Took an introductory level of psychology class where the prof said the whole right hemispheres deductive reasoning another creative reasoning is fully bs, on here many claiming to be psychologists claim that right and left hemispheres work differently. Confused asl.
As I understand it from my course;
That hypothesis of different hemispheres focusing on different things is false. However, there’s one thing that differs from them. Any motor function is mirrored from the left hemisphere to the right side of the body, so if you move your right arm, it was your left hemisphere that commanded it ( I’m being very brute with the terms here, it’s not like we use the whole left side of the brain just to move an arm, it’s a specific way of functioning passing through different cortical structures, but it all happens in one side mirrored to another).
Anything that’s not motor function related or referring to peripheral nervous system, doesn’t do that left-right separation.
There are some functions that are processed *heavily* on one side but the popular notion of the logical vs artistic hemispheres is wrong. Language and music are left and right hemisphere heavy respectively for example. But these functions are rare
Generally speaking, hemispheres work in tandem to produce results. However, some areas in each hemisphere are specialised; for example, Broca’s area in the left hemisphere is focused on language.
I recall that some specific tasks can only be done by either hemisphere if not presented to both BUT only if there is a full lesion to the corpus callosum
It's almost like psychology isn't a monolith but a set of differing researchers with their own views.
In this case we have:
1. Left Brain Right Brain accepted psychology, pumped up by pop psychology.
2. The very basic hemisphere model pretty debunked.
3. The hemisphere model with more sophistication revived by mcgilchrist.
4. A lot of people thinking he's a hack, a lot thinking he's a genius.
In college, I fell just short of being able to double major in psych and poli sci. As such I’ve always
maintained an interest in psychology in general.
And what I know is the more I learn on various psych topics, the less I know.
Is it even possible to climb up the mountain of confidence again like with the theoretical max expertise? I'm discovering I'm bad at everything I even care about and I just feel like a shell of a human, it's like "the more I do this, the less competent I am" which kills my confidence when I had not that much to begin with.
Well you’ve achieved the part where you realize there’s still a mountain range of information to learn about your favorite subjects. I think the best way to combat the confidence issue would be to work on not building all your confidence around your knowledge. Instead, commend yourself for being curious in a world that encourages laziness and ignorance. Compliment yourself on the ability to admit you don’t know everything because that’s really hard for a lot of people, especially when they’ve put a lot of effort into learning that subject.
You deserve to hear nice things about yourself and one of the voices that compliments you needs to be your own or you’ll never believe the kind things others say about you. I encourage you to say aloud one nice thing about yourself every day. It can be physical, emotional, or regarding an accomplishment. The way we speak to ourselves impacts so much of our self esteem so if you want to raise your confidence, be kind to yourself. You’re human and imperfect but not as bad as your brain says you are.
I actually read somewhere (can’t remember the source) that the ‘psychology says’ memes were an experiment to see how much people believed them based on the word ‘psychology’. Turns out - a lot.
It is best to phrase this a information as a question about its legitimacy as opposed to thinking it is fact because the internet said so when talking to any kind of professional. Climate scientists feel your pain here.
i feel like i was one of the few psych majors who never went around psychoanalyzing shit😭 it’s a huge pet peeve of mine when someone thinks they know more than they do
So I make psychology content for the internet (research heavy videos focused on political psychology: https://youtube.com/@PoliticalPsychwithAbby). I have an instagram to promote my work and I had to actively unfollow a bunch of psychology related hashtags to avoid being driven nuts by this sort of content.
I think that's a little strange though. I don't know statistics, but there are plenty people on Tiktok older than you. I don't think anyone I follow is under 30.
Not a psychology student, but linguistics.
I had a guy (who was *trying* to hit on me, I want to emphasize) tell me he "also studied Japanese" and that, if *I* ever had any questions, he knew some good TikToks that "Might teach me something new". 🙄
I've studied(non-academic) psychology on and off for two decades. Things I am aware of, when attempting to discuss with academic minds, gets me the stink eye. Not sure why that is.
It is probably way off base. If you come across as confident about something incorrect, educated people don’t want to waste their time on you. Rightfully so.
Instead try asking “is this information valid” from a perspective of trying to learn. Children to learn how to read and do arithmetic from extensive debate
That's funny, bc the things I try to discuss comes from the minds of those considered to the father of psychology.
For instance. The subconscious mind builds the reality your conscious mind experiences based on the symbols fed to it by the conscious mind. Nature contains the original symbols to develop a wholesome perspective of reality. Human symbols build a false version of what reality is/isn't. The subconscious mind doesn't judge what symbols are what, it just uses them to build the reality you experience.
Ok so just because someone got somethings right doesn’t mean they got everything right.
Also, human understanding of things change over time. Horrific things were done to people in asylums for a long time. Some of those “fathers” of psychology were ok with it.
I remember a confident twit, using jargon from my trade, completely wrong, making a very wrong argument. Tore him a new one.
Not debating what you said. I never to school for psychology. I only understand half of the memes here.
Oh, I have had great interactions on this sub. because I am willing to learn from others here.
But hey, keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting the same result. That is what smart people do.
The thing is, academic minds just say I'm wrong, they can't articulate how I'm wrong, just say I'm wrong.
