Genuine books on Psychology and Sociology

[Anonymous No.20641244]

The books that are generally popular got debunked by anons from /his/ and /lit/. So, please rec me some authentic on Sociology and Psychology, especially that help me understand human behaviour?

[Anonymous No.20641364]

>>20641244
>Psychology and Sociology
Both are fraudulent. Everything they attempt to answer has been answered (correctly) by esotericists for thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.20641398]

>>20641244
I would say the structural functionalists are mostly correct about hierarchical states being beneficial to keeping order however its not always a healthy order. It just prevents upheaval in most cases. So yeah Malinowksi and Durkheim are pretty much still relevant.

[Anonymous No.20641410]

Rene Girard

[Anonymous No.20641439]

>>20641244
>Oh I thought anon was going to ask for my beloved opinion upon which he came but alas he only asked for a title of some book and not even with my opinion on top of it too,
very well, maybe, perhaps, Carl Jung of some kind.

[Anonymous No.20641460]

>>20641244
I'll do one better

Go the university bookstore website of your choice and pull the list of each soci and psyc class they have and alternate between different institution backgrounds (private, catholic, public, conservative, liberal, etc...) and discover underlying theories by yourself, I did this and it does more for you to develop self determined study habits

the scientific method is a process not a law, apply it to social and psychological research and you'll find out the social sciences aren't dead, its just full of hacks and grifters

I recommend:

Studies in Ethnomethodology - Harold Garfinkel

The Problems of Philosophy - Bertrand Russell

The Republic of Choice: Law, Authority, and Culture - Lawrence M. Friedman

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media - Noam Chomsky

Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine - Norbert Wiener

Origins of the Chinese Revolution, 1915-1949 - Lucien Bianco

Approaches to Social Research - Bruce C Straits and Royce A. Singleton Jr.

The Higher Learning in America - Thorstein Veblen

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Max Weber

Orality and Literacy - Walter J. Ong

Understanding Media - Marshal McLuhan

[Anonymous No.20641471]

>>20641244
Just read dostoyvesky bro, that's what everybody else does. 60% of psychology studies were proved to be bullshit

[Anonymous No.20641486]

>>20641244
>>20641460

Sorry for spelling errors, I'll post more in the morning if the thread is still up , sorry if I ramble

Note that I have some bias and there is a-lot more in depth stuff, but start at the bookstore websites and search out some syllabi - the scientific method of criticism isn't perfect either but its the best start - be critical and discerning,

like other anon said, Malinowksi and Durkheim are still good and relevant at least to look at the western development and French school of thought, fuck Freud; he would torment his cousin and get some sexual kick and his work is based off his guilt or something - learn how to be critical and discerning and build a diverse knowledge base so your not trapped in a national school of thought (most American universities are trapped in French sociology still due to a complex history some one can probably explain better than me)

good night

[Anonymous No.20641488]

>>20641244
Ive said it before but just read uni textbooks

Also for your pic, idk what the second parts implying but there's more narcissists now because narcissistic traits are more rewards in <current year>
>>20641471
From memory, chemistry had a worse track record and most sciences have replication issues

[Anonymous No.20641509]

>>20641244
>"X is a fraud"
>/pol/ screenshot
I really hope mthis won't devolve into le redpilling like >>20638645

Anyways the problem of psychology and sociology is that most studies aren't reproducible.

[Anonymous No.20641689]

>>20641364
>esotericists
Sauce for books?

[Anonymous No.20641694]

>>20641439
I only said books in tge title because I was worried janny might delete it otherwise. I'd like to hear your opinion?

[Anonymous No.20641731]

>>20641244
>sychology and Sociology
Gay social "science" with zero reliable theories. Study Anthropology, a mans subject. Introductory reading in this order):

The Interpretation of Cultures by Clifford Geertz
Structural Anthropology by Claude Levi-Strauss

[Anonymous No.20641736]

>>20641410
Forgot about him. I consider him more of an anthropologist

[Anonymous No.20641876]

>>20641244
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_in_the_Brain

[Anonymous No.20641880]

>>20641244
>Sociology
Read Ellul.

[Anonymous No.20641882]

>>20641460
>Understanding Media - Marshal McLuhan

reading that one atm. weird coincidence

[Anonymous No.20641890]

>>20641244
Influence by Cialdini is the best work to identify and avoid (or use) most common scams. Or to make people like you by using some simple tricks.

