Be me

synchronicity lmao

You can thank Peterson for that, at least on Veeky Forums

Literally written as an introduction to his work, so yeah

Where does he talk about the stuff Joker talks about in Full Metal Jacket?

The Makings of Maleness: Men, Women, and the Flight of Daedalus

Found this book last week in the antiquarian. It's absolutely not core-Jung-reading-material but seems to be an interesting take on the recent (1990 - onward) cultural shifts in regards to gender-roles. It's written by some brittish jungian psychoanalyst.

amazon.com/Makings-Maleness-Women-Flight-Daedalus/dp/0814782043/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481477822&sr=1-5&keywords=peter tatham

pic is my copy of the swedish translation

I'm in this camp. I started with the volume of his collected works titled 'Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious' and I found inaccessible. Later on I read 'Man and His Symbols' and found it very clear.

Sincere question from someone who hasn't read him: what is the benefit of reading Jung? What do you get out of him?

Lol I love MBTI
Im so glad lit is getting into that
Im INFp/j (not really sure my p/j is superbalnced guys mabey theres a psychologist itt can clear it up lol haha) what are ur guys tyoes

Cute bait.

Jung's worldview was the least cynical and yet most true out of anyone i've ever read. His theories are unique and very thought-provoking. Everything Ive read from him has changed my perspective in some way. His autobiography is one of the most interesting things I've ever read, just because of the way he thought about things.

thanks man. I think it's a little too close to my "did you assume OP's gender" shitpost in the other thread. I need to work a little on my b8 diversity I think. But hey ho who's perfect

What do you mean. Its a jung thread so we should talk about his theory right. OTherwise whats the point...

What was unique or different about the way he thought about things?

I haven't personally read his literature and only know of his work via Jordan Peterson but I guess the little I can say about him and his work is that;

Reading psychoanalytic literature won't turn you into a psychoanalyst. It might however give you some general reassuring insight into how your own personal experiences actually plays into larger patterns of behavior that can be observed throughout our evolution. His theories are extremely non-conventional, there's no doubt about it, but if accepted, they'll provide you with an immensely fascinating way of interpreting exactly how one can draw parallels between humankind's cultural, religious, mythological and anthropological history, and the nature of the human psyche. Depending on your own situation in life you might even find direct practical value in his theories, i.e. to effectively manage personal crisis either with yourself or with other individuals (just typical therapeutic stuff).

I could go into much more detail but I'd probably do a bad job representing his ideas.

If you're interested in test sample I'd suggest looking up Jordan Petersons Maps of Meaning 2015 playlist on youtube. Much of his work is derived from a Jungian psychological perspective.

here's the playlist link desu

youtu.be/4tQOlQRp3gQ?list=PL22J3VaeABQByVcW4lXQ46glULC-ekhOp

not the guy youre replying to, but he is less reductive

freud pretty much narrowed everything down to sex, and many others reduce everything down to power or sex whereas jung didnt, his theories are a lot wider and more individualistic, youd have to read it because im bad at explaining

Very cool. Thanks guys

Studied him, Read The Red Book to find out how absolutely fucking nutty he is and then learn to dismiss most of his ideas like with Freud since he barely knew what he was talking about and (like the Wonkaesque Frued himself) how he was only really correct on a few things, retrospectively.

PS: I haven't posted on Veeky Forums in years, but a litmus test for retardation has always been who vehemently defends Frued's ideas like they made any sense.

Protip: anyone who does that literally knows nothing past pseudoscience spiritualist neo-bullshit """psychology""", since (spoiler alert) an unconscious has never been proven to be real.

This triggers redditor psych students.

Freud was wrong about a lot of things, but he essentially discovered the unconscious. I mean come on, at least he formulated the damn thing, give em a break.

>discovered something nobody has proven to exist
Again, nobody has proven there is a real unconscious. It is a concept that is very popular with pop culture...it is not science.

>you need to empirically prove something exists, if its literally the only explanation for a whole area of human phenomena
So how do you account for a SIGNIFICANT (This is important) slip of the tongue.
If I am Condoleezza Rice, and I accidentally use the phrase "my husband" instead of the phrase "President Bush", in the sentence "As I was just telling President Bush" are you saying that she intended do so, or that this mistake was just some kind of spasm of the mouth that completely coincidentally produced this slip?