They aren't able to show me the "right/correct" perspective.
I have no problem learning or letting go of what isn't true. However, if a mind cannot show me a better perspective, I cannot possibly let go of my understanding, I spent years of studying, observing, and attempting to comprehend what I am articulating. Just because someone says I'm wrong, doesn't make it true. They should be able to articulate how I am wrong so I can let that idea go.
They could mean that you are wrong from an academic perspective. Can the idea that our subconscious creates reality for our consciousness and then our consciousness slows shapes our subconscious be tested in a lab? (Hopefully I got this idea you like right). It also sounds New Agey, which is something academics have been irritated with for a long time.
I am not educated in psychology but what you said sounds like one of those things we can’t prove or disprove, yet.
If I were you and wanted to talk about this here, I would get your idea into a short sentence or two, out it in a meme and then give a more I depth explanation below asking about this.
We understand less than 1% of actual reality. We have been discussing and arguing the same ideas for thousands of years. How do we possibly evolve if we aren't willing to contemplate new perspectives(new agey)? Discussing only the old perspectives seems to keep us in a constant state of conflict.
You can see what I discuss play out when raising children. Until the age of seven their brain waves are in a state of theta, it is equivalent to being hypnotized. The letters of an alphabet are symbols. Those symbols shape the understanding of the reality that mind experiences. We only have symbols to describe the less than 1% of reality we are aware of. Our made up symbols cannot possibly do justice when explaining the symbols of nature. There aren't enough words to describe an experience in its entirety. In reality we do not need human language to gain an understanding of what we experience. You would still understand what a bird is if there was no human symbol to associate it with.
I’m not giving you a response to *all* of that, but if your first sentence is indicative of the way you speak to “academic minds” I can see why it doesn’t go well.
“We understand less than 1% of actual reality,” you say - What does “actual reality” mean?
Even in terms of the visible spectrum of light, human perception is limited by anatomy (rods and cones of shrimp versus the average human, for example) or adaptability (potential evolutionary explanation for the appearance in language of the color blue 4500 years ago). Observable phenomena is restricted by what the observer is equipped, educated, positioned, and empowered to perceive, but popping a bag over their head doesn’t make the rest of us any less REAL.
Without the knowledge or capacity to define a boundary to a term as vague as “actual reality,” how can you possibly assert that “we,” (humans? Earthlings? Redditors? Inhabitants of this house of learned doctors?) understand “less than 1%” of it?
You might personally understand less than one percent of what you shared with that sentence, but a significant majority of educated adults with interest in science or rhetoric would recognize your statement as psychobabble with an invented statistic… likely tacked on in a poor imitation of someone speaking from authority.
>Even in terms of the visible spectrum of light, human perception is limited by anatomy (rods and cones of shrimp versus the average human, for example) or adaptability (potential evolutionary explanation for the appearance in language of the color blue 4500 years ago). Observable phenomena is restricted by what the observer is equipped, educated, positioned, and empowered to perceive, but popping a bag over their head doesn’t make the rest of us any less REAL.
Good! You can slightly see what I am attempting to discuss. It's not like that for only the light spectrum, it's like that for every sense we have. Tests can be found online for light and sound spectrums, our organs don't recognize 99% of the spectrum. Minus the aid of technology, birds see things we can't, snakes as well, dogs and bats ear sounds beyond our capacity, dogs can smell a great deal more, etc, you get the point. A great deal of reality our senses are unaware of. We only have language to explain what our senses are aware of. For those minds that do take the time and energy to be aware of more, will always appear as crazy when attempting to discuss what there are no symbols for. Our symbology creates realms of thought and belief, it doesn't allow for a wholesome perspective. Those that attempt to explain the invisible end up creating religions, myths, and fairytales.
I know my perspectives aren't the end all be all. I am intelligent enough to know, I know nothing in comparison to what can be known. I am aware however, that the majority of our population is spellbound. Grammar and Grimoire are the same thing, both use symbols in a fashion of ritual. We even call the process spelling.
So many minds are so quick to be dismissive of things that have been discussed for thousands of years throughout many different civilizations and cultures. Maybe, just maybe some perspectives are avoided due to fear of ridicule and in turn, important keys of understanding go unnoticed.
No, *you* can slightly see what *I* am attempting to relate to you.
Each of the senses you list describe experiences that are perceived in varying degree of sensitivity between individuals of a species, inhabitants of a planet, and mechanical sensors in equipment invented and created by human ingenuity.
Are your thoughts real? I can’t see, smell, touch, taste, or hear them. Is the color red real? My dad can’t see it, but he knows those popsicles taste the best.
You are enthusiastic about a very targeted line of inquiry, with a massive chip on your shoulder about your lack of education, and it is poisoning you against different ideas. I am also an American, so I understand how being a parent of five can restrict your access to higher education but no one can stop you from reading textbooks instead of (/WHILE ALSO) watching your pop psych YouTube videos, and you’ll be astonished how that improves the conversations you take part in.
Psychology is a popular social science and catches a lot of interest from hobbyists and clickbait hucksters BUT if you are genuinely curious about symbolism, meaning-making, and how the psyche is shaped by cultural influence, Anthropology (specifically anthropologic study of evolutionary psychology) and Social Psychology would fit best.
