critical and scientific thinking in psychology_kee y. chung

TOP 5 BAD PSYCHOLOGY WEBSITES
<a href="http://listverse.com/2008/09/07/top-10-unethical-psychological-experiments/"></a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology"></a>
<a href="http://www.scoop.it/t/personnel-psychology/p/564213981/the-10-worst-mistakes-of-first-time-job-hunters"></a>
<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/therapy-in-mind/200910/dr-phil-style-therapy-cognitive-behavioral-therapy"></a>
<a href="http://www.noahbrier.com/archives/2012/01/bad-psychology/"></a>

TOP 5 BEST PSYCHOLOGY WEBSITES
<a href="http://www.allpsychologyschools.com/psychology-degree/all-degrees/all-careers/new-york/brooklyn"></a>
<a href="http://kspope.com/"></a>
<a href="http://www.nimh.nih.gov/index.shtml"></a>
<a href="http://www.apa.org/"></a>
<a href="http://www.adaa.org/"></a>


The list of website shown above, I think they give off incorrect information. The articles and information that were on the websites contains a lot of the violations of the “Critical and Scientific Thinking”. In psychology, many issues can be broad so that many opinions, arguments and suggestions rise to the topic. Also there is a point where it can be so broad people start making assumptions. In an argument over a issued topic, one can be so strong in their own opinion and perspective view, can be emotional and be stubborn about the problem. One might not even give off a simple evidence and just assume or that just because they said so, or heard from somebody else.
 The other list of websites, I believe that they are giving off good information regarding psychology. From viewing the articles and what not, I came to a conclusion that there have been studies, graphs, diagrams, articles, and etc supporting the overlooked experiment or tests. On these websites, the problems that it faces are specifically towards one issue and do not bring doubts or questions regarding the issues. Also these website have been unbiased, have information that is helpful, and true stories from the actual patrons of the institution; it gives definitive conclusions that are not questionable as well. Another is that these websites have been approved by many colleges and hospitals that are influential in the society. But most importantly the website was giving information from a unbiased points of views.

Kee (Khloe) Y. Chung