/lit/ - Literature

>>19460103
Anything beyond "You feel sad? Uhhh here take these JewPills™. That'll be $5,000." Is too much for modern psychologists to handle. They don't want to get to the root of an issue and they would NEVER suggets that someone's lifestyle is causing them psychic distress. You aren't allowed to ever criticize someones life choices because that would be X-phobic or judgemental. Men will do anything to avoid confronting their own souls. Women, of course, have no souls.

>>19460103
Because modern psychology objectifies man and Jung was dealing with human subjectivity. Psychology has gone backwards over the past 60 years or so.

>>19460103
>wanna get into psych
>cant criticize clients/show issues they have or else
kinda turned off now.
Also Jung is great.

>>19460155
>>19460139
I'm majoring in psych and my abnormal psych class teaches CBT, social learning theory, family systems theory, and attachment theory. Freud gets one lecture at the beginning but is mostly irrelevant aside from his influence and historical significance. Jung's name was mentioned once but his ideas weren't even described.
>>19460170
I've had a psychotherapist who criticized my pot smoking and a psychiatrist who refused to assess me for ADHD unless I quit and ended up admitting he was unqualified to do so when I did. You can be critical of people you just have to have the communication skills to do so without insulting them. As a therapist that's actually necessary because your role isn't just to tell it as it is but to act out a healthy personality which is healing in and of itself.

>>19460220
Seems fun. They're right in having you quit btw.

>>19460139
One of the first things my psychologist asked me to do was fill in a schedule of all the activities that I do in one week so that we can figure out what I can do to improve my days to feel better. He suggested me a bunch of different ways in which we can approach my problems and left the choice to me which ones I preferred. He said that medication is always an option, but totally understands why I don't want to take it.
I feel like it really depends where you go into therapy desu, I've had some bad therapists in the past too. The best is when you find one who acts like and treats you like a person and who isn't afraid to share their own experiences.

>>19460235
Well the psychiatrist died last year and my new one immediately diagnosed me with ADHD and prescribed me vyvanse on the basis that I smoked pot because he considered it evidence that I have an impulsive personality.

Psychology during Freud and Jung's time was destined for bourgeois to justify their position

Nowadays psychology serves the purpose of adapting individuals to the system, therefore the two authors are going out of style

>>19460103
>"his ideas are descriptive but not predictive"
an experienced psychologist will be able to predict a lot.

>>19460259
pot has a negative effect on cognition. I think the new one is full of shit and cashing in on his cut of the meds.

>>19460155
/thread

>>19460345
The new psychiatrist isn't encouraging me to smoke pot he just diagnosed me on the basis that I smoked pot due to impulsivity. The only negative effect pot has on my cognition is that my attention becomes drastically short term making it difficult to be motivated by the distant future and I read with worse efficiency however my writing is better while stoned. If I write something sober and then re read it after smoking I usually end up editing it in ways I otherwise wouldn't have.

>>19460155
This. I just read "Modern Man in Search of a Soul" ad that's exactly what struck me about him.

Because he is gender traditionalist and tranny academia cannot stand that

What did Jung think about Hegel?

>>19460103
>a retarded self-help guru is criticized by new retarded self-help gurus

>>19460820
Jung was a Chadenhauerite so, very little I'd guess.

>>19460820
Btw if you want to know who's the 20th century German mystic that is the spiritual successor to Hegel that would be Steiner, who Jung deemed a mad man.

>>19460139
It isn't even "you feel sad?" because that would require the psychologists to fucking think for themselves and figure out if the patient is sad enough for the pills. In reality it's even more soulless: they literally check a list of symptoms and treat the patient based in the number of checks he got

>>19461057
we live in a society where being sad is officialy an illness.

>>19460775
Yes but it’s not just that. The materialism a priori accepted in modern academia rules out Jung's emphasis on religion and spirituality. Essentially their biggest criticism is:
>b-but Jug was a mystic!!!

>Muh archetypes
>muh nihilism cloaked as cheap transcendentalism
Jung is the reason why we have so much delusional normies today doing tarot readings and self aggrandizing their egos. Also, Jung is very popular in psychology, this meme of seeing him as some esoteric knowledge is laughable. Degenerate swiss piece of shit, fuck you.

>>19461665
>>Muh archetypes
>>muh nihilism cloaked as cheap transcendentalism
not good enough faggot. try again.

