/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4526588]

Does anyone know of any god-tier pop-psychology books?

Preferably books that touch on the history of psychology rather than specific mental disorders.

[Anonymous No.4526656]

1. Not all of psychology is about mental disorders. Psychopathology is subject of clinical psychology and psychiatry. If you don't know the difference, look it up on google.
2. Freud never considered himself a psychologist and modern psychologists discard his work as unscientific. Psychoanalysis as a form of psychotherapy has been outdated for more than two decades and will probably never return. There are better therapies which actually help the patients instead of making them strengthen their pathological neuronal patterns through endless verbal repetition.
3. "Pop-psychology books" are shallow bullshit written by people who want to make easy money. They contain no valuable information you couldn't have already figured out on your own (well YOU maybe can't because you're dumb as fuck). If you want to learn about psychology, get a textbook and not a collection of platitudes.

[Anonymous No.4526669]

>>4526656
>Freud never considered himself a psychologist and modern psychologists discard his work as unscientific. Psychoanalysis as a form of psychotherapy has been outdated for more than two decades and will probably never return.
kek

[Anonymous No.4526709]

>>4526656
>modern psychologists discard his work as unscientific

It's more like some modern psychologists respect his work and some don't. All and in between there are nuances. They shouldn't have let you leave campus with these kinds of awful generalizations.

>Psychoanalysis...will probably never return

Google your zip code and psychoanalysis and prepare to be surprised.

>There are better therapies

Let's match studies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23660968

[OP No.4526751]

>>4526656
>1. Not all of psychology is about mental disorders. Psychopathology is subject of clinical psychology and psychiatry. If you don't know the difference, look it up on google.

Where in my post did I state that "all" of psychology is about mental disorders? I only stated that I prefer books that touch on the history of the field--not on specific mental disorders. You have awful reading comprehension.

>2. Freud never considered himself a psychologist and modern psychologists discard his work as unscientific. Psychoanalysis as a form of psychotherapy has been outdated for more than two decades and will probably never return. There are better therapies which actually help the patients instead of making them strengthen their pathological neuronal patterns through endless verbal repetition.

I'm aware. Again, you're jumping to conclusions based upon little to no evidence in my post that I assume what you think I assume.

>3. "Pop-psychology books" are shallow bullshit written by people who want to make easy money. They contain no valuable information you couldn't have already figured out on your own (well YOU maybe can't because you're dumb as fuck). If you want to learn about psychology, get a textbook and not a collection of platitudes.

Fair enough. I wouldn't say I'm dumb as fuck though. If anyone is dumb here it is people who jump to conclusions and who can't actually comprehend what people write. In this case, that would be you.

[Anonymous No.4526757]

>>4526751
Then why did you mention mental disorders at all and why did you attach a picture of Freud? Why do you want to represent the stereotype of a retard who has no fucking idea what he's talking about and has no clue what psychology means?

inb4 "hurr durr only pretending"

[Anonymous No.4526760]

>>4526656
>Psychoanalysis as a form of psychotherapy has been outdated for more than two decades and will probably never return.
Just because you want it to be true, doesn't mean it is. Psychanalysis has helped and continues to help a shit load of people.

[Anonymous No.4526767]

>>4526760
Psychoanalysis was shown to be ineffective, sometimes even harmful. Go with the times. I know you're probably living in an ass-backwards country like murrica, but here in Europe we have therapies which actually work.

[Anonymous No.4526771]

Jung's Memories, Dreams, Reflections (autobio) and Man and his Symbols (collaboration) cover the beggining of the field with Freud. It's always from Jung's perspective, of course, but nevertheless and easy and clarifying book on why they started to do what they did, what problems they faced, etc.

[Haddad !NCCaLTlz1w No.4526773]

All the positive psychologists in one place, beautiful.

Psychoanalysis is a thriving, rich discipline that has great insights into human subjectivity

Read John Fletcher: Freud and the Scene of Trauma.

[OP No.4526783]

>>4526757
Sorry I don't spend enough time on /lit/ to know that psychology noobs typically post pictures of Freud.

As for the mental disorder part, I mentioned it because I'm aware that psychology also deals with how healthy individuals function psychologically--and I don't really care about those suffering from mental "disorders".

There is a difference between something informative and a little pop-ish and a self-help book. I was wondering if there were any books fitting the description of the former.

