What is the current psychological model?

[Anonymous No.14569466]

What is the most popular model of the psyche used today?

[Anonymous No.14569481]

Behaviorism, incorporating the principles of operant conditioning

[Anonymous No.14569504]

>>14569466
My uneducated guess is something involving an assload of statistics because the soft sciences have a raging inferiority complex that only an endless hunger for more statistics can satisfy.

[Anonymous No.14569546]

>>14569466
Conscious, subconscious, and the unconscious

[Anonymous No.14569565]

>>14569466
The current model is appeasement of the transvestite menace

[Anonymous No.14569591]

>>14569504
>>14569565
Same shit, different phrasing. Psychology is the shithouse of bourgeois academics. Sociology would deserve the title, but that's closer to the bed they shit in.

[Anonymous No.14569649]

Cognitive behavioral therapy mostly leaning towards behaviorism.

[Anonymous No.14569670]

>>14569649
This model is gay as fuck. Thoughts and feelings are behavior. There is no separation between the two former from the latter.

[Anonymous No.14569676]

>>14569466
Most popular is free-will adaptive behaviorism, and it’s wrong but sliding into the correct form of determined non-autonomous behaviorism.

[Anonymous No.14569683]

>>14569466
Freudian. Freud is the Plato of psychology (got that insight from Girard).

The best Psychologists are closet Freudians or coping Jungians because Freud is too much of a redpill to handle.

[Anonymous No.14569696]

>>14569466
Ideologically psychoanalyzing people by saying they are suppressing their hedonistic and degenerate proclivities to discredit them. Before the century is over, right-wing ideologies will be considered as mental illnesses.

[Anonymous No.14569800]

>>14569696
This is the right answer. It's the natural consequence of having a field filled with women. Modern psychologists are terrified of people like Kaczynski, who have their own ideas and rebel against polite acadamia, just see how quickly normies who have heard of him will call him insane because he bombed a few people. The psychopolice have already established themselves. See: schizotypal personality disorder. Check out the DSM-V criteria and you'll see that the essential criteria is thinking differently than how you're taught to think. For more historical example of the psychopolice in action, check out sluggish schizophrenia. Psychology's a fucking meme and I wish I never started studying it at uni, should have just stuck to reading Kaczynski and Jung myself.

[Anonymous No.14569861]

>>14569696
Ideologically psychoanalyzing people by saying they are surpressing their ascetic and pure desires through fear of being unable to achieve them, and we label the leftists are weak losers and failed evolutionary beings unable to fulfill the perfection laid before them by God. Tick tock, trannies watch the clock, rope time will come

[Anonymous No.14569902]

>>14569481
Imagine being stuck in the 1950s

[Anonymous No.14569910]

>>14569902
Imagine thinking humans are autonomous and possess a soul in the year 2020

[Anonymous No.14569955]

>>14569910
Imagine thinking humans aren't possessed by the world soul

[Anonymous No.14569992]

>>14569466
Was Jung trans-phobic?

[Anonymous No.14570000]

>>14569955
Imagine thinking
>the world soul
isn’t a cheap cop-out
for “follows the laws of metaphysics”

[Anonymous No.14570014]

>>14569902
psychology wants you to be the nearest possible to an adapted happy sane man from a propaganda poster of the 50´s. so i think is more that psychology is stuck in the 50´s.

[Anonymous No.14570035]

>>14570000
Imagine thinking that it follows laws and could be apprehended by human concepts, and not being fundamentally free and irrational

[Anonymous No.14570037]

>>14569481
>>14569649
>>14569676
More or less this

>>14569800
>thinking differently than how you're taught to think
Reminds me of when I worked with autistic kids. No matter how much you taught them to look both ways, they'd run right out into the parking lot.

[Anonymous No.14570210]

>>14569466
Depends on where your from. In Canada, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is common in the public system, since its often short-term stuff. The rest is mostly a mix of psychodynamic therapy and humanistic therapy. Really depends on the psychologist desu.

[Anonymous No.14570239]

>>14570014
Not really, adaptative behavior in clinical psychology is really a matter of balancing adaptative behavior with the demands of your environment. So, if a patient can be guided to certain behaviors that or not 50's like, if it works better for his wellbeing.

[Anonymous No.14570290]

>>14569466
There's no clear consensus for clinical psychologist. Personnaly, i keep close to modern psychodynamic/ Psychoanalysis. There's some good authors like René Roussillon, Jean Bergeret, Albert Ciccone who have made a nice rework on meta-psychoanalysis framework of the psyche.

[Anonymous No.14570351]

>>14570239
adapting people to their environment is pretty 50´s if you think a little.
what gonna do a psychologist with a disruptive character?... just try to calming him and adapting him to whavever thing they can be adapted. its the same shit in the same vein as always. you have to adapt, conform and live the most happy sane adapted life posible. as a fucking 50´s propaganda only with different fashion.

[Anonymous No.14570375]

>>14570035
So you’re saying everything is chance and there’s no intelligent creator?

[Anonymous No.14570411]

>>14570351
Its more about reflecting on your behavior and needs in a way that's rewarding for yourself without being blinded to what you need to do to have an healthy contact with people around you. As an exemple, some people actually go to therapy because they conform too much to their environment.

[Anonymous No.14570417]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-5_RTREbUs

[Anonymous No.14570439]

I don't know about the mainstream but my personal model takes influence from the following:
>Abraham Maslow
>Clare Graves
>Carl Rogers
>James Mark Baldwin
>Jean Piaget
>Lev Vygotsky

The entire premise is based on an active self-world interaction which is equilibrated, adaptive, and progressive. The pic related is Piaget's model of growth that is ever ascending, ever increasing in complexity, yet remaining stable as the individuals interfaces with their environment; it's a more sophisticated notion of Baldwin's "dialectic of personal growth." The underlying philosophy is one that values interactionism and a more "holistic-dynamic" approach to analysis that is averse to what Maslow would call a more "atomized" or "means-centered" view of the world.

[Anonymous No.14570471]

>>14570439
Interesting model, anon.
Have you heard of pic related or Heinz Kohut ?

[Anonymous No.14570535]

Pills

[Anonymous No.14570564]

>>14570375
Mu!

[Anonymous No.14570606]

>>14570471
I haven't heard of either, but after looking up the description of the book in your image I'm definitely putting it in my backlog. I'm always in favor to an interdisciplinary approach to things that takes everything into account; from the looks of it, the book even takes on a "deconstructionist" attitude toward psychoanalysis and personality theory. Kohut seems interesting as well, since I've waded into the waters of psychotherapy briefly.

[Anonymous No.14570625]

I'm in 7th semester of Psychology, I'd say Gestalt, at least in my circle, but take into account that its a Jesuit University, so maybe that's more popular with humanist thought

For older generations its definitely CBT and psychoanalysis

And except for a few classes, Jung & Lacan were only footnotes, sadly, had to read them on my own and choose optatives specifically about their thought

[Anonymous No.14571066]

>>14570625
Shhshhshh.
This thread is about the "human psyche"

[Anonymous No.14571317]

>>14570411
>Its more about reflecting on your behavior and needs in a way that's rewarding for yourself without being blinded to what you need to do to have an healthy contact with people around you.
in a sutble way you are saying you should be happy and content with yourself only if you keep an eye of yourself as a social body. or that you can only be a good social body if you are content with yourself through some rewarding goal. that´s the 50´s way i refer. the void behind being happy with yourself and having healthy relationships is always there. and always will. in fact, there is no healthy relationships. there is only a veil.
the notion itself of "sane mind" or "healthy relationships" talk more about the proposer than of relationships or the mind.

