If human nature is a spook how does psychology work?

There is no unchanging essence. Human nature is merely a bad way of saying human behaviour, which includes everything our species does. But people are always in flux, as are species.

>But people are always in flux, as are species.

When was the last time you became a different species?

>if human nature is a spook how does psychology work?
It doesn't. Psychologists are all quacks and profiteers.

Either dipshit or troll. I hate you for making me respond on the off chance you actually are this stupid. Species change over time. Not the individuals so much as with each generation and each new combination of genes. Each time a new generation is created, the physiological groundwork of mental phenomena changes, as do the new generation's aptitudes and predispositions. Hence "human nature" means something slightly different (within certain parameters of variability) between each member of the species and will mean something slightly different (within certain parameters of variability) with each new generation.

This is mostly true, but there has been much insight brought by application and extrapolation of certain obvious principles like what I just stated. Much of psychology is just framing philosophy in academic language and validating it using statistics as an engine of confirmation bias. And much of psychology is also just an attempt to sift through our ideas and find what is truly inferrable from the obvious facts, for instance that not everyone's brain is the same and therefore not everyone's "nature" is exactly alike, but nobody has a brain shaped like dog shit and therefore nobody has the nature that one would have if they had a brain shaped like dog shit.

>physiological groundwork
you mean 'genotype' and 'phenotypic expression'

>mental phenomena
you mean 'behavior'

>parameters of variability
you mean 'standard distribution'

No, I in fact meant what I said. While your choices in academic vocabulary resonate with the professional crowd, mine are more descriptive and harder for the layman to argue with.

>Human nature isn't universal to humans
You need to lay off of the weed kiddo.

lol

The inborn predispositions of behavior in a species are variable among members of that species. Fite me, cuntface.

You're a taint-licking wheedler.

You could hardly call them 'inborn presuppositions of the species' if they aren't possessed by the species and are variable.

Psychology isn't the philosophical study of human nature, it's the scientific study of cognitions and behaviors. Human nature in the abstract sense is not observable, but behavior can be studied and thoughts can be described.

And yet most people do choose to eat unpleasant food when hungry, keep living when miserable, and masturbate when not getting any. I guess the physiological conditions that underlie certain behaviors are common to most of us, because almost none of us put food shakes in our asses, kill ourselves as soon at the first sign of a bad day, or fuck cacti.

>physiological conditions that underlie certain behaviors

you mean genotype and phenotypic expression

Your examples still don't represent 'inborn presuppositions of the species,' they only represent tendencies of observed groups.

Denying essences is the same as denying inductive reasoning. See:
>The lack
"Lack" does not actually exist.
>of an unchanging
"Unchanging" does not actually exist.
>essence
"Essence" does not actually exist, yet you are obligated to refer to the "essence of essences" in order to deny them.
>does not imply absence
"Absence" does not actually exist.
>of phenomena.
"Phenomena" does not actually exist.

Your entire post is meaningless.
kys pseudo

Haha, if nothing exists and nothing implies something then something exists even if nothing exists lol Xd

Part of human techno-culture, and history too for that matter.
>i would put roses round our door
>sit in the garden
>growin' potatoes by the score

>Roxy Music

Really dating yourself with that reference Gramps.

Why are you assuming psychology works?

You almost get it.

You can explain human behaviour. It's just, it's a hell of a lot more complex and dynamic than some generalist philosopher or psychologist with pet "theory", make it out to be.

The memey concept of human nature so often peddled is far removed from reality and not helpful, and ascribing to it completes its function as a spook. This doesn't negate the ability to model human behaviour, assuming you are not disingenuous and realise that accurately doing so requires rigourous, multi-faceted study and heavy use of mathematics. Instead of what pretty much amounts to empty rhetoric, to validate some ideology, opinion or action.

it's not that human nature is a spook it's that what 99% of people call human nature is a spook.
psychology isn't totally useless in helping people but from what i see it's just guesswork.

Psychology doesn't work, old hag loving piece of shit.

To elaborate.
Models of human behaviour and human nature are two different things.

Also, whether or not something is a spook is more dependent on how it affects you. Say I have a detailed and mostly-complete model that can predict and explain the whole of human behaviour (this is very unlikely as tiny and varied facets modelled is the only truthful approach, rather than an overall theory). While this is obviously a powerful tool. Letting it subjugate you, so you render it sacred and untouchable, the answer to all things human, letting it rule your life rather than employing its utility and nothing more. Is to make the model a spook. Or rather, not the model itself but the connotations, usage and other things built up around it. The ideal formed. The ideal itself is not necessarily a spook, it just depends if it subjugates you or not - most likely it does, as ideals are so fickle and removed from reality and their progenitors that it's hard to approach or make use of them without them being owned by the spookery.

>posting annika on Veeky Forums