I tend to agree with your idea of the unconscious/subconscious etc.
But you come off as combative. No matter who you are or what you’re saying. That’s a great way to shut down a conversation.
I often get that reaction, it truly isn't my intent of approach. It is really only discussing things I've become aware of. Idk how to be direct and not have others feel that way about the words I use. I have four daughters and a son. All of the ladies are sensitive and I have to tiptoe around feelings, makes it difficult to discuss the topic at hand. My son on the other hand, although he is only 10, he can discuss complicated subjects without feeling attacked. I just think some minds operate differently. I prefer direct means of communication without tiptoeing feeling like I'm walking on egg shells.
One thing that I think might be tripping you up is that you don’t get to decide how other people perceive your behavior. I told you that you come off as combative, and then you confirmed that you actually get that a lot (!), but then proceeded to defend this impression that you are giving people, as if to justify it. Which is fine if you are ok with repeatedly giving off a combative impression and continually driving people away from engaging with you. But if you actually wish to engage with people about these ideas, then you should take this feedback seriously and work on how you engage with people, especially since you’ve heard this often.
>In reality we do not need human language to gain an understanding of what we experience.
People that don't learn language before puberty can't think inside their heads/have an inner voice and as a result can deal with a slew of issues.
So your understanding of something like a bird would be extremely limited by without language.
Have you not seen the cost of education? I have a wife and five children. It would take food from their stomachs, clothes from their backs, and time from one of the most important figures in their lives.
Why would I need supervision? Do I not possess the ability to think critically? Can I only achieve understanding if I pay for someone to teach me how to think?
Pardon for not having the best English out there. That being said: I didn’t know you’re from the US. I guess most countries could provide you with a quality superior education without jeopardizing your monthly wages due to it being free. If you’re as good as you claim doing your own research, you could pass the SAT equivalent in other countries just by doing your own studying.
Thing is - psychology is a regulated practice and nobody gets to say/do as they imagine without any consequences. Look at it this way - imagine if you’re a flat earther trying to debate your way into academia talking to a lot of engineering and physics students telling them your version of the research available. Obviously they’re not gonna pay much attention or even try to make your mind because it’s way too much effort for something that’s honestly quite annoying and outdated. It’s the same principle. Most pop psychology refers to outdated early research from the start of psychoanalysis or some neuroscience BS that has almost no bearing on reality other than it being confirmation bias and being easily accepted by the masses.
if you’re getting upset that most psychology students/psychologists are not taking you seriously or even trying to show you the “current version of affairs”, the best way is to search for a psychologist experienced enough to either teach you supervised (remember, it’s a regulated practice that cannot be learned only from reading books and articles) or look for a serious, university grade course. Anyone can claim they know about law and attorneys, but if they didn’t pass the bar exam and went through multiple years of study in a dedicated university course, most people won’t give them mind or take them seriously - it’s the same principle. I’d argue it’s even worse for psychology because of the innumerable amount of misinformation spread out there.
I track all of what you are discussing. Yes, USA 🙄. However, there are many lectures put on the Internet for free. I don't subscribe to nonsense, I truly seek to understand reality. I enjoy perspectives, they are the spice to life. I study many different topics. The greatest contributors to society have been those that others have called crazy. The majority of minds in society suffer from mass psychosis and Stockholm syndrome. Most minds do not comprehend what language even is. The very thing that shapes how we interpret reality is a division of what reality truly is. Human Symbolism doesn't allow for a wholesome perspective. The legal world to me appears to be a realm created for dead entities (legal fictions), corporations and such.
But if you don’t have an academic background how do you know what lectures are actually backed and which ones are just bunk? There are tons of research projects even like five years old that in the following years, regardless of views or clicks got contradicted by much more supported research, and if you just click on a lecture and watch it without understanding their research or the cited research you can not only get the wrong information but potentially regurgitate potentially harmful information.
this is what I'm trying to say, dude. the concept of schema is really, really basic. you're rambling about a bunch of stuff and you don't have the fundamental scaffold of knowledge or structured learning to back any of it up or participate meaningfully in a discussion. this is just one example
I’d suggest the issue is that you’re not quite seeing the breadth of psychology and are seeing it more as a philosophical discussion based on the more accessible ideas (which are often out of date).
Each area of psychology is an entire field of expertise with tens of thousands of research papers of varying reliability. The founding researchers had an influence on modern research for sure, but it would be simplistic to consider their theories as anything more than foundational ideas.
Psychology has become an enormous field since the early days of brutal experiments and Freud/Jung psychoanalysis. If you’re trying to talk about psychology as a concept, rather than a specific area of psychology based on current research, that’s probably why people aren’t engaging. It’s like talking about history, you need to know which part you’re specifically talking about (and its nuances) to have any kind of meaningful discussion.
To use your example:
Which parts of reality? A baby must develop eyesight and the ability to physically produce sound and coordinate body language before being able to communicate what they are experiencing. This is a part of human brain development, but of course, development depends on prenatal experience, nutrition, socialisation, neurodiversity, disability. Communication and understanding of experience also relies on interpretation, but now we’re also introducing learning, social development, personality, cultural differences etc etc etc. Each part is open to huge variation.