>>19461672
>I already saw your answer in one of my dreams
You represent the archetype of the typical delusional faggot. Fuck you Jungian. Materialist disguised as mystic, what a fraud.
Reminder he said he was possessed by a demon, which is the only logical explanation of him having any intellectual status.

>>19461699
>You represent the archetype of the typical delusional faggot.
shadow projection

>>19460139
t. has never been to a therapist, met a therapist, or studied therapy

I bought his "Psychological Types" and am excited to read it, even though it seems a bit dry.

>>19461813
>I literally told him... actually he never goes to a therapist, you know?... can you believe it?, can you believe people that crazy exists?... anyway, i told him, and i dont know how of all people just me have to tell him but anyway i told him, be brave and dare to be yourself for once time, and i lend him my therapist card.

>>19460103
Here's a serious answer: science gets more funding than any other discipline. If you want research grants, you're going to have to present yourself as a "serious" scientist, and marry your work to neuroscience, pharmaceuticals, or computer science. Jung, meanwhile, is heavily associated with the philosophical side of psychology, and philosophy, unless it marries itself to one of the aforementioned disciplines, doesn't make money for universities. He's disavowed because he's not a money-maker. Governments and private corporations don't see much potential in his theories for material things. If Jungian psychology were a grant printing machine, you could be damn sure psychologists in academia would be singing his praises to high heaven.

>>19460103
>I've had professors claim that Jung is unscientific
What is your objection, why isn’t this sufficient answer to your question? Plenty of writers have interesting thoughts on human psychology but if we’re talking about psychology as in the scientific study of the mind, the interest is going to be in scientific theories.
Not saying i think science is the best approach but you’re asking specifically why people who try to use a scientific approach don’t concern themselves with unscientific literature

>>19460103
Jung is a hack but so are modern psychologists

>>19460775
How on earth could you get that from Jung?

>>19460103
>I've had professors claim that Jung is unscientific and irrelevant and others claim that he's a misunderstood genius. I've been a fan of Jung's ideas for a few years now but I've never quite understood why he's disregarded by so many
because he believes in mystical shit like syncronisity, modern psychology opperates under a naturalist framework and herefore reject his ideas

>>19463104
Jung looked at psychic phenomenon through the lens of teleology. The psyche is always trying to balance and right itself. In the same way that your body will shiver when it's cold, the symptom of a neurosis is always an attempt at a cure. Addictions numb pain, men who live to please their mothers have unconscious anger issues and get resentful, whatever it may be. Haven't you ever liked a girl, missed your chance, and then felt really angry? That anger is a signal to help you, it's saying "That was important, you need to do something about this"

My university is all about positive psychology. Which is literally, "Oh you have a bad thought? Oh you're sad? You have your life?" "Just smile bro! Your problems aren't real, think about how good your bowl of cheerios was this morning". This disrespect the purpose of the symptom, AND the cause! It's literally completely meaningless. They're treating broken limbs (fully reparable with the right care) with ibuprofen.

It's no wonder people are skeptical of psychology.

>>19463104
>>19463207
Oh right, I forget to connect my ramble back to your point. Synchronicity - Jung did believe that it was literally happening in reality. But also that it so long as the coincidence was meaningful then it might as well have been real. It gives the psyche a chance to express something meaningful internally when it makes you notice an external coincidence.

But also
>astrology is real a woman confirmed it by asking my friends at a dinner party
>Yes yes, so the psyche does this when you're sick and bla bla since telepathy is obviously an excepted fact by this point we can see that x y z
>tfw reading Jung

>>19460820
>”crackpot power words”

>>19460103
Jung debunked ((froid)) so some (("psyhologists")) hate this guy

>>19463687
So what is it? He was too smart that I'm too retarded to understand him? But everybody said he was straightforward, just had the tendency to use words "as is" obscuring the meaning of sentences. Some people said Schopenhauer was a genius. Some people said Schopie was a failure and Hegel was beyond genius.

>>19463797
You’ll have be a wee bit more articulate there, son

>>19463687
Based

Could it be because his therapeutic methods don’t actually produce positive results as consistently as contemporary methods (which is a pretty low bar)

>>19460220
why are they teaching about cock and torture?

>>19464200
cock and ball torture i meant

>>19463993
Jungian analytical psychotherapy has been proven to be efficient in the treatment of mental disorders countless of times and is paid for by statutory health insurance in most states that offer free healthcare.
There is no indicator for CBT being more effective in the long run after completing therapeutic treatment in comparison to analytic therapy.
We have to accept that there is mental suffering that cannot be relieved with therapy founded on cognitivist and/or behaviourist theories.

