Are his 15 minutes over?

pretty much. makes sense though, widespread literacy has only been around for a century at most and humans have been listening to campfire stories for hundreds of thousands of years.

it's the superior form of communication.

I've never really paid attention to him but what's his contribution to the field of psychology?

Pretty much nothing, he's not even a psychologist he's a Jungian psychoanlyst who somehow got a tenureship

He's known as the Cartographer [of meaning].

I would say his greatest contribution is introducing some ideas of psychology to the average brainlet. Every generation has their pop psychologist, and he is ours. I'm not sure he's actually created any new knowledge himself. His book Maps of Meaning is available as a free PDF download, it seems to be part philosophy part diagram of human nervous system wrt addiction especially.

>sam harris is making >35k per podcast
source? can only see how many donators he has on patreon

Not if you keep posting threads about him.

his biblical series was really good.

Christ, when are they going to peak?

just so you know the $9 a month you get for sucking chodes in McDonalds bathrooms is a very low wage, most people make significantly more than that.

Nice attempt Champ

graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators

do you remember the tao lin days? they just stopped all of the sudden

Tao who?
never heard of the guy

Are you crazy? It's only beginning. Can't wait for his new book.

This

His renown, at least at first, isn't for anything related to his professorship.

>Jungian psychology isn't one of the biggest schools of psychology
I'm not advocating for Peterson, though I really doubt you know what you're talking about here.

This desu. I was watching a Q&A with him a few months back (when I still liked him) and one of his fans asked "What do you for fun?" and Peterson answered "I like watching triggered SJWs for one thing" with this shit-eating laugh. The fame has gotten to his head I think.

This dude would be taken seriously if he had nothing to do with the whole political spiel. I imagine most people are pushed away every time they see "7 times Jordan Peterson destroyed socialism and SJWs forever" in their recommended videos.

PRINCESS DIANA GETS FUCKING HITCH SLAPPED FOR TEN HOURS STRAIGHT

Psychoanalysis is pseudoscience and you are an ignorant pseud

So you must believe all of psychology is a pseudo-science as it is built from the ground up on psychoanalytic theories. In which case, you could have just insulted Peterson for being involved in a pseudo-science.

It's literally not. It's outdated hooey.

Okay

Yeah just because it was first doesn't mean that subsequent ideas are built on it. Which biology do you trust: medieval or contemporary?

Chaps Trap House is fucking good though.

Why is Jung discussed on Veeky Forums and not Veeky Forums? Also, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have evidence to back it up. Please tell me how psychoanalysis is correct and/or useful. Psychology is a science no? Can you even paraphrase a contemporary study to back up your claim?

An idiot

a lot of it has been maintained; repression, projection, his interpretation of dreams, his psychodynamic theory and so on

Lol

It was though. Any modern psychologist who says differently is fooling themselves.
Please cite where I said my personal views on psychology, turbosperg.

Hmm I guess I'll pick dreams. Can you elaborate on Jung's dream interpretation and explain to me why it's correct if that's what you think.

That's a different person, turbosperg. Wow, your insufferability just really pours from everything you write.

Haha alright can you argue for any psychoanalysis dream interpretation? Your insults make me think you can't at all. Is this true? Am I frusterating you?

Insofar as we can deduce that dreams are formulated with products of the unconscious; because dreaming is a state in which you are unconscious and certain ideas are making themselves known to you, they are presenting themselves to you in an intangible, uncontrollable way; then it is reasonable to believe that certain ideas (even so little as tangential image association experiments that have not yet resulted in any kind of revelatory fullness) which have not made themselves conscious (as in during lucid consciousness, a conclusion about something suddenly springing on to your mind without explanation for having been thinking about that particular thing in that moment) are trying to communicate themselves to the consciousness albeit in a more primitive language (symbolism) that the rational, scientific mind effects little in the way of understanding. Certain representations of ideas presenting themselves to you may be contained in having nightmares of things that you are particularly fearful of and are often topical or relate to your personal life: nightmares have the value of being such a plain expression that is intrinsically accepted and understood by most people. The idea is that it is naive and ignorant to the power of the unconscious faculties to assume that only these plainly spelled out dreams can contain any meaning, and that the more intangible and unorthodox dreams that seem to consist of "non-sense" are in fact non-sense. The trouble and purpose of dream interpretation is to try and identify motifs and particularly personal symbols that communicate certain concepts or metaphors to the subject: this is why dream interpretation cannot be a science per-se because the process is highly subjective and cannot be systematized: Jung specifically warns against systematization and that this is the wrong approach to dream interpretation, since people from different cultures will inherently have differing dream devices that are used to communicate similar concepts, or archetypes, and even within the same culture, people live different lifestyles that will affect their natural associations of symbols. One person struggling with over-rationality in their dreams may have trouble involving a calculator, another with a textbook, but the commonality between these two images, he argues, is that they would both serve to represent the scientific objectivity that characterizes modern man.

