What makes a good psychologist?

[Anonymous No.9926883]

????

I want to side-step the whole "is psychology a science" argument and debate. Let's be real. You aren't stupid people.


I haven't even started my journey towards becoming a psychologist yet. I embark on the 27th of this month. That being said, here is my attempt at articulating something.


Psychology is very comparable to quantum mechanics. People are walking vessels of uncertainty, dwelling within a world governed by chance. Between the parameters of "beginning" and "end" lies an endless sequence of cause and effect. Endless variables causing endless reactions.


Now i'm not an educated man. I don't consider the time i've spent in isolation frantically trying to make sense of this fucked up world to be an education. But i have lived my life. I've lived my life as strong man. The kind of strong people become addicted to involuntarily. It has given me endless opportunities to recognize what people respond to and how they respond. And what i can say more than anything is that people want to be led by a strong person. And if someone happens to be strong and benevolent? That's the magic combo. Toxically masculine and endlessly benevolent.


I don't know how unreasonable it is to hope that a greater good can stick. One thing I can say with absolute certainty is that there is no way to move towards a greater good without catering to human nature along the way. It's inside of me, it's inside of you. I would love to meet an exception.

[Anonymous No.9926897]

>>9926883
A strong man doesn't make for a good psychologist

[Anonymous No.9926902]

>>9926897

Im not here for one-liners, explain yourself.

[Anonymous No.9926909]

>>9926883
Well, it's a conjob where you maintain people's problems so they keep coming back. So psychopathy it probably the best adaptation for the job.

[Anonymous No.9926914]

>>9926902
It's not a psychologist's job to give advice, so if you're a "strong man", you have to hold back

[Anonymous No.9926921]

>>9926909

I would have to agree. It is my personal theory that it has taken magical psychopaths throughout time to shape history to what we have now. Magical psychopaths with an abnormal penchant for an idea of a greater good.

[Anonymous No.9926924]

>>9926914

Part of being a strong man is having restraint. Strength is an unbelievably difficult thing to understand. I'm still trying myself.

[Anonymous No.9926927]

>>9926924

Let me re-phrase:

Part of being strong is having restraint.

[Anonymous No.9926929]

>>9926883
I'm not sure what we're debating here. If you're saying a good leader is benevolent, I'm not sure if that's necessarily a good leader or a leader with a lot of followers. It depends on if they can lead with being taken advantage of (probably part of your non-defined idea of strong).

Also, the difference between quantum mechanics and psychology is that in quantum, there is uncertainty that is quantifiable and we use a basis of all possible linearly independent possibilities. Psychologists can't give me or agree upon a linearly independent basis. If you're not familiar with linearly independent, a Vatican example is horizontal and vertical. You can move horizontal and you can move vertical. Motion can be described by a combination of the two, but when you increase horizontal movement, you're not changing vertical movement. They are original and independent.

[Anonymous No.9926936]

>>9926929

Yes, not being taken advantage of is one of the hallmarks of my idea of strength.

The uncertainty within a human being is quantifiable, but sadly, it is only quantifiable to the user. And considering communication is one of the most difficult things for living creatures, it is unbelievably tough to get to that information. But I will never say impossible. I've grown an ability to access information inside of me, I know other people can do it.

[Anonymous No.9926937]

>>9926883
Dude, if you want to help people, you are likely to lose any ability to do so during your training.

[Anonymous No.9926940]

>>9926936

And not being taken advantage of should be valued regardless of where you are in life or what you're pursuing. It is not unreasonable to believe everyone is out to get you. Because the truth is, there's a chance.

[Anonymous No.9926943]

>>9926937

I'm already aware of that. I've yet to meet anyone as stubborn/unreasonable/capable as me. I'm very interested to see where I end up. I love grunt work.

[Anonymous No.9926949]

>>9926936
Get an idea of strong and compile a formal definition. I know it seems pointless when everyone knows what a strong man is, but without a solid definition it is tough to work with the concept. Also, developing your definition will make you realize things you haven't thought of before and maybe alter your definition some and broaden it or help you better define other things.

As for if these are helpful traits in a psychologist, Meh. The best thing is to help the person figure out what is going on in their life, not to tell them. If you tell them what's wrong either 1. they will get defensive, or 2. they will field it or forget it when the time comes to apply the knowledge. If your definition of strong or benevolent include helping others come to a realization, then yes, they would help.

[Anonymous No.9926955]

>>9926943
You just sound like an idiot.

[Anonymous No.9926963]

>>9926949

It is very difficult to define strength. I have been struggling to understand it my whole life. I will only go so far right now in this moment to say that being emotionally strong is the most valuable strength. But that hardly conjures up an idea in anyone's head.

I guess the emotional strength i speak of is having the ability to do what's right no matter how you are feeling. But that's also a vague statement. What is right?

