On Psychologizing

Shawn

I see a lot of psychologizing on this forum. Your biased, you practice self-deception, you're projecting, etc.

I think there should be some name for doing this. Like the psychologizing fallacy, a derivative of the classic and well-known ad hominem fallacy.

Yet, one way or another we have to incorporate the beliefs, prejudices, and biases' of a person when we engage in a dialogue with him or her.

Therefore, for starters, what is the ego for males and females?

Google provides the following:

So, Google comes to the rescue? Not quite. There is an issue with equating the ego with self-esteem and self-importance as if the self could not exist without these qualitative traits. Logically, there can be a person with no self-esteem or no sense of self-importance and still have this thing called an "ego".

Reading along, the answer derived from psychoanalysis is that it's the part of the mind that practices "reality testing". OK, I understand that much; but, that just shifts the question to the phenomenological issue that arises as to what is "reality testing"?

Reading along some more, we strike bedrock. Philosophy describes the ego as "a conscious thinking subject." So, now we have the thorny issue of the subject-object divide.

Does anyone else see where this is going? This is like Derrida's deconstructivism in real life. It never ends.

Therefore I propose, by extension, that psychologizing anything is meaningless and futile separated from the context where the concept arises. Taking this to the logical conclusion, we will never know the entire context of where or why someone said so and so or from what defence mechanism so and so is being hostile or paranoid.

To idiotize the issue we just don't have a measuring stick to measure and examine this thing called "the ego" or self-esteem or self-importance.

Finally, I propose we do away with psychologizing altogether. It's a honey pot that trolls and the like use or weaponizes for their satisfaction.

Anthony

Egocentrism is mainly about not being able to differentiate self from other. Psychologizing is necessary as I see it, nowhere does it connote having an outward/external context. It means not being ignorant of one's own states of mind, foremost, and to be aware when one is starting to egocentrate, so as to nip it in the bud.

Ego is complemented by superego; narcissism needs collective narcissism. How someone relates to themselves when alone is of tremendous import as ego and narcissism aren't possible with a cloistered lifestyle.

Enter psychologizing, which for me is none different than auto-psychoanalysis. Completely necessary. Also, projection and introjection are often seen in severe mental illness. Why we wouldn't want to talk about this I can't understand. As said, ecocentrism is confusion of self and other...in other words precisely caused by projection and introjection,... these issues can't be ignored whatever term you choose to denominate the process.

Shawn

Why we wouldn't want to talk about this I can't understand. — Anthony

Well, as you have said yourself, these are psychological problems that philosophy is ill-equipped with in dealing with. I used to be very concerned about people posting about mystical experiences or deep depression (I'm one to speak, aye) and then rationalizing it with some Nietzsche or Schopenhauer rationale of how things out to be or are. It reeks of confirmation bias and is an issue that only trained professionals (ought to) examine.

Anthony

↪Wallows

Confidence and delusion are probably hard to juggle sometimes. I wonder what becomes of self-esteem and self-image, etc., when self is seen as without substance? Perhaps this leads to fatalism, which is its own sort of illusion. The self has to be drained out to really even listen to another and fully receive their message. When I'm listening to what someone has to say, really taking it in, I invariably forget any comment that may have tried to flash through my mind while listening.

I've wondered whether certain logical fallacies are possible to circumvent. Is it really possible to fully disengage in cognitive bias/confirmation bias? Confirmation of an idea would seem to be central to brainstorming. How is it possible to follow the associations of ideas without a touch of confirmation bias. And if you aren't confirming, perhaps the denying, insofar as it is seeded and framed by what is denied instead of confirmed is no less of a bias. Disconfirmation bias in this case. When a scientists formulates a question, it is an automatic cognitive bias, really, since predictions presuppose what doesn't actually exist evidentially.

Withal, are philosophy and psychology really so distinct ambits? I can't fathom how if so.