>you need to empirically prove something exists
Yes...that is how science works.
>if its literally the only explanation for a whole area of human phenomena
Except it's not, only underages believe this.
>are you saying that she intended do so, or that this mistake was just some kind of spasm of the mouth that completely coincidentally produced this slip?
I would say that the brain is a complex and vastly misunderstood organ that we don't fully underatand and there are far more concrete answers for why brains fuck up then "its a mystical unprovable locker in your brain you cant access" type of autism that you literally abandon after your first psych class. Things don't just become true because there is no other alternative.Talk to anyone who teaches psych...

Next?

You sound like a faggot. Not saying you're necessarily wrong about anything, just that you sound like a faggot.

Not an argument

fradulent just like the entire field of psychology.
fyi jung believed in materialisation aka that things could manifest out of thin air.

The unconscious is most certainly real and accepted by modern neuroscience

>an unconscious has never been proven to be real
How did you consciously decide on every word in this sentence?

Thank you for repeating what they already said retard.

prove it.

prove what?

Dude, it's a complete misrepresentation of what I'm saying to call it a "mystical unprovable locker in your brain". I'm well aware there isn't a physical chunk of my brain that could be called "the unconscious", but there are a number of intersecting factors which interrupt conscious, intended action, and it's pretty bizarre to pretend there aren't. These factors can be grouped together under the moniker of "The Unconscious". And yes, I'm sure one day, we'll know exactly what it is in the brain that causes these unconscious slips, but it's a question of finding the cause of something we know exists, rather than proving that thing exists.

Also, why are STEM-autists so incapable of calm discussion? I've know so many of them and they're all the same. Knee-jerk hostility and intolerance of ideas that don't confirm what they've learn in their freshman year so far.

>Also, why are STEM-autists so incapable of calm discussion?
We're all on speed because we're kewl.

This was a comfy thread until you came along.

/thread

Why did this need greentext?

>Don't destroy my fragile worldview!
classic jungian response

Sorry to be dumb, but I don't get your point.
Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as unconscious/subconscious ?

No its not

Yes, there is no proof.

Thats a logical fallacy, mate.

Autism

Which fallacy, because you're committing the autistic fallacy right now.

It was question.

should have known that the whole jung revival is based on racism and transphobia

fucking /pol/ alt right nazis

More of a case of you souring something nice so you can be contrarian with no constructive discussion whatsoever

>but it's a question of finding the cause of something we know exists
Except nobody has actually proven an unconscious mind exists...

Fucking aspie psych 101 students who think they are experts and bought into the Frued memes that most of psychology in the modern era has ignored or disproved. Kill yourselves.

Um, yes it is.

>nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/BerlinTreatment.pdf

>psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201403/new-clues-the-inner-workings-the-unconscious-mind

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440575/

>scientificamerican.com/article/probing-the-unconscious-mind/

>scitechconnect.elsevier.com/neuroscience-evidence-unconscious-processing/

>atheismandthecity.com/2015/06/the-evidence-from-neuroscience-that.html

Did you read your own links?

But you're aware that many (if not most) neuroscientists agree that there is *something* science can't yet explain, that fits the description of the unconscious... Even if research has shown that it is not a physical part or area of the brain, there is still *something* that triggers the way we dream, the way we talk, the way we experience the world around us. And even if dreams, lapsus are not proof, they're at least hints...

Wasn't that guy but have you actually read jung?
He does have insights but he's essentially an intellectual new-age prophet.

Not Reading Posts:The user

Do you understand how inductive reasoning works?

I literally started this post off by defending the idea that we don't need to have empirical proof of unconscious processes, because the weight of inferential evidence is so astronomically strong

Yes, you could theoretically create some kind of hypotheses that allowed you to debate me on this point, but it would have to be a matrix-tier ridiculous thought experiment. Like the idea that there is an evil wizard who causes a complex spasm of the mouth and throat leading to every case of Freudian slips, and therefore it doesn't originate in the brain. Unless you can come up with a reasonable alternative to the Unconscious which explains this kind of stuff, that doesn't resemble something as ridiculous as this, then I think we can safely close this case.

"Freudian slips" aren't any more common then other slips they're just confirmation biased.

It doesn't matter the frequency you fucking clam it only matters that they fucking happen

I've never been more triggered in all my born days. Your shitposting is a fucking art form if this is a troll.

If you aren't then please head over to the Antinatalist thread and don't breed.

If they're not more common there's no reason to think they're special.

Literally what is the reasoning here? That if a Freudian slip is less common than an average everyday slip then it can't be a sign of an Unconscious?

This is your brain on STEM

Not that it can't. It's just not necessary to explain it.

Did you?

