[QUOTE=Coyoteze;53185922]
Definitely not. Jung founded the principles of analytical psychology, which is different from psychoanalysis. It's just a different method of investigation & treatment. The world of psychology has gone far since Freud, Skinner and Wundt but the majority of modern psychology is still founded on their discoveries, so saying they were more "philosopher than scientist" is a bit like disregarding Einstein as a scientist just because we've grown since his era - it's a bit ignorant.[/QUOTE]
The comparison between Jung and Einstein is really forced and disingenuous since Jung wasn't exactly a fan of empiricism and the scientific method. Not to mention that he was a fan of pseudoscience, occultism and other paranormal woo.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;53188772]The comparison between Jung and Einstein is really forced and disingenuous since Jung wasn't exactly a fan of empiricism and the scientific method. Not to mention that he was a fan of pseudoscience, occultism and other paranormal woo.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't "comparing" them though. I was saying the implication that Jung's (or Freud's, or Skinner's etc) discoveries are somehow not relevant anymore just because we've progressed in the field since their era, and saying that somehow makes them less of a scientist is like saying Einstein is less of a scientist just because we've made strides in fields [I]he[/I] pioneered, is ignorant.
They're just as relevant now as they were then because the majority of modern psychology is founded on what they discovered, just as Einstein is just as relevant now in modern physics because his discoveries are one of the pillars of it.
[editline]9th March 2018[/editline]
I don't see what relevance Jungs interest in the occult and paranormal has to do with anything though, so that's kind of a weird point to bring up. His less-than-scientific ventures doesn't somehow negate his actual contributions to modern psychology. Isaac Newton was a devout Christian, but we don't reject his theory on gravity. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-meh-
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;53189001]I wasn't "comparing" them though. I was saying the implication that Jung's (or Freud's, or Skinner's etc) discoveries are somehow not relevant anymore just because we've progressed in the field since their era, and saying that somehow makes them less of a scientist is like saying Einstein is less of a scientist just because we've made strides in fields [I]he[/I] pioneered, is ignorant.
They're just as relevant now as they were then because the majority of modern psychology is founded on what they discovered, just as Einstein is just as relevant now in modern physics because his discoveries are one of the pillars of it.
[editline]9th March 2018[/editline]
I don't see what relevance Jungs interest in the occult and paranormal has to do with anything though, so that's kind of a weird point to bring up. His less-than-scientific ventures doesn't somehow negate his actual contributions to modern psychology. Isaac Newton was a devout Christian, but we don't reject his theory on gravity. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯[/QUOTE]
Newton still used the scientific method and didn't involve his supernatural beliefs in his science. That's separate from the whole synchronicity shit Jung touted.
It's still an unfair comparison
[QUOTE=EcksDee;53189276]Newton still used the scientific method and didn't involve his supernatural beliefs in his science. That's separate from the whole synchronicity shit Jung touted.
It's still an unfair comparison[/QUOTE]
Again - I wasn't comparing. I was saying how ignorant such a conclusion is, no matter what branch of science we're talking about. There might not be a whole lot of correlation, but I thought you would get my point at least. Never mind, I suppose.
Jung's synchronicity concept was hardly paranormal, it's using coincidences as a form of treatment/understanding the mind. Daryl Sharp defines it as a "phenomenon where an event in the outside world coincides meaningfully with a psychological state of mind". Nothing paranormal about it. You could argue it's not a very effective treatment though, because it doesn't target a root cause or even a symptom as much as it just "tucks it away" with a misguided happy thought of coincidence.
But again, Jung founded psychological principles we still use to this day. His concept of extrovert/introvert behaviour, the use of art as therapy. He wasn't a huge contributor, and I agree it's odd that Peterson holds him in such high regard, but Jung wasn't "irrelevant" and still isn't. Neither is Freud, Skinner, Einstein or Newton.
[editline]9th March 2018[/editline]
I know I keep using those 4 names, but again, I'm just trying to make a point. :v:
[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;53185009]
first off jordan peterson fucking sucks
it's way easier to document a single event and present it in a short, easily digestible youtube video that "proves" the conservative view that everything is ok and that anyone protesting the way that things are and are trying to change things for the better are crazy, than it is to cultivate and present just how fucked society's view is towards various minorities and how certain ways of thinking contribute to the suffering of marginalised people
people will choose to spend their time watching shorter videos that reconfirm their worldview than attempt to go through longer-form texts that challenge said worldview
humans are really, really shit at admitting when they're wrong, and will go to extreme lengths to avoid doing just that
protests by their very nature are supposed to disrupt the status quo and make people uncomfortable in order to shine a light on the ways in which onlookers view the world around them
people from marginalised groups can also contribute to the subjugation of the marginalised group to which they belong, (just look at someone like blaire white for example), and as such do not represent the entirity of said marginalised group
also a lot of people have read that first point that i posited and instantly rejected every single other one of my points, because that's the easy thing to do
g'night[/QUOTE]
-sometimes
-duh, nobody has said anything about conservatives yet you assume that's the point of this post. maybe it's a complicated issue and you're just oversimplifying things? maybe you should ignore the fact that you percieve something as belonging to one ideology or another and judge it based on it's merit to attian true impartiality?
-not everyone
-maybe this is exactly what you're doing right now?
-i agree, but that doesn't automatically make them right
-again this is something any reasonable person would assume
-or they just feel that you seem to ignore nuance to suit your narrative of things
[QUOTE=Slim Charles;53186210]why does one of them have a ratchet lmao.[/QUOTE]
Obstensibly, to make noise. Might as well skip all the meaningless discussion and just drown out all the things you don't want to hear. It seems to be a running gag with these sorts of "protests."
[video]https://youtu.be/kYjcf_JYlNI[/video]
[editline]9th March 2018[/editline]
Don't these kids have their own classes to be going to?
I found myself laughing my ass off at these videos.
These people make themselves look so fucking bad, there doesn't even need to be a conversation. The crazy speaks for itself.
Remember kids, just because you protest, doesn't mean you're right and everyone else is wrong.
[QUOTE=froztshock;53185354]Long post.[/QUOTE]
It's like people have forgotten how far being unrepentant pissants got the Westboro Baptist Church's agenda. There's more to protesting than being obtrusive and spiteful, and if your methods only serve to shut down discourse, mock and slander, and piss all over civility then you're going to encourage resistance a lot more than support.
What a load of fucking degenerate idiots.
Im not sure what i think about Peterson but these protesters, man. Where do these people who get so obnoxiously dramatic over Peterson having lecture. Their actions are like some kids that doesn't like what she or he is hearing, like putting your hands on ears and making noises. I bet that you couldn't have a reasonable talk with these people if they totally agree with you.
I have this feeling that these people protesting are "searching a meaning in life", by making Peterson some and his listeners some big evil. And by fighting this absolute evil you have contributed in something you should be proud of in your life.
well duh, this is easier than be smart and rational
[QUOTE=Extronic;53189326]on't get me wrong, jordan peterson is a proper idiot, but these people can fuck right off.[/QUOTE]
said the person who probably has no college degree
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming/why reply?" - OvB))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;53185009]people from marginalised groups can also contribute to the subjugation of the marginalised group to which they belong, (just look at someone like blaire white for example), and as such do not represent the entirity of said marginalised group[/QUOTE]
This is something jordan peterson brings up often, he claims he's gotten several letters from transgendered people and only one of them has really been critical towards him. Many/most say that self-proclaimed transgender activists have just made their lives harder and don't speak for them at all.
It makes sense honestly, most people want to be accepted and just live their lives with some degree of normalcy. Having a bunch of obnoxious noisy people constantly calling attention to their differences and demanding special treatment on their behalf does the opposite of helping.
I think going on tv over and over shittalking trans people and setting them up as the opponents of free speech and lying about them doesn't help the acceptance thing.
His few on trans people is that if they look the part he will call them by their pronouns
[QUOTE=space1;53191244]said the person who probably has no college degree[/QUOTE]
Your point is moot since anyone with a high school education can, with around 15 minutes of research, tell what a fucking nutjob JBP is.
[QUOTE=space1;53191244]said the person who probably has no college degree[/QUOTE]
wtf what made you think this was an actual response
[QUOTE=EcksDee;53192186]Your point is moot since anyone with a high school education can, with around 15 minutes of research, tell what a fucking nutjob JBP is.[/QUOTE]
How did he get a PhD and be respected in his field if he's a nutjob?
[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;53192257]How did he get a PhD and be respected in his field if he's a nutjob?[/QUOTE]
I mean just for argument's sake, let's just assume Jordan Peterson is wacko. That doesn't mean he doesn't have his domains of strength. He is a competent clinical psychologist and has contributed research, but that doesn't mean he's competent at areas outside of his specialty or his field.
For an example just take a look at Ben Carson. Ben Carson was an incredibly innovative neurosurgeon who pioneered a lot of difficult surgeries, got promoted to chief of pediatric neurosurgery at his hospital when 33, which is absurdly young, and has a ton of published medical literature under his name. Ben Carson is also fucking crazy, he said shit like how Obama is intentionally keeping the economy down to keep people on welfare, being gay is a choice BUT prisons are turning people gay, the pyramids were built to store grain, etc..
Basically being smart in certain domains doesn't necessarily mean much for others.
[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;53192257]How did he get a PhD and be respected in his field if he's a nutjob?[/QUOTE]
If you look at the papers he's co-authored you can see that his contributions to psychology are absolutely not insignificant, I'll give you that.
That doesn't mean that he can't be an unscientific lunatic to make money on Patreon.
He's saidthat feminists support Muslim rights because they desire brutal male domination, he's said that atheism leads to mass murder and totalitarianism, he's a proponent of synchronicity, prehistoric DNA magic, quantum mysticism and is a climate change denier.
He's a right wing nutjob that's managed to use his PHD and somewhat eloquent tongue to court over thousands and thousands of alt righters into thinking he's some kind of neutral voice of reason and scientific authority.
There's a reason why "being respected in his field" only involves the papers he's co-authored, and not his public appearances. It's because, I repeat, he's a lunatic.
You can see the logic of him saying feminists support Muslims when you see feminists supporting Muslim women wearing hijabs
[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;53192316]You can see the logic of him saying feminists support Muslims when you see feminists supporting Muslim women wearing hijabs[/QUOTE]
You seem to have missed the "because they desire brutal male domination" bit there.
I don't remember anyone talking about hijabs, though this single post does show how little you know of the subject in general.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;53192330]You seem to have missed the "because they desire brutal male domination" bit there.
I don't remember anyone talking about hijabs, though this single post does show how little you know of the subject in general.[/QUOTE]
You should really source shit like that.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;53192335]You should really source shit like that.[/QUOTE]
[media]https://twitter.com/_saeen_/status/955889027957297152?lang=en[/media]
[editline]10th March 2018[/editline]
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUf3aXtW4As9ArR.jpg:large[/img]
Jesus why would he say that lol
Still, I think a lot of people think he's nuts because they take things he says and apply that he actually believes them.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard him say that it's impossible to have adult discussion because people can't entertain thought and introduce ideas without it becoming more about what that person's personal stance and beliefs are as opposed to looking for all the possible contexts and discussing them.
Just because he poses this question, it's silly to automatically think it's something he actually believes.
Watch this to understand why he says its impossible to have actual discussion about topics such as these.
[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9zZRTC6Ecs&t=593s"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9zZRTC6Ecs&t=593s[/URL]
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;53192386]Jesus why would he say that lol
Still, I think a lot of people think he's nuts because they take things he says and apply that he actually believes them.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard him say that it's impossible to have adult discussion because people can't entertain thought and introduce ideas without it becoming more about what that person's personal stance and beliefs are as opposed to looking for all the possible contexts and discussing them.
Just because he poses this question, it's silly to automatically think it's something he actually believes.
Watch this to understand why he says its impossible to have actual discussion about topics such as these.
[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9zZRTC6Ecs&t=593s"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9zZRTC6Ecs&t=593s[/URL][/QUOTE]
I intended the second image to only be a supporting point. The video above instead very clearly says "I think it's their unconscious desire for brutal male domination"
That's [I][B]no longer [/B][/I]a point that anyone can go "well, maybe he believes it, maybe not, he's just asking questions"
Oh, nice video, can u post more?
[QUOTE=EcksDee;53192399]I intended the second image to only be a supporting point. The video above instead very clearly says "I think it's their unconscious desire for brutal male domination"
That's [I][B]no longer [/B][/I]a point that anyone can go "well, maybe he believes it, maybe not, he's just asking questions"[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. That's got to be one of the most out there statements he's made. I do have to say though that even though it sounds pretty shitty to say that, I also don't claim to have the aptitude in this subject to understand why he came to such a conclusion. So I can't really defend that.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;53192307]
He's saidthat feminists support Muslim rights because they desire brutal male domination, he's said that atheism leads to mass murder and totalitarianism, he's a proponent of synchronicity, prehistoric DNA magic, quantum mysticism and is a climate change denier.
[/QUOTE]
can we get a source on those last 3? the first one is debatable, and maybe not the entire reason that they support muslims. well, stalin hated the christians for a while, and china makes people who don't follow the state sect of the religion mysteriously dissapear so it's partially true,
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