(You)

i'm just mentioning a few things that have been maintained. There are only three major dream interpretations and methods of analysis used in psychology that i'm aware of. Jungian, Freudian and gestalt analysis, i'm not very familiar with the third one but from my understanding the school itself is heavily influenced by psychoanalysis however the dream interpretation aspect differs in that they believe dreams to be an encoded message to yourself of sorts which seems pretty similar to freuds wish fullfillment theory anyway. I know there are fields other than psychology that believe there is no inherent meaning to dreams however i'm just saying that practically all dream analysis in psychology stems from freud and is still used

And what is the application of this? People see a psychoanalyst because they are experiencing some mental pain, no? Would you consider this a medical practice? Do you expect these ideas to one day correlate to the physical brain?

This makes me sad

Yes I'm not doubting how prevalent these practices are but would you consider this to be a medical practice? If you are aware of other explanations for dreaming, do you favor the psychoanalysis approach to the others? If so, why?

Entry level tactics, turbosperg. You're going to have to try harder to win my heart.

i should note that the major critiques of freudian dream analysis are that it is based on case studies, that it isn't scientifically falsifiable which as mentioned is obviously going to be the case due to the subjective nature of dreams and the other major critique is that it's too heavily focused on the unconscious which is a shit point when you think about it.
in jungian? to identify what the dream is attempting to express in order to apply what is being expressed to the dreamers life.
In freudian analysis? to identify what the dream is attempting to obfuscate and repress in order to alleviate the tension of what has been repressed

i consider freudian dream analysis to be more of a mental massage, it has it's uses but they are limited. I think it's helpful to identify the cause of hysteria and the like and as i mentioned in that it relieves 'unconscious tension'.

Also I favor the psychoanalytic approaches because they seem the most reasonable to me. As I see it your unconscious desires are constantly repressed due to the 'oppressive' nature of living in a society; these desires must express themselves so they often appear in the form of neuroses, freudian slips and dreams where your mental guard is down. To me this seems like a very reasonable explanation of dreams however i do believe that dreams also just appear biologically but they just happen to be a route in which repressed desires are able to express themselves.

Okay so there is an assumption that the dream is "doing" something either expressing or obfuscating from your examples. Am I understanding this right? Where does this idea that a dream does anything come from? How is this argued for?

yes as all theories it starts with postulating a hypothesis. In this case it is that dreams are possible to interpret. Thats what i was saying with one of the major critiques being that the theory is based on case studies, because freud goes through individual cases to identify the source of his second hypothesis (that dreams are a product of wish fulfilment). I can give you an example that has very little distortion in it. Often young kids will need to go to the bathroom late at night but instead dream that they have gone to the bathroom leading to them wetting the bed; this is quite common. Another good example that is common in pubescent teens is the 'wet dream', it seems hard to argue that these types of dreams are doing nothing. If you're interested in the actual case studies you should just read the book, there isn't any pre-requisite reading

Hmm it's interesting how angry you are right now. Do you deny you wanted to have sex with your mother when you were young?

the idea that dreams are doing something is discussed by aristotle, it's not a particularly recent idea

Yeah the idea exists and it has existed for a long time. This is not an argument that one should believe this idea.

hmm i dunno man aristotle basically proves that there is at least some sort of non random element of dreams when he talks about slight changes in your environment such as temperature while you're dreaming can have the same effect in your dream except that it is more pronounced in the dream

>Sam Hyde gets less than 3k a month

Irrespective of his political views, he's just way too funny for this to be fair. To say nothing of the Dick Show (30k a month?)

No.