>>19461665
Jung was the opposite of a nihilist. Please go nihil yourself.

>>19462558
Quite easily as he thought Anima and Animus are tied intrinsically to male and female psyche.

>>19460103
Because Jung is unscientific. His ideas consist of arbitrary and abstract models supported by an unscientific and highly anecdotal brand of empiricism that doesn't even come close to the modern ideal of scientific inquiry. His ideas are valuable in a strictly philosophical sense.

What is funny, though, is that modern psychology does not stand to the test of scientific rigor, either. Psychology, since its inception, has always been another alchemy, yet to become chemistry.

>>19463867
There's equal amount of people saying he's a pseud and a genius on the other hand. Which side is retarded here?

>>19464386
The correct classification to live a happy and productive life:
Hegel -> Retarded
Jung -> Based

>>19464370

> His ideas are valuable in a strictly philosophical sense.

Yeah let's completely disregard Jung's analytical therapy

>>19464399
CBT is just as effective as older forms of psychoanalytic therapy. This does not affirm the "correctness" of either, it just shows that talking about your problems is helpful and that both systems are missing any sort of actual understanding of the "psyche", whatever that may be.

At least CBT is results oriented and doesn't focus on any bullshit psychoanalytic masturbation, even if neither are particularly effective.

>>19464370
>>19464399
You're both partly right. Jung isn't scientific, but his writings are exceptionally valuable. The problem is that scientific analysis by the modern standard is actually something more formally known as Statistical Design of Experiments, which is a mathematical technique for generating quantitative response charts to phenomena. The problem is that there is an enormous amount of real information which cannot be measured quantitatively with any accuracy, and a lot of what Jung discusses is such. How do you quantify "individuation?" The answer is that you don't. That doesn't mean individuation isn't real, just that discussion of it is not within the bounds of modern statistical analysis and has to be done philosophically.

The fact that Jung's writings are primarily anecdotal is irrelevant. It's an anecdote that when I hold my lighter flame up to tinder, the flame propagates into the tinder. There is, nevertheless, a causal mechanism which underlies this. The human psyche is enormously complicated, and its responses cannot be accurately quantified. Even MRI studies on brain responses are incredibly unreliable (this is industry in-knowledge, you won't find that in any publication btw.)

Jung's sin against modern psychology is that he dared to dream of a therapy based in philosophy and intuition instead of rationalism and quanta. For this, he has been banished to the farthest fringes of science.

>>19464450
Well explained, people on /lit usually don't know shit about psychology as an empirical science and are spouting nonsense left and right, I wonder where that comes from

>>19464425

Never read such bullshit about psychotherapy before and I'm not even a defender of CBT.

>>19464450
How do you see whether something like your example of Jungian "individuation" is a materially meaningful concept instead of an abstract label for a variety of material phenomena? This criticism is applicable to a lot of scientific ideas but the point still remains.

Any more reading on the mathematical idea of scientific inquiry you mention?

>>19464498
It's "bullshit" but you give no response... I'm not even defending CBT or modern psychology

>>19464513
I understand that you're not trying to defend any of those therapeutical methods but rather devalue their effectiveness, which makes no sense in itself.

>ust shows that talking about your problems is helpful and that both systems are missing any sort of actual understanding of the "psyche"

I don't know why you're trying to break psychotherapy down to mere talking, patients can do that for hours upon hours in therapy without saying anything of value. Language is just a way to acces mental and behavioural structures in an attempt to change them from dysfunctional to functional ones.

>>19464346
>There is no indicator for CBT being more effective in the long run after completing therapeutic treatment in comparison to analytic therapy.

Do you have a source or a study backing that up?