[Anonymous No.9926969]

>>9926955

You're hurling an unwarranted insult for whatever fucking reason, and i'm the idiot? Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.9926974]

>>9926963

Doing the right thing is so very difficult because of that whole white knight faggotboy bullshit. Doing the right thing is volunteering at a soup kitchen a couple days a week. Doing the right thing is avoiding addiction. Doing the right thing is being there for your family.

[Anonymous No.9926980]

>>9926974
Regardless of what the right thing is, it is not emotional strength that decides what is right, but he said it is following what is right. Following when you don't want to and choosing are two separate things.

[Anonymous No.9926981]

>>9926883
Remember when psychologists removed gender dysphoria from the DSMR because of outside pressure from NGO's? The internet remembers.

[Anonymous No.9926983]

>>9926963
Yeah, just saying we can't have a debate about anything of its not defined unless you're willing to have all of this "agree to disagree" stuff from different definitions and realizing everything is arbitrary and ill-defined so it is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.9926986]

>>9926980

I think what is right has been illuminating itself over and over again throughout history in the midst of us killing/torturing/raping each other endlessly as well as in the midst of rampant hedonism. What is right has been being decided for thousands of years. It is self-evident. The missing ingredient in anyone's individual life is emotional strength for whatever reason.

[Anonymous No.9926990]

>>9926883
I'm not reading all that shit

[Anonymous No.9926993]

>>9926983

I made an attempt at defining it:
>>9926974

[Anonymous No.9926996]

>>9926990

tl;dr

psychology can only be approached in real time because of randomness and unpredictability

[Anonymous No.9927030]

>>9926993
Yes, but we both know that's not a complete definition. If I want to check if giving to the poor is right or wrong, we should be able to go to the definition and check. This demands a complete and general definition of right. Of course I'm not looking for a list of activities that are right/wrong, but a guideline to determine, something that is concrete that when someone tries to be an ass and find a conterexample (as they will and should) your definition will hold up. Even if they don't agree with your definition at least it will give clear boundaries. If they provide reasons why your definition is not good, then you may revise it. A cyclic process until to becomes an appropriate and complete definition.

[Anonymous No.9927032]

>>9926990
Then why the fuck are you in here? I'm sorry that debating requires reading more than 5 words. Not OP, but kindly fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9927049]

>>9927030

You're trying to cover way too many points at once. I deal in baby steps, and a lot of them. As i said before, i don't completely understand strength. And even if i did, i wouldn't be willing to define it, because it is dynamic. Strength is ever changing. Defining it is a waste of time. Let's talk about it instead.

[Anonymous No.9927053]

>>9927049

The concept of strength is dynamic.

[Anonymous No.9927058]

>>9927053

Strength is a dynamic concept.

[Anonymous No.9927099]

>>9927049
Talk about what? If defining it is a waste of time, then I can say strength is the ability outrun the police after a robbery because they're a big force and it takes a lot of strength to outdo them, but I'm sure that's not what you're talking about. If we can't agree on what it is we're taking about, then we aren't even talking about what you think we are.

That's the summary of my point. I'm not saying you can't have conversations, but if there isn't a clear definition then everything will be changing over time and there will be multiple (possibly conflicting) results from the same thought experiment or conversation.

[Anonymous No.9927102]

>>9927049
If you're saying defining it is a waste of time, then I'm going to say talking about it is a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.9927105]

What a confusing thread this has been. I read the whole thing and left feeling like it was chopped together from different debates and responses and then mixed up again. Keep up the good work.

[Anonymous No.9927123]

>>9927099

Everything is going to change over time regardless of definitions. Defining things is an event better left in the realm of certainty.

>>9927102

I'm more than ok with difference of opinion. I'm looking for it.

[Anonymous No.9927136]

>>9927123

Im going to the soup kitchen now. You do have me thinking about how to explain strength. I won't define it, but i'll work on trying to figure out how to explain it. I'm not sure how successful i'll be. A perception of cause and effect is very important to what i'd like to say about strength. Knowing what actions lead to what outcomes, the behavior you display and how it brings about reactions in others. Stay tuned. Or don't. idk what's to come.

[Anonymous No.9927161]

>>9927136
Yes, well explaining it and defining it may not be two separate ideas. Just saying in the future, be prepared for a lot of conversation about what you mean by strength of you aren't presenting a definition.

[Anonymous No.9927162]

>>9927105
Yes, that's how message boards work when multiple people are talking and having conversions with one central idea or person in a time ordered list of messages...

[Anonymous No.9927185]

>>9926883
For some reason, I feel like there is a negative opinion of Jordan Peterson on 4Chan, but he might be exactly what you're looking for.

He's a psychologist/professor that talks a lot about the value structure of human psychology but also the hierarchical structure of society and how to get to the top of the hierarchy.

