/lit/ - Literature

>>15729444
because people are shit. doctors are shit, patients are shit. imagine you are psychologist and a BLM female activist comes to you. you have two options, to actually care, and to give app and meds. if you care she might blame you sexist racist white cis male. of course it is better to give her meds, and be happy for yourself.

>>15729495
also responsibility. better not to have one. very important guys said meds are OK, give meds.

It's because the form that an honest science of the human mind would be considered radical, insurrectionist, and dangerous the powers that be. Modern day scientists are just lapdogs for the real entities of power (state and capital).

>>15729444
Freud and Jung are shit too, and the whole field is a hack

>>15729444
The only time psychology was good was from ancient times to medival times. It feel victim to the same ills that beset all sciences and humanities in modernity

>>15729444
Because psychology had a collective panic attack when it realized that nothing Jung or Freud said had any quantifiable scientific merit. Statistical analysis revealed that Jungean and Freudian psychoanalysis had outcomes that were just not significant. The field of psychology abandoned philosophy in favor of mathematics, which necessarily rests closer to reality than philosophy ever could.

>>15729444
uhhh, they actually thought masturbation and sex caused mental illness then, fuckin DIPSHIT.

>>15729639
This is either bait or posted by a woman.

>>15729644
It does.

>>15729648
This is either bait or posted by a retard.

>>15729444
Because the """academic researchers""" could not contribute to their works. Analytic psychology is for the most part dependent on the insight of its founders, which your average psych major most certainly lacks. They needed something that each one of them could contribute to in their own insignificant way. The same thing is true with contemporary philosophy and their frivolous issues.

>>15729657
post bobs pls

>>15729644
Yes.

>>15729664
>They needed something that each one of them could contribute to in their own insignificant way
No, we needed something that could actually perform better than fucking placebo. I wasn't going to come out and just say it, but psychoanalysis is actually just bullshit. At its best, it produces catharsis, which itself is a clinically insignificant experience and does not IN ANY WAY predict any change in the mental processes which contribute to the reason the patient is in therapy in the first place.

>>15729444
Because Freud and his successors operate(d) like a cult and thus eventually everyone just got fed up and stopped inviting them on parties.

>>15729683
There has been very few studies on empirical effectiveness of Jungian analysis but all of them have been highly positive (link below). You have nothing against Jung.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4217606/

>>15729568
>It's because the form that an honest science of the human mind
pfft hahahahaha

>>15729673
Why would anyone record their masturbation sessions? Stop posting this image.

>>15729683
>>15729639
>>15729657
You probably want to fuck your dad and have nightmares about running into a wall.

>>15729700
Generally speaking the studies on non-effectiveness of psychoanalysis focus on it as a whole, it's possible that there's a school or two that work better than most and it just gets drowned in garbage(basically psychoanalysis isn't any more effective than pre-Freudian psychologists were and these were basically 100% focused on just providing some kind of comfort to the patients). I'd recommend Eysenck's book on the topic("Decline and Fall of Freudian Empire") if you want to get digestible version of the whole subject.

>>15729751
Proof?

>>15729752
If you were familiar with Jung, you wouldn't dump him there with Freud. There are worlds of difference between them.

>>15729765
Of course, after all Jung "divorced" Freud because he tracked down one of his supposedly cured patients and realised that Freud was full of shit. So he knew Freudism wasn't working and thus had to figure out something new, that being said - did he get it right is another question.

From the top of my head archetypes for instance are absolutely flawed concept as far as personality and cognitive abilities go and you can very well see it by the amount of archetypes proposed nowadays by the remaining Jungians(quick google gave me 325), at that point they're just a gradation of certain personality/cognitive metrics and their combinations rather than being archetypes as initially envisioned. So that's already a crack in his theory. Now what's important here is that the method of therapy comes out of the overarching theory of human psychology, that it somewhat works is irrelevant(Catholic priests have no psychological training in strict sense and yet confessions are still therapeutic).