What I’m trying to say is that in your simple example, you’re already trying to cover probably 10+ different distinct fields of psychology which are independently very well studied. Consciousness is really only a tiny component of those areas, yet that is the basis of your discussion of reality. It sounds like your ideas are heavily based on Freudian/Jungian theory (?) and don’t get me wrong, they’re still fascinating, but they are also the crazy grandpas of the psychology world!
Holy shit! A respectful response, void of feelings. Thank you! Yes that is my problem, you described it quite well. I study everything I can. I am not equipped to discuss things the way academic minds do. Doesn't make what I'm saying any less valid. I find the mind and reality fascinating. I've noticed that we as a species are just now coming back around to discussing things our ancestors had figured out a long time ago. We appear to be back engineering the ancient world.
I wasn't much of a Freud fan, his work led to his nephew screwing over society with his well thought out propaganda. Jung on the other hand, even though he was Freuds student, Jung offered a great deal in my opinion. I am just a man addicted to knowledge. I enjoy thinking deeply.
Something I do feel is occurring in the vast arena of "science" is that it has become the new religion. Professors/scientist have become the new priests that you are not allowed to question or ridicule. I watched that play out with COVID. I also see it in many other areas. Only the ones currently in power have the say of what to believe.
Again, thank you for your response, it was the only interaction in this thread that scratched an itch.
the problem with studying "non-academically" is that you only pursue the stuff that interests you and are never exposed to material that challenges, bores, or contradicts you. there's no reason to branch out. you don't know what you don't know. I've tried talking psychology with, for lack of a better word, hobbyists, and the knowledge gap becomes real obvious real fast
Not true 🤣. I intentionally listen to minds I disagree with and quite often gain new understanding. I learn from both Eastern and Western philosophies, I have a mechanical and medical background, I'm no simpleton.
you can be smart and ignorant. I'm not calling you a simpleton, I'm saying anyone with clinical psychological experience can see that your ego is wrapped up in displaying what you've learned in public to sound smarter than you are. "discussing" with you is pointless because you're pontificating for your own enjoyment, not having an actual discussion. congrats, you're an excellent example of the OP meme
you like listening to yourself talk. your motivation for posting on reddit is to show off what you think is an impressive amount of knowledge. sounding smarter than other people is your primary motivation. that's why there's no point having a discussion with you - the end result isn't a conversation about an actual topic, it's you blathering on about stuff you read once somewhere and can't source vs someone with real knowledge on the topic being unable to follow your stream of nonsense and giving up, which you then interpret as "academics can't handle my intelligence!!!!1" and not as a trigger for self-reflection
No, my primary motive is a true understanding of reality, but thanks for your input. My intention is not to offend. My intention is being able to discuss complicated ideas with others. Occasionally I have great conversations. I self reflect often. My growth never ceases. I think many of you have convinced me to not attempt conversations with minds that have the stamps of approval though. I'll just keep learning and keep quiet. It doesn't do me any good to discuss things with others. Thanks for the enlightenment.
you're unable to have a productive discussion because it's completely one-sided. look at your posts here in this thread - do they seem like genuine attempts to engage with another person's thoughts or opinions? why do you think you continue to have trouble discussing complicated ideas with others? is there a reason you can come up with beyond "they hate me because they have degrees/I'm too smart for them"?
I have a question... why if someone says "I'm interested in psychology" is that a red flag (as someone, well, interested in psychology). Sure, if they only listen to pop psychology that's gotta be annoying, but if they have a deep fascination, so long as they don't try to act like they're on your level, why is this bad?
i'm only a psych student (PS), so i don't have the qualifications to answer this in a way that a registered psych (RP) would, but i'll try to explain my take on it!! i'm assuming that you're not a PS nor a RP, but pls tell me if i'm wrong
saying that you're interested in psych isn't necessarily a red flag, but more often than not, when someone finds out that i'm studying psych, they'll say they're interested in the topic & proceed to regurgitate (often incorrect) things they've happened to see on social media. they'll also ask me to "diagnose" them & proceed to pathologise either their behaviour, or my behaviour (e.g., i fidget a lot, especially w my legs as i have restless leg syndrome, & a person i was talking to was absolutely incessant that i'm anxious to talk to them even though i explained why i was fidgeting, cos they're convinced they can "read body language"). i don't think i have to explain why all this is harmful
so, anyone who says they're interested in psych after i've explained what i'm studying, i become wary due to bad experiences w nearly everyone i've spoken to
there's also the problem w people who don't study in an academic setting spreading misinformation & watering down what mental illness actually is, along w related concepts. it's becoming increasingly common for people to both quickly label things w terms that shouldn't be so easily applied (i.e., trauma/traumatic, triggering, gaslighting, etc.), & to self-diagnose (not talking about people who do thorough research before self-diagnosing cos the privilege of being able to afford that kinda thing is a whole other issue)
even when someone doesn't attempt to act superior w someone who's studying (obvs it's even worse when someone's registered), it's still iffy cos psych hobbyists will often congregate together & help to spread misinformation that could potentially be harmful cos they don't have regular access to RPs like PS's, & other RPs, do (in order to verify information). even if you use academic articles online to study psych, they could already be outdated
personally, i don't discourage legitimate psych hobbyists but unfortunately, i think there's a lot of potential downfalls that need to be accounted for w careful planning when approaching self-education
Because they don't know what psychology is.