>>19464370
Essentially, except there are some good reproducible experiments in cognitive psychology, for example in priming, which of course also inspired social psychology work that turned out to be non reproducible, as is known to happen with social “science” discoveries. Chomsky especially has developed interesting, solid scientific theories relating to cognitive psychology.
>>19464450
>scientific analysis by the modern standard is actually something more formally known as Statistical Design of Experiments, which is a mathematical technique for generating quantitative response charts to phenomena.
Jfc this sounds like something from a content farm spam email.
> It's an anecdote that when I hold my lighter flame up to tinder, the flame propagates into the tinder
That’s a reproducible, generalisable hypothesis
>not understanding the scientific method
>thinking you’re still a person because you have cool abstract ideas about philosophy
>The human psyche is enormously complicated, and its responses cannot be accurately quantified.
These retards don’t understand science because most papers are spam written by gay black women and they’re too stupid to seperate it from the high quality stuff that doesn’t make it on the frontpage of reddit. Some things are outside the scope of scientific inquiry, some things are not
>>19464425
Very true, some people just like to do therapy because it’s the establishments replacement for confesion. They get something out of it but the philosophy of the doctor doesn’t make a difference.
>>19464825
here is a good article https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/09/19/scientific-freud/
>>19464574
because of the evidence, read above

>>19464357
Yes, but that in no way comes back to “traditional gender roles” — very much the opposite, especially for his time. The tradlarper “I want barefoot pregnant women in the kitchen” would by Jungian interpretation have a pathology via an under/undeveloped anima (generally stuck in the first “Eve” stage). According to Jung misogynists are literally mentally ill. He is possibly the first well-known male psychologist that could be interpreted as a feminist.

>>19460103
Because "psychologists" are all stupid women who paid for school by working at starbucks and got into the major because they have a personality disorder and want to fix themselves.

>>19465985
>>19466026
The duality of /lit/

>>19466044
As in starbucks women would never read a book let alone jung.

>>19464950

>because of the evidence, read above

So you're suggesting that both CBT and psychodynamic therapy methods are just means of placebo'ing patients into feeling better ?

>>19465985
>he thinks traditional gender roles are misogynistic
ngmi
misogyny is homo and Jung thought women were less intellectual than men and preferred dominant males.

>>19466071
CBT teaches coping skills more than it actually resolves psychological issues. The cognitive behavior model is that thoughts influence feelings which influence actions which influence thoughts. Mental illness is treated therefore by correcting maladaptive thought and behavior patterns. It doesn't involve resolving the past or balancing the personality.

>>19463797
Jung said a lot of good things about Hegel as well:

https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2020/09/30/carl-jung-foreword-to-mehlich-fichtes-psychology-and-its-relation-to-the-present/#.YaELNtBBzIU
https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2020/05/18/carl-jung-on-georg-wilhelm-friedrich-hegel-anthology/#.YaEK_tBBzIU

>>19460139
based

>>19466658

Agree, that's what I meant earlier

>>19464346

>We have to accept that there is mental suffering that cannot be relieved with therapy founded on cognitivist and/or behaviourist theories.

jung was a knuckle dragging fascist nigger and the modern attempt to rehabilitate this midwit driven by jordan peterson entrained perennially online rightoids is frankly cringe. unironically freud was a hundred times more profound and he was a pedophile

>>19468096
wow butters i knew you were a homo but i didnt think it was this bad

>>19460407
His best work. Almost prophetic how he accurately predicted the increase in pseudo-moderns (normies) and how they worship science with the same fanaticism that they detest in the religious.

>>19468096
>le butters saying nigger
you learn slowly but you'll get there someday

>>19466071
>both CBT and psychodynamic therapy methods are just means of placebo'ing patients into feeling better

Am I wrong in assuming that all psychology/therapy/whatever is essentially this? Has neurology, or whatever branch of science that studies the casual relation of thoughts to actions, sufficiently mapped every potential? If it hasn’t, then why should it matter what delusion I accept so long as they are equal in consequence and keep me from shooting up schools? Serious question btw I’m retarded.

>>19464425
wait why would cock and ball torture be part of the corriculum? i thought psychs had moved away from physical treatment besides from drugs

i guess it would teach discipline and maybe the nuances of pain and how to mentally deal and be with pain but it seems rather extreme.

you also talk about masturbation, what is this constant perversion?? leave the man alone to his genitals.

I've been cautiously avoiding Jung, so I've never read anything from him. His ideas seem popular among New Agers, and his theories, or at least his choice of terminology, comes off as atheistic to me.

Sciopt contra psyop.

>>19460103
Jung was a mystic. He claimed knowledge of God. Of course (((psychologists))) don't approve. Despite this he is based and to be honest he's probably a good starting point for anyone who endeavors to reconcile metaphysics and biology.

Psychologists lamenting something as "unscientific". Now that's a riot.

>>19460407
Why soul is such a taboo topic in current day?