[Anonymous No.14572204]

bump

[Anonymous No.14572476]

>>14571066
then its this one >>14569546

[Anonymous No.14572564]

Lacanian psychology will be dominant by the end of the this decade, the libtards are already losing.

[Anonymous No.14572575]

>>14570625
Gestalt is sort of an underutilized model i think.
Some authors made reworks of the Gestalt therapy into something quite interesting (pic related), i don't know if there's any english translation desu.

[Anonymous No.14572592]

>>14572564
>Lacanian psychology being dominant
>the libtards are already losing.
Care to explain, anon?

[Anonymous No.14572649]

Depends on what region you're talking about. CBT is more predominant in North America. SA is following suit but there are still some pools of very rudimentary psychoanalysis (I mean people literally using Freud's models in their practice). I don't know about Europe but it's probably something sissified.

[Anonymous No.14572669]

>>14572649
And by "something sissified" I mean >>14572564.

[Anonymous No.14572680]

>>14569992
>every man has a part of female, every female has a part of male
quite the opposite

[Anonymous No.14572786]

>>14569670
The foundational ideas of cognitive therapies derive from Aaron Beck who identified certain patterns of thinking and feeling as being 'automatic'. As in, not deliberate until the patient (with help) makes the effort to make them deliberate over time having first made them conscious. Thoughts and feelings can become like behaviours with great self-mastery but they emerge naturally from the unconscious. You can discover this very easily for yourself if you attempt to meditate even for a few minutes.

[Anonymous No.14572799]

>>14572786
>but they emerge naturally from the unconscious
Garbage. There is no unconscious. You simply aren’t aware of you behavior because it’s not important to you. It’s only made important when your behavior becomes important to others. Then it enters into the field of what we call “knowing”. Just because you don’t recognize a pattern doesn’t mean it’s locked away in some “unconscious”. Really, if you can’t recognize patterns of behavior you’re just intellectually inferior.

[Anonymous No.14572830]

>>14572799
That's a straw man nigga. Automatic thoughts feelings and behaviours are not 'locked away' in the unconscious. It's exactly as you said- you can bring them into your awareness fairly easily, normally from necessity. Just like your breathing or the feeling of your tongue in your mouth, these are both 'unconscious' most of the time. This is where Beck's negative automatic thoughts lie. This is why CBT is effective WITHOUT going beyond what we can bring into our attention when prompted.

[Anonymous No.14572856]

>>14572830
> This is why CBT is effective WITHOUT going beyond what we can bring into our attention when prompted
This is actually why CBT is ineffective and serves more as a band-aid for psychological ailments caused by external stimuli coming into conflict with internal behavior. Look, CBT doesn’t even “cure” people. It just gets them to ignore the external forces which cause them internal stress. It does nothing, and that’s why medication is so heavily emphasized when saying “when paired together with medication, CBT is an effective therapy”. CBT isn’t for legitimately mentally ill people, it’s for lazy normalfags who just need to fix their sleep and be told things that are blaringly obvious to feel validated. CBT is a big fat means.

[Anonymous No.14572865]

Yall normies are sold on the corrupt shit taught in universities and know Willhelm Reich is the real red-pill towards a healthy mind right?

[Anonymous No.14572866]

>>14572575
>self-fulfilment as a goal
what is the difference in objectives between gestalt and a coca cola trashy self help book?.

[Anonymous No.14572901]

>>14572856
For many people external forces cause them internal stress disproportionately- that is the nature of having psychological dysfunction. CBT does work by itself (at least as well as any other psych intervention) and works by unravelling dysfunctional reactions to external stimuli. Here in Britain we use a 'stepped care' model, ie CBT alone would be offered to the people for whom it is likely to work at that level. Higher intensity would be pharmacological.

[Anonymous No.14572902]

>>14572865
>Willhelm Reich is the real red-pill towards a healthy mind right?
such as?

[Anonymous No.14572930]

>>14572856
>external forces which cause them internal stress

(same guy responding)
The same external forces cause different levels of external stress in different people (sometimes widely). The environment itself is not entirely to blame and it makes sense for cognitive therapies to hone in on how the individual mind might typical distort experiences in a negative way. CBT absolutely recognizes that these dysfunctional ways of interpretting the world will likely have their origins in childhood experiences even if this is not the level of analysis when it comes to treatment.

[Anonymous No.14572945]

>>14572901
>the nature of having psychological dysfunction
>dysfunctional reactions to external stimuli
i dont know how a psychologist can say this and dont be ashamed of himself.
a dissatisfied person, a stressed person have a "psychological dysfunction" in psychology eyes. what a fucking disgraceful scientism in action.

[Anonymous No.14572962]

>>14572945
I'm just trying to be clear with the words that I use while we are discussing concepts. I'm well aware that to think in terms purely of 'dysfunction' would be woefully reductive (not to mention out of date). If you want to engage with that idea as it is fully articulated then I refer you to Boorse (1977) 'health as a theoretical concept'

[Anonymous No.14572998]

>>14572962
>Christopher Boorse (1977, 1997) argues that to be healthy is to function normally. Since normal functions are discoverable by the natural sciences, Boorse claims that health is determined solely by empirical facts and does not depend on evaluative judgement.
is this truth?.
if that is truht i reaffirme what i said. i dont know how psychologists dont blush everytime they treat a "not healthy patient". something entirely pseud (in the realm of the mind at least) as "function normally" create an entire field who affect the lifes of millions of people.
psychologist are like soldiers of an entirely wrong idea. what a fucking shame. i know the fault is of the people who believe in this nonsense and let her be in therapy. but they dont know why they believe in psychology. people believe in science and then go to a psychologist, not knowing is the same as any other creepy new age therapy.

[Anonymous No.14573025]

>>14572998
Boorse is the first step on a decades-long discussion about this, with almost everything coming after him refuting his claims even going as far as pure social constructivism- particularly when talking about mental health (Boorse was writing about health and disease in general). I don't agree with him and nor does anyone else really, I was directing you to an articulated account of the view you are opposed to so you can engage with it if you want to take these ideas seriously. But don't get your knickers in a twist m8

[Anonymous No.14573047]

>>14573025
what is the "modern" notion of mental health. what is a real mental sane person now?.
i think is not so different form what boorse said. mi intuition tells me probably the only you have is a politically correct way of saying "dysfunctional behaviour".
and remember, it was you who choose this words.

[Anonymous No.14573051]

>>14569696
>right-wing ideologies will be considered as mental illnesses

HELOOOO??? FUCKING BASEDDD!!888!!!1

[Anonymous No.14573083]

>>14572866
Gestalt is about awareness and experience. The founder basically employed sarcasm therapy to rile clients up and show them they were stronger than they thought. We don't do it like that anymore, unless they consent first, but the idea is the same.

[Anonymous No.14573086]

>>14572866
Imagine being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.14573100]

>>14573083
>show them they were stronger than they thought.
i repeat: what is the difference between this (you are stronger that you thought) and a coca cola disney moral. im not talking about HOW you make people feeling stronger.
but how stupid and trite it is as a objective.