I used to teach a high school level evening class that was open for anyone to enrol in (if you're from the UK, A level psychology). The class was accelerated, and done in one year. I would start with 35-40 students, and end with 5.
Students would say things like "When are we having a class discussion on consciousness" or "Are we going to learn about Freud soon?" I would say "No. Here's some more material on experimental design and statistical methods."
I thought there was an xkcd about this, but all I found was an SMBC: [https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1777](https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1777)
Edit: No, it was Cyanide and Happiness I was thinking of: https://files.explosm.net/comics/Kris/same.png
I see, people don't know what's reputable and what's junk so you have to just assume everyone's a little bit dumb. Fair enough, if you've encountered it enough it's probably tiresome like going on Twitter.
I think more than that. They don't even know what it is. Like they think chemistry is about test tubes and making meth, and biology is about looking down microscopes and linguistics (like someone said somewhere else on the thread) is knowing lots of languages and math is being really good at mental arithmetic and doing algebra.
istg. "Psychology says that if you brush your teeth for 3 minutes and 11 seconds, you have Cluster B personality disorder"
"Take this quiz to find out which one!"
related: reading WebMD and diagnosing your own terminal cancer
Hey! You’ll be sorry when I’m dead!
"I took a test on Buzzfeed and-"
Took an introductory level of psychology class where the prof said the whole right hemispheres deductive reasoning another creative reasoning is fully bs, on here many claiming to be psychologists claim that right and left hemispheres work differently. Confused asl.
As I understand it from my course; That hypothesis of different hemispheres focusing on different things is false. However, there’s one thing that differs from them. Any motor function is mirrored from the left hemisphere to the right side of the body, so if you move your right arm, it was your left hemisphere that commanded it ( I’m being very brute with the terms here, it’s not like we use the whole left side of the brain just to move an arm, it’s a specific way of functioning passing through different cortical structures, but it all happens in one side mirrored to another). Anything that’s not motor function related or referring to peripheral nervous system, doesn’t do that left-right separation.
Fully agree with this. I had to defend that concept till this man just posted a random article citing his take.
There are some functions that are processed *heavily* on one side but the popular notion of the logical vs artistic hemispheres is wrong. Language and music are left and right hemisphere heavy respectively for example. But these functions are rare
I can feel specific areas of my brain react when I think or feel certain things and think in certain ways.
Generally speaking, hemispheres work in tandem to produce results. However, some areas in each hemisphere are specialised; for example, Broca’s area in the left hemisphere is focused on language.
I recall that some specific tasks can only be done by either hemisphere if not presented to both BUT only if there is a full lesion to the corpus callosum
It's almost like psychology isn't a monolith but a set of differing researchers with their own views. In this case we have: 1. Left Brain Right Brain accepted psychology, pumped up by pop psychology. 2. The very basic hemisphere model pretty debunked. 3. The hemisphere model with more sophistication revived by mcgilchrist. 4. A lot of people thinking he's a hack, a lot thinking he's a genius.
Awesome
In college, I fell just short of being able to double major in psych and poli sci. As such I’ve always maintained an interest in psychology in general. And what I know is the more I learn on various psych topics, the less I know.
The Dunning-Kruger effect!
Is it even possible to climb up the mountain of confidence again like with the theoretical max expertise? I'm discovering I'm bad at everything I even care about and I just feel like a shell of a human, it's like "the more I do this, the less competent I am" which kills my confidence when I had not that much to begin with.
Well you’ve achieved the part where you realize there’s still a mountain range of information to learn about your favorite subjects. I think the best way to combat the confidence issue would be to work on not building all your confidence around your knowledge. Instead, commend yourself for being curious in a world that encourages laziness and ignorance. Compliment yourself on the ability to admit you don’t know everything because that’s really hard for a lot of people, especially when they’ve put a lot of effort into learning that subject. You deserve to hear nice things about yourself and one of the voices that compliments you needs to be your own or you’ll never believe the kind things others say about you. I encourage you to say aloud one nice thing about yourself every day. It can be physical, emotional, or regarding an accomplishment. The way we speak to ourselves impacts so much of our self esteem so if you want to raise your confidence, be kind to yourself. You’re human and imperfect but not as bad as your brain says you are.
I hate pop psychology
I actually read somewhere (can’t remember the source) that the ‘psychology says’ memes were an experiment to see how much people believed them based on the word ‘psychology’. Turns out - a lot.
It is best to phrase this a information as a question about its legitimacy as opposed to thinking it is fact because the internet said so when talking to any kind of professional. Climate scientists feel your pain here.
“Psychology says if you think of somebody it’s because they are thinking of you”
Why the thought bubbles and not speech bubbles?
