But they can't explain each other. Are they really explaining behavior, or are the creating certain behavior in adherents? — khaled
If memory serves, there's the idea that when it comes to psychololgy, it's very difficult to put the required level of distance between the observer/researcher and the observed/subject because, well, they're one and the same viz. us; that would preclude an objective analysis — TheMadFool
Are you saying the patients are the doctors and vice-versa? — Gobuddygo
Generally, I consider the psyche to be ever changing. It's too flexible, too impermanent to make a general sort of classification of "This person is of the type XYZ". — Hermeticus
A classification like that fails to capture the whole scope of the human psychology, as well as failing to acknowledge that our states of mind, our thoughts and moods, yes even our persona, our very idea of self, are not permanent. — Hermeticus
Is it like that because you think it's like that? Or is it actually like that? — khaled
Our belief is based on what we perceive. But what we perceive is also based on what we belief. — Hermeticus
But our minds aren't so malleable that you can just believe anything are they? You can't be a masochist by choice for instance. — khaled
Consider how we go through life, from our days in the cradle to our dying bed.
We come to life as basically a blank slate. — Hermeticus
The experiences we make are what act as our basis for decisions in the future. These are psychological habits - the way we tend to act in certain situations, the way we tend to think, the way we tend to see the world. — Hermeticus
isn't it reasonable to think that there must have been an experience where the individual made a choice to associate pleasure with pain? — Hermeticus
And of inconsistencies, you simply trim and choose until you find one, or a blend, that works for you — tim wood
The effect of a psychological theory on behaviour is not something that the psychological theory in question can possibly take account of. Thus one comes up with - for example - a theory of sexual repression of women leading to hysterical symptoms (Freud), and by the time the ideas have percolated through society, everyone is talking about sex all day long, the repression no longer exists and poor old Freud looks like a nutcase. — unenlightened
I heard the folk in the East have a nice model which supposedly eliminates all suffering and places you in a state of permanent bliss. — khaled
Self-reflection (examining ourselves) + Self-affecting (causal-reflexivity i.e. our thoughts cause other thoughts and these others, ad infinitum or cyclical) — TheMadFool
People come up with all sorts of models to understand themselves, some more mainstream than others. "Conscious and subconscious", Jung's archetypes, Left brain right brain, whatever the Yogis were doing (I'm just not familiar with it), etc. My question is whether or not these concepts are discovered or enforced, because they never really seem to cleanly translate. — khaled
You are a composite of who you think you are and who others think you are — TheMadFool
I'm just my body. Thoughts influence me. Just like feelings or sensations and perceptions. Of mine and of others. If someone has a seven-year itch I already start to scratch. Am I a composite? Yes. Of feet, legs, hands, arms, torso, a head and face on top. Doing zillions of things with them. Idea, thought, or emotion and perception inspired. — Pristina
But anyway, you don't get to choose your theory any more than you get to choose your form of insanity. — unenlightened
You get educated/socialised according to the current psychological theory, and that produces the kind of person and the kind of insanity that you, or I then theorise and use to bring up the next generation. — unenlightened
So the current theory is called 'trauma theory'. This seems to lead to a lot of complaining snowflakes who will probably neglect their children. — unenlightened
You heard wrong, unfortunately; there is heap plenty suffering in the East — unenlightened
My question is whether or not these concepts are discovered or enforced, because they never really seem to cleanly translate — khaled
Are psychologists making models based on what they observe? Or are the models self fulfilling prophecies? Or a mix? And what does that say about the validity of the models and which we should use? — khaled
Are they really explaining behavior, or are the creating certain behavior in adherents? — khaled
Examining the physical makeup of a brain will not yield results that contradict the biology, and you could always reduce the biology to the physics. But in psychology and philosophy, different models produce different, sometimes contradictory explanations. — khaled
Well they say that it’s because of people not fully committing to the model! — khaled
but that empirical world is already shaped for each of us by our prior ways of modeling it. — Joshs
You can’t reduce the biology to the physics without losing much of value of the biology. — Joshs
You have to laugh! It's not that the theory is wrong, it's that people aren't trying hard enough! — unenlightened
I’m wondering if there is such a bedrock in our mental landscape. Is there a model that underlies all these other models and explains them that we just haven’t found yet? The physics of the mind? — khaled
The physics of the mind? — khaled
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.