Maybe.

not that guy but psychology is like religion pretty much, you asking someone to disprove the unconscious is like a preacher asking someone to disprove god, it's fucking stupid.

everyone who takes psychology seriously is a fucking nutter. i tried therapy only to find out these people were crazier than i was and have one psych friend who has OCD and annoyingly brings up studies in conversation.

You're a fucking spesh I'm gonna have an aneurysm

Look, you wanted evidence of the unconscious. I gave it to you and you reject it on the grounds that it isn't common enough to merit looking for an explanation. I'm done man

If this has been a leg-pull i sincerely applaud your talent.

>you wanted evidence of the unconscious
No I didn't.
>you reject it on the grounds that it isn't common enough to merit looking for an explanation
I gave a simpler explanation.

But you are still being retarded about something that has no evidence.

>we don't need to have empirical proof of unconscious processes
But....you do, you absolute nutter.

How so, trips?

You are doing this unintellectual thing of "I can't prove it does exist, but something needs to be there, so it has to exist, despite lack of evidence".

It is dishonest. I don't know why everyone is so spergy about this, I sort of knew it would trigger first year psych students, but again (for probably the third time) there has never been concrete ajd substantial evidence that Freud's concept of a "subconscious" or "unconscious" mind, exists. And you can't work backwards with evidence, that is not how any science works. If you were the clod from earlier who basically said "I feel it, so it must be true because there isn't a better answer yet", you are being intellectually dishonest.

Also, if you were the very same clod who posted the links you never read, not a single one of them corroborates that Freud's definition of subconscious and unconscious minds exist.

Now, usually, how science works, is that if you can't sufficiently prove something....it doesn't exist..

Which doesn't mean an unconscious mind exists...

Fucking Christ this board is idiotic.

>I don't understand science: the post
>written by: autist psych student

Buddy, this is literally my field; most modern psychologists would laugh at you.

>psychology is a religion
And depression isn't real...right? Most 0psychology that isn't fringe autism, is a form of science.

>You are doing this unintellectual thing of "I can't prove it does exist, but something needs to be there, so it has to exist, despite lack of evidence".
No I'm not.

You never produced evidence, you just said "something has to be there, so it must be true", that's fundie Christfag level of stupid. That isn't how science works, kiddo.

Then I confused you with someone else, my bad.

Why don't you guys provide links to papers that either refute/deny an unconscious mind, or support an unconscious mind?

Not exactly, I just think it's unhelpful to label it as such within the confines of psychology. Once you label someone autistic, bi-polar, schizophrenic, OCD, depressive etc it just makes them identify as such and if anything that does more harm than good. That's not to say it isn't real, it's just that the problem can be fixed and shouldn't be viewed as a permanent illness.
Treatment wise, medication as a temporary thing if someone is severely suffering isn't too bad, but anything more than a few months of medication is just harmful. Therapy can be useful but that's highly dependent on the therapist.

>autism can be fixed
post proof

Nothing you said made any sense, I hope you understand that.

>labeling mental diseases is a self fulfilling prophecy. They dont actually exist
If you believe this, you are genuinely stupid. Mental disorders and diseases are very real. What fucking century do you live in?

>it just makes them identify as such
Yeah...because they have that disorder or mental disease...

This

>it does more harm than good to identify the problem you suffer from

I honestly wonder why this website attracts so many uneducated people.

I think even though /pol/ raised awareness about Peterson, people here on Veeky Forums watch him more for his ideas than the fact that he came out on top in a fight with the social justice war machine. It isn't even like his stance on the autismos with 10,000 genders is something that'd be considered controversial on here anyways.

Because you dont prove a negative so yoi have to prove it DOES exist, yet nobody has ever done that...so it doesn't exist.

Dumb shitposter

*frogposter

>explaining how the burden of proof works
>makes you a shitposter
Right. Let me guess your age.

Dumb shitposter

OP here.
I just wanted good advice on how to get into Jung's work, in order to make my own opinion on the subject.
I didn't mean to start a war, or any kind of dick measuring contest.
I sincerely apologize.
You're all faggots

Apology accepted.

like darwin's evolution theory, you mean ?

I dont honestly know why people thought he was automatically correct just because they already had a confirmed bias against their social justice boogeyman, going INTO that. It's not like his one opinion informs an actual fact

What is your point exactly...?

An informed theory backed by evidence to prove a thing is not proving a negative of something not existing....what are you fucking talking about?

Evolution is real, christfag. Congrats for outing yourself as retarded though.