[Anonymous No.14573106]

>>14572575
Gestalt's view of the psyche was really quite Jungian - incorporate all aspects of our self for holistic self-actualization. And the techniques work decently well, they just employ tenets of cognitive-behaviorism.

[Anonymous No.14573116]

>>14573100
What do you think people come to therapy for?

[Anonymous No.14573146]

>>14573106
Yeah, this book includes Allan Schore's theory of affect regulation and proposes a bell-shaped framework of experience and 4 dimensions in which they're used. Pretty neat.

[Anonymous No.14573168]

>>14573116
that dont answer the question. if you make a therapy to make people feel more content washing dishes. or a therapy of how meditate while you are watching netflix. or a therapy to stress out punching pillows. or whatever notion and whatever technique you invent. the fact that people go to your therapy dont make it less stupid and trite. you are basically scamming people the same way tarotists and gurus do.
go inside, i can make you stronger...

[Anonymous No.14573182]

>>14573100
Its not really what therapy is about tho. Some people might gain more assertion by going to therapy, but most people don't go to therapy with a clear goal in mind anon. They just suffer and are finding a way to help themselves. To answer your question, the difference between this and self-help book is that psychotherapy dosen't tell you what your goals in life should be or how to obtain it, that's more in line with life-coaching. A good psychotherapist understands the danger of presenting therapy as a way to obtain answers through someone who knows better (The therapist), when in reality the patient should set his own goals and use therapy as a guide to facilitate change.

[Anonymous No.14573246]

>>14573100
One is experienced first hand during therapy, discovered on one's own; the other other is vapidly expressed and passively received. The objective of promoting greater self-confidence allows for individuals to engage in healthy risk taking that they may have been averse to beforehand, as well as maintain a stable sense of self and a stronger resolve in the face of an event that threatens one's self-concept.

[Anonymous No.14573247]

>>14569696
>right-wing ideologies will be considered as mental illnesses
already is, goes under paranoid delusions i believe

[Anonymous No.14573278]

>>14573247

[Anonymous No.14573290]

>>14573182
>A good psychotherapist understands the danger of presenting therapy as a way to obtain answers through someone who knows better (The therapist),
if this is true, they are a total hypocrites. and they cant avoid the total contradiction and lie within this. people go to a therapist only becuase they think the therapist know better. and the therapist thinks he knows better too. if he dont believe it, he is not a therapist in first place.
its funny the mental gymnastics you do to differentiate a therapist from a self help book and in the end you are saying therapist only have to be a guide, and at the same time dont act like he know the answers. you are only saying you have to pretend to not know the answers. i suppose you imagine some yoda shit or something. its funny the delusion you have about what a therapy is.
people go to you because you are an expert and they only follow you because you are supposedely an expert.

>when in reality the patient should set his own goals and use therapy as a guide to facilitate change.
literally the only difference between reading a self help book and a go to therapy is the power you give to the therapist over a book. i mean, if they only want the "therapy" like some kind of ethereal notion guide him to a change, he read a book about the therapy. but no, he go to a therapist because you are the expert. like when someone go to a church instead of preach in his own house. its all about power. the fact that therapists want to elude it is the first sign of the importance it really have.
the quantity of hipocrisy here is too much to even breath.

[Anonymous No.14573316]

>>14573246
very cute. but in the end is what i imagine a therapy will be if disney and coca cola make a therapy.

>threatens one's self-concept.
beleive in urself. psychology is trash. i mean like danielle steel or tom clancy trash. its literature anyway. but trash literature to boring and hipernormie people.

[Anonymous No.14573361]

>>14573290
>its all about power. the fact that therapists want to elude it is the first sign of the importance it really have.

That pretty much sums up your own delusion. People choosing psychotherapy as a job know well the power dynamics that therapy presents. The reality is, contrary to your paranoia, they know they don't have that much power over the changes in people's lives. You make it sound like psychotherapist all have this agenda that motivates them to prove their worth, but in reality you just know what your talking about anon. You just sound like an insecure pseud who would piss himself if he had to go to therapy. Go outside

[Anonymous No.14573469]

>>14573168
So you have no legitimate interest in any of this other than to tell us we're awful. Did you actually want to know gestalt's theory of psyche, how to achieve it in therapy and outside it, and how they're related?

[Anonymous No.14573481]

>>14573361
>You just sound like an insecure pseud who would piss himself if he had to go to therapy.
I'm sure that happened to him last week and he's still embarrassed about it

[Anonymous No.14573500]

>>14573361
>know well the power dynamics that therapy presents
at the same time they delude themselves thinking they can abort that power dynamics.
you are the deluded one if you think you can when the only authority they have is the supposedly "knowing better of a field". i mean, you see a therapist saying he dont know shit?. maybe as a strategy. but if he think he really dont know shit he refuse to be a therapist. is more complex than you think. the other problem is that i think the patient almost never fully know the implications of cede his own notion of himself to the "guiding" of a psychotherapist. nor the therapist himself.

psychoteraphy is the agenda. psychoterapists are only the tools. and not go full paranoid with this. its an agenda as every movement have an agenda. its not a mad government conspiracy or something. gestalt to make you feel powerful its pretty evident stupid, as i said before, but i dont care, people believe in that shit anyway.

i mean, people saying otrher people they can feel better and powerful because you are powerful and happy inside. the scam is pretty evident.

>they know they don't have that much power over the changes in people's lives.
i dont see any psychologist minizing the change psychology can make in peoples lifes. when i see psychotherapists saying they cant make any real big change in any life. i would be more comfortable. but that´s not the case.
above all, i want the patients know psychotherapy can make big changes in your life. i want to listen more of that.

[Anonymous No.14573516]

>>14569800
>will call him insane because he bombed a few people
Yes, a random autistic math prof. comitting murder because people were cutting down trees on their own property. This is the picture of perfect mental health. How can these stupid sheeple normies dare to question this rational human bean?

[Anonymous No.14573517]

>>14573469
>other than to tell us we're awful.
exactly that. actually, to tell you that your final objectives are awful, stupid and superficial as a disney movie.

>>14573469
>I'm sure that happened to him last week and he's still embarrassed about it
and what exactly is wrong with that?.

[Anonymous No.14573526]

>>14573516
THEY'RE CUTTING DOWN TREES!!!! AAAAAAA!!! THE TREES!!!! WITH SAWS!!!! IM GOING INSAAAAAANE!!!! NOOO!!! AAAAAAAAA!!!!

[Anonymous No.14573555]

>>14573517
>superficial
Only because you spend one second observing it and run to the next thing. You decide how much depth you want.

>what exactly is wrong with that?
So now you want my opinion?

[Anonymous No.14573573]

>>14573526
It's so cool how things trigger and traumatize different people. He must have been thinking about those trees a LOT before they were cut down.

[Anonymous No.14573601]

From what I gather there isn't an established working model that the psychology community agrees on in the same way there is a standard model in physics. Some use bits and pieces of Freudian psychodynamics which depicts inner life as a conflict of conscious and unconscious forces which must be reconciled in the therapeutic process. Others embrace a more scientifically modernized cognitive-behavioral-therapy approach which involves surfacing a patient's irrational self-beliefs and then exposing their absurdity, strengthening the patient's resilience and coping skill by bringing their flawed thinking about their problems to light, training them to be more aware of their emotions and how they bias their decisions, etc.

