, and it happens everyday. This is the 1st thing we learn in social psy in our first year. The 2nd thing we learn is that one of the things perpetuating the discrimination is that people that are discriminated against (whether because of sex, race, religion or age) are "type casted" they are offered certain roles in social settings, certain jobs in bussiness settings and so on. They are often subtly discouraged from behaviours and roles that oppose the stereotype. For example; if I told you you had to do a school assignment with someone who was diagnosed with a mental disorder, how would you react? Would you be afraid? Thread lightly around them in order not to "trigger" anything? Would you expect them to be less intelligent and do more work yourself? If you are like the majority of people, the answer would be "yes" to all counts. Eventhough it is not warrented.

@gaming
I study psy. I'm only telling you this because a large part of a psy students curriculum is statistics. I work with statistics almost everyday and understand it quite well.
Take a selection of the best performing students in your highschool, hell, take a 160 of the best performing students in your state, the chances of there not being even a single non-caucasian amongst them is very small.
Now in a comparatively small community like the acting community, the chances of selecting someone non-caucasian should be HIGHER, not lower. Still, at the oscars we see the exact opposite. Why is that??

@ Novelus.
Firstly, you asume I'm not white? This isn't a matter of us vs them, or you vs me.
Secondly, look at the dates you qouted. Apart from the song, none of them are from the last 2 years.
All I'm saying is that I find it odd that so few non-caucasians have been nominated in these past few years. Have there really only been good acting performances by caucasians? To be honest I really doubt that.

Once in a while being key here. If it happened once, yeah sure, that can happen, but 2 years in a row? There are around 24 awards each year, and 4 nominees for each of them, but for 2 years in a row there hasn't even a single nominee that isn't caucasian.
That's a 160 filled seats without even a single non-caucasian nominee. That doesn't smell fishy to you?

Ahhh, now I get it! I kinda wanna watch it again, just to pay more attention to Azula this time 'round :)