Tim Stoev A friend of mine told me we already nailed him on two wood beams, but he got better (and that, miraculously enough, this did not piss him off).
no no no, not the religious stuff, he was not a wizard, in fact for me it is easier to go for science compared to the demystification on the trinity. The science at least leaves a person in one piece you know.
Tim Stoev Fair enough, I was more focused on the "did it" part than the "a wizard". That said, any wizard that can create and run the entire Universe would deserve being put in the God category IMHO :)
Oh, also: The science at least leaves a person in one piece you know. Fun fact: for a long time Christians were against human dissection because you want to do what with a dead body? Come on, that's just wrong! And next time you know, they will pillage cemeteries for bodies to sell to medical schools!(*) And they still tend to dislike human vivisection.
(*) to the point that some cemeteries had iron cages on their tombs for the first few weeks, and some tombs even had (and still have) permanent ones.
Elie Thorne If I end in the point where remaining in one piece means not being dissected, I wouldn't give a flying fuck really. Remaining in one peace for me means not splitting your mind in n- parts, where each part resembles approach of the divine wizardry that tries to map the system of rules required for a functional society. I am really fed up with the bastard of the religion psychology to really care. To remain adequate however, I will add that I am a person with strong beliefs, which although not really related to religion allow me to respect the values and ethics that come with the religious beliefs. The latter doesn't really mean that I give a shit about the dogmatic approach used to defy reality and common sense mainly found in the so called sacred books(the main reason psychology was actually born as pseudo-science). I am intelligent and educated enough to make a difference between a context, a problem, a solution and phenomenon. I would love if you accept that my previous comment(you may read it again, not rant on it) is not to be considered as a provocation for dogmatic and utterly restrained bursts of pseudo-idealism that actually pollutes rather than provides with creative insights into a topic(religion as evolving sociological phenomenon that shapes the civilization) that is big and complex enough to stand on its own. Rhys Taylor I know that astronomy draws a lot of desperate creationists and their derivatives, but I want to apologize nevertheless..and still :P applying the right to executive decision ;)
Tim Stoev Ouch, you seem to have rubbed off against some pretty nasty behaviourists! There is psychiatrist in my close family(*), so now I'll have to defend the field(s). I suppose they are behaviourists from your comment on decomposing people in small parts and fitting them into society. For what I've heard, it is unfortunately a fair criticism, along with the dogmatism. (But then again, I have no formal training in the field myself, so take it all with a grain of salt)
First off, I actually read a few books from Freud, one of the founders of psychiatry and, by extension, psychology as we know it - there were a few before, but he is probably the most influential early psychiatrist. They were written with what came off as a strong scientific honesty. Not "this is how it the mind works" but "those are my observations, those are the conclusion I got and I propose this system to describe the inner workings of the mind based on it". He would probably be (rightfully) appalled by the dogmatism you seem to have met. Note that behaviourists often declare Freud obsolete - but then again, Freud came under fire repeatedly since he first exposed his theories.
For what I've heard, behaviourists are largely dominant in the English-speaking world, but they are way less so in France. Here, Jacques Lacan, a psychiatrist from the '70s, is one of the major influences. Lacan declared himself a Freudian, though his work was a considerable update and extension of Freud's - a little bit like Einstein to Newton. You won't hear much about Ego, Superego and ID from those psychiatrists, for example, but the way to interpret dreams didn't change much.
Lacan was quite the character. He was absolutely incapable of writing books, but was a fabulous orator. The work he left is largely from lectures. Unfortunately, this was probably a major detriment toward its dissemination beyond France: too much of his subtle phrasing is impossible to translate (where do I even start to translate "Il n'y a pas de rapports amoureux"?), and lectures and interviews are harder to work with than books.
Also, he was at complete odds with behaviourists. His main grip with them was close to what you describe: they treat subjects as objects. One central point of Lacan's work is that we should apply the scientific method as much as possible to close to the subject, but the subject itself is beyond it - to put it another way, do not dehumanise subjects by treating them as machines.
Another point is that he was extremely wary of becoming an Authority (a Master, as he put it)- he hated the word "Lacanian", for example. He feared that people would follow his words without question, quarrelling between cliques to who had the best interpretation of it. What he wanted was for people to use his work to build their own reasoning and conclusions. Using him for an appeal to authority would be the last thing he'd want. As you may have foreseen, that one didn't work out well, alas. Many psychiatrists are Lacanian (a.k.a. Freudian-Lacanian), and, ironically, he is considered an Authority in the field, with all the associated problems he sought so hard to prevent.
My point is, your criticism may be all too true for some psychologists, maybe for the entire field you came into contact with, but it is fortunately not true everywhere or since ever! (Not to say that French psychology and psychiatry don't have their hosts of problems, simply that it's not necessarily the exact same.)
(*) I managed to convince him to start a blog after years of nagging, but it is in French. Here it is anyway: http://identite-humaine.blogspot.fr
Freud is not obsolete, I actually love him a lot. Gets a bit touchy when one comes into my personal space though. I would not recommend entering the 1m radius around me without warning me. As you will see Elie Thorne Freud is a gorgeous German Shepherd..this is pretty much the level where I put psychology...and in there it really works I admit, but this is how far it goes for me. If anyone wants to convince me that I am underestimating the pseudo-scientific area s/he must convince Freud first.
Due to a small but consistent influx of spam, comments will now be checked before publishing. Only egregious spam/illegal/racist crap will be disapproved, everything else will be published.
yep, I knew it....a wizard did it...now I will find that mother fucker and nail his fucking head to his ass permanently!!
ReplyDeleteTim Stoev I think we should tase him but only as much as is necessary. :)
ReplyDeletehmm...I think it is an existential problem, so I would like to use my right to apply an executive decision..