>Okay so there is an assumption that the dream is "doing" something either expressing or obfuscating from your examples. Am I understanding this right?
It's a bit more obfuscated a process than that. One of the primary arguments is that unconsciousness was primitive man's natural state, and that consciousness was an eventual bi-product and development out of unconsciousness. Consciousness in its development was like a system of archipelago islands: as contents assimilated in the unconscious mind gained particular traction and influential weight they would emerge temporarily into conscious contemplation and as they lost energy they would sink again into the waters of unconscious. We might understand this process on a personal level by considering the conscious development of children, where they can have isolated instances of conscious memory that then lapses for years at a time before another instance of consciousness is recalled, and with time the eventual whole consciousness develops and the child is more or less self-aware. (Personally, my very first flash memory was probably as an infant or young toddler, I remember lying in my crib and looking up at a dresser positioned off to the side. It seemed enormous, looming over me.) Therefore, the logical progression of thought was that, dreaming seems to be a is the state of being where consciousness is most dissociated from, it is the time when you are the most susceptible to the influence of your unconsciousness' autonomous functioning, because the unconscious is always functioning. It is not necessarily that dreaming has the specifically purposive nature that is mistakenly prescribed to the idea of interpreting a dream, but rather that is something of a result of having achieved consciousness (which can only be sustained temporarily) in the first place, and that it should also be possible that if we utilize our consciousness to attempt to understand what is happening in our unconscious as it is presented to us in this transient phase, that we may be able to learn something based on the images presented to us in the proverbial battle that it's constantly engaged in by the unconscious to try to take in information about and order the world around it, to understand it and assimilate it, and try to balance the self and find an orientation in the order of life and its demands according to your group. This is why Jung's dream interpretation was developed for assisting in the treatment of a client's neurosis: the neurotic principle affecting their mental health or their life as a whole was often a result of some sort of unresolved conflict or value principle or religious crises that was preventing them from being soulfully at ease.

link or it didn't happen

yeah dude this 30 year career professor who has taught and still teching at the most presitigous universities in the world is so passe

Academia is a scam

No thoughts on their beliefs but they talk and joke like a bunch of teenagers. No wonder they can get a following.

Peterson's a moralizing rhetorotician. He's very weak and mild, so much so that I don't think any of his fans will use him as the ladder to greater things he envisions himself as. His ideological goal is built around a transcendence of sorts, but he ties it down to a liberal mundanity. Even if he's an effective rabble rouser, what will he achieve? A few "culturally Christian" democrats.

Yeah so once again what proof is there that this idea for how concsciousness came about? It's a cool idea but why is it true? My main issue here is that these ideas are applied in treatment of mental health problems. This is an issue because psychoanalysis is based on many untestable things and it's arguemented from an armchair not a scientific lab. Mental health is no joke and treating it with unscientific philosophy is just irresponsible.

patreon.com/thedickshow

my guy

>Yeah so once again what proof is there that this idea for how concsciousness came about?
A simple explanation would be history. There is history, and there is also prehistory. History largely only exists because of self-awareness and conscious reflection. That is why you cannot go back further than a certain amount of time looking for written history because it ceases to exist. It is the demonstration of the idea of a human that was pre-historic, pre-conscious mode of life; they can find relics and religious artefacts but no manner of unearthing what they were used for or what their instrinsic meaning was besides postulation. The fact that there is a pre-historic, pre-conscious man gives itself to the argument that unconsciousness came first and that consciousness was a gradual development out of it. The question then would seem to be: how can we know of it really happenes gradually or if it was not all at once? Well for one believing it to happen all at once is too demanding. That type of paradigmatic shift in the development in human cognition is far too grand to happen in a single generation or by a single individual through their (what might as well be) messianic birth. And again, we can attempt to map the development of greater human consciousness by observing the hyperactive developmentwe witness in/experience as children: the blotted history of conscious revelation before it once again fades but eventually grows to take hold after developing a proper fullness. We can only assume that the development process engaged in formulating consciousness in the modern man is a reflection of that of the pre-historic man, because we are literally just the end product of him, and many of the features of our being are, physiologically speaking, remnants of those very ancestors which function in a similar way. It would be arrogant to assume that only the technical development of the mind is entirely changed (not to be confused with the idea of promoting logical faculties because that is rather recent, but the same faculties are acquired by similar processes of cognitive development as were their shamanistic ideas and mythological systems: Erich Neumann argues that the pre-historic man was just as logical as we are today but that the logical steps were articulated with a different orientation of the self to the universe, for at the beginning there was no "self", everything was about the collective and the mysterious universe in which they inhabited. So rather than saying that their way of comprehending the contents of the world was archaic, because that is not the position, he says that the mind, or at least with relation to the unconscious, was just as complex and developed as it is now, but we've ceased to find any value or meaning in things that were highly revelatory or influential to the medicineman in favor of the scientific rationalism that's become the modern extreme to which all are accustomed) when...

Which he?

...physiologically speaking the other components of the body are relatively unchanged.

>This is an issue because psychoanalysis is based on many untestable things and it's arguemented from an armchair not a scientific lab. Mental health is no joke and treating it with unscientific philosophy is just irresponsible.
Your argument of mental health is a primitive standpoint which is what inspired Jung's work in the firstplace: that it assumes a particular form of neurosis has some kind of physical origin that can be combated by medication to to alter or increase or decrease some chemical responsivity in certain areas in the brain. His entire premise is derived from observing chemical treatments to do nothing in the aiding of neurosis which pressed him to ask, "Why?" It was his conclusion that certain mental afflictions are literally because of your mentality or orientation or attitude about the world, and that the mind comes up either complimentary or compensatory mechanisms to try and keep the subject afloat in the tumultuous sea of unconsciousness and its relation to the outside world.

It is literally mind games, bad thoughts weighing your psyche down, and it is his idea that the only way to combat those bad thoughts is to confront them, analyze them, try and figure out if or what the hell they're trying to tell you, isolating the source of tension in your life, and trying to mediate it with the new personal understanding you have of yourself. The problem is that most people are un-reflective and deny that anything is going on any deeper than the surface level. They've completely isolated themselves from their unconscious faculties and as such have no way of getting a grip on their psychic affliction. That is, until you go to sleep, until consciousness is dissolved and loses its temporary control over your cognitive mind, and your unconscious is "leased" enough energy to actually influence the mind (again, not as a purposive process, but as a bi-product of consciousness that Jung believes can offer insight into human neurotic affliction if you try to make sense of the things that are going on inside of it).

Stop trying to justify giving amphetamines to children under the guise of it being "more scientific". Let them go and play and hurt themselves and grow and realize their potential strength and ability so they don't grow up into coddled losers that list their lexicon of mental illnesses as some form of qualifications list on the resume for employment. It's not good. Although your aversion to this style of "treatment" (it honestly feels more of a philosophical approach to mental balance to me) because it defies your rational principles. I'm just saying you shouldn't be so sure: different things can help different people and a balanced approach of all methodologies should stand to be more effective than merely "prescription drugs for everything".

Sigh when I type some bullshit this long I'm bound to fuck it up.

>Although I understand your aversion to this style of "treatment" (it honestly feels more of a philosophical approach to mental balance to me), because it defies your rational principles.

Fixed.

I didn't say anything about medications. Don't put words in my mouth. There are other forms of talk therapy e.g. CBT, which doesn't deal in the abstract and unprovable ideas such as the one for consciousness that you just described. I don't doubt that psychoanalysis can help people but psychoanalysis makes many assumptions about the mind that are not or cannot be proved. For example what exactly is the neural substrate of the Id, Ego, superego and any other of these assumptions? Do you deny that the brain creates the mind? And that any aspect of the mind could be described in the physical terms of the brain? If so than you would think that one day we could identify the super ego etc with neuroscience methods, right? Also there's no experiment that I can think of right now to test that pre-historic man was totally unconscious for some time. Not only this but I can't think of any experiments to support this idea in anyway.

If you want to learn more you might as well just read Jung and Neumann instead of taking the information of a haphazardly articulated second hand. I can't really address what you're asking because I'm not a student of these things, I just understand the abstract principles that they used to describe why the diagnosis of an issue can be in some cases attributed to the unconscious autonomy. You don't have to believe it, but insofar as I can read what they say and in whatever instances possible apply their ideas to specifically parallel instances of formativity in my own life, it has the appearance of being completely reasonable in spite of being entirely a priori. The fact is that we can't go back in time to try and understand how primitives thought and approached the world, the best we can do is try and empathize with the world in which they lived and where they came from with the only vestiges of their societies that we do retain, which is their religious custom. Neumann's "The History and Origins of Consciousness" specifically tries to posit the relationship of the budding consciousness in pre-modern man as it is reflected in the stories they told and the customs they practiced: the parallel between the increasing complexity of mythology as their mythology was the reflective outlet for consciousness.

Again, it is completely a priori, but it has reasonable grounds for consideration and exoloration even if you think the actual conclusion of the work is off the mark. Mythology is one of the oldest yardsticks we have, so it's all we really can work with or compare to.

Why not give me some books on CBT, since it sounds to me as a more or less address to problems you already understand yourself to have consciously, rather than the source of your dis-ease still being yet unknown and ("requiring") unconscious analysis to attempt to uncover.