>>15729813
Archetypes are not "personalities". They are a priori forms of the mind through which the mind perceives and assigns meanings to the subjective experiences. Their numbers could even be theoretically infinite. As I said, you seem highly uninformed on depth psychology and furthermore highly motivated to dismiss it. I'd recommend casting aside all prejudice, and adopting an open mind to unintuitive theories in cases where evidence really exists. I see a certain form of naivety in the scientific community (and especially in social sciences) that could be done away with by gaining familiarity with certain epistemological and metaphysical problems. This allows one to see how complicated it all really is. For our topic, Jungian psychology, I'd recommend an extensive study of Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. Only then you could see how great Jung's undertaking is and how their ideas gain their validity. All else that I've seen from scientific researchers have been naive, uninformed, dismissal. I hope that at least there is hope for reversal of this unfortunate situation.

>>15729444
The stuff to the left is more fun, but the stuff to the right actually works. I'd actually love to get into Jung, but I find that really hard when much of his work relate to the analysis of dreams, which is mostly bullshit. If dreams held meaningful insight (which is hard to imagine, why would we evolve to have insight into ego while we sleep) it wouldn't be hard to prove.

>>15729865
>For our topic, Jungian psychology, I'd recommend an extensive study of Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche.
Fuck OFF German Idealist monkey.

>>15729444
I like my shrink because she uses a Rogerian approach and listens to all my problems but tells me to men the fuck up instead of taking pills. She mostly serves as catharsis diologue and strategic planning

>>15729985
Are you the poster I was conversing with? If so I am highly disappointed.

>>15730006
>Are you the poster I was conversing with?
No. I still despise all of the Jung worshippers on this board.

>>15730026
Jung isn't good for clinical practices, but you're beyond retarded if you read a book like aion and actually believe he wasn't on to something

Its completely obvious you never read Jung lmao

>>15730026
This attitude befits more a religious dogmatist than someone with scientific interests. Nevertheless, I hope you have a good day.

>>15729444
It was always shit. Its band aids instead of cures. Read Pascal.

Too much damn focus on the last 200 years.

>>15730026
Kys

>>15729444
Psychology was always shit because it is philosophy disguised as science.
If you look at Jung as a philosopher rather than a scientist he really is fucking brilliant.

>>15729736
Many were expressly against masturbationn and sexual continence was seen as a virtue.

>>15730330
this

bump

>>15729736
>no dude, chad psychiatrists of the 20th century are wrong because like what if these people were actually chronic masturbators just like the patients under their ward. they surely don't know shit having seen tens of thousands of patients all touching themselves incessantly
kill. your. self.

>>15729683
>>15729700
>>15729752
I'm fascinated by how this discussion developed. First it was accusing psychoanalysis of being unempirical. Next, someone posted a scientific study arguing against that. But the response to that was a regular book. It flipped so quickly.

>>15732393
if you believed all that why would you want him to kill himself? just tell him to 'jerk. off.' you sound mad that people doubt your views. do you place a value on your views that correlates to the value others place on your beliefs?

the argument that people only record what is flattering, and are never hypocrites does reveal a great deal of naivete about you though. i think a life filled with more doubt would do you good.i would say take life, and most certainly recorded history, with a grain of salt, but judging by your attitude i think that idiom might be a bit much. you already seem very salty.

>>15729673
In theory, shouldn't you be able to just take supplements for this?

>>15729568
great quote

>>15729444
The Denial of Death aka the greatest book in psychology was written after Jung and Freud.

>>15729736
>Wanna see me jack me off, Freud

Because it's fake. Psychology became mysticism the moment it separated itself from philosophy and gained scientific aspirations. But it throughly failed at being a science. It's impossible to gain any honest insight into the human mind without considering it's biological aspects and psychology does just that, seeing man as some sort of bodyless social automaton floating through a life built entirely on various social constructs. It pretends to arrive at scientific conclusions through various studies, yet most studies results, and thus the conclusions drawn from it, are obfuscating, manipulated to show the expected result through sample selection, or unable to be replicated. Using the same method for STEM fields on psychology and other social sciences is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and social "scientists" will keep being slimy, cowardly liars as long as they keep this charade up.