CBT is not so much a model as a set of practices built around a corpus of observational data and empirical research. The assumed model here is a black box, a theoretical lacuna which is besides the point. The mind produces these outputs regardless of its underlying theoretical structure and these outputs can be worked with in the therapeutic setting to achieve measurable results. Getting hitched on the description and specification of the underlying causal agent's true nature does not directly feed into practice. This is the scientifically most valid approach instead of the wild Freudian overreach.

In terms of academic models of the mind, the model that is in vogue would probably be a combination of the computational theory of mind/computational neuroscience, predictive encoding (variously termed the memory prediction model), and evolutionary psychology/sociobiology.

[Anonymous No.14573604]

>>14569466
Psychologists don't create ontologies of the psyche anymore, they focus on studying how humans react to different stimuli, their cognitive biases and stuff like that.

[Anonymous No.14573618]

>>14573555
its self evident.
if you have the direction wrong, all the depth you can make its in the wrong direction. im sure you see the important and real changes in poor lifes of suffering and insecure people and the unknowable wonder of psyche that gestalt can show you. im sure is intelligent and interesant. im only saying you are exctracting depth from a (to me) wrong and superficial assumption. so you are making depth from a superficial field. if you undersntand.
making people feel better, feel powerful, with an stable self. with a content self, a humble self. i dont care. the goal to get, make impossible a real insight and a real deepening in the mind.

>You decide how much depth you want.
yes, you decide it too.

[Anonymous No.14573619]

>>14569696
i didnt know lit was a commie station

[Anonymous No.14573656]

>>14573290
>literally the only difference between reading a self help book and a go to therapy is the power you give to the therapist over a book
This is incorrect. The reason that people got to therapy over reading a book is because most people lack both the discipline and the introspective qualities that a therapist can promote. What therapists offer is a concentrated/structured approach to positive growth. Psychotherapy requires the client to enter into a social contract with the therapist whereby the therapist serve as an accepting guide who attempts to deconstruct false/neurotic conceptions about the world and the self, as well as enable growth promoting environments where the client is able to discover that which was once unbeknownst to them.

You seem fixated on the idea of power dynamics and if you look at what proper psychotherapy sets out to do, the concept of dominance shouldn't even enter the picture. For example, in Rogerian therapy, the client is the locus of attention; the therapist doesn't advise or force things from the top down, rather he serves as a resource, a structure, and a deep, accepting, empathic relationship. If you want to ignore psychotherapy and zoom out to society in general, Maslow posits this notion that social interaction and the establishment of a healthy social fabric provides radiant psychotherapy whereas every negative/transgressive action enacted on someone only results in the manifestation of maladaptive behavior. A therapist speaks the language of the mind which allows he or she to assist in the client's attempts to articulate what may be nebulous emotional concept to an outsider.

>>14573316
>threatens one's self-concept.
>beleive in urself. psychology is trash.
It's a bit difficult to parse what you're saying because of the odd use of punctuation, but I'll endeavor to address what I meant by self-concept

Humans build up these conceptual models of entities through interacting with their environment. These models may be bound to motoric functions (the standing scheme, for example, in infant development), they may be abstract (such as the what it means to be a good person or what it means to be a suitable mate), they can also center around what one thinks of one's self, hence the "self-concept." Through experience an individual begins to construct and fortify what it believes they are, unconscious behavior/personality traits become conscious. Now sometimes that can become distorted, especially if an individual is isolated or engulfed in a homogeneous community, and when something threatens this deeply entrenched model, destabilization has a greater impact. It's sort of the opposite of healthy development like what >>14570439 was referencing.

[Anonymous No.14573664]

>>14573604
>on studying how humans react to different stimuli
and who say what is the appropiate reaction?.
>they are still making the same

[Anonymous No.14573665]

>>14573618
The mind is only interminable when you don't know what you're looking for. Good luck, anon

[Anonymous No.14573704]

>>14573664
I guess what they would be doing is more descriptive than normative, like gathering what the average reaction to certain stimuli is. What deviates from the average would presumably be seen as abnormal, but it really depends on which dimension one measures when looking at this stuff.

[Anonymous No.14573731]

>>14573656
>This is incorrect.
i say, the power you give to the therapist. if you think the therapist have the discipline and introspective qualities a book cant have, that is the power of the therapist over a book. my point is that the only way you prefer a therapist over a text its because you think he is better at making the therapy, so the therapist cant escape of that power dynamics.
>You seem fixated on the idea of power dynamics
i think you misunderstood or i dont explain well. i dont talk about pure power politics dynamic. i talk about the authority you are willing to give to someone. without that authority, psychoterapy cant exist. if the therapist dont hold the autorithy or the patient dont recognize his authority in the field.

>address what I meant by self-concept
i perfectly understand it before and i think is shit. what you call distorted is still the self. i dont buy this addicted to stability notions of self.

[Anonymous No.14573755]

>>14573704
>What deviates from the average would presumably be seen as abnormal,
this is really what psychology always was. there is no difference. its a social science in a disguise of medical science.

>>14573665
good luck with limit the mind to your objectives.

[Anonymous No.14573804]

>>14569466
It's: "move money from patient's pocket to my pocket"
There is literally no more Jewish "scientific" field than psychology and analysis

[Anonymous No.14573838]

>>14573664
They don't study what's the appropriate reaction, they study what is the actual reactions people tend to have in this and that context etc.

[Anonymous No.14573841]

cognitive model.

[Anonymous No.14573875]

>>14573051
>>14573619
I posted that as a warning on what's to come.

[Anonymous No.14574454]

>>14573731
>the only way you prefer a therapist over a text its because you think he is better at making the therapy, so the therapist cant escape of that power dynamics
I see, so this leads to a couple stipulations then: one, the therapist who possess this inherent authority over the client must make an effort to ethically guide them rather than attempting any type of predatory advising; two, the client must enter therapy voluntarily, yet retain some agency as forgoing all control and submitting to a therapist will do little to help someones mental state.

>without that authority, psychotherapy cant exist.
If one's social environment were perfect and individuals were surrounded by those whom care deeply about them, and within those same individuals the discipline and confidence to face adversity head on, psychotherapy would indeed be irrelevant. Unfortunately, some people are weak willed, or don't possess the ability to articulate what ails them, or inhabit unhealthy environments, these factors almost make therapy necessary for some people, emphasis on some. I think I understand where this sentiment, the rejection of someone holding authority over you, originates; it's admirable, but others may not be so determined. Tangential, but still relevant, are the consequences that are derived from that indeterminate nature some people fall prey to. This is how cults, and fanaticism enter the fray.

>what you call distorted is still the self
I agree, but wouldn't you also agree that that which is distorted is not operating at an optimal level? I didn't reference addiction, but to be addicted, to be out of control, is not very efficient, since some substance has you in it's grasp. I also believe stability is a term that is sometimes misused because sometimes it makes excuses for stagnation, which if you look at it from a Piagetian perspective stability, or equilibrium, has a trajectory upwards. Individuals receive information that both maps onto pre-existing structures as well as necessitates some amount of change to retain that ascension.