He explains his concepts by basing it on narratives from the bible with a lot of exploration of what it means to be human, what it means to have "strength" as a human and a lot of self help mixed in.

[Anonymous No.9927195]

>>9927185
Also, all of his full length lectures are on youtube. I think listening to him will help you come up with a definition of strength and also give you more insight on what you talked about in your original post.

[Anonymous No.9927286]

The only good psychologists have been the ones that do unethical studies. If you actually look back into who had real discoveries the overwhelming majority created experiments that proved to be quite unethical after the fact, so a good psychologist has no reservations about ruining someones mental state/life over the pursuit of new knowledge in the field.

[Anonymous No.9927558]

>>9926883

I don't have any extensive knowledge of the field, but from a superficial stand point psychology seems almost completely built on behavioural correlations. This is because neurology is still sort of in its infancy. Therefore, psychology is like trying to find out how a piece of software works solely on what output it gives. So, in order to be a good psychologist, you have to be adaptive in order to interact with the person in a way in which they can give you useful information, information which is known to correlate with something. I imagine the type of interaction necessary would depend on many things, and the most adequate one wouldn't always be masculine and benevolent. In the sense that psychology is like quantum mechanics, I guess I can kind of agree, as it's dealing with things that are hard to physically measure.

[Anonymous No.9927580]

Being that i'm an uneducated man with limited experience communicating ideas, this is a work in progress.

Strength,in my opinion, is resisting your own human nature. There is a lot of stuff inside us, and it all has it's place, but a lot of it is destructive. None of it is evil. It is all natural processes for the sake of survival/reproduction/power. How you organize your value system and apply your willpower with your value system in mind is strength. Refusing a candy bar for a banana. Refusing to go out drinking and instead studying. Refusing the sexual advances of a girl because it may cause a disruption to a long-term friendship.

Recognizing the destructive power of your own human nature, and putting in constant effort to curve the implications away from destruction is strength to me.

[Anonymous No.9927586]

>>9927558

hell fucking yeah anon, you get it.

[Anonymous No.9927594]

>>9927161
see
>>9927580

forgot to tag your post, sorry.

[Anonymous No.9927850]

>>9927580
Seems like a good explanation and starting point. The question that brings up then is what's the difference between strength and willpower? It sounds to me like you're describing willpower, especially since you used that word, but that's my own interpretation of your description.

[Anonymous No.9927888]

>>9927850

I guess all i got for that question is a sort of philosophical answer. Strength without willpower is very powerful, but too chaotic to control. Without willpower, there is no guidance system for the strength. It is unpredictable. Animalistic. But that's not to say there isn't value in that savagery. It still has it's place.

[Anonymous No.9928038]

>>9927888
What you are calling strength, I would call willpower. What you are calling willpower, I would call wisdom or self-control

[Anonymous No.9928628]

>>9928038

Willpower is the ultimate expression of strength in my eyes. I honestly see it as fighting off god's influence. I would certainly consider willpower to be synonymous with self-control as well.

Wisdom is a difficult thing to grow in someone. We all live such different lives with such different emotional habits and life experiences. The path to wisdom is always unique to the individual. Holy fuck I have so much work to do.

[Anonymous No.9928644]

>>9926883
>v comp to qm

Stopped readi

[Anonymous No.9928652]

>>9928644

Nobody gives a fuck faggot thread is dead

[Anonymous No.9928937]

>>9927162
>I'm a sperg and can only interpret things literally

[Anonymous No.9928991]

Read through this whole thread and what a load of nonsense it is. Just a load of wishy washy ideas and semantics with not one bit of scientific discussion to be had.

[Anonymous No.9929063]

>>9928991

OP here, psychology isn't a science. It is a real-time endeavor in emotional problem solving. I just feel like this board was the best place for this thread.

[Anonymous No.9930257]

>>9926883

I feel like you've shoehorned yourself into this idea that the ideal psychologist is a 'strong, masculine and benevolent' figure. Yeah, so are priests, politicians and other authority figures and you know what they do?

They bash the marginalized for their own personal gains.

As for you, it doesn't really seem like you're in this whole psychology business to help others. Rather, it seems like you want to sate your ego - as you describe your fellow humans as 'challenges'.

They are not playthings meant to be exploited for your pride. If you can't see them as anything else, I advise you to stay away from the profession for their sakes.

I will say this; you are on the cusp of finding your answer. Or at least you were getting there. Every human is a ball of variables and uncertainty, and you'd do best by staying on your toes and learning as much as possible to formulate a plan of attack.

- from a passing anon

[Anonymous No.9930329]

Why is it a trend to use QM in some pseud babbles? It doesn't give you any credibility, please stop raping QM.

[Anonymous No.9930398]

>>9930257

Of course a lot of it is meant to satiate my ego. None of us can run away from what we are. I've already satisfied my ego enough in a plethora of ways only to realize how destructive it is. But it is still power. It is still necessary. All I can do is try and organize my actions and words around my own human nature with a greater good in mind. I believe this is all any of us can do.

