I would like to start reading psychology, any advice on where to begin.
I would like to start reading psychology, any advice on where to begin
Start with 5 Lectures about Psychoanalysis by Freud, and Man and his Symbols by Jung.
No Freud please
Why, what is wrong with Freud?
New Age Fanfiction Taken Too Far
Erotic Clairvoyance for Dummies
Start with preemptively dropping it.
Freud invented psychoanalysis. There is no skipping his works if you want to dive into psychology. I'm more of a jungian man myself, but Jung and Lacan had extraordinary insights into society and 'extroverted' analysis. Jung spent a lot of time working out the differences and flaws between analytical psychology and freudian psychoanalysis. Get familiar with some of freud's introductory works such as the 5 lectures, and psychopathology of everyday life. (both around a hundred pages long)
Crawl back to mommy you non individuated modern schizophrenic manchild.
Freud and Jung had a lot to say about the hostility psychoanalysis met when introduced to society. You probably have dreams of sucking cock every night yet represses those as childish fantasy. It would you do good to give a chance to the two books introductory books I wrote above.
I enjoyed Interpretation of Dreams... i.e. Irma's dream *fap fap fap*.
Seriously though, when he's writing about the man who saw a lizard in a dream; one he had 'never seen' something new- only to later realize years later that it's figure and picture was from a magazine picture he had read but not remembered from when he was younger. It was stored in the brain somewhere in a place he couldn't remember consciously, but did in a dream. Bunch of fun tidbits.
Psychoanlysis isn't psychology in the academical sense, it's elaborted laymans heuristics.
Jungs concept are based on Freuds work
Wrong, they study the same subject "humans inner life" and use some of the same sources to do this, Jungs works don't share their axioms with Freud works. Freud found him when Jung already devloped his theories and they started corresponding with each other, but Jung system was always something standing on it's own.
aggressiveness, projections, obsession with penises
Doesn't seem to have helped you in any way.
Psychoanalysis is bunk though. The literature of it is only ever read by English majors now, since they are the only ones for whom the theories of interpretation are still relevant.
Freud invented psychoanalysis
Freud invented retarded pseudo-science
What an accomplishment.
Freudian psychoanalysis is barely a step above Parapsychology, there's no reason to waste time and brainspace on it.
There is you study literature and literary theory. The Interpretation of Dreams is required reading for any English major. I myself had to read it as well as Civilization and its Discontents as well as selected shorter writings during my under graduate years.
There is you study literature and literary theory.
There's also a lot of value in understanding the basics of Miasma theory if you're a history student. Not so much if you're actually studying medicine.
If you're in college I recommend reading random books from the library's psychology section -- anything pre1965 is good.
Gestalt is interesting
NLP is interesting
Jung and Freud are key.
Vygotsky and Piaget for childhood psychology
Kurt Lewin is influential
Why pre 1965?
Don't do it, OP. It's a Jewish trick.
that's an arbitrary date, you could probably manage pre1975 just as easily. But I find modern psychology is embarrassing to the field, too focused on therapy and pop-psych. Older stuff is more wicked and base, no 'feel-good' theories, not written for mass appeal, just cold and analytical.
If you read into NLP with books like 'Frogs into Princes' or 'Sleight of Mouth' you will see what I mean, the language is too frilly.
ur rite sieg heil
Dip your crooked proboscis in this reservoir so you can can be 42.
According to Ernest Becker [a philosopher who wrote The Denial of Death], as we grow up, at some point we become aware of death, then the fact that people we know and love die, then the fact that someday we, too, will die. Most of us do what we can to avoid it. Meanwhile, we embrace identities and the illusion of self-sufficiency. We pursue activities, both positive and negative, that we hope will lift us beyond the chains of ordinary existence and perhaps endure after we are gone. Whether we succeed or fail ,we are still going to die. The only solace, of course, is to believe that since we are created, there must be a Creator, one to whom we matter and will in some way return. Becker seemed to have met Immanuel Kant’s test of life : ‘How to occupy properly that place in creation that is assigned to man, and how to learn from it what one must be in order to be a man.’ I’ve spent a life time trying to do that. Becker’s book helped convince me it was an effort worth making.
