Scotland introduces LGBT+ lessons in school curriculum
199 replies, posted
considering nobody arguing in here is actually from uk is pretty clear they've got no clue what pshe is
in england (at least my area) we already did lgbt stuff in pshe when i was at school, and none of the doomsday scenarios our american friends are proposing happened
And that's where Carl Jung's descriptions of personality come into play. The shadow can be considered a part of the id, and people are inclined to deny that the id exists. Be it rationalization, anger, or any other method, the id/shadow (aka unconscious) is still there and has a major influence on how you act consciously
Like I mentioned I went to high school in Scotland and we had PSE and PSU before PSHE was a thing (although from what I can tell it's basically the same stuff) and we never did LGBT stuff there, although no-one at my school gave a shit and there was people who were openly gay/lesbian and it was all just fine. It would not surprise me if my school was an outlier though, as it was private and a lot of internationals were among the Scottish students.
so it is only natural to dislike those who go against the biological imperative? somehow i dont buy that spiel.
surely, you aren't saying that failing to dislike those who go against the biological imperative is "denial of the id"? correct me if i'm wrong here.
I'm not saying failure to dislike them is denial of the id, but in the grand scheme of things, a significant portion of the population is going to be influenced by it, and make conscious decisions based on that. not *everyone* is going to dislike it, but the number that do is always going to be way higher than anyone would like.
...a significant portion being influenced by the id to dislike those who break away from the biological imperative being a result of following this naturally occurring id, no? how, then are you not saying that those who accept those who go against the biological imperative aren't in some sort of denial of their id?
They *technically* are in denial of the id, but their ego is strong enough to support their views superseding the id. But what I'm getting at is people who dislike LGBT people are under control of the id and its desire to fulfill sexuality.
You can't base an idea off of something so inherently unmeasureable and unprovable.
Use your intuition, I know you have it. Do most people not fit into the descriptions of Jung's cognitive functions and Freud's descriptions of the unconscious? Sure there will be people who don't, but for the majority of the population, it's an effective tool for trying to interpret the reasons as to why people act the way they do.
All this sounds like the same peudointellectual malarky that has been used to "prove" black people are lesser humans
Hating gay people is not instinctual. What is normal to you is relative to your exposure. Education helps.
I can't agree that hatred of "othered" groups is instinctual. I know plenty of young kids who have been exposed to enough gay shit, it's totally normalized to them.
intuition is not a valid substitute for data-driven scientific models and policies informed by them. human intuition is notoriously faulty as the cognitive ecology which it has evolved in is long gone.
Sure just completely disregard what I'm saying without even taking a little bit of time to read up about it.
No.
Freudian psychoanalysis is an attractive idea because it's simple and makes intuitive sense. But it simplicity is what makes it horribly inaccurate and misleading.
Just because something makes intuitive sense doesn't mean it's true or useful.
Well please provide evidence to the contrary instead of stating i'm just wrong because i am.
have you ever wondered why freud was so adamantly opposed to using his psychological model to describe more complex social phenomena that fall into the domain of sociology?
You can talk to pretty much anybody in the field and they'll tell you that he was wrong about nearly everything and that modern psychological theory has very little basis in Freud's theories anymore. He hasn't been regarded seriously in a very, very long time. His obsession with drawing connections to sexual deviancy and overcategorizing the uncategorizable has absolutely no modern scientific basis.
A lot of freud's theories might have been far reaching, but you're still ignoring how Carl Jung's works apply to the Big Five. This isn't to mention that Jung's works are still taught to this day in pretty much any university, because they're so useful in the field of psychology.
personality typing is a pop-sci meme and the Big Five has had holes slowly poked in it for decades, mostly for being horribly unscientific and too reliant on observed experience.
I'm still waiting for an explanation as to *why* the Big Five and Jung don't apply to psychology. I still feel like I've provided adequate reasoning and explanations as to why LGBT'ers are hated, but all I'm getting from ya'll is "you're just wrong because i heard someone say you are."
I don't have the grounding to say why exactly, I'm accepting the current scientific consensus which is the reasonable thing to do considering I don't have any formal education in the field
You think you've made a great argument but you clearly haven't considering you had to post "Just use your intuition bro." If you were alive in 1960 you'd probably use the same arguments to justify why racism is natural. The truth is that behaviour, especially in children, is primarily learned and not inherent, through processes like role modelling (e.g. social learning).
you cant explain a phenomenon as complex as homophobia, or one even more complex as hate of the gender-non-conforming, purely by using terms derived from a psychological model meant to explain much more elementary phenomena, whether you use classic psychoanalysis or more solid models like big five doesn't change this fact, nor does how "accurate" they are.
there is more to social phenomena than dropping statements from a universalized model of the human psyche that in the original context are said in a vacuum, void of its connection to other prevalent memes going around in society itself. as i stated - your statement said earlier seems to me too reductive and too presumptive of the undying validity of the tripartite model as being more than a useful abstraction.
and anyway your explanation for why Freud is still relevant is just "lmao it just makes intuitive sense" which isn't any more nuanced AND goes right against the scientific consensus
Then explain to me why the Big Five is currently the most accepted model of personality in the scientific field.
just because you changed your name to bee york doesn't give you the rights to force feed people pseudo intellectual bullshit
but it has zero predictive power as to why homophobia and transphobia happens. the validity of the model doesnt say shit about it being correct to say "spending much time and money to influence the factors of social condtioning and misinformation that leads to homophobia/transphobia isn't smart because most of this is natural". that is literally all that is being said here.
psychological models with no predictive power to help us prevent complex phenomena perceived as bad are absolutely irrelevant in this context as they are absolutely useless to this end.
why don't you provide an actual argument instead of resorting to ad hominem
because we've veered far from the original topic thanks to you, where you are pretty much normalizing the idea of homophobia as a normal psychological trait whether it's your intention or not.
schools want to have classes educating kids on what lgbt means and how normal these people are. you decide to bring up freud and all this dumb shit to derail.
your history with trolling doesn't lend you much confidence either. might as well start discussing eugenics here.
but you said nothing relevant that proves there is a direct correlation between hating homosexuals/transsexuals and the brain's inherent cognitive architecture common to all humans.
first: give evidence of this claim that isn't just "but the model explains other things well and helps us make therapeutic methods to help people". cite a study or two, perhaps.
second: prove that the effect of social conditioning is arguably negligible in light of the first claim being true.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.