↪Wallows

Ah sweet, you created another discussion about me. Or so says my ego.

Yes, it can be a type of ad hominem or some other fallacy of irrelevance. But, nevertheless, I have said that it can be important to express these assessments, because if you don't express them, then you aren't making anyone aware of what you have identified as a problem, an if you don't make anyone aware of a problem, then you aren't even taking the first step towards a possible resolution. And also, as people with a keen interest in philosophy, we should care about pointing out the truth as we see it, and expect like-minded people to likewise care.

My psychological assessments seem come to me intuitively. It's probably that I'm picking up on something, reading between the lines. Or, of course, I could be reading things into something that isn't actually there, and I could be off the mark. I'm aware of my own fallibility. But, basically, if the shoe fits...

I don't agree that comments of this sort should be silenced or shut down. I'm in favour of freedom of expression here. And I don't approve of any disapproval on the grounds of etiquette or political correctness.

People are puzzles, and I like puzzles. I like putting together the pieces, and sometimes they just seem to connect in all the right ways.

Shawn

Ah sweet, you created another discussion about me. Or so says my ego. — S

Yeah, that needs deflating.

Yes, it can be a type of ad hominem or some other fallacy of irrelevance. But, nevertheless, I have said that it can be important to express these assessments, because if you don't express them, then you aren't making anyone aware of what you have identified as a problem, an if you don't make anyone aware of a problem, then you aren't even taking the first step towards a possible resolution. — S

@unenlightened would jump out of his socks over this "assessment". I mean if you're going to take a conflict resolution approach contrary to assuming a position of authority over the mental state of another interlocutor, then at least make it so that some Rogerian agreement can be had in the end. I've seen (not only yours but, others to be fair) such assessments as promoting flame wars and some such matters like, "I didn't say anything like that", "Oh; but, that you did too!".

And also, as people with a keen interest in philosophy, we should care about pointing out the truth as we see it, and expect like-minded people to likewise care. — S

Yes, there's a huge overlap between psychology and philosophy. All I'm saying is that some line should be drawn before we start conducting "assessments" of people on online forums.

My psychological assessments seem come to me intuitively. It's probably that I'm picking up on something, reading between the lines. Or, of course, I could be reading things into something that isn't actually there, and I could be off the mark. I'm aware of my own fallibility. But, basically, if the shoe fits... — S

Confirmation bias. Can't get around it once an "assessment" has been made.

I don't agree that comments of this sort should be silenced or shut down. I'm in favour of freedom of expression here. And I don't approve of any disapproval on the grounds of etiquette or political correctness. — S

Not, but they should be monitored. Keep in mind that philosophers throughout the past have conducted their own form of assessments of human nature, and what good has that produced?

People are puzzles, and I like puzzles. I like putting together the pieces, and sometimes they just seem to connect in all the right ways. — S

Yeah, that may be true; but, psychologizing and assessment making are one thing, rational discourse another.

Yeah, that needs deflating. — Wallows

So I can wallow about like you? No thanks.

Yes, there's a huge overlap between psychology and philosophy. All I'm saying is that some line should be drawn before we start conducting "assessments" of people on online forums. — Wallows

That's fine, and I agree. We probably just have a different sense of where exactly to draw the line. I am much more of a freedom of expression type than you, but not as extreme as Terrapin. For example, you've complained before about expressions of humour not to your taste.

Not, but they should be monitored. — Wallows

Monitored? You mean that we should rely on our judgement and exercise restraint when deemed appropriate? I already do that, and we have the moderators for anything that slips through the net and goes too far.

Yeah, that may be true; but, psychologizing and assessment making are one thing, rational discourse another. — Wallows

They have the same aim: the truth. That's something I think everyone here should care about.

Shawn

So I can wallow about like you? No thanks. — S

See, just another attempt at psychologizing me, now.