[Anonymous No.4526784]

>>4526767
>Psychoanalysis was shown to be ineffective, sometimes even harmful.
Psychiatry too.
>dem pharmacals

> know you're probably living in an ass-backwards country like murrica,
I'm not American. And why would you even think so if I'm defending psychanalysis? America is filled with shit postivist psychologists. They are exactly the ones who oppose/don't know shit of psychanalysis the most. Makes me think you don't know your shit either.

[Anonymous No.4526786]

>>4526751
>I'm aware.

Aware of what? Nearly everything he said there was incorrect.

[OP No.4526790]

>>4526786

I suppose that it depends on who you ask. I've taken psych classes in 'murrica and most of what he stated matches up with what my professors have stated; that is that Freud's work in psychology was essentially psuedo-science and that psychology has shifted more towards neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.4526799]

>>4526790
>facts depend on who you ask

[Anonymous No.4526813]

>>4526588

M. Scot Peck

>road less travelled
>people of the lie

You're set, OP.

[OP No.4526817]

>>4526799

What "facts" do you have in support of Freudian theory?

Feel free to turn us away from our shadowy American educations--show us the light, anon.

[Anonymous No.4526827]

>>4526790
Ugh. That's a shame.

That side of psychology is basicly just being normative as fuck. They say certain things are normal, desirable and functional, then they label all else as some disorder. The rest is just about accurate descriptions of symptoms of those disorders and how to treat those symptoms with pills or training you like one would train a pup, you put a little self-help pop-psy in the mix and there you have it. They rarely bother to get out of that zone and they strongly believe that's all one has to do when it comes to the mind, because they run tests and talk in terms of chemical imbalances. They don't question their own premises, or what the whole of the practice means, so it sums it up at treating you like you were a machine.

Even though the problems that psychology and psychanalysis faced early on where strictly medical, on abnormal cases and such, it has moved on to other things precisely because they realized there was more at play, that certain problems emerged because of social normative pressures, that problems were not just what they appeared to be on the surface, that solutions were contained within and that new problems were contained in supposed solutions, etc. Psychanalysis opens the field to discuss what it means to be (happy, normal, a subject, whatever bugs you).

Freud has many critics. But from within psychanalysis itself, with new ideas and approaches. The strictly supposedly "scientific" psy is just playing another game entirely.

[Anonymous No.4526840]

>>4526827
PS: It doesn't mean psychanalysis opposes any of the discoveries made in neuroscience, far from it. They are perfectly in tune. But all psychanalysts recognize neuroscience, while the contrary doesn't always happen. Psychanalsysis work more in terms of language, signs, sociology, humanities and that works in parallel with all that you may know about the brain as a physical object.

[Anonymous No.4526856]

>>4526817
The facts I'm speaking of aren't even necessarily in support of Freudian theory. What I am saying is that it is a *fact* that many people in modern psychology have not dismissed Freud and it is a *fact* that psychoanalysis is still practiced (and hence cannot "return" since it never left). Hence, the other person was incorrect. That there are "better therapies" is harder to debate in terms of fact, but I did post a meta-analytic study of various psychotherapeutical research above that shows its effectiveness.

[Anonymous No.4526882]

>>4526771
>Jung's Memories, Dreams, Reflections
I didn't even recognise that by the English title. It's always 'Ricordi, sogni, riflessioni' to me. Fuck, that sounds awful in English.

It's a pity English is such a good language for translations to be had in. It's just so ugly.

[OP No.4526905]

>>4526813
Thanks; the first one you posted looks pretty interesting. I am curious as to how his Christianity will be reflected in his view of the mind.

>>4526840
>>4526856

Fair enough. Question for you though: why do you personally like psychoanalysis? Do you think it offers truths about the mind that aren't seen in other areas of psychology?

[Anonymous No.4526932]

>>4526905
Yes. I think it talks of the mind in terms other areas of psychology cannot reach. Basicly, it treats the person as a subject and encourages a development of this subject, rather than treating the person as an object. It's not really restricted to the medical field, but gathers insight on anything from politics, art, religion and more. It talks about people in relation to one another and poses philosophical questions regarding that relationship. The matter is not to instruct on how to achieve this or that desire, but to study what it means to desire it, why this and not the other, etc. It signifies our world. Certain areas of psychology don't even touch that, it just works on preconceived notions.