Source: My Life, by Bill Clinton, p.235 Jun 21, 2004
oh u got me gut i mus be pole
And this is why psychology is not taken seriously as a science. Nobody claims you have to read the Principia to get into physics. And recommending Freud is like saying you have to read Aristotle to get into physics.
well you do have to read aristotle to get into physics
when i got my drivers license the instrucort wore a toga and pnly spoke greek
if i hadn't had to translate the metaphysics and the ethics into 3 languages from a 2200-year-old piece of papyrus as a grad student i never would have gotten my dirver's licence
Why would you want to know about psychoanalysis to get into psychology? I see no relation.
I'm just gonna unironically crib a bunch of shit from literally racist propaganda in order to claim there's no actual racisim on the internet
you're an idiot lmao
yeah, it is
either 10/10 troll or complete gay-ass pussy herbivore bugman in real life
no in between
major in Psychology
expect to learn about humans and the human condition
it's actually 30% optical illusions, 70% statistics and 100% insufferable, self-important professors and students
Good to hear you don't bother with psychoanalysis.
If you have access to some school library try to find textbooks. I've recently read on animal behavior and neuroendocrinology myself, which is not necessary though.
I think cognitive biases are worth knowing about though be aware that there is now some doubt about some of them. Otherwise you'll have to be more specific what interests you and I can suggest better.
For popular science I enjoyed reading about political psychology like Predisposed and Our Political Nature. You can try Robert Sapolsky's Behave. I suggest looking at the citations in these books and go dive into google scholar.
One of the first non-pop sci psychology books I got was Evolutionary Psychology: the New Science of the Mind by David M. Buss. I'm very fond of it. A highly rated book on humans by an anthropologist is "The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit". I was looking for this book since it is so highly rated, but I couldn't find it and due to the date I feel it is already outdated. The notes are available for free on the author's cite. You can look them up to get an idea of the book.
I personally prefer books with some biological backing whatever it is genes, evolution or hormones. I think it is good to be more skeptical of evolutionary psychology compared to what Sapolsky does or those who work with genetics.
Very pop-sci stuff is Dan Ariely and Scott Barry Kaufman. I've also read "The Hour between Dog and Wolf". One of my main interests in psychology is abnormal psychology and for that I would look for papers by Bernard Crespi. He is a biologist who developed with Christoper Badcock the imprinted brain theory. Christopher blogs and is less rigorious as Crespi. I've read his book and there's some interesting stuff but most of it is anecdotical evidence instead of cited papers which I look for.
For autism look for Simon Baron-Cohen. And for sex differences I found the neuroendocrinology textbook helpful.
For personality there's the Big Five (Myers-Briggs like psychoanalysis is pseudoscience). Though I have to say I'm still skeptical of it even when neuroscientist Dick Swaab mentions it approvingly. And political psychology uses the Big Five heavily because certain traits have been shown to correlate with political leanings.
Have you read Being There by Andy Clark, or Moral, Believing by Christian Smith? If not I'd highly recommend them.
What else would psychology base itself on if not neurology and behavior? They seem to be much firmer ground than dreams. And how would we get any sort of satisfactory proof of our theories if we don't quantify or test them?
Also, what's your issue with American psychology?
*Moral, Believing Animals by Christian Smith
What else would psychology base itself on if not neurology and behavior?
Don't be like this guy OP.
Calling psychoanalysis a pseudoscience demonstrates that you are absolutely unfamiliar with the subject. Psychoanalysis doesn't aim usurp the crediblity of neurology and its ramifications (like Science tends to do). Neuroendocrinology certainly did not explain the phenomenology of symbols.
Oh and I'm a behavioral biologist. All of the books you listed are great btw. But I don't force every thing through the science prism. This attitude is refered to as Autism. Jokes aside, the unilateral ultra-rational conscious attitude is actually a symptom of conscious/unconscious dissociation. Often stems from a repressed anima.
You sure showed me with that hot argument.
If I post a smug, will you die?
What else would psychology base itself on if not neurology and behavior?