That's fine, and I agree. We probably just have a different sense of where exactly to draw the line. I am much more of freedom of expression type than you, but not as extreme as Terrapin. For example, you've complained before about expressions of humour not to your taste. — S

Now, I might be psychologizing too; but, you seem to derive some satisfaction from pushing people's buttons and seeing what happens. That's immature and childish. Can we act like adults now?

Monitored? You mean that we should rely on our judgement and exercise restraint when deemed appropriate? I already do that, and we have the moderators for anything that slips through the net and goes too far. — S

Well, clearly, with the latest thread that popped up, you were not displaying restraint.

They have the same aim: the truth. That's something I think everyone here should care about. — S

Yeah, well now that's dogmatism and quite dangerous if you don't mind me adding.

See, just another attempt at psychologizing me, now. — Wallows

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with me doing that.

Now, I might be psychologizing too; — Wallows

Nothing wrong with that. Please do, I find it interesting, and it can be productive.

but, you seem to derive some satisfaction from pushing people's buttons and seeing what happens. That's immature and childish. Can we act like adults now? — Wallows

I agree with your psychological assessment, and I think that I am quite aware of my habitual behaviours, vices, psychology, etc.. I think that we're both quite self-aware.

I tend to mix it up. I can be deadly serious one moment, and facetious the next. Provocative one moment, and tedious the next. Profoundly wise, extremely childish. What can I say? I am human, all too human. Guilty as charged.

Well, clearly, with the latest thread that popped up, you were not displaying restraint. — Wallows

I exercise restraint when I feel like doing so, not when you want me to do so.

Yeah, well now that's dogmatism and quite dangerous if you don't mind me adding. — Wallows

That is not dogmatism at all! How absurd. Aiming for the truth is not dogmatism. You should look up what dogmatism is.

Shawn

That is not dogmatism at all! How absurd. Aiming for the truth is not dogmatism. You should look up what dogmatism is. — S

Maybe not; but, you've supplanted your psychologizing efforts and deemed them worthy of "the truth". Isn't that some derivative of dogmatic thinking or at least extremely biased thinking?

All in all, to sum this discussion of yours up, I'd say that it is a veiled attack and a double standard.

Maybe not; but, you've supplanted your psychologizing efforts and deemed them worthy of "the truth". Isn't that some derivative of dogmatic thinking or at least extremely biased thinking? — Wallows

No, I said that they aim for the truth. They're my best shot at it. And I even said that I could be reading too much into things at times and could be off the mark, but you don't care so much about that, do you? You care more about your own narrative of vilification. As if I don't get vilified enough as it is around here without you jumping on the god damn bandwagon.

Shawn

All in all, to some this discussion of yours up, I'd say that it is a veiled attack and a double standard. — S

Let's not get paranoid or needlessly hostile here. This thread wasn't all about you.

Shawn

No, I said that they aim for the truth. They're my best shot at it. — S

Now, I've been on the internets for a while now, and criticizing a person attempt at aiming at the truth, is like gasoline on a fire. I wish you well.

Shawn

Off I go to wallow now.

Wallow wallow.

Let's not get paranoid or needlessly hostile here. This thread wasn't all about you. — Wallows

No, not all about me, but I could see through it straight it away. Anyway, I thought that we had built some sort of connection which I found to be of great value, but it seems you've reacted badly to our recent exchanges. Maybe I will take a step back and leave you be.

Have fun wallowing. I am not such a big fan of wallowing, but like said, I am only human.

Shawn

No, not all about me, but I could see through it straight it away. Anyway, I thought that we had built some sort of connection which I found to be of great value, but it seems you've reacted badly to our recent exchanges. Maybe I will take a step back and leave you be. — S

See and this is where psychologizing ends. Resentment, sulkiness, and grudge-bearing. I think you should be aware of that.

Shawn

And if you like solving puzzles, then solve a puzzle. Don't make people conform to your preconceptions.

Phew, now time to pop a Xanax.