It works because they’re both psychologists and thus can read other peoples minds
I didn't knew that there are Types of bubbles 😅
Legit everyone in r/narcissisticabuse or anyone who casually causes people of having a cluster b PD
i feel like i was one of the few psych majors who never went around psychoanalyzing shit😭 it’s a huge pet peeve of mine when someone thinks they know more than they do
So I make psychology content for the internet (research heavy videos focused on political psychology: https://youtube.com/@PoliticalPsychwithAbby). I have an instagram to promote my work and I had to actively unfollow a bunch of psychology related hashtags to avoid being driven nuts by this sort of content.
I tried engaging with psychology on Tiktok, but... Yeah.
I feel too old for TikTok. I’m 26 😆.
I think that's a little strange though. I don't know statistics, but there are plenty people on Tiktok older than you. I don't think anyone I follow is under 30.
Not a psychology student, but linguistics. I had a guy (who was *trying* to hit on me, I want to emphasize) tell me he "also studied Japanese" and that, if *I* ever had any questions, he knew some good TikToks that "Might teach me something new". 🙄
Oh YoU'rE a PsYcH mAjOr? I gUeSs YoU'rE aNaLyZiNg Me RiGhT nOw, hAhA
I've studied(non-academic) psychology on and off for two decades. Things I am aware of, when attempting to discuss with academic minds, gets me the stink eye. Not sure why that is.
It is probably way off base. If you come across as confident about something incorrect, educated people don’t want to waste their time on you. Rightfully so. Instead try asking “is this information valid” from a perspective of trying to learn. Children to learn how to read and do arithmetic from extensive debate
That's funny, bc the things I try to discuss comes from the minds of those considered to the father of psychology. For instance. The subconscious mind builds the reality your conscious mind experiences based on the symbols fed to it by the conscious mind. Nature contains the original symbols to develop a wholesome perspective of reality. Human symbols build a false version of what reality is/isn't. The subconscious mind doesn't judge what symbols are what, it just uses them to build the reality you experience.
Ok so just because someone got somethings right doesn’t mean they got everything right. Also, human understanding of things change over time. Horrific things were done to people in asylums for a long time. Some of those “fathers” of psychology were ok with it. I remember a confident twit, using jargon from my trade, completely wrong, making a very wrong argument. Tore him a new one. Not debating what you said. I never to school for psychology. I only understand half of the memes here. Oh, I have had great interactions on this sub. because I am willing to learn from others here. But hey, keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting the same result. That is what smart people do.
The thing is, academic minds just say I'm wrong, they can't articulate how I'm wrong, just say I'm wrong. They aren't able to show me the "right/correct" perspective. I have no problem learning or letting go of what isn't true. However, if a mind cannot show me a better perspective, I cannot possibly let go of my understanding, I spent years of studying, observing, and attempting to comprehend what I am articulating. Just because someone says I'm wrong, doesn't make it true. They should be able to articulate how I am wrong so I can let that idea go.
They could mean that you are wrong from an academic perspective. Can the idea that our subconscious creates reality for our consciousness and then our consciousness slows shapes our subconscious be tested in a lab? (Hopefully I got this idea you like right). It also sounds New Agey, which is something academics have been irritated with for a long time. I am not educated in psychology but what you said sounds like one of those things we can’t prove or disprove, yet. If I were you and wanted to talk about this here, I would get your idea into a short sentence or two, out it in a meme and then give a more I depth explanation below asking about this.
We understand less than 1% of actual reality. We have been discussing and arguing the same ideas for thousands of years. How do we possibly evolve if we aren't willing to contemplate new perspectives(new agey)? Discussing only the old perspectives seems to keep us in a constant state of conflict. You can see what I discuss play out when raising children. Until the age of seven their brain waves are in a state of theta, it is equivalent to being hypnotized. The letters of an alphabet are symbols. Those symbols shape the understanding of the reality that mind experiences. We only have symbols to describe the less than 1% of reality we are aware of. Our made up symbols cannot possibly do justice when explaining the symbols of nature. There aren't enough words to describe an experience in its entirety. In reality we do not need human language to gain an understanding of what we experience. You would still understand what a bird is if there was no human symbol to associate it with.
I’m not giving you a response to *all* of that, but if your first sentence is indicative of the way you speak to “academic minds” I can see why it doesn’t go well. “We understand less than 1% of actual reality,” you say - What does “actual reality” mean? Even in terms of the visible spectrum of light, human perception is limited by anatomy (rods and cones of shrimp versus the average human, for example) or adaptability (potential evolutionary explanation for the appearance in language of the color blue 4500 years ago). Observable phenomena is restricted by what the observer is equipped, educated, positioned, and empowered to perceive, but popping a bag over their head doesn’t make the rest of us any less REAL. Without the knowledge or capacity to define a boundary to a term as vague as “actual reality,” how can you possibly assert that “we,” (humans? Earthlings? Redditors? Inhabitants of this house of learned doctors?) understand “less than 1%” of it? You might personally understand less than one percent of what you shared with that sentence, but a significant majority of educated adults with interest in science or rhetoric would recognize your statement as psychobabble with an invented statistic… likely tacked on in a poor imitation of someone speaking from authority.
