Why do undergrads think they understand a subject that JP has dedicated 25 years to?

Whose understanding of postmodernism comes from Stephen Hicks. It deserves to be taken as seriously as a self proclaimed Aquinas scholar whose understanding of Aquinas comes from Ayn Rand.

I fucking love Peterson. He is so right about everything. Clean yo damn room lmao. Like shit. That's what the point of all this philosophy is. Learning to live in a world with other people. There is a lay understanding of postmodernism which Peterson argues against. This is not to say Peterson is in some ways not postmodern himself. But the whole idea of modernism as colonialism and postmodernism as the absence of dominance and hierarchy reflect in a very real way on youth and youth in revolt today. He offers a solution to this impasse. He has created a dialectic between these two viewpoints. Truly a Hegelian synthesizer.

Sociology is unique in it's lack of legitimacy.

JP is an actual idiot. He has achieved nothing.

it's almost as if the validity of one's viewpoint on a given subject is not directly correlated in value with the length of time spent studying said subject!

Oh fucking boy, is psychologism really still a thing? Damn.

Anthropology is really best. Cause it's not biased solely toward our own culture like psychology or sociology. Or philosophy. Insofar as it subsumes all the liberal arts.

He is a genius and I've never heard him utter anything factually incorrect. Which book of his should I start with?

Anthropology is garbage and most certainly is biased. Stop sucking yourself off, Orientalist.

Always will be until we can exist without literally everything being funnelled through individual psyches, bucko.

I hope for you, that you'll grow out of your feebleminded intellectual reductionist phase, smartass. I used to be you in my late teens. Cringe.

Congratulations, user! Are you open to all ideas now? That's a cool psychological trait.

That's generally what undergrad degrees try to accomplish. What is more baffling are the NEETs who think they know more than undergrads because they watched a professor on Youtube.

>sociology
>science

Pseuds.

Unlike you, am I right?

>>dedicate years "studying" a pseudoscience

This, the longer you've spent working in a quack field only lowers your credibility not raises it

I think you meant its? It's is a contraction of it and is.

Congrats pedantic bastard, you win a free cookie for that comment! Doesn't it feel good, wasting precious time of your life away LARPing as grammar nanizzu on an imageboard for frustrated loner boys in their late teens who roleplay and poster as idealized personas in an echo chamber to avoid actually growing up and face real life? It must feel good.

reminder that clinical psychology still has merit and is certainly a science worth studying in 2017.

social psychology is questionable and can certainly be called "pseudoscience". large quantities of it are pretty useless

Why do people post Peterson threads when there are already multiple available to post in?

>his interpretation of the big 5 personality traits

what's it about, can you summarize?

He has studied psychology for 25 years. In the other fields he like to talk about (philosophy, history, literature, politics) he has literally no preparation, nor he has ever qualified himself through his writings.
You know what's the word for people like this? "Hack".

>reminder that clinical psychology still has merit and is certainly a science worth studying in 2017.

Durr if ya say so

yup

Memersons on suicide watch

>he actually thinks that humans are so complex that a well-designed scientific study cannot discover any reasonably accurate data about their behaviors and internal processes

Look man i majored in it. It's not that hard to get a job with providing you get an MSc. Regular degree wont get you shit

i work in graphic design now though so i guess it was pretty useless in my case

This but unironically

>Its totally a real degree and worth it
>the fact I doodle on photoshop for a living says nothing

hey man im out here supporting myself. if you could make a decent living doodling on illustrator you would

i dont even care what u think of psychology you're a wasteman

Google it. It's one of the few personality theories/tests with pretty solid reliability and validity, while also having useful application.

I know big five but I'm interested in what makes Peterson's interpretation of it special

A majority of Peterson's ideology comes from lit approved classics.