[Anonymous No.14574463]

>>14569649
>core beliefs

[Anonymous No.14574480]

Pretty sure all therapists use this nifty graph;

Walked in to my office; schizo
Went to jail; normal

[Anonymous No.14574497]

>>14574480
schizo

[Anonymous No.14574904]

There are some actual thoughtful responses in this thread, I'm impressed /lit/.

[Anonymous No.14574962]

>>14574454
>the therapist who possess this inherent authority over the client must make an effort to ethically guide them rather than attempting any type of predatory advising;

This is quite accurate. Some authors point out the inhenrent power dynamic that comes from the patient asking for help, in which the subconscious belief of the patient is that the therapist has a deep understanding of the patient and what he should do to solve his problems. From this, the therapist has 3 choices to resolve this predicament. 1: Fullfilling this belief by becoming a guru-like figure. 2: Relinquishing this position of power by saying to the patient that he has no tangeable understanding of his psyche. 3: Maintaning the belief without acting upon it.

The third choice is more inclined to what psychotherapy should be. The reason being, that for the process to work, the patient must feel that the therapist has an inner representation of the patient which can be used as a transitional object to boost the capacity of the patient to represent his inner self and the inner world of others.

So, in a way, power dynamic is inherent to some parts of psychotherapy, but it can be used to efficiently make progress.

[Anonymous No.14575101]

>>14569800
>most mentally ill people are trump loving conspiratards
>clearly, we must conclude this is the result of a global conspiracy of liberal academic psychology

[Anonymous No.14575227]

>>14574904
Kys

[Anonymous No.14575402]

>>14574454
>This is how cults, and fanaticism enter the fray.
when people are acritically taking pills because they are depressed. to me is some kind of cult. a cult so accepted that is stupid even to mention it like a cult. i know. almost never there is an independent and critical person behind somebody taking pills because he dont want to go to work because he feel like shit and demotivated. i see psychiatrists like a cult in this sense. they involuntarily take advantage of that horde-mind of many people. the same reason why cult guru leaders have acolytes. that is my view. and for that i think is so important to give no universal intelectual authority to psychiatrists or psychotherapists. teach to people that they dont are the ultimate voice of sanity. i think therapy can help some people, and randomly guide some others who just lack direction or purpose and they can achieve it in any unspecific cult if psychology dont sell in the media like the response to the illness or unsatisfactory feelings. in that sense is a cult. people not go with a critical and serious notion about a therapist like someone with no authority. not to mention the case when psychiatrists have literal legal authority over someone. that is another story.

>distorted is not operating at an optimal level?
i think is ultimate important that we should make a difference between. "your mind is not operating in an optimal level in this environment". or "your mind is not operating in an optimal level". i agree with the first. disagree with the second. optimal level for what?. therapists should say, your mind is ok, becuase we dont know shit what is the real direction or purpose of the mind, but we can adapt you to this specific and ultimate superficial environment if you really want.
maybe its stupid, but i think is important and neccesary. people really believe his mind is wrong only because they cant adapt to an specific environment with his silent norms and deaf competitivity. for example.
i mean. being efficient is being efficient to something. is giving the mind a place, a purpose. i reject that idea.

>>14573838
>they study what is the actual reactions people tend to have in this and that context
i dont say they study the aproppiate reaction but Who say what is the appropiate reaction?.
>them

>>14574962
>2: Relinquishing this position of power by saying to the patient that he has no tangeable understanding of his psyche.
this is impossible. if the therapist really believe that and really convince the patient of that. the patient go back for the door. there is no a single reason to go to a therapist if you really think he dont know shit about your problem.
what you are saying is basically a facade. nor the therapist, nor the patient believe what he is saying. the two are still with the same inherent authority. the patient most probably think is some kind of hipercomplicated and unnecesary advice, and the inherent authority continue still intact.

[Anonymous No.14575441]

>>14574962
>Maintaning the belief without acting upon it.
you cant not acting upon it. the problem here is the patient, not the therapist. the patient is the one who are being unconscioulsy swindled by the therapist. if you dont act upon it, (i suppose you mean the therapist dont be highly obvious in his guru like figure) the patient is still in that situation only because they think the therapist have a deep understanding of the psyche and have that irrevocable authority. you only talk about the problem from the pov of the therapist, not of the patient.
basically i think the therapist like concept is a cult like figure but the cult is psychology, or psychiatry. there is no escape to this.

[Anonymous No.14575443]

>>14575402
>i dont say they study the aproppiate reaction but Who say what is the appropiate reaction?
I don't know with whom you are arguing then since this has nothing to do with my post

[Anonymous No.14575459]

>>14575441
>basically i think the therapist like concept is a cult like figure but the cult is psychology, or psychiatry. there is no escape to this.

To be honest, by reading all your posts i kinda feel like your really too deep in that belief to have a significant discussion. Your conception and application of power dynamics in the context of psychotherapy is not grounded in reality and seems most influenced by your fear of being manipulated by some cult of hapiness.

[Anonymous No.14575499]

>>14575441
>you only talk about the problem from the pov of the therapist, not of the patient.

The thing is, you seem to have a distorted view of what is problematic about the process. You maintain that power dynamics are inevitable and i agree. But you focus on the subject as if the only endgame for the patient is indoctrination, which really tells me more about your fears than what really goes on in psychotherapy.

[Anonymous No.14575527]

>>14575459
>most influenced by your fear of being manipulated by some cult of hapiness.
that is true. also i see people going to the therapy with that hope.
but maybe im wrong. i suppose you think im wrong even in this.
if you read me i talk more about the delusion, or only the reason behind the patient to go to a therapy. not about the therapy itself. the final goal of a therapy more than about the therapy. i think nobody think too much in this. or that it seems. i see the same in the education sysetem as a concept. educaction is dangerous and is based almost always in manipulation in one way or another.
people go to psychology therapist is not something natural from thin air without any substantial reason behind. that is what im trying to say. more or less and with various digressions between them.

[Anonymous No.14575550]

>>14575499
>You maintain that power dynamics are inevitable and i agree.
if you agree you are the only inconsistent here. i let go the power dynamics to his end. you are trying to balance it in a false environment. the patient always go because they give you authority. that is indoctrination to you?. sorry for that. i dont say that. i only say they go because they give authoirity and you cant scape of that authority. that´s all.

[Anonymous No.14575568]

>>14575550
I get that you're engaged in this discussion and I applaud the contribution, but, man, some of your sentences are difficult to understand.

[Anonymous No.14575600]

>>14575568
sorry. im bad at english. i dont have any excuse. and im write too fast, specially the last ones.

[Anonymous No.14575607]

>>14569696
>Before the century is over, right-wing ideologies will be considered as mental illnesses.
It's painfully obvious that it is a socially transmitted mental illness, it's just not politically correct to say it.

[Anonymous No.14575620]

>>14575550
You're not 100% wrong on everything don't worry. In the grand scheme of things, i just figured that some of our beliefs can put us in an alienated position when we need help. in many ways a lot of anons on 4han go off the deep end because of this. Not saying that you need help, but that you might wanna be mindful of where the thought of being manipulated by systems could take you.

[Anonymous No.14575675]

>>14569466
It follows Freuds model of the talking cure. While they may not believe in the id,ego, and superego the aspect of a dialogue between the patient and psychologist is present throughout all modern models.