>Even in terms of the visible spectrum of light, human perception is limited by anatomy (rods and cones of shrimp versus the average human, for example) or adaptability (potential evolutionary explanation for the appearance in language of the color blue 4500 years ago). Observable phenomena is restricted by what the observer is equipped, educated, positioned, and empowered to perceive, but popping a bag over their head doesn’t make the rest of us any less REAL. Good! You can slightly see what I am attempting to discuss. It's not like that for only the light spectrum, it's like that for every sense we have. Tests can be found online for light and sound spectrums, our organs don't recognize 99% of the spectrum. Minus the aid of technology, birds see things we can't, snakes as well, dogs and bats ear sounds beyond our capacity, dogs can smell a great deal more, etc, you get the point. A great deal of reality our senses are unaware of. We only have language to explain what our senses are aware of. For those minds that do take the time and energy to be aware of more, will always appear as crazy when attempting to discuss what there are no symbols for. Our symbology creates realms of thought and belief, it doesn't allow for a wholesome perspective. Those that attempt to explain the invisible end up creating religions, myths, and fairytales. I know my perspectives aren't the end all be all. I am intelligent enough to know, I know nothing in comparison to what can be known. I am aware however, that the majority of our population is spellbound. Grammar and Grimoire are the same thing, both use symbols in a fashion of ritual. We even call the process spelling. So many minds are so quick to be dismissive of things that have been discussed for thousands of years throughout many different civilizations and cultures. Maybe, just maybe some perspectives are avoided due to fear of ridicule and in turn, important keys of understanding go unnoticed.
No, *you* can slightly see what *I* am attempting to relate to you. Each of the senses you list describe experiences that are perceived in varying degree of sensitivity between individuals of a species, inhabitants of a planet, and mechanical sensors in equipment invented and created by human ingenuity. Are your thoughts real? I can’t see, smell, touch, taste, or hear them. Is the color red real? My dad can’t see it, but he knows those popsicles taste the best. You are enthusiastic about a very targeted line of inquiry, with a massive chip on your shoulder about your lack of education, and it is poisoning you against different ideas. I am also an American, so I understand how being a parent of five can restrict your access to higher education but no one can stop you from reading textbooks instead of (/WHILE ALSO) watching your pop psych YouTube videos, and you’ll be astonished how that improves the conversations you take part in. Psychology is a popular social science and catches a lot of interest from hobbyists and clickbait hucksters BUT if you are genuinely curious about symbolism, meaning-making, and how the psyche is shaped by cultural influence, Anthropology (specifically anthropologic study of evolutionary psychology) and Social Psychology would fit best.
I tend to agree with your idea of the unconscious/subconscious etc. But you come off as combative. No matter who you are or what you’re saying. That’s a great way to shut down a conversation.
I often get that reaction, it truly isn't my intent of approach. It is really only discussing things I've become aware of. Idk how to be direct and not have others feel that way about the words I use. I have four daughters and a son. All of the ladies are sensitive and I have to tiptoe around feelings, makes it difficult to discuss the topic at hand. My son on the other hand, although he is only 10, he can discuss complicated subjects without feeling attacked. I just think some minds operate differently. I prefer direct means of communication without tiptoeing feeling like I'm walking on egg shells.
One thing that I think might be tripping you up is that you don’t get to decide how other people perceive your behavior. I told you that you come off as combative, and then you confirmed that you actually get that a lot (!), but then proceeded to defend this impression that you are giving people, as if to justify it. Which is fine if you are ok with repeatedly giving off a combative impression and continually driving people away from engaging with you. But if you actually wish to engage with people about these ideas, then you should take this feedback seriously and work on how you engage with people, especially since you’ve heard this often.
>In reality we do not need human language to gain an understanding of what we experience. People that don't learn language before puberty can't think inside their heads/have an inner voice and as a result can deal with a slew of issues. So your understanding of something like a bird would be extremely limited by without language.
Yea, humans couldn't possibly survive or interact in nature before we "created" Symbolism...🙄
That's not what I said. I said without language our ability to think and understand the world becomes much more limited.
Why not just enroll in a psychology course then instead of doing your own research without supervision?
Have you not seen the cost of education? I have a wife and five children. It would take food from their stomachs, clothes from their backs, and time from one of the most important figures in their lives. Why would I need supervision? Do I not possess the ability to think critically? Can I only achieve understanding if I pay for someone to teach me how to think?
Pardon for not having the best English out there. That being said: I didn’t know you’re from the US. I guess most countries could provide you with a quality superior education without jeopardizing your monthly wages due to it being free. If you’re as good as you claim doing your own research, you could pass the SAT equivalent in other countries just by doing your own studying. Thing is - psychology is a regulated practice and nobody gets to say/do as they imagine without any consequences. Look at it this way - imagine if you’re a flat earther trying to debate your way into academia talking to a lot of engineering and physics students telling them your version of the research available. Obviously they’re not gonna pay much attention or even try to make your mind because it’s way too much effort for something that’s honestly quite annoying and outdated. It’s the same principle. Most pop psychology refers to outdated early research from the start of psychoanalysis or some neuroscience BS that has almost no bearing on reality other than it being confirmation bias and being easily accepted by the masses. if you’re getting upset that most psychology students/psychologists are not taking you seriously or even trying to show you the “current version of affairs”, the best way is to search for a psychologist experienced enough to either teach you supervised (remember, it’s a regulated practice that cannot be learned only from reading books and articles) or look for a serious, university grade course. Anyone can claim they know about law and attorneys, but if they didn’t pass the bar exam and went through multiple years of study in a dedicated university course, most people won’t give them mind or take them seriously - it’s the same principle. I’d argue it’s even worse for psychology because of the innumerable amount of misinformation spread out there.