You guys who think you are BTFO Peterson by attacking psychology look dumb, you really need to catch up on your Peterson vids he is already 10 steps ahead of you.
youtube.com/watch?v=pxJzWcwcRd0
In the first 10 minutes he offers a much more intelligent critique of psychology's proper sphere of activity and displays a much more nuanced understanding of what is and isn't a science.
>Published on Dec 11 2011

How does it feel knowing that Peterson has already considered and completely dismantled all your lines of attack before you even knew he existed? This guy is like a fucking ninja, none of you shills even know what hit you LOL

And I don't give a single fuck what you care about, I'm here getting the truth out about your meme field regardless

No fucking clue. But I study in the field with professors who literally design these kind of tests in the industry (where B5 is a big deal) and I have never heard of him outside of Veeky Forums-memes.
Take that as you may.

Looking over his bio, it seems like his entire career (or infamy) is based on being a dividing character in the weird US-American climate right now, rather than doing science.

>has over 8,000 citations

scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en

Yea, what a shitty scientist.

Didn't say he was. Just that his name never really popped up as anything singularly special. If he was a teacher/professor, you'd expect him to be cited a lot.
Also Citation (or rather impact factor) isn't really the best measure of "how good" a scientist is.

Listening to the psychopathology lecture right now. Interesting stuff. But it sounds to me like American unis have some really weird conceptions of the field, if it was this necessary... Especially because he constantly refers to the DSM (rather than ICD), which is known for being flimsy af.

>being this mad someone points out your poor grammar
are you alright, user? you sure seem fragile.
language in general is not your strong suit, is it?

Because an undergrad in philosophy does have more philosophy education than Peterson.

He may be qualified in psychology but when he pipes up on philosophy, politics sociology or his crazy conspiracy theories about Marxist university professors taking over Canada he sounds completely retarded.

>citations = good

Yeah and that makes Karl Marx the best "scientist" of all time

why you're so mad? he/she was just correcting you which is good so you don't commit the same mistake again.

any psych students here? where would a layman start with psychoanalysis? to me, peterson's politics and psychoanalysis don't seem to connect in ways he claims. need to read more to get a better understanding.

Yeah, here.
Don't. It's really a waste of time.
Get some book that covers both Freuds, Jung, Fromm,... the basics. Every 20 or so years, they do a cycle of changing everything about it, while some go back to the outdated "muh libido is everything and I'm not saying it's sexual, but it's totally sexual" thing, while adding a bunch of nonsense.

Analysts have been trying to use PA as a cure-all for LITERALLY everything ever since coce-nose Sigi concluded he totally killed himself on purpose.
In fact, many don't know that PA was never part of the psychological institute in Vienna. To this day. He put it with the pedagogues, because it seems he was the only one of his lot who knew to make the distinction.

so there's no validity to things like maps of meaning or man and his symbols vis-a-vis semiotic theory? I read Jung's dreams and was underwhelmed.

You have to realize psychology and psychoanalysis are two very different fields. Someone who studies psychoanlysis is more akin to a philosopher, he has an intuitive and dismally honest understanding of the human conditions, our strifes and our drives from which the theories of Freud and Lacan helped elucidate and organize.

Psychology students on the otherhand are autistic redditors too dumb and self obsessed to make it in a real science like physics or medicine so they thought they could be regarded as a doctor someday by studying what is in reality merely a thinly disguised and self promoting cult of secular liberalism. See this goober

>You have to realize psychology and psychoanalysis are two very different fields.

I understand that but in university/college you can't study for a psychoanalysis degree outside of psychology can you? Just looking for an informed opinion on where to start because as I said, J-Pete doesn't add up to me but I don't know why.

go ahead. Explain what he misses about postmodernism. Im waiting

B.S. Psychology -> Med school -> Psychiatry
B.A. Philosophy -> Psy.D. -> Psychotherapy
B.S. Cognitive Science -> Lab

You should read a history of psychology and psychoanlysis to understand the big picture through all the splits and schools both within psychoanlysis and psychology (which is by no means a monolithic of consensus like its proselytizers will disingenously imply). I'm a huge fan of Lacan and frankly think Jungianism is an absurd joke with zero merit which is why Peterson comes off as the quack he is.

You can specialize in PA at most unis.

