finally... some time to blog

After trying to read some psychology for my test, i realized that trying is a key word that must be emphasized here. I also realized that for the most part, psychology is a subject full of flaws.
There is so much behavioural study that is done, from which psychologists think.. Wow! look i discovered that if a person is subjected to blah blah blah, then he behaves in this particular way! call the paparazzi! im famous, woohoo!
I think unless a person is given the freedom to do absolutely what ever he wants, you are not studying his true, unbiased behaviour. i'm talking about freedom of the order of being allowed to throw a refrigirator on you (when the ability to do so is innate) or fart on your face you when im talking to you, ie if i want to. if you give me a gun, my will to decide what i want to do with it is partly dependent on my behaviour, but also hugely dependent on the urge and pressure to conform to societal norms, which in this is case, i guess, that you dont generally shoot someone if you want to and dont like that person. But my real unbiased unconformed undistorted behaviour will come out only when im given complete freedom to shoot you. only then, will you know that i like you or dont mind you when i dont shoot you, or that i think you're a fucking prick if your dead. Technically, you wouldnt know so, because by the time you're this close to come to know, you' re dead, but that would digress from this topic and bring us to another dicussion that will go round and round like a lorry tyre. So, when an observer studies a subject, there are so many conscious and unconcious, known and unknown factors that control, confine and constrict the subject's true behaviour, or distort the way the subject actually behaves- the environment, culture, if the observer is a really hot chick, etc etc.
Secondly, most conventional behavioural psychology and psychoanasysis try to predict human reactions, based on case studies, clinical observations etc etc etc. But how ever congruent towards an assumption these studies and research may prove, and however well this hypothesis is backed by "scientific proof", it is simply not sensible to generalise human behaviour, from a set of studies that prove a statistical majority. It's obvious from so many things in a normal human life that science doesnt asnswer everything. Infact i would say, sceince proves or answers nothing. Now that psychology has gone through a lot of standardisation, the behavioral perspectives that are 'backed by science' are given maximum credibility. This, I think is something that has been secretly laughed at for ages. Science only answers everything we ask with respect to what we know. Our answers are dependent on our previous knowledge. Even the simplest of scientific or mathematical knowledge that we think we know, is subject to questioning, and has a massive potential to be seen as bullshit. We wouldnt know what the number 10 means if we didnt know what 5, 2, 1 or 0 means. And the 5, 2,1 and 0 that we know is only a materialisation of a an otherwise intangible quantity through our perspective of understanding quantities, which maybe wrong to a brain that undertands quantities differently and based on a different system of conception of logic and understanding.