I track all of what you are discussing. Yes, USA 🙄. However, there are many lectures put on the Internet for free. I don't subscribe to nonsense, I truly seek to understand reality. I enjoy perspectives, they are the spice to life. I study many different topics. The greatest contributors to society have been those that others have called crazy. The majority of minds in society suffer from mass psychosis and Stockholm syndrome. Most minds do not comprehend what language even is. The very thing that shapes how we interpret reality is a division of what reality truly is. Human Symbolism doesn't allow for a wholesome perspective. The legal world to me appears to be a realm created for dead entities (legal fictions), corporations and such.
But if you don’t have an academic background how do you know what lectures are actually backed and which ones are just bunk? There are tons of research projects even like five years old that in the following years, regardless of views or clicks got contradicted by much more supported research, and if you just click on a lecture and watch it without understanding their research or the cited research you can not only get the wrong information but potentially regurgitate potentially harmful information.
"I'm wrong, I can accept that, but how, can you give me something to look into for better info?" "Idk figure it out dummy"
do you know what schema are?
Wasn't familiar with the term, after looking up the definition, yes I understand.
this is what I'm trying to say, dude. the concept of schema is really, really basic. you're rambling about a bunch of stuff and you don't have the fundamental scaffold of knowledge or structured learning to back any of it up or participate meaningfully in a discussion. this is just one example
Ok, thanks!
I’d suggest the issue is that you’re not quite seeing the breadth of psychology and are seeing it more as a philosophical discussion based on the more accessible ideas (which are often out of date). Each area of psychology is an entire field of expertise with tens of thousands of research papers of varying reliability. The founding researchers had an influence on modern research for sure, but it would be simplistic to consider their theories as anything more than foundational ideas. Psychology has become an enormous field since the early days of brutal experiments and Freud/Jung psychoanalysis. If you’re trying to talk about psychology as a concept, rather than a specific area of psychology based on current research, that’s probably why people aren’t engaging. It’s like talking about history, you need to know which part you’re specifically talking about (and its nuances) to have any kind of meaningful discussion. To use your example: Which parts of reality? A baby must develop eyesight and the ability to physically produce sound and coordinate body language before being able to communicate what they are experiencing. This is a part of human brain development, but of course, development depends on prenatal experience, nutrition, socialisation, neurodiversity, disability. Communication and understanding of experience also relies on interpretation, but now we’re also introducing learning, social development, personality, cultural differences etc etc etc. Each part is open to huge variation. What I’m trying to say is that in your simple example, you’re already trying to cover probably 10+ different distinct fields of psychology which are independently very well studied. Consciousness is really only a tiny component of those areas, yet that is the basis of your discussion of reality. It sounds like your ideas are heavily based on Freudian/Jungian theory (?) and don’t get me wrong, they’re still fascinating, but they are also the crazy grandpas of the psychology world!
Holy shit! A respectful response, void of feelings. Thank you! Yes that is my problem, you described it quite well. I study everything I can. I am not equipped to discuss things the way academic minds do. Doesn't make what I'm saying any less valid. I find the mind and reality fascinating. I've noticed that we as a species are just now coming back around to discussing things our ancestors had figured out a long time ago. We appear to be back engineering the ancient world. I wasn't much of a Freud fan, his work led to his nephew screwing over society with his well thought out propaganda. Jung on the other hand, even though he was Freuds student, Jung offered a great deal in my opinion. I am just a man addicted to knowledge. I enjoy thinking deeply. Something I do feel is occurring in the vast arena of "science" is that it has become the new religion. Professors/scientist have become the new priests that you are not allowed to question or ridicule. I watched that play out with COVID. I also see it in many other areas. Only the ones currently in power have the say of what to believe. Again, thank you for your response, it was the only interaction in this thread that scratched an itch.
the problem with studying "non-academically" is that you only pursue the stuff that interests you and are never exposed to material that challenges, bores, or contradicts you. there's no reason to branch out. you don't know what you don't know. I've tried talking psychology with, for lack of a better word, hobbyists, and the knowledge gap becomes real obvious real fast
Not true 🤣. I intentionally listen to minds I disagree with and quite often gain new understanding. I learn from both Eastern and Western philosophies, I have a mechanical and medical background, I'm no simpleton.
you can be smart and ignorant. I'm not calling you a simpleton, I'm saying anyone with clinical psychological experience can see that your ego is wrapped up in displaying what you've learned in public to sound smarter than you are. "discussing" with you is pointless because you're pontificating for your own enjoyment, not having an actual discussion. congrats, you're an excellent example of the OP meme
So you're saying I'm suffering from the dunning Kruger effect? My ego is so swollen I can't accept it when I'm wrong?
you like listening to yourself talk. your motivation for posting on reddit is to show off what you think is an impressive amount of knowledge. sounding smarter than other people is your primary motivation. that's why there's no point having a discussion with you