Only in shit countries with shit educational systems.
Everywhere else:
BS Med -> MA Med ->Doc Med, Psychiatrist
BA or BS Psy -> MA/MS Psy (Psychologist) then either Lab/Doc or another couple years of clinical training for Psychotherapist

okay, cool. Can you rec any books on said history? I'm hesitant to call him a quack without doing a diligent reading.

I dunno, wikipedia?
Any decent history will be suggestive towards one school, go find your own

...

>Someone who studies psychoanlysis is more akin to a philosopher,
Most Analysts are conti philosophers who pretend to be psychologists or even scientists.

>he has an intuitive and dismally honest understanding of the human conditions, our strifes and our drives
This idea in combination with the "necessity" to continually "analyze" themselves is the reason everyone else think they are kinda culty.
>from which the theories of Freud and Lacan helped elucidate and organize.
Both of which are wholly irrelevant among actual psychoanalysts. People like Bion and Fonagy are more up to speed.
The second someone mentions Lacan, you can assume that 8/10 he's an undercover Zizek memer.
>Psychology students on the otherhand are autistic redditors too dumb and self obsessed to make it in a real science like physics or medicine so they thought they could be regarded as a doctor someday by studying what is in reality merely a thinly disguised
Most people who start psychology believe they are gonna be doing psychoanalysis all day.
The ones that don't instantly quit after that or get kicked out for failing statistics and neurology too many times, tend to be fully aware of just how soft a science psychology ist.
>and self promoting cult of secular liberalism.
One of the few things that Freud was right about, was just how fucking uncomfortable people are about their mind being objectified and fighting that idea jealously.

>One of the few things that Freud was right about, was just how fucking uncomfortable people are about their mind being objectified and fighting that idea jealously.

Which is ironic since the exact same behavior is exhibited once someone's school of thought is objectified

ty user. Glad someone still reads.

I'm currently studying for a PhD in Psychology, ama

What topic?

What is your take on CBT and DBT?

...

Environmental psychology, looking into the relationship between the environment and wellbeing

No idea because I'm doing a meme topic and have no real specialised knowledge on these topics. From what I remember from undergrad clinical psychology, CBT nearly always comes out with the best outcomes when compared to other forms of psychotherapy so it must be doing something right, although I'd always seen it as fairly useless for the type of depression that I had/have (I think most of my depressive beliefs are rational, so how can they be challenged on that basis?). I'm not too familiar with DBT, but I know it draws heavily on mindfulness, and that's taking off in the clinical/positive psychology world at the moment for good reason. Mindfulness-based CBT has even better outcomes than regular CBT, and I think everyone would benefit from incorporating mindfulness practice into their lives. It's already become a meme buzzword though, so lots of people who claim to be mindfulness experts are just hippy hacks

What do you think about concentration meditation as opposed to mindfulness meditation? Particularly use of tantra, mantra, yantra. Is a belief in the occult unhealthy for a schizophrenic? What do you think of the art of memory?

>What do you think about concentration meditation as opposed to mindfulness meditation?
Whenever I practice (which isn't as often as it should be if I'm being honest), I'll always start off with a concentration meditation and then move onto mindfulness once I'm in a more relaxed state. That's the technique that was used in all of the guided mindfulness meditations I used to follow, so I don't think they're necessarily mutually exclusive. Both aspects are important, and I don't think they're easy to disentangle.

>Particularly use of tantra, mantra, yantra
I've only really studied mindfulness from a western academic context, so lots of the eastern origin is lost on me. All I can say in answer to this is that mantra is a very useful device within concentration meditation to free the mind from clutter. More experienced meditators don't need it, but it's definitely a good idea for a beginner to use a mantra or some have other central focus point to return to when they notice their thoughts starting to drift.

>Is a belief in the occult unhealthy for a schizophrenic?
Probably very unhealthy, although I've never really studied schizophrenia or (to my knowledge) met one

>What do you think of the art of memory?
As in training yourself to have a super memory? I'm not convinced that it's anything more than a circus trick really, although having said that it's useful to use the method of loci to improve your own memory if it serves a goal-directed purpose.