[Anonymous No.20641932]

Why do you want to learn about those topics... what do you intended to get out of it? An understanding of yourself? Of how to better deal with people? Understanding social problems? Is it a political career you aspire to? Or perhaps you want to better understand the forces behind the industry you work in, which is it?
Start with the Greeks... literally. For psychology, Phaedrus by Plato is a good place to start to understand the difference between inspiration and madness, and how rhetoric and poetry can affect the soul. Most importantly it mentions the charioteer metaphor, which he mentions again in the Republic - which would be interesting to read both from a psychology standpoint (if you read the entire thing allegorically) and sociologically (if you read it literally). Then move on to Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics to understand how people make decisions and form habits.
Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah is considered one of the first books on sociology and famously describes his theory for how different social group attain and eventually lose power through cycles of decadence eroding them from the inside. And a tonne of other stuff I can't remember, he even goes on a rant about why magic numbers are bullshit.
Without knowing your specific motivations that's all I feel comfortable recommending that is general enough but still useful.

[Anonymous No.20642000]

>>20641880
Is this deeper than dude globalisation and monoculture?

[Anonymous No.20642196]

>>20641890
>Or to make people like you
What do you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.20642231]

An actual answer OP?
Nancy McWilliams book.

It’s written by a PhD psychologist, in a simplified manner for other psychologists to read.

It’s a crash course on the field, and it’s not a hard read.

[Anonymous No.20642254]

>>20642231
isn't psychoanalysis deboonked?

[Anonymous No.20642261]

R.D. Laing's The Divided Self, but it only pertains to schizophrenics and schizoids.

[Anonymous No.20642294]

I'm currently read Gustave Le bon, so yeah get his works and dont read anything by mericans and judes they suck

[Anonymous No.20642310]

>>20641244
Two psychology books that expanded my view on human behavior are "Thinking fast & Slow" and "Happiness Hypothesis"

[Anonymous No.20642361]

>>20641488
>chemistry
Tell me about it. Some peer reviewed published articles are patent bullshit with unrepeatable nonsense with handwavy procedures hidden in supplementary notes. Some people actually have to prove things but occasionally there is a shocking lack of rigor that I think is best explained by patronism or outright corruption. It is not uncommon to feign relationships to cancer research when you really are engaging in fundamental Chemistry.

[Anonymous No.20643117]

>>20642310
>Thinking fast & Slow
Didn't this get debunked by /lit/?

[Anonymous No.20643119]

>>20642231
>>20642254
Surprised to see this rec'd on /lit/. I use it in my work. It's not without its shortcomings but it is a fantastic book for anyone who wants to think about psychic structure and dynamics at a deeper level than the DSM/ICD enables. It's psychoanalytically oriented but the reader need not be to make use of it.

[Anonymous No.20643129]

>>20641488
>uni textbook
such as?

[Anonymous No.20643135]

[Anonymous No.20643308]

>>20642254
Not at all. It’s just that cognitive behavior therapy is usually all you need for most people’s problems.

[Anonymous No.20643474]

>>20643308
I think CBT has limited and very short-lived efficacy. Maybe it's better than nothing in some cases because it offers the bare framework of therapy, but it doesn't actually meaningfully help. Someone in acute distress needs DBT, medication, or even hospitalization, while someone in less acute distress needs longer-lasting and deeper psychodynamic treatment. CBT is the generally unsatisfying middle ground.

[Anonymous No.20643882]

Ulrich Schimmack(some German psychologist that's very autistic about underpowered studies) has a decent online book about Personality Psychology.

[Anonymous No.20644063]

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy by Tao Lin

[Anonymous No.20644086]

>>20642000
It will filter you like you wouldn’t believe.

[Anonymous No.20644191]

>>20641460
>Wiener

[Anonymous No.20644195]

>>20642361
I've only looked at a few chem papers but it seems chemistry almost gets a free pass from scrutiny despite having such poorly written papers. Hopefully neurochemistry and nuclear chemistry have a bit more rigour
>>20643129
Find a course that looks good and read through some of the syllabus. There's a book called psychology 3e with a black and white tree on the cover that was alright
>>20643474
CBT and it's derivatives have great efficacy and long term effectiveness when compared to pharmacological approaches when applied to the correct disorders. Psychodynamic therapy is outdated and based on unsubstantiated theories. Sure some may benefit from it but all the research I've looked at for modern psychoanalysis is low quality.

[Anonymous No.20645593]

>>20644195
>chemistry almost gets a free pass from scrutiny despite having such poorly written papers
Why?

[Anonymous No.20645752]

>>20645593
How would I know? Probably because it's viewed more as a hard science with physical experimentation

[Anonymous No.20646451]

>>20641364
>Both are fraudulent.
No they aren't.

[Anonymous No.20647159]

>>20641364
>by esotericists
Is this tarrot shit or something?

[Anonymous No.20647223]

>>20641880
>standardised culture
Is it really, I would think it's actually more chaotic and amorphous now than it was let's say 300 years ago.

[Anonymous No.20647227]

>>20643117
They are still thinking about it.

[Anonymous No.20647362]

All of Freud's books
The Myth of Mental Ilness