[Anonymous No.9930423]

>>9930329

QM is synonymous with probability. Lot's of opportunity for analogy

[Anonymous No.9930556]

>>9930423
>QM is synonymous with probability

[Anonymous No.9930732]

>>9930423
>QM is synonymous with probability
maybe for people who know nothing of either subject but think they understand both

[Anonymous No.9931237]

>>9930732
>>9930556

I'm just hyperfocused on the element of QM in reference to predicting probability of things happening, but failing to pin point specific measurements without fucking everything up. Sorry to tread on your territory you overly sensitive little faggotboys.

[Anonymous No.9931265]

>>9931237
>i'm just an ignorant retard spouting nonsense to sound smart with my babbling, sorry guys for being an imbecile
It would be easier to accept your appology if you stopped raping QM with probability.

[Anonymous No.9931269]

>>9931265

It would be easier to take you seriously if you had a greater maturity than that of a spoiled child. But then again, i'm already an imbecile to you. Why engage in worthwhile discussion? I'm beneath you.

Good luck in life.

[Anonymous No.9931298]

>>9931269
>butcher fundamental principles of QM to validate incoherent "theory"
>get called out on it by people who don't want to see fundamental principles of QM being butchered to validate incoherent "theory"
>complain about such people, while again butchering basic principles of QM
>be surprised that person who doesn't want basic principles of QM being butchered is dismissive and even aggressive
You've been asked to stop using things you don't understand in the slightest for your analogies. You continued. Don't act all high and mighty because someone is so fed up with imbeciles constantly butchering concepts that every highschool student ought to understand, that he resorts to calling you names.
People would take you (and psychology for that matter) seriously if you stopped pretending and simply said what's on your mind, without offending every field in existence by your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.9931312]

>>9931298

>get called out on it by people who don't want to see fundamental principles of QM being butchered to validate incoherent "theory"

This thread wasn't created for you, nor was it created to discuss QM.

>You've been asked to stop using things you don't understand in the slightest for your analogies.

Oh man, now this is rich. You think you're my master boy? You think your words or actions influence me? You are sadly mistaken. I don't own you a god damn fucking thing.

You wanna hold a grudge? That's fine man. I can be the longest lasting feud you'll ever fucking experience.

[Anonymous No.9931313]

>>9931312

>own

owe

[Anonymous No.9931316]

>>9931312
>This thread wasn't created for you, nor was it created to discuss QM.
That doesn't exempt you from recieving criticism on your usage of it.
>I don't owe you a god damn fucking thing.
You owe it to yourself if you value your intellectual honesty.
Take it as an opportunity to learn about QM and maybe come up with valid analogy next time - first lecture on QM from any reputable uni got you covered on your mistakes.

[Anonymous No.9931321]

>>9931316

As much as i'm interested in QM, i really do lack the intellect for it. But that's what college is for. I appreciate the criticism and input /b/ro.

[Anonymous No.9931335]

>>9931321
>As much as i'm interested in QM, i really do lack the intellect for it.
No, you don't. At least not to understand the fundamental principles.
Go through MIT's 8.04 or Susskind's Theoretical Minimum.

[Anonymous No.9931342]

>>9931335

Aww shit, resources. The only thing i read on QM was brian greenes book, i forget the name. My biggest problem in understanding anything is finding a good place to start. Thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.9931354]

>>9931335

I started Susskind's theoretical minimum, I love the speaker already.

[Anonymous No.9931393]

>>9931354
Susskind is great teacher and accomplished string theorist.
Those lectures are specifically for people like you, with interest in physics but no formal training. He presents all the math in a very approachable manner and emphasises its importance right away, which leaves no space for the usual temptation of laymen in leaving it out because "i just want an intuition, not math".

[Anonymous No.9931408]

>>9931393

I've struggled to take an interest in math, but that's because of how horrendous I am with equations. I don't feel like I have the patience or interest to get good at the math, but I am extremely interested in what the math is trying to accomplish. I've also grown to realize just how basic math is. I mean, when you break it all down, it is all so very simple and basic. A lot of baby steps contributing to unbelievable complexity.

I guess i'm a fanboy, but I love Feynman's quote: Nothing is complicated, there's just a lot to understand. There's a lot of simple things to try and keep hold of in your head.

Not an accurate quote, but close enough.

[Anonymous No.9931657]

itt how to tame a 'tough' guy
>You think your words or actions influence me?
>appeal on his ego
>concedes defeat
>pat his ego
>tough guy completely domesticated
>even manipulated into learning something
wet dream of every roastie, accomplished probably by some abortion from his grandma's basement
how beautiful

[Anonymous No.9931960]

>>9926883
A dead one