>Environmental psychology, looking into the relationship between the environment and wellbeing
So like Esther Sternberg?
Also how are you defining "wellbeing". The usual positive psychology meme way?
Not him, but my take, as I study psych and have been reading up on my Buddhism (my BA was about MBCT)
>What do you think about concentration meditation as opposed to mindfulness meditation?
They just have different particular goals. While I don't like to advocate any religious practice, it would probably be helpful to get familiar with Buddhist practices to understand the differences.
But generally speaking, most agree that you should do both together. (I'm also quite skeptical of ripping mindfulness from everything else. But for the general public it seems to work, so who am I to judge.)
>Particularly use of tantra, mantra, yantra.
These are all just tools for different things. Not absolutely necessary.
You might want to pick up this book. Very good intro into meditation from a Zen perspective.
amazon.com/Zen-Training-Philosophy-Shambhala-Classics/dp/1590302834/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502142108&sr=8-1&keywords=sekida zen training
>Is a belief in the occult unhealthy for a schizophrenic?
Depends. But it certainly isn't helpful. But you can meditate and even be a Buddhist without believing in occult or meta-physical stuff.
>What do you think of the art of memory?
The best thing I've seen on this topic is the pop-sci book by Maria Konnikova. But even that is quite meh and doesn't really go beyond what you might learn in cognitive psych 102.

Agreed. My introduction to meditation with theravada so I think of insight and concentration as complimentary. Later got into yoga.

I like tantra and mantra and yantra but feel a bit like a hippie indiaboo about it.

Western occultism seems to involve a similar purpose, in my view.

I have Catholic parents. My psychologist is Jewish. I dunno if religion can be disentangled from philosophy or philosophy disentangled from psychology so I always found that funny.

I have never talked to him about occultism. But it is a complimentary interest to my philosophical bent. Along with spirituality and religion.

I recently moved and need a new doctor. Was thinking of a new paradigm for my doctor. I'm schizophrenic. Also have substance dependency. CBT and DBT seem interesting.

I use method of loci as well. When I was a teen I thought Bruno was a martyr for a personal God.

>So like Esther Sternberg?
I've never actually come across her (does she publish academic papers on this topic?), but a very similar area by the looks of things. My PhD is specifically focused on the workplace because it's funded by a company, but later on in my career I'd like to look at a more general level and particularly at the importance of green space for mental wellbeing. I hate urbanisation, so I have a bit of a vested interest

>Also how are you defining "wellbeing". The usual positive psychology meme way?
What way is the meme way? My favoured definition for wellbeing comes from Deci and Ryan, who conceptualise it as comprising both hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing. That's how I've always understood it really, but apparently it took the field by storm when they realised it's more than just a scale from happy to sad. Not sure if you'd count them as being in the positive psychology tradition - they're big in motivational psychology, which might be a sub-field of positive psychology. Everything gets a bit blurred in psychology really.

What do you think of phenomenology?

I have heard zazen incorporates both concentration and insight.

Why isn't a belief in the occult helpful? Isn't any sort of positive belief system generally good for recovery?

JP is a prof at the University of Toronto, read: not America.

>rom Deci and Ryan, who conceptualise it as comprising both hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing.

So wellbeing is defined as wellbeing holy shit, psychologists are deep thinkers

How do you feel knowing in ten years your field is going to be regarded as akin to alchemy and your mother will never believe you're a real doctor?

>Later got into yoga
Most of my meditation these days is through yoga, as I struggle with back and neck pain which makes it difficult for me to focus as I'm in a permanent state of discomfort. After 20-30 minutes of yoga, I can enter shavasana and be properly at peace, and do a good 10 extra minutes of mindfulness in that pose. I don't do it as often as I should though, it's just too time-consuming (or so I say after having spent the last couple of hours on Veeky Forums)

>feel a bit like a hippie indiaboo about it
Me too, although I think this has worked in my favour. I'm terribly cynical and will call something out as bullshit if the evidence suggests it's bullshit. However, for things like mindfulness and yoga, all the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of them having real and significant benefits. I think that my boss liked the fact that, if something gets through my approval, it's not just some stupid hippy fad.

