[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 69 KB, 668x277, How_English_people_tell_the_time.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4866503 No.4866503[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Hey /lit/ I want to become knowledgeable about psychology, where should I start? I was thinking of reading Freud, Jung, Skinner and Pavlov.

>> No.4866516

>>4866503

Skinner is muh nigger

>> No.4866521

"all smokers want to suck their fathers dick" -Charles Darwin

>> No.4866537

>>4866503

inb4 "the greeks"

>> No.4866635
File: 30 KB, 196x272, DSM-5_Cover.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4866635

>> No.4866673

>>4866635
lmao

>> No.4866696

>>4866503
crazy, i was about to start a thread asking the exact same thing. anybody?

>> No.4866704

don't read Freud he's a twat basket. I'm reading history of modern psychology by Shultz. Textbook format but flows like a novel, I'd recommend it

>> No.4866705
File: 27 KB, 257x346, 51YP5iR82NL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4866705

>> No.4866709

>>4866503
>Freud, Jung, Skinner and Pavlov.
Very good start, get to it (skim Jung though, he's the least important).

>> No.4866781

>>4866709

That's a horrible start.

OP, read something written within the last 5 years. Psychology. being a new science, moves pretty quickly.
It's also very broad. Be more specific. Biological psychology? Cognition? Clinical psychology? Neofreudianism?

>> No.4866801

>>4866781
Eh, reading the founders of psychology is a good way to get at some of the underlying ideas and attitudes behind the field.

But yeah as far as I know Freud, Jung, Skinner, Pavlov, et all have little to do with psychology as practiced today.

>> No.4866823

>>4866801

I guess it does depend on what he wants. If he wants something to spout at parties to seem clever then start with the original Freuds and Jungs (I'm pretty sure the only thing Jung is still used in is the Myers Briggs Personality Inventory, which has about as much validity as phrenology). But if he's interested in the study of human behaviour, then yeah... read something recent.

Also, interpretive phenomenology. Read about that OP.

>> No.4866875

>>4866781

Preferably something that has some science in it. Biological psychology and cognition seem interesting.

>>4866801

I've heard people refer to Pavlov and especially Skinner as crucial to understanding our society, is there any merit in this? Also, didn't Jung come up with the whole "collective unconscious" idea? Has psychology moved on from that?

>> No.4866895

>>4866875
>Also, didn't Jung come up with the whole "collective unconscious" idea? Has psychology moved on from that?

Yes and... uh... not quite?

You won't find many people willing to posit a literal 'collective unconscious', but you can see traces of the idea in evolutionary explanations of morality for example.

>I've heard people refer to Pavlov and especially Skinner as crucial to understanding our society, is there any merit in this?

Yes. At least, it's crucial to understanding a key psychological perspective towards society. This is why I said reading some of the early psychologists can cue you into underlying ideas.

Though to be honest, Freud and Jung are probably the least relevant today.

>> No.4867017

>>4866875

I think what they mean is that you should understand operant and Pavlovian conditioning. You don't need to read anything apart from wikipedia on those. It's pretty basic stuff, kind of like saying, "you need to have an understanding of gravity in today's society." Just remember that things fall down, metaphorically speaking.

Read some Tim Leary if you want collective unconscious, it's pretty much hippie shit at this point.

I would recommend some of the new perspectives on Freud, for example he postulated neuroplasticity when everyone else was into localisation theory. Which is pretty cool. Look into Norman Doidge for that. I thought The psychopath test was pretty funny, goodish intro into applied psychology. Into the Darklands by Nigel Latta is fantastic for an intro into a broad range of psych topics, from attachment theory to effects of solvent abuse on a developing brain, all through the perspective of a clinical psych.

Haven't got much intro into cognition though, I'll look around.

>> No.4867164

>>4866781
It's not a science.

>> No.4867166

>>4867164
psychology: the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context.

>> No.4868259

>>4867164

Science is defined by its method, not by any particular subject. Psychology can indeed be a science, depending on how it's practised.

>> No.4869096
File: 39 KB, 202x296, freud.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4869096

>freud
>da vinci is gay because he saw an eagles asshole as a kid

>> No.4869186

>>4866823
And if he actually wants to know about psychology and not be some mediocre fuck he better start with the basics.

>> No.4869214

Read some William James. Most of his best psychological theories are still in use, though methods have changed.

He's also good as a philosopher.

>> No.4869216

Tao Lin.

/thread

>> No.4869250

>>4866503
Read a history of psychology, an introduction to psychology, and take the Open Yale intro to psych course.