See and this is where psychologizing ends. Resentment, sulkiness, and grudge-bearing. I think you should be aware of that. — Wallows

No, it doesn't have to be like that. Dare I say it, but could that be projection? It is understandable for someone to react negatively to insinuations of paranoia and needless hostility. You don't have to be a psychologist to work that one out. But, I believe you said something about self-restraint, and our emotions and our psych can be restrained to some extent, which is important to bear in mind in relation to what you bring up and what we've been discussing.

And if you like solving puzzles, then solve a puzzle. Don't make people conform to your preconceptions. — Wallows

I don't take orders from you, and I find your judgement to be questionable.

Shawn

I don't take orders from you, and I find your judgement to be questionable. — S

Since you made this thread about yourself, I had no alternative.

Since you made this thread about yourself, I had no alternative. — Wallows

Oh, come on. Be more transparent. You made it with me in mind.

Shawn

Oh, come on. Be more transparent. You made it with me in mind. — S

That's what you want to think; but, if it brings you satisfaction to your ego, then so be it. It may or may have been about you. And, it was far from a veiled/double standard attack.

I mean common Sapentia, it can apply to anyone on this forum, not only you.

↪Wallows

Oh the irony.

Okay, fine, whatever you say. I am a deluded egomaniac and this discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with me. I should shut up and stop psychologizing, because you don't approve of it.

Yes, I can read between the lines. You've said your piece, and it has failed to gain dominance over me. You can go back to your wallowing now.

Shawn

Yes, I can read between the lines. You've said your piece, and it has failed to gain dominance over me. You can go back to your wallowing now. — S

I wallow contently. And, who cares about dominance. My cat is more dominant than me. How is your cat doing?

And, who cares about dominance. — Wallows

Lots and lots of people do. It is everywhere you look, if you know what to look for.

How is your cat doing? — Wallows

I haven't had her back at my place for a few months, and I miss her.

Shawn

Lots and lots of people do. It is everywhere you look, if you know what to look for. — S

You know, I've seen things in therapy that indicate that dominance is intrinsically tied to ego-dom. I shit on that idea because I think it is dangerous to society and anyone interacting with. But, then again I have my issues. And, no, I ain't projecting them on poor you.

Shawn

I haven't had her back at my place for a few months, and I miss her. — S

What was her name?

You know, I've seen things in therapy that indicate that dominance is intrinsically tied to ego-dom. I shit on that idea because I think it is dangerous to society and anyone interacting with. But, then again I have my issues. And, no, I ain't projecting them on poor you. — Wallows

It is very, very apparent in my workplace, for example.

What was her name? — Wallows

Anyway, see? I told you I mix it up. That was a sincere and heartfelt answer instead of a humorous diversion. The latter is my coping mechanism, you see.

Her name is Oksa. And she appreciates my sense of humour.

Shawn

It is very, very apparent in my workplace, for example. — S

I wen't on retirement (disability) at the age of 25. Beat that.

Her name is Oksa. And she appreciates my sense of humour. — S

Oksa is a nice cat.

I wen't on retirement (disability) at the age of 25. Beat that. — Wallows

Oh yeah! Well I work full time breaking my back shifting heavy loads for minimum wage, plus commission if I can be a manipulative son of a bitch, also known as a good salesman. :meh:

Oksa is a nice cat. — Wallows

Yes, she is. Sometimes, when she's snuggled up in a little ball on the coach, I give her a kick, because it makes me feel better.

Shawn

Oh yeah! Well I break my back shifting heavy loads for minimum wage, plus commission if I can be a manipulative son of a bitch, also known as a good salesman. :meh: — S

Ultimately if one wants that kind of slave life, then so be it. I found a shortcut, and am content and happy despite my depression or in spite of it. Who knows these things?

Yes, she is. Sometimes, when she's snuggled up in a little ball on the coach, I give her a kick, because it makes me feel better. — S

Ok, then she's in better hands now.

On Psychologizing

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories