/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10506305]

Why do self-described "scientists" dislike Jung?

[Anonymous No.10506330]

>>10506305
pic related

[Anonymous No.10506352]

>>10506305
Because he was a White man trying to explain White psychology.

[Anonymous No.10506362]

>>10506330
So, Jung is bullshit because you like to read Plato's dick? Compelling.

[Anonymous No.10506385]

>>10506305
They feel emasculated by Jung and his credentials/influence and has the need to feel superiority over a dead person.

[Anonymous No.10506389]

>>10506352
6/10
i snorted

[Anonymous No.10507491]

>>10506330
This referenced post completely misses the point but that's to be expected from a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10507528]

>>10506362
>>10507491
then refute that pic's argument, why doncha

[Anonymous No.10507537]

>>10506305
>biased new age babble
>pioneering psychology
Even videogames and animu drop the word "Jungian" to actually mean "features magic"

[Anonymous No.10507545]

>>10506305
>Jung
neither scientist nor mathematician

[Anonymous No.10507554]

>>10507528
Not those posters but I will take the bait.

First off I don't see how bullshit. So each letter has an archetype, so does each font and hey presto any concept can be composed of a combination of seperate archetypes.

Seems perfectly plausible to be. I don't really see an argument being made, that poster simply didn't understand.

It's a needlessly overcomplicated way of interpreting thing but it seems valid to me.

[Anonymous No.10507556]

>>10507528
I'm not going in-depth here because the referenced post has been obviously written by some nastly college sophomore who is not worthy of my attention but to refute your point.

Jungian archetypes refer to innate patterns of neural activity that are linked with feelings and thoughts. Those archetypes are unconscious and they can only be studied indirectly by searching for their psychological manifestations. Now for example it has been shown that different cultures from all over the world show surprising similairity when it comes to their religion or mythology which one would lead to assume that they're the result of some archetype.

So because archetypes is in fact nothing more than recurrent patterns of neural activity which is explicitedly stated so by Jung himself, the archetype of a font has in fact nothing to do with the letters. Thus the post ends with a simple category mistake.

[Anonymous No.10507557]

>>10507528
it's not some physical manifestation. A-ness is just that, and comic sans-ness is that too. Combine them and you get "the letter A in comic sans"
>dont get me started about p-ness

[Anonymous No.10507561]

>>10507554
Not only that but it's infinitesimal. Each thoughtform/jungian archetype contains infinite other thoughtforms/archetypes.

[Anonymous No.10507603]

>>10507545
psychology and studying the human mind is science

[Anonymous No.10507622]

>>10507554
>>10507556
>>10507557
but fonts can’t exist without letters and vice-versa. comic sans can’t exist without alphabets. and to argue that comic sans exists as a jungian archetype is equivalent to arguing that “No Mediocre” by T.I. exists as a jungian archetype. it’s just silly

[Anonymous No.10507732]

>>10507603
It could be. The unfortunate reality is that it's currently a very low form of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10507855]

>>10507556
Archetypes -
>are nothing more than recurrent patterns of neural activity
>refer to innate patterns of neural activity that are linked

While the rest of your post seemed accurate, I don't think you're accurate on the greentext.

[Anonymous No.10507865]

>>10506305
>why do people not take a literal schizo seriously?

[Anonymous No.10507868]

>>10507865
Ask your mom.

[Anonymous No.10507888]

>>10507868
>Jung had an apparent interest in the paranormal and occult. For decades he attended seances and claimed to have witnessed "parapsychic phenomena". Initially he attributed these to psychological causes, even delivering 1919 lecture in England for the Society for Psychical Research on "The Psychological Foundations for the belief in spirits".[91] However, he began to "doubt whether an exclusively psychological approach can do justice to the phenomena in question"[91] and stated that "the spirit hypothesis yields better results".[92]

>Jung's ideas about the paranormal culminated in "synchronicity", his idea that meaningful connections in the world manifest through coincidence with no apparent causal link. What he referred to as “acausal connecting principle”.[93] Despite his own experiments failing to confirm the phenomenon[94] he held on to the idea as an explanation for apparent ESP.[95] As well as proposing it as a functional explanation for how the I-Ching worked, although he was never clear about how synchronicity worked.[96]

[Anonymous No.10507896]

>>10506305
Because he disliked the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.10507960]

>>10507888
You don't need a mechanism for coincidence. The main problem people have with Jung and his idea of a collective unconscious is that they have no good way of determining if Jung meant it to be metaphysical or simply ideology.

[Anonymous No.10507986]

>>10507888
Jung confirmed basically the same as newage yoga or "transcendental meditation" idiots.
okay, can we end the thread then? jung was scientifically useless and his philosophy ramblings were just as useless as e.g. Henry Stapp's

[Anonymous No.10507992]

>>10507986
>newage yoga or "transcendental meditation"
>idiots

[Anonymous No.10507999]

>>10507960
>no good way of determining if Jung meant it to be metaphysical or simply ideology.
That applies to pretty much everything he claimed

[Anonymous No.10508000]

>>10507992
wow look, a poltard memer posting pro-newage shit.

enlighten us, uber-genius, how transcendental meditation is so great

[Anonymous No.10508009]

>>10507986
>useless
My therapist who used Jung's ideas helped me a lot.
>newage yoga or "transcendental meditation" idiots
Meditation's effects are real. Even if it's just placebo, it fucking works.

[Anonymous No.10508016]

>>10507622
this is false. Take the aspects of comic sans "cartoony, simple, the person who made it, their handwriting" etc.
>the fact that you can't imagine comic sans-ness without an alphabet or text shows how much you don't understand about archetypes/thoughtforms

[Anonymous No.10508019]

>>10507999
Yes, because you first need a model of mind to reason from before you can start testing real hypotheses. I have never gotten the impression from any source (including people who have heard his works only by proxy and in passing) that he meant to create anything but a model.

[Anonymous No.10508024]

>>10507622
>“No Mediocre” by T.I.
hitting off of that, plenty of thoughtforms/memes/archetypes exist in that video, and the video itself is an arthetype/meme/form
>music video

within that meme/form/arch we get more and more of them
>singer
>dancer
>background
>area
>beach
>island

each individual item is one, and they are all able to be related to each other and combined. It's just the dawn of explaining how the neurons in your brain organize themselves.

[Anonymous No.10508030]

typical shit. Some guy notices something, makes a reference, starts studying and everyone fucking jumps him.
>then he starts making theories and since they're wrong, his dick gets ripped clean off and tossed somewhere

YOU WERE WRONG?!!? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.10508046]

>>10508024
>t. philosophy pseud

[Anonymous No.10508053]

>>10508016
>the fact that you can't imagine comic sans-ness without an alphabet or text
the fact you CAN imagine such a thing means your mind has dissociated from reality

[Anonymous No.10508065]

>>10508009
>Meditation's effects are real. Even if it's just placebo, it fucking works.
you are conflating the placebo effect with the placebo's method of action being real. by definition a placebo does not have any real effects

[Anonymous No.10508075]

>>10506305

Jung's merit IMO is that he tapped into something that religion had held for millenia, he just used an empirical method to bring it back to the mainstream. He is followed by Jordan Peterson. Personally I've become closer to the church since studying these fellows' works and while the church would deem them heretical in some ways, I'm thankful that I was lucky enough to encounter them.

[Anonymous No.10508087]

>>10506362
don't throw shit at my nigga plato for this :(

[Anonymous No.10508092]

>>10508075
Abraham hated the gods and wanted to free people from the yolk of belief. He tried to gesture at the nothingness, but language was too primitive, and thought and philosophy too unrefined, for the notion to be taken virulently at the time.

[Anonymous No.10508634]

>>10508075
>He is followed by Jordan Peterson.
Please don't mention that charlatan in the same sentence as Jung.

[Anonymous No.10508664]

>>10506305
he was a metaphysician schizo

[Anonymous No.10508871]

>>10508664
A brilliant one.

[Anonymous No.10508988]

Bump for based Carl Gustav Jung.

[Anonymous No.10509445]

Because he talks about G*d

[Anonymous No.10509484]

>>10508634
Jung is the charlatan who inspired him in the first place

[Anonymous No.10509496]

>>10506305

Pic related is a big problem in Psych in general. It's even bigger problem for a pre-scientific thinker like Jung.


If the fact that people use Jung to analysis Rick & Morty, GOT and other pop culture bullshit isnt a red flag to you then youre just a tard

[Anonymous No.10509588]

>>10506305
Archetypes are the only significant thing he has proposed, the rest is woowoo magic shit. Synchronicity is for dumb people who want to feel like the chaos of life has patterns and meanings beyond just random chance and coincidence.

[Anonymous No.10510682]

Oh hey psych thread
I'm not saying that all other psychology is speculative BS but if you want to learn the framework that's totally empirical, read behavior analysis

[Anonymous No.10511635]

>manlet
>facelet
>beardlet
Everything out of his mouth is worthless to listen for. He is the definition of the non-chad