Psychology Into

Veeky Forums, I don't know fuck all about psychology and its theories, major players, etc. etc.

Can anyone recommend a basic overview of the major theories and accompanying books ?

Hacks and shills, the lot. Don't bother. Psychology could've been great, but it's just nonsense.

If you read the sitcky carefully, you'll realize that asking for book recommendations on a topic does not fall within the purview of Veeky Forums as a board, as it does not constitute talking about literature.

For recommendations on this particular topic, I would suggest and also that you pick up (or torrent) an introductory psychology textbook, which afaik almost always include a historical overview of the discipline. Best of luck!

Thanks, sorry.

If you do study psychology, study it as a philosopher studying philosophically inclined psychologists from the late 19th century up to Piaget and Vygotsky and not much further.

Psychology itself is one of those fields filled with chicks so it has to be dumbed down and turned into a formulaic pseudoscience to the point that a dog could do it. They bleed all the original insights out of it and replace it with a pointless "social science" with dead-end broken quantitative epistemology.

Try talking to an upper-year Psych undergrad some time. It's just a sociologist who wishes they were smart enough for Econ. Compare that with early 20th or late 19th century German psycho-_______ theoreticians before the field was formalised.

Madness and Civilization was super interesting, but more of a history book rather than an explanation of modern psychology.
'Civilisation and its discontents' was great but its the only Freud ive ever read.
The film 'century of the self' is a good place to start. Adam Curtis does a lot of pop-psych in his films in general.

Literature is printed works on paper and psychology is philosophy no matter how badly they want to play scientist.

Yeah...women...that was it.

"History of psychology" by morton hunt.

Freud's Interpretation of Dreams is a good place to start.

The basic theory you can begin with is, people are motivated by forces they must look deeply into themselves to discover.

Good rebuttal

Glad you agree.

The definition of literature is often contested. A thread exploring the various arguments about what is and isn't literature would be very interesting, I suggest that you start one.

However, as it stands, the operational definition that Veeky Forums as a board is managed with does not include works of psychology. Dang!

As for whether or not psychology is science or philosophy: that is a very interesting discussion that could be happening on right now!

I dont need a rebuttal to those retarded statements. Psychology was nonsense when it was all men too.

>people are motivated by forces they must look deeply into themselves to discover.
that is literally the opposite of psychoanalysis. what you've described is introspection

Social psychology is qualitative by its nature and its filled with left wing rhetoric. Unfortunatly it seems to have been taken over by SJWs ect.
Clinical and Research psychology uses statistical evidence to conduct experiments and is far more technical because of this. Psychology experiments are extremely difficult to do because there are an insane amount of factors to consider. For example, a pool of participants who are all university students may test higher in anxiety (something that has been shown cross culturally in countless surveys), this may in turn influence the results of a test designed to measure eye movements in response to violent images.
Serious psychology has tried to turn away from the theoretical because psycho-analytics has a low success rate when used in therapy. Rather modern psychology relies on statistical findings to influence treatment and build a greater understanding of human behaviour and its relation to the mind.

>implying introspection isn't part of psychoanalysis

Mental illness detected

But introspection is not the means by which people discover their motivations. That's done by the analyst. Sure, introspection is used in psychoanalysis, but it is quite antithetical to discovering one's motivations.

We're at an impasse, because i don't believe it is antithetical.

We're not at an impasse if you can explain why you think so, because then discussion could continue.

Here's why I think introspection is antithetical to uncovering unconscious motives, put very simply: Freud believed that these motives are unconscious, and that conscious articulations and thoughts about motivations obscure, mask, and repress the true content of motivations.

If you can tell me why my understanding is flawed, using your own understanding and making specific references to my post, then we wouldn't be at an impasse.

I believe I have discovered my own motivations through introspection

That's all well and good, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but the post that I first replied to was about Freud.

What did you think I was talking about? I'm talking about psychoanalytic theory. Not the be all and end all absolute truth of the matter™

Also I'd like to point out that you're original reply to me was also talking about psychoanalysis, insofar as you suggested that I had a mental illness for saying that introspection is the opposite of psychoanalysis insofar as that it is used to discover unconscious motivations.

All and all, I think you've been rude and rather dishonest.

You're correct in that Freud believed a third party, i.e. the psychoanalyst makes the conclusions but I don't think Freud would be resistant to a person who understands his ideas looking inward with them

>insofar as that it is
>inb4 you call me out on this without acknowledging the point I'm making

I apologize, this is Veeky Forums, the rudeness flies quickly.

>I don't think Freud would be resistant to a person who understands his ideas looking inward with them
Sure, and I don't disagree, but he would be loath to call what that person was doing "introspection." It also doesn't really fit any definition of introspection I'm aware of.

But again, my point was simply that introspective means are by themselves not conducive to psychoanalysis. A trained analyst is needed, even if the analyst is analyzing himself. Maybe read into self-analysis?

Apology accepted

>read into self analysis?

I think you're being far too literal

>I think you're being far too literal
Maybe that's the case, but introspection is a technical term within a well defined body of theory. So in a thread discussing psychology I thought that kind of scrutiny would be of value. Maybe not, maybe I'm autistic

Maybe indeed