[Anonymous No.14575685]

>>14572902
Dissolving your character armor and achieving a full healthy orgasm so your body will utilize orgone (life-force) energy and stay healthy.
Idk his ideas on repression of emotions and sexual urges are interesting, the guy was definetly onto something

[Anonymous No.14575708]

>>14575620
my main point is that the mind is free. that is the reason why im saying all this. i refuse to go to therapy for the same reason i refuse to go to talk to a priest. i dont believe in god. i dont believe in a sane person. in another era some see me like a stupid person if i say the priests have inevitable authority over you, and in this era im risking my own sanity if i deny the psychology helping hand (that is what i imply of your post... that im risking my own sanity if im too inconoclastic...me or any other iconoclastic person...).
you are seeing things at reversed. i think mind is free and because of that i refuse to engage. my fear is only because psychology have social acceptance and the social pressure that go with that. not to mention legal power in some cases. thats the fear, not because the intelectual ideas of psychology defy me or intimidate me or something...
psychology and psychiatry position is totally contrary to the proposition of the mind as a free element, i have a natural rejection with this kind of ideas... anyway i suppose you are understanding it and only tell me that im go down the wrong path. thats ok. fine. thanks for the advice buddy.
im kind of crazy anyway.

[Anonymous No.14575741]

>>14575708
>my main point is that the mind is free
>psychology and psychiatry position is totally contrary to the proposition of the mind as a free element
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not really sure if your indirectly referencing determinism vs free will or something else.

[Anonymous No.14575760]

>>14569696
desu the entire concept of the USA and "americanism" has now grown to the point that it is a mental illness. The sooner that country shatters into nation states the better, both for the individual states and for the planet's international stability.

[Anonymous No.14575779]

>>14575741
no no. nothing of that. what is free?. what is not free?. i think the mind is unknowable.
psychiatry put names and diseases to states of the mind. thats all. its pretty simple. psychiatry want to classify and basically think the mind is something knowable. i dont believe it. i think is only people telling people what is the mind as always. people telling people what is the spirit. what is god. basically i see the mind, the psyche, as an intimate thing. everybody should make his own rules to his mind. thats all.

[Anonymous No.14575782]

>>14575741
He thinks psychologists can't understand the mind completely and then gets mad that there are psychologists

[Anonymous No.14575802]

>>14575607
Tfw political correctness is the only thing keeping righties from the gas chambers

[Anonymous No.14575848]

>>14575802
American rightists already spent the last two decades mass murdering brown people in endless wars of terrorism because rich people wanted more oil and money.

[Anonymous No.14575868]

>>14575848
You're right, it sucks

[Anonymous No.14575879]

>>14569670
Behavior, uncategorized, usually refers to the directly oberservable portion alone.

[Anonymous No.14575896]

>>14569696
It already was. Psychiatry was used to put away politically threats.

Psychiatry in the west was also politicized a lot more than now but for pettier reasons, like putting away icky gay people and depressed housewives.

[Anonymous No.14575913]

>>14575896
>Psychiatry was used to put away politically threats.
I meant in the SU, btw

[Anonymous No.14576045]

>>14575779
>psychiatry want to classify and basically think the mind is something knowable
There are a few things that you're conflating that I believe is leading to a skewed view of what psychiatry, psychology, and science in general actually is/does. First, there are several layers to how these entities interact with each other and other people. You could say that a psychiatrist, which is distinct from a clinical psychologist insofar as they can administer drugs (the question as to whether drugs are needed can be addressed later on), is on the surface where they have greater knowledge of the science than the client. Second, those with greater knowledge than the psychiatrist, who are attempting to "put names and diseases to states of mind," are the research psychologists that run experiments and then contribute to the ever growing corpus of psychology. Third, psychology, which I believe everyone would say is a softer science then let's say mathematics, but still a discipline by which individuals attempt to make what is unknown, knowable

>i think the mind is unknowable
Taking that third point into account about how the function of any scientific discipline is to understand their environment, why shouldn't there be at least some attempt to uncover something as nebulous as the brain? This line of thought, quickly determining that something is unknowable then rejecting an move to explore, can lead to some unfortunate consequences. The entire behaviorist movement (Skinner, Watson, and their acolytes), which by the way, may dominate your conception of what psychology is, as it unfortunately did American psychology for decades, was the result of dismissing what occurs in the mind in favor of directly observable behavior. If you want to talk about cults, power dynamics, and social control, look no further than B.F. Skinner. He reduced humans down into stimulus-response objects and believed he could control anyone's behavior, even mold anyone to his will. Some of that stemmed from the failure to account for the complex and ever mysterious inner workings of the mind.
1/2

[Anonymous No.14576083]

>>14575779
>>14576045
>everybody should make his own rules to his mind
This is another point of disagreement. As an individual acting within society, you enter into a social contract with everyone around you. There are moral, legal, ethical systems at play that certain groups voluntarily accept in order for a stable social fabric. Of course anyone can deviate from these established rule-sets, but as one begins to reject said principles parts of that social fabric starts to tear. Now, you could ignore that destabilization, plenty do, although you have to ask yourself: to what degree should an individual "make his own rules [in] his mind?" Interacting with groups requires a certain level of sacrifice to individuality. How exactly do you organize any form of activity if the rules someone constructs are too out there for efficient group action?

It seems that you are highly skeptical of the institutions and mainstream thought so I'd like to understand how exactly do determine what direction is the most optimal or healthiest. Forget philosophy, religion, sociology, even psychology if you'd like, do you recognize other fields of science as legitimate? To phrase it another way: what makes something worthy of believing in?
2/2

[Anonymous No.14576697]

>>14573361
>>14573656
>>14576083

Modern Western society itself is structured around psychotherapeutic principles, which have mostly replaced earlier religious forms of subjectification. We have effectively skinner boxed ourselves into the global information system, a resource to be exploited, or else potential risk cases to be categorised and subjected to forced normalisation. Sovereignty has superseded by distributed psychopower, the technological management of affects for consumer/ideological purposes. scientific institutions- inherently politicised and hierarchical bodies, unable to replicate their ''objective'' experiments, lay claim to the leftovers of the sacred. But dare question the fetish of scientific authority and some people, professed atheists no doubt, will react as if you had blasphemed God Himself. Even 'respectable' journalism is propaganda, rather crude by historical standards, plus clickbait and native ads. Our oligarchic overlords are obviously really into sex cults, mind control and transhumanism, but nobody even seems to care by this point.

Can't help but feel as if we as a species have been deprived of our dignity, bombarded with hyperstimuli: drugs, propaganda, ads, videogames, trash, pornography, ultraviolence. Recognisably human 20th century reality gives way to the wholly artificial environment -a stream of ephemeral, flickering images separated from any sense of historical, cultural, or even biological continuity. Under constant surveillance, denied the faculties of interpretation, the chances for forming an independent sense of identity, to criticise or even understand the nature of the system, meaningfully communicate with each other. An endless proliferation of hollow 'lifestyles' and 'identities', filled in with interexchangable therapeutic regimes and consumer products, all awfully oedipal, nothing is more regulated than 'deviancy'. Ours is really a time of unprecedented conformity

[Anonymous No.14576799]

>>14575607
progressive leftists just replace church and kin with mass media, psychiatric and managerial authority. By this point they are more fanatically religious than the right with their obsession for coercive social engineering and intolerance for independent thought. If anything those whiny LGBT trannies are a disgrace to true perversion and sodomy. The christian God is dead, and a flaccid liberal God reigns, begging to be blasphemed and outraged.

[Anonymous No.14576808]

>>14575848
american leftists could be convinced to support war with russia if convinced that oriental barbarian Putler is insufficiently enthusiastic about child drag queens.

[Anonymous No.14576842]

>>14576697
Wake up sheeple the post. I've been reading this entire thread and don't know what anything you said has to do with these posts. Also:
>skinner box
>oedipal
read something actually decent instead of clinging to Freud and Skinner memes

[Anonymous No.14576875]

>>14576045
>that something is unknowable then rejecting an move to explore,
what is a thought?. what is imagination?. what is identity?. we are talking about something personal, intimate, that is my notion. from that simple premise goes all my diatribe against psychology. from that, and that i think they unfairly take off that personal essence to most of his patients, that his patients are only in a therapist because the god of this era is science and the science of the mind is psychology. i see that kind of innocent patient as some kind of trembling rabbit, or some poor arab guy going to talk to an imam becuse he eat pig the friday morning and he is regretting it. but thats not the point. its a little digresion... i know.
i dont make an appeal to the UNKNOWABLE. only that the mind should be personal. the mind, the psyche, the imagination, are delicate concepts. to me at least. i think a mechanicist or a scientific approach is a mistake. or a misunderstanding. and a medical approach is definitively a total error. i dont care if millions of people think we are finally getting the real psychological knowledge of what we are or what the mind are. i still dont go to that church. we are free to name ourselves. or we should know that we are.

>>14576083
>This is another point of disagreement.
that is my point from the beginning. im ok if psychology is exposed as a system to adjust people to the norm or adjusting people to a functioning society. its horrendous but it is what it is.
i think that is his real work. and is pretty clear with just a little attention. psychology tend to hide it, i suppose because reduce his autorithy about the mind like something beyond the social. but i dont really know.
all your questions are ok. but i dont care. i think its very important say to people that they dont have an illness, or disfunction or disorder in the brain if they have depression or an antisocial behaviour. make clear to them that is only a disorder from a social point of view. there is not something bad in their brains. i think is extremely important understand and explain very well this to the patients.

>to what degree should an individual "make his own rules [in] his mind?"
to the end. in your mind there is no end to your own rules. you can kill someone in your mind?.

>what makes something worthy of believing in?
i dont know. we should stop for a while. you, me, and everybody. nobody really know it.

i feel i respond too vague and lazy. but i really dont know what to say. im more eloquent when im against something that trying to make some kind of new thought or direction. sorry.

[Anonymous No.14576889]

>>14576697

Unironically this post

[Anonymous No.14576940]

>>14575848
Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War too, and the Iraq Resolution passed in the Senate too, where Democrats had a majority.

[Anonymous No.14577161]

>>14576799
At least progressive leftists are real, faggot

[Anonymous No.14577244]

>>14576940
Didnt you people just spend all of 2016 saying she would do anything to get votes?

[Anonymous No.14578160]

>>14569546
What does subconscious even mean?

[Anonymous No.14578218]

Can I get some recs on good psychology literature?

t. psych student on a shitty university that feels like he's not learning enough

[Anonymous No.14578224]

>>14578160
I've understood it being like if you are asked what day is it and the answer pops up to your mind. You weren't consciously thinking about it at that time, but that doesn't count you as being unconscious of the date. It's like readily accessible information that you aren't consciously thinking about, but can if you have to

[Anonymous No.14578228]

>>14578218
What area of study would you like to explore? I wouldn't say I've studied an incredible amount, but all of its been done outside of university. This is me by the way: >>14570439

[Anonymous No.14578236]

>>14578224
Ah, so the distinction between conscious and unconscious are a matter of states of being whereas subconscious is that which influences you from the background.

[Anonymous No.14578281]

>>14578228
I plan on going into clinical psychology and from the little I've studied in college so far I'm really interested in the basic premise of CBT, its obvious limitations concerning a deeper study of the unconscious psyche notwithstanding. I think what I'm trying to say is that I'm interested in something practical and observable but without throwing the intricacies of the psyche out of the window.
I feel very frustrated in my university because half the course will be spent studying either behavioral or psychoanalytic theories and their branches, and the other half will be spent learning about the technical aspects of psychology as a profession. There will be 1 semester focusing on phenomenological psychology and as far as I know they'll barely skim through existential and gestaltic theories. I just want to have more tools than what I'm given.

[DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk No.14578317]

>>14569466
the less shitty (yes, all of them are shit)

[Anonymous No.14578649]

>>14578317
I doubt you're even a doctor seeing as how shallow and absolutist your response is.

[Anonymous No.14578810]

>>14578281
I've mostly studied epistemology, developmental psychology, and humanist/existentialist psychotherapy so far, but I'll try to recommend some useful material that I have read or own.

If you aspire to become a clinician then there is certainly a variety of schools of thought when it comes to therapy.
>The Body Keeps Score by Bessel van der Kolk
For subjects such as CBT, exposure therapy, and dealing with trauma/neurosis this is good. It is bordering on more mainstream literature, but that also means it is pretty accessible and could open the doors for other areas of study. Additionally, if I remember correctly, it may discuss the limitations of CBT.

>Neurobiology Essentials for Clinicians by Arlene Montgomery
I don't know how well versed you are on neuroscience, but it can be pretty important on understanding the biomechanics behind mental illness. What's great about this book is that it's sectioned off with different sections of the brain/nervous system in which client interviews and case studies are broken down and discussed in detail.

>A Way of Being and On Becoming a Person by Carl Rogers
You say that you're frustrated by the significant time spent studying behavioral/psychoanalytic theories so what if you look into something more humanistic? If anything, you'll learn about how to approach clients, and people in general, in order to allow them to discover things for themselves and grow with, at least, the resourceful, yet not overbearing, hand of the therapist. Rogers was highly critical of the behaviorism and even debated B.F. Skinner on his ideas. Here is the debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh8GESlAAwY

>Motivation and Personality by Abraham Maslow
Now here is a book that hovers in the more theoretical sphere. It's a bit dated and has been criticized over the years, but I believe it still holds plenty of helpful information on what people strive toward and what happens when the object that they were pursuing is obstructed or thwarted. It also calls for a greater integration of elements and higher levels of creativity when problem solving, along with expressing humanistic sentiments. Here is the version I read: https://archive.org/details/ilhem_20150321/page/n5 I also own pic related which seems to be meant for coursework and is better organized.

>Principles Of Gestalt Psychology by Koffka
>Gestalt Psychology: An Introduction to New Concepts in Modern Psychology by Köhler
If you want Gestalt psychology might as well read from the fathers of field themselves. They are a bit difficult to read though. Here is the Koffka book: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.221555/page/n5

[Anonymous No.14578815]

>>14569466
Eight circuit model the most accurate.

[Anonymous No.14578841]

>>14570035
>positing something that cannot be comprehended
>still maintains it as if it were a coherent position
Hmm...

[Anonymous No.14578912]

>>14578810
Incredibly based, anon, thanks a lot. I'd be grateful for any more recs you might be willing to give, even if they don't completely align to what I said on my post. Like I said, at this point I'm really more interested in having a lot of tools and then figuring out what'll fit later on. I'd also be really interested on literature regarding humanist/existentialist theories, since I very rarely see them being given the same prominence as opposed to CBT and psychoanalysis.
Also, I don't know if this is too personal but I'd like to know more about you. Do you actively work with psychotherapy? If so do you use different approaches when it comes to your practice? How hard was it for you to find your footing at the start? I'm open to any suggestions you might give in that regard, honestly.

[Anonymous No.14578928]

>>14578912
By the way, I don't know how well-versed you are in philosophy but I'd also welcome any recommendations on authors you find important.

[Anonymous No.14579211]

>>14578912
Not him, but humanist/existentialist thought is practically ubiquitous within therapy. There aren't really any "techniques" or styles of therapy aside from the mindset of freedom and responsibility. Rogers took it further by employing a completely non-directive approach in which the client brings about change on their own.

[Anonymous No.14579675]

>>14578912
>>14578928
>Recommendations:

>Humanism
Maslow and Rogers were some the most notable figures within the field, but anther psychologist should be mentioned as well.
>The Anatomy Of Human Destructiveness by Erich Fromm
Fromm was a psychoanalyst and had a humanist bent to him. Within this book he grapples with the issue of Skinner and the behaviorist movement that gripped America for much of the mid to late 1900s as well as Konrad Lorenz's instinctivism, both of whom attempted to explain human nature in harsh terms; Fromm tries to qualify the argument. Here is the book: https://archive.org/details/ErichFrommTheAnatomyOfHumanDestructiveness/page/n3

>Existentialism
Now, I wouldn't say I've delved too deeply into existentialism, especially on the philosophical front, so I will just recommend these:
>Man's Search For Meaning by Viktor Frankel
Very short read that details the psychological effects of entering, living in, and exiting a concentration camp. As the book transition to the second half, Frankel discusses his own brand of psychotherapy (Logotherapy) which is heavily entrenched in existential thought rather than anything psychiatric or psychoanalytic. Here is the book: https://archive.org/details/MansSearchForMeaningViktorE.Frankel/page/n3
>Existentialism is a Humanism by Jean Sartre
More philosophical than psychological, but is often lauded as one of the most important pieces in existentialist philosophy, it is also quite short. Additionally, it includes an analysis of Camus's The Stranger, an existentialist novel.

>Philosophy
I'm not that well versed in philosophy, but I can point you towards two great starting resources.
>A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russel
If western philosophy is what your're after, this book is full of information. It tracks the chronological development of western thought from before Socrates all the way up to present day, ending with William James (the progenitor of American collegiate psychology) and John Dewey (very influential psychologist and educator).
>History of Political Philosophy by Leo Strauss
Another primer, but this time providing a summary of individuals who have contributed to western political thought.

1/2

[Anonymous No.14579686]

>>14575685
>As an adult Reich wrote extensively, in his diary, about his sexual precocity. He maintained that his first sexual experience was at the age of four when he tried to have sex with the family maid (with whom he shared a bed), that he would regularly watch the farm animals have sex, that he used a whip handle sexually on the horses while masturbating, and that he had almost daily sexual intercourse from the age of 11 with another of the servants. He wrote of regular visits to brothels, the first when he was 15, and said he was visiting them daily from the age of around 17. He also developed sexual fantasies about his mother, writing when he was 22 that he masturbated while thinking about her

[Anonymous No.14579705]

>>14579675
>Recommendations Continued:

>Genetic Epistemology/Developmental Psychology
This subject was one of the first things I read while studying on my own.
>Piaget's Theory of Intellectual Development by Herbert P. Ginsburg & Sylvia Opper
This is a pretty comprehensive discussion of Jean Piaget's life's work, plus it's pretty short. Great resource if you want to get into Piaget but don't know how to approach his dense corpus of work.
>The Psychology of the Child by Jean Piaget
If you want a summary of his work written by him then check this out.
>The Acquisition of Knowledge by James Russell
If you are curious about the origins of "genetic epistemology" and those who preceded Piaget. It discusses how Darwinian theory was appropriated in order to examine the origins epistemic development from the perspective of psychology. Book link: https://archive.org/details/TheAcquisitionOfKnowledge

Here are a few links to Piaget's full works that I've read/collected:
>The Language And Thought Of The Child
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.188629
>Judgment And Reasoning In The Child
https://archive.org/details/judgmentandreaso007972mbp/page/n12
>The Child's Conception of the World
https://archive.org/details/childsconception01piag/page/n5
>The Moral Judgment Of The Child
https://archive.org/details/moraljudgmentoft005613mbp/page/n6
>The Origin Of Intelligence In The Child
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.458564/page/n1
>Play Dreams And Imitation In Childhood
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.425445/page/n3
These are in order of publication, I believe.

>Mind in Society by L. Vygotsky
A good counterpoint/companion to Piaget. Vygotsky's concept of the "zone of proximal development" mirrors how one approaches a client during exposure therapy.

>Evolutionary Psychology/Biology
>On Human Nature by E.O. Wilson
THE book that spurred the creation of evolutionary psychology.
>Behave by Robert Sapolsky
Another book discussing human behavior, although this one features a myriad of examples and is highly interdisciplinary, ranging from biology, philosophy, criminology, ecology, and sociology.

>Miscellaneous
>Psychology: A Study of a Science - edited by Sigmund Koch
An exhaustive collaborative effort by many scientists to present the field of psychology as a science; it features many different subjects.
>Volume I: Sensory, Perceptual, and Physiological Formulations
https://archive.org/details/psychologyastudy031452mbp/page/n5
>Volume II: General Systematic Formulations, Learning, and Special Process
https://archive.org/details/psychologyastudy031453mbp/page/n7
>Volume III: Formulations Of The Person And The Social Context
https://archive.org/details/psychologyastudy017916mbp/page/n5

>Personal:
I'm just a hopelessly curious anon who is planning to pursue a psychology degree this fall. Unfortunately, I'm unable to provide career oriented commentary with any authority, since I haven't enrolled in university yet.

[Anonymous No.14579716]

thoughts on Rank? also recs on similar psych themes?

[Anonymous No.14579742]

>>14579705
I forgot to link Salpolsky's Stanford lecture series on Human Behavioral Biology. It's not psychology, but still very engaging.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D&index=2&t=0s

[Anonymous No.14579757]

>>14573500
>MOOOOOOOOOOODS

[Anonymous No.14579803]

>>14579705
>>14579675
Phenomenal, thank you so much. This will be put to good use.
Seeing how much you know about the subject, one could easily imagine you having plenty of experience in the field already, I'm genuinely impressed. Good luck on your future academic endeavours, anon.
also great taste in kino

[Anonymous No.14579947]

>>14579803
You're welcome and thank you for the good luck.

[Anonymous No.14580204]

>>14572575

[Anonymous No.14580210]

>>14579211
>completely non-directive approach in which the client brings about change on their own.
in this thread we have a large discussion about how is impossible a non-directive approach. my conclusion is that is only some kind of politically correct term. literally the only work of a therapist is her direction, is to be the director of that change in the other. the authority figure who ultimately know what it is. the non-directive approach is some kind of necessary lie to dont expose psychology therapy as some kind of manipulative game. nor for the patient nor for the therapist. to evoke some calm neutral safe place that dont exist.

[Anonymous No.14580703]

>>14580204
I wanted to type desu desu

[Anonymous No.14580771]

>>14580204

[Anonymous No.14581843]

bump