ReplyDeleteTim Stoev A friend of mine told me we already nailed him on two wood beams, but he got better (and that, miraculously enough, this did not piss him off).
ReplyDeleteno no no, not the religious stuff, he was not a wizard, in fact for me it is easier to go for science compared to the demystification on the trinity. The science at least leaves a person in one piece you know.
ReplyDeleteTim Stoev Fair enough, I was more focused on the "did it" part than the "a wizard". That said, any wizard that can create and run the entire Universe would deserve being put in the God category IMHO :)
ReplyDeleteOh, also: The science at least leaves a person in one piece you know.
Fun fact: for a long time Christians were against human dissection because you want to do what with a dead body? Come on, that's just wrong! And next time you know, they will pillage cemeteries for bodies to sell to medical schools!(*)
And they still tend to dislike human vivisection.
(*) to the point that some cemeteries had iron cages on their tombs for the first few weeks, and some tombs even had (and still have) permanent ones.
Elie Thorne If I end in the point where remaining in one piece means not being dissected, I wouldn't give a flying fuck really. Remaining in one peace for me means not splitting your mind in n- parts, where each part resembles approach of the divine wizardry that tries to map the system of rules required for a functional society.
ReplyDeleteI am really fed up with the bastard of the religion psychology to really care.
To remain adequate however, I will add that I am a person with strong beliefs, which although not really related to religion allow me to respect the values and ethics that come with the religious beliefs.
The latter doesn't really mean that I give a shit about the dogmatic approach used to defy reality and common sense mainly found in the so called sacred books(the main reason psychology was actually born as pseudo-science). I am intelligent and educated enough to make a difference between a context, a problem, a solution and phenomenon.
I would love if you accept that my previous comment(you may read it again, not rant on it) is not to be considered as a provocation for dogmatic and utterly restrained bursts of pseudo-idealism that actually pollutes rather than provides with creative insights into a topic(religion as evolving sociological phenomenon that shapes the civilization) that is big and complex enough to stand on its own.
Rhys Taylor I know that astronomy draws a lot of desperate creationists and their derivatives, but I want to apologize nevertheless..and still :P applying the right to executive decision ;)
Tim Stoev Ouch, you seem to have rubbed off against some pretty nasty behaviourists!
ReplyDeleteThere is psychiatrist in my close family(*), so now I'll have to defend the field(s).
I suppose they are behaviourists from your comment on decomposing people in small parts and fitting them into society. For what I've heard, it is unfortunately a fair criticism, along with the dogmatism. (But then again, I have no formal training in the field myself, so take it all with a grain of salt)
First off, I actually read a few books from Freud, one of the founders of psychiatry and, by extension, psychology as we know it - there were a few before, but he is probably the most influential early psychiatrist.
They were written with what came off as a strong scientific honesty. Not "this is how it the mind works" but "those are my observations, those are the conclusion I got and I propose this system to describe the inner workings of the mind based on it". He would probably be (rightfully) appalled by the dogmatism you seem to have met.
Note that behaviourists often declare Freud obsolete - but then again, Freud came under fire repeatedly since he first exposed his theories.
For what I've heard, behaviourists are largely dominant in the English-speaking world, but they are way less so in France. Here, Jacques Lacan, a psychiatrist from the '70s, is one of the major influences.
Lacan declared himself a Freudian, though his work was a considerable update and extension of Freud's - a little bit like Einstein to Newton. You won't hear much about Ego, Superego and ID from those psychiatrists, for example, but the way to interpret dreams didn't change much.
Lacan was quite the character.
He was absolutely incapable of writing books, but was a fabulous orator. The work he left is largely from lectures.
Unfortunately, this was probably a major detriment toward its dissemination beyond France: too much of his subtle phrasing is impossible to translate (where do I even start to translate "Il n'y a pas de rapports amoureux"?), and lectures and interviews are harder to work with than books.
Also, he was at complete odds with behaviourists. His main grip with them was close to what you describe: they treat subjects as objects. One central point of Lacan's work is that we should apply the scientific method as much as possible to close to the subject, but the subject itself is beyond it - to put it another way, do not dehumanise subjects by treating them as machines.
Another point is that he was extremely wary of becoming an Authority (a Master, as he put it)- he hated the word "Lacanian", for example. He feared that people would follow his words without question, quarrelling between cliques to who had the best interpretation of it. What he wanted was for people to use his work to build their own reasoning and conclusions. Using him for an appeal to authority would be the last thing he'd want.
As you may have foreseen, that one didn't work out well, alas. Many psychiatrists are Lacanian (a.k.a. Freudian-Lacanian), and, ironically, he is considered an Authority in the field, with all the associated problems he sought so hard to prevent.
My point is, your criticism may be all too true for some psychologists, maybe for the entire field you came into contact with, but it is fortunately not true everywhere or since ever!
(Not to say that French psychology and psychiatry don't have their hosts of problems, simply that it's not necessarily the exact same.)
(*) I managed to convince him to start a blog after years of nagging, but it is in French. Here it is anyway:
http://identite-humaine.blogspot.fr
http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4726272/I+have+no+idea+what+you+re+talking+about
ReplyDeleteFreud is not obsolete, I actually love him a lot. Gets a bit touchy when one comes into my personal space though. I would not recommend entering the 1m radius around me without warning me. As you will see Elie Thorne Freud is a gorgeous German Shepherd..this is pretty much the level where I put psychology...and in there it really works I admit, but this is how far it goes for me. If anyone wants to convince me that I am underestimating the pseudo-scientific area s/he must convince Freud first.
ReplyDeletehttps://plus.google.com/u/0/116158120828637820065/photos/photo/5877401468756560418?pid=5877401468756560418&oid=116158120828637820065&authkey=CJKmmJ6Kqv6W9wE