Analytical psychology and psychoanalysis in general bases itself on the phenomenology of dream symbolism. It pertains to the direct experience of an individual. Its goal is not to uncover the hidden truth of the universe like science pretentiously claims to(Still does a good job of it - until it reaches its own limitations).
When doea Jung become fun to read? Or is it always a slog? Finished Man and His Symbols and I am a chapter into Symbols of Transformation.
So it's a bunch of unverifiable, unfalsifiable experiences that can't be shown or compared that result from random stimulation of brain cells during sleep?
Its goal is not to uncover the hidden truth of the universe like science pretentiously claims to
Science doesn't claim to "uncover" any hidden truth (hidden by what?), that'd be magic. As an engineer might say, all models are wrong, some of them are useful.
I was expected this kind of stuff because Veeky Forums is full of schizotypals. But why would you go with psychoanalysis? I would go for Stuart Kauffman and Terrence Deacon to go beyond reductionism. I still need to read Deacon though and I've heard he is rather difficult.
If you don't want any of that why not stick with folk psychology, your own experience, tales and lore. Why psychoanalysis? What does it offer? It is not like you even can have a fully scientific view of life no matter how much you read. Human biases, memory constraints and other quirks are gonna mess it up anyway.
And science itself has limits. I just don't see what psychoanalysis has to offer.
I hope you are not the biosemiotics fag. Et tu?
30% optical illusions
What do you mean user?
Would like to studie psychology
Is it that bad as a choice?
I study psychology and every year or so I find a book and I say: " Fuck I should have read this a long time ago". It's such a diverse field user. Lately, behavioral economics is talked about endlessly. On the subject I reccomend books by Gigerenzer and Simon. Out of the top of my head: Sapolsky, Deirdre, Matthew Walker are all engaging and interesting, but they don't write about behavioral eco. If you suggest a particular area I might be more helpful.
Knew I forget a few, this was one of em.
Did you pull one of your psychoanalytic tricks on me?
Freud even if he was wrong about majority of things he wrote about, was so influental that some of them became reality, same with Max Weber and sociology. Also Freud didn't want his theories to be true, he was writing about how civilization was repression of sexuality, but he sided with civilization.
Would be interested in some indroductory works for a layman.
Also main areas: personality disorders and criminology.
you seem to be pretty familiar with philosophical and psychological books.. could you also recommend a book for living in the present and enjoying your time without thinking about good events that are over? so inner peace but kind of "deeper" ?
Power of now. It's hated on so much because there's literal nonsense in it...but there's also some useful stuff too. You don't need to believe in supernatural garbage to utilize the secular practices.
no one is name checked by pseuds more than jung
Jung pleb trying to claim he's a psychologist
About 70 years too late lad
Denial of Death
bit of a struggle but fun in parts "you're a God, but you're a God who shits"... being reminded that most people are taught they make shit, and their shit is icky for the first 4-5 years of their life before they learn that they are mortal and the whole immortality project kicks off, good read...it's nice to be able to simply drop your immortality project
The Taboo against knowing who you are (Alan Watts is good and you can listen to his stuff on youtube), if you enjoy that then Zen & the art of motorcycle maintenance
Power of now was ok for me but didn't have anywhere near as much effect as reading The Psychedelic Experience before taking acid did...that was ... well go and look at the beatific vision on top of Veeky Forums ... that light
behave by Robert Sapolsky
recommend this as well. funny, informative, has depth and quality of information
Irwin D. Yalom
Start with The natur e of The Child ties to his mother. Bolwby just put Psychoanalysys principles out of Psychology And Then contemporat attachment Theory.
All of it is better and more legitimate than Sigmund 'It sounded cool in my head so it MUST be true' Freud
Start with attachment theory...it touches on a newtwork of concepts with profound explanatory power stretching through most behavior, cognition, and emotion.
Self-image, in/security, repression, subconscious, neural networks-behaviourl systems.
Really pulls back the veil on just how not free will is.
maybe shoulda gone anthro. probably get the same shit though
even if he was wrong about majority of things he wrote about, was so influental that some of them became reality
so this......... is the power of frued
Plenty of things work the same way. People act out their beliefs Incuding fear of being excluded.