>>19462015
Good post.

>>19463207
>My university is all about positive psychology. Which is literally, "Oh you have a bad thought? Oh you're sad? You have your life?" "Just smile bro! Your problems aren't real, think about how good your bowl of cheerios was this morning". This disrespect the purpose of the symptom, AND the cause! It's literally completely meaningless. They're treating broken limbs (fully reparable with the right care) with ibuprofen.

>>19468096
>. unironically freud was a hundred times more profound and he was a pedophile
Vaush is this you?

>>19469569
tl;dr on book?

>>19464396
exactly correct

>>19460301
Based take.

>>19469577
hahaha and fuck vaush. i fucking hate that self indulging prick.

>>19460301
What about returning individual to induvidual and not adapting to better serve the system?

>>19471089
Please rephrase this esl

>>19460103
Lack of any sign of scientific apparatus on side of Jung and general unwillingness of psychoanalytics towards adopting one. The info they do actually gather is heavily skewed(and that starts on patient selection level*).

For some details you can look at Eysenck's classic article from 1952(I think it was called "The effects of psychotherapy: an evaluation"). Eysenck is in fact a good person to pick up if you're looking at someone who argues against psychoanalysis because as opposed to the likes of Popper he has obviously impressive record in the field and on top of that he was everything but a bugman.

*I remember once upon a time a famous modern Jungian - Jordan Petersen - was asked if he could help a 28 years old man who hasn't talked to people for a decade and Petersen said no, he's too old. Some people thought it was unprofessional but that's how psychoanalytics ALWAYS did - they prefer working with people who are young, rich, attractive, intelligent and jewish.

>>19460139
>Men will do anything to avoid confronting their own souls. Women, of course, have no souls.

Now THIS is a good one.

What is it with Jung and Nietzsche that draws in edgy pseud weebs

>>19471379
God being dead and the problem of nihilism, pretty obviously. Are you mentally retarded?

>>19460820
He mentions reading him in his autobiography but spends more time on Nietzsche. He's like 16 at this point, so regardless of how smart he was, he almost certainly lacked the background for Hegel. IDK if he came back to him later.

>>19463687
This critique always makes me think people just jumped into the Phenomenology, because plenty of Hegel is plenty understandable.

You try writing a paradigm shifting work in Western culture by hand, in one go, in the middle of a war.

>>19465985
>No matter how friendly and obliging a woman's Eros may be, no logic on earth can shake her if she is ridden by the animus. Often the man has the feeling – and he is not altogether wrong – that only seduction or a beating or rape would have the necessary power of persuasion.

>>19464503
I unfortunately forget the source of the quote, I think I heard it in a Great Courses lecture, maybe Redefining Reality or The Modern Philosophical Tradition, but the basic point is that we see physics as the purest science and tend towards reduction not because it explains so much of the world, but because we know so little of the world. All science can do is take an object of study and reduce it to its mathematical parts. All qualia becomes survey answers. Objects are reduced to their dimensions. Everything needs to be transformed into numbers so stats can be applied. This works amazingly well at classical Newtonian scales and so we want to reduce everything to physics because it's so mathematically certain, but in fact physics can tell you fuck all about tons of things we want to know. Even the leap from neuroscience to psychology is well beyond us, not to mention neuroscience to political science and economics.

Now, what this quote always made me think of is the "inexplicable" effectiveness of math in natural sciences. If your whole method is based on having to use mathematics to verify anything, isn't it a tautology that math is effective for discovery?

And there are plenty of solid works that are more analytical than quantitative, like foundational works. Pierce and Sausser in semiotics, Wittgenstein on language, Fukuyama on development theory, etc.

Man's Search For Meaning is still a great work even though it's not quantitative for a psych example.

I always found Jung intellectually interesting but not personally useful. His student Robert A. Johnson however, has been amazingly helpful to me. Only psych books aimed at the user I ever liked. Also an intellectual fascinating study of myth.

The one of the progression from Don Quixote, to Hamlet, to Faust is really good too. I've been stuck on Hamlet mode most of my life...

>>19470592
>bugman korean larps as a german philosopher
>some witty formulations
>ultimately a derivative midwit

>>19471696
>Bugman
>Neoliberalism
And yet by far the greatest theorist that whole American focused movement ever produced was a Japanese-Americab.