>I dunno if religion can be disentangled from philosophy or philosophy disentangled from psychology
I often wonder this too. For pretty much all of human history, religious leaders have essentially played the role of psychologist in the community, and fairly effectively too. However, with the modern realisation that many theological tenets are incompatible with science, the growing atheism is causing a problem by reducing the role of the religious leader in society. In some ways, that explains why mindfulness has become so popular - it's a semi-religious technique which can be performed as part of real religious practice, in any faith, or it can be completely secular. Personally I think that this sort of non-specific spirituality will replace the void that atheism creates, but I may be wrong about that.

>occultism... schizophrenic
Best take your doctor's advice on this rather than me - I'm not a clinical psychologist and have only really studied it to undergraduate level (and even then I spent most of my time studying depression rather than other mental disorders)

>does she publish academic papers on this topic?
No fucking clew. On one of my random psych-deep dives I found her and was intrigued.
For Uni I live in a big city right now and the constant dust and noise and lack of green is driving me up the walls. My entire life I had nature right around the corner.
I'm even starting to think that there may be something to this hyper-sensitivity meme.

Any solid decorating advice on how to feel less like I'm in a concrete cage?

>What way is the meme way?
Like Seligman.
Went to a lecture by him once. Massive cunt with a messiah complex.

>What do you think of phenomenology?
Definitely a useful way to view, think and talk about things.
Arguably one of the core assumptions of most sciences and psychology in particular. Tho not everyone agrees.
Personally, I dig holistic phenomenology.
>I have heard zazen incorporates both concentration and insight.
Yeah. Tho most of it is more... fluent? It's a bit more reductionist than other Buddhist thought. Which is what I like about it. "Shut up and sit!"
>Why isn't a belief in the occult helpful?
Religious delusions are among the most common. If you have a tendency for hallucinations/psychosis, this kind of stuff can trigger or at least make it difficult for you and others to determine if you are sliding.
>Isn't any sort of positive belief system generally good for recovery?
This is still kinda a discussion among (clinical) psychologists. Which is why most just don't touch on it. I'm personally in the camp of being skeptical of it.
Most notably would be the big debate about AA. It would seem that AA only ever works when groups have a trained counselor/therapist present. Some studies even show negative effects upon rebound. Tho not everyone agrees.

*clue, duh

>Religious delusions are among the most common. If you have a tendency for hallucinations/psychosis, this kind of stuff can trigger or at least make it difficult for you and others to determine if you are sliding.

Yeah but what if magic and the otherworld is real dipshit

It's literally America.
And he is also active in the USA.

>Personally I think that this sort of non-specific spirituality will replace the void that atheism creates, but I may be wrong about that.

lel you got to love when a "scientist" literally talks like a crystal healer

Well I could go into more depth. Hedonic wellbeing is the more traditional conceptualisation of feelings of positive affect and feelings of negative affect. Eudaimonic wellbeing taps far more into the extent to which one is living a life that is in line with one's ideals, living in a purposeful and meaningful way. Deci and Ryan, and probably others too, have of course developed questionnaires where each type can be measured without defining wellbeing as wellbeing.

Psychology is unironically on the rise, I wouldn't be in this meme job otherwise. Pretty much every big company is focusing on employee wellbeing as one of their key HR outcomes, so more and more psychology hacks like me are getting hired. Personally, I think my PhD is fairly non-academic and a little bit shit, but it came free with the job, so I won't complain.

The concept of biophilia is huge in architecture and interior design at the moment. Lots of corporations are bringing in interior plants, green walls, water features, natural materials, etc to the office. You can do the same in your home to cheer it up a bit too - I have a few potted plants in my shit room, and it makes it a bit nicer. It's a bit of a fad, but it has science behind it too. Personally I still think it's a bit of a cop-out (oh no urbanisation is fine as long as we stick some plants in the office) and much prefer real wilderness areas, but it's a start at least.

I liked Seligman's work on learned helplessness, but I'm not aware that he's done much useful since then. I can see he's turned into a bit of a self-help guru, like lots of others in positive psychology have unfortunately (although I suppose the money's pretty good)

Never claimed to be a scientist, I'm in the first year of a meme applied PhD, that's all. Also said I might be wrong, because that's just my personal feelings on the topic. These views actually came more from literature than they did psychology - I was making my way through Houellebecq's books and, in my opinion, he perfectly captures the zeitgeist in the west today. Without religion guiding their lives, people struggle to create their own meaning and naturally this leads to widespread purposelessness and depression (to return to psychology jargon, a lack of eudaimonic wellbeing and an overemphasis on hedonic wellbeing). I'm not arguing that we should return to living under theocracy, but I think it's inevitable that some sort of spiritual resurgence (more in line with modern science) will have to happen, because man cannot live happily without it. Just my thoughts.

>Eudaimonic wellbeing taps far more into the extent to which one is living a life that is in line with one's ideals, living in a purposeful and meaningful way

That's utterly absurd, Scientologists and Skinheads are apparently full of wellbeing in that case. Why on Earth would self doubt and restraint not be considered healthy

Why do infants think they can walk when there are some who dedicate 25 years to?

I'm certainly not mongering in diabolism or edgy revolt. I just find the philosophical premises and psychological states described in occult texts to be striking. I am fascinated by hellenic culture and the eudaemonic technology present in antiquity. Part of that is philosophical, mythological, mystical, magical, and so on.
I'm pretty well medicated these days. I don't think some spoopy larping is going to cause me to backslide but appreciate the concern.
Lol. Right?

Don't listen to these quacks brother. They want you to deny what you know in your heart is real because they're full of shit soul eaters. Spirit crushers. What you know is what you know in whatever strange unspoken place it may come from. Don't sacrifice your gift your knowledge in this short time you have on Earth for the sake of their banal suburban control. All just to be under their boot, their scalpels their concrete mallets

Yes, that's exactly true - why do you think otherwise? People devoted to a cause, even causes that the majority of people believe are ridiculous, are far happier than people who work in some job they don't really connect with and struggle to find their place in the world. Eudaimonic wellbeing is far more important than hedonic wellbeing (though it'd be nice to have both, obviously), so the fanatics who truly believe in something and devote their life to it, even if everyone else hates them for it, are happy. It might make us uncomfortable, but I'm sure that suicide bombers are in a state of pure bliss the moment before they detonate - it's that complete and total strength of conviction that convinces them to destroy themselves.

>Pretty much every big company is focusing on employee wellbeing as one of their key HR outcomes
That's weird. I thought "satisfaction" was the only really useful outcome people cared about. (Or at least the only thing that is beneficial to companies, as it reduces fluctuation.)
At least my professors think so.
>potted plants in my shit room, and it makes it a bit nicer. It's a bit of a fad, but it has science behind it too.
Is the science any good? Aka r > .2 and p < .005?
>I can see he's turned into a bit of a self-help guru
Half the talk was about how smart he was (because he was really good at Bridge) and how he decided to best invest his massive intelligence. Later on he compared himself to Galileo and Luther.
He literally gave you the source. Just go there and read up on it, holy shit.
You do you, man. I like to dabble in that stuff myself. I just know that if you take it too seriously (rather than just enjoying the aesthetics of the ideas), it can screw with your head. Schizo or no.

Because I don't subscribe to a retarded school of thought who is concerned with promelgating "happiness" irrespective of its contingent implications

>He literally gave you the source.

Yeah and the source will be full of the same bullshit. You realize this whole field is just composed of idiots like him who just fling shit at a wall and wait for it to stick with their peers. Its all just hazey ill considered conjecture waiting to be slightly prodded.
Durr eudaimonic? That sounds right let's go with that hurr

Stop telling him there's such a thing as schizophrenia you heartless fuckwit