I suppose an important thing to note is that Jung never preached giving his clients a hard and fast diagnosis. His approach was that of taking what they said and deliberating on it, and then trying to push the person in a potentially helpful direction in identifying the source of their problem themselves. Psychoanalysis didn't lend itself to dogmatism, because so long as a suggestion didn't resonate with a client personally then that suggestion was by and large false, or at least false insofar as it was no use to the client. The special moment in the psychoanalytic process, he felt, was when you could articulate something to the client that would make them stop and say, "Wow, that really does sound like this Thing that is going on in my life, I recognize that, I will go home and think about that more." Because acknowledging the problem is the first step to coming to a progressive solution of that problem, hence the age-old introspective practices of prayer and meditation (again, things generally discarded by modern scientific rationalism: in such a frame you might very well view the psychoanalyst as being an external mediator for the personal thoughts where the person themselves has lost touch with the inner voice and hence cannot do it on their own). It hardly a cure or a guarantee, it's just an idea. But insofar as an idea possesses positive motivational factors, we need not say that the idea of false or impotent. In my experience, you can articulate an idea in a dozen different assemblies but only one of them may truly speak to a person. It's not to say that in the other eleven cases the idea was invalid. Sometimes it just needs to be presented with certain windowdressing to make it resonate with on a personal level that will motivate change and growth.

I feel like I'm just going in circles here. I really recommend you might as well take it straight from the horse's mouth if you have a real interest in understanding what they thought, and their rationale behind it, since I'm most assuredly doing a disservice in its paraphrasing. I'm just a pleb after all, they were the teachers.

You don't get to make fun of ironycels if you are a Peterson acolyte Tbh

I would suggest "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: The Basics and Beyond" by Judith Beck. But also maybe a book like "Thinking Fast and Slow" which is not really about mental illness but is a good book for seeing how cognitive psychology works, which is the field that CBT sorta came from although there are other influences on CBT. Thanks for the good discussion.

>CBT

Its unironically "Just be yourself"
Pseudo-medicine horseshit

>CBT... doesn't deal in the abstract and unprovable ideas
lol

peterson is eternal now

your problem is you think psychoanalysis has the brain for its object. that’s because you’re positivist scum. psychoanalysis hinges on the subject as revealed in speech. as such it’s assumptions, arguments, and structures are not contingent on your models of “proof,” by are rather subject to hermeneutical analysis and interpretation

God, was I ever this young?

He's done some quality research on behavioral psychology and correlations with the Big Five traits

Don't use so many big words you'll confuse him

I mean at this point who doesn't have a podcast?

Wait, aren't theses the guys who tried to start a flamewar with MDE and got absolutely fucking destroyed?

>Sam Hyde
>funny
pick one

what a stupid picture

Seconding this How about you fuckers just read Freud? If you're so interested in dream interpretation, read the fucking Interpretation of Dreams.

>b-but it doesnt work! I know it because uuhhhhh it's not science I guess!
Here:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18827212
There's other studies done by these researches about the effectiveness of psychoanalysis. There's countless other studies done by other people, all of which show effectiveness. Even the oldest opposition to Freud, his contemporaries, noted that the treatment showed results 'despite not being scientific'. Go to the ''similar articles'' section.

Do you really want to get into the epistemology of it all? Read Lacan, Bion, Bachelard, etc. They either try to defend psychoanalysis as a science or, like Lacan, claim psychoanalysis is a praxis and philosophy of language.

desu Lacan did way more harm than good.

sam isn't making any content. he makes like 1 or two videos a month. for people with lives IRL thats almost so little that you'd forget he's even there

Praise Kek!

>shoegaze and midwest emo fans

I can't help it, I'm from Wisconsin.

i have been thinking about this a bit recently. The id seems to me to be the amygdala and hypothalamus. There is actually a field that is trying to reconcile psychoanalysis with neuroscience called 'neuropsychoanalysis' that you could look into. The thing i'm finding so retarded about your posts is that you clearly aren't the least bit familiar with the ideas you're pitifully criticising but rather just spreading hearsay. why don't you actually familiarise yourself with some psychoanalysis before trying to argue about it??? If you had read anything you would know freud actually started out as a neurologist but recognised that not everything can be described neurologically

the mde fanbase is like 12 really devoted /pol/lacks at this point

holy trips batman

literally

All talk therapies are equally effective for depression