>>19471652
>and he is not altogether wrong
>memri_irl

bump

>>19471206
>In 2019, 26 of his papers (all coauthored with Ronald Grossarth-Maticek) were considered "unsafe" by an enquiry on behalf of King's College London.[8][9][7] Fourteen of his papers were retracted in 2020, and journals issued 64 statements of concern about publications by him.[7] Rod Buchanan, a biographer of Eysenck, has argued that 87 publications by Eysenck should be retracted

>>19460103
He isn't very scientific, but that doesn't mean everything he says is irrelevant. Nothing about psychology is a hard science because you can't do real experiments with it.

>>19473591
Cope

>>19460103
he's actually a misunderstood genius who is also irrelevant.
Thanks for playing.

>>19473591
Jung was scientific. Not formally but he approached things as a scientist.

>>19460103
Are you delusional or do I have to tell you that the jungian unconscious isn't real?

>>19462015
What the fuck kind of research are you going to do with Jung?
Dreams structure themselves according to whatever analyst last talked to the patient. Archetypes and self-actualization show themselves in ways the patient/analyst believes them to. Deep internal changes arrives just as easily from changing external habits (and letting the self be fluid) as deep down attacking the self. You can learn Jung and other system of psychoanalysis, but there is no way to make research on it, it's a bunch of tools and you apply the correct one based on experience and gut sense.
Doesn't matter how much you know what the root of the patient's issue is, if he doesn't realize it it will never change. So we have a bunch of tools for external help and hope it helps the internal. CBT fucking works, much better than psychotherapy, if you want to change. Drugs fucking work. They help you in the part of putting the work in to change.
If you don't want to change? Then somehow you need to be shown change is necessary.
Much easier to dose the patient away.

>>19460243
ahh yes the "schedule" to increase your "productivity" and social contribution.

Can't take people who do hypnosis and dream analysis seriously

>>19476205
Why?

I don't trust "mental health" anything, its really insipid once you become a "patient", and it becomes hard to get out the more data they accrue, the less of a person and more of a subject you become.

>>19476205
They funny thing about dream analysis is that you aren't really trying to analyze the dream itself--that, the patient themselves cannot fully remember. Just like any sort of empirical data set, the most important thing isn't the random noise of information, but the way in which its interpreted; in this case, by the patient themselves. The analyst keys into the various mental associations the patient makes in that moment, and sees if there is any sort of logic that underlies these associations--and mental logic, that is, the logic of the unconscious, can be very strange indeed.

>>19476234
And hypnosis?

Where do I start with Jung if I don't want to read about children or mothers I just want to read something directed towards me?

>>19476235
ehh its a similar thing but I haven't really read Freud's essays on it so I couldn't tell you, though I don't believe he used it as a basis for treatment, since his method generally requires patients to be very lucid and very willing to free-associate.

Jung wrote about the soul

Modern people have no souls

>>19476231
Thats the scientification of psychology.

>>19476196
Goddammit is everything jewed? How do we escape anything if behind every curtain is some sort of ulterior motive?

>>19476243
how are you to see yourself if you don't look at your surroundings?

>>19476596
That's not the only way to look at your self and I don't care for reading that right now

>>19476613
When did you last have a conversation with your mother?

>>19476205
Well, hypnotic & post-hypnotic suggestions definitely exist and have scientific evidence backing them. (along with studies on subliminal priming affecting conscious processes)

I'm afraid you don't have an argument.
>>19461665
>Jung is the reason why we have so much delusional normies today doing tarot readings and self aggrandizing their egos.
lol

I think those people get caught up in delusions of self-reference (similar to schizophrenics/narcissists), because it's extremely hard not to when you experience multiple meaningful synchronicity events

>>19476619
About 15 minutes ago

>>19476633
If you live with her, that's a reason to investigate yourself and your relationship with her.

If you don't live with her you have even worse problems. How attached are you two?

>>19476665
Is this a troll or are you really this schizo

>>19476680
You literally can't go a day without talking to your mom

>>19476690
I know because I live with her. A 5 year old could make this observation

>>19463687
which book is this?

>>19476694
You can just remain silent whenever she attempts to engage in conversation with you and refrain from initiating conversation with her yourself. Just because you both inhabit the same living space does not necessitate that you converse with each other.

>>19476717
Autism

>>19476717
Ok next time she says Good Morning I will just stare off in the distance. Thanks Jung!

>>19476588
it isn't ulterior it's just not expressly stated, most "mental illness" is caused by the individuals choices so the goal then become to take away control from the individual but modern psychology ignores the better solution of empowering the individual to have higher levels of self control - if you want to avoid doctors but get better that's your goal, to be in control of your thoughts and actions. the way to build that control is adaptability and ironically remove your own control temporarily, disregard things like enjoyment, as long as you're happy enough to not kill yourself/still function it doens't matter

>>19473570
That's mostly political thing and some later work that was questioned.

Eysenck got bad rep among you know who because he was a person who turned Jensen from behaviourism and psychoanalysis to psychometrics, even wrote a book defending him, on top of that he was the editor of Mankind Quarterly and director of Pioneer Fund, while the European New Right (de Benoist etc.) at least claims he was sympathetic to them(can't confirm). He had an unfortunate streak of papers about lung cancer and personality(all based on fraudulent data provided by co-author) and the other papers are mostly from the series where he was checking the predictive validity of astrology.

Cognitive behavioral therapy is the way to go.
If I had money and time I would probably go to an analytic psychologists just for the shits and giggles.
But seriously, if you need help and don't want to resort to drugs, REBT or CBT is your best bet.

>>19476808
Which of his works still hold up?

>>19476827
Didn't realize there were still so many Tao Lin fans on /lit/.

>>19476849
His model of personality is dated but his work on it still forms the basis on which more modern ones were built, his anti-psychoanalytic stuff is worthwhile and ironically the astrology papers and book are as well fine, it's just that the topic was extravagant(academics basically assume that if someone does this kind of things, he believes in astrology). Outside or that he did write a book on racial differences in IQ and personality I believe, but there are more modern positions on that(basically as he was writing it the fund he was the director of was financing the famous Minnesota adoptive twin study, but the results were unknown yet).

>>19476621
Literally everything has "evidence" backing it up.

>>19460103
Where to start with him? I've been interested in dream lately so I want to read Memories, Dreams, Reflections, but what would be the best general introduction to his thought?

>>19477739
read something short like modern man in search of a soul or the undiscovered self and see if you like him. memories dreams and reflections isn't that good of an introduction because he references his ideas without elaborating on them, so it would be better to read after you're familiar with his work.

>>19475646
I know from reading him that he has the posture of a scientist, however, what he did was not science. You see the same thing with Kant.

>>19470592
Sovereign control : power over death
Biopolitics : power over life
Psychopolitics : power over mind

Han argues that the first two operate negatively while psychopolitics is something that act positively on people. It's not coercive, but persuasive. Excessive freedom and consumption drives and intertwines with nigh-omnipotent control and surveillance. It's positively enforced control. I honestly can't remember much from the book, but think Han points to psychopharmaceuticals as a big factor in everything— i think they cite the positive correlation between per capita SSRI dosage and per capita GDP. Been a while since I read it.

>>19464353
He is not nihilist in the same way Nietzche is not a nihilist. They merely invent a value system which the ultimate goal is their retarded notion of self. God, archetypes, dreams, etc all get their meaning from the self. Total, coping, nihilism.

>>19460103
Because he was a basket case, like everyone else remotely tied to the occult. You can get all the good parts of Jung without any of the insane mysticism from Nietzsche and Freud.

>>19478315
>Freud
>good parts

>>19478332
Say what you will about his obsession with sex, Freud is still a more grounded and rewarding experience than Jung for psychologists.

Wasn't the dude into alchemy or some shit?

Rank and Becker eclipsed both Jung and Freud. They correctly diagnosed the thanatophobia that drives human society.

>>19478354
he was interpreting it symbolically. alchemists weren't trying to create gold for shits and giggles.

>>19476231
This. I never liked the idea that you can scientifically deconstruct a person's thoughts

Reminder: psychology is psudoscience and theology is just as reliable as psychology in addressing personal and social issues.
Shamanism is literally better in every way than psychology for treating mental illness.
>>19460103
>>19460139
>>19460155
>>19460170
>>19460220
>>19460235
>>19460243

>>19460139
Psychologists can't prescribe medication, anon. Psychiatrists do that. Psychologists and psychotherapists aren't the same thing either. Most modern therapeutic schools focus on what you call "getting to the root" of an issue. Usually there are multiple "roots", and sometimes the issue is that the person sees it as an issue at all.

>>19477289
No, not everything does. Anyway, you can go to pubmed or google scholar to look at the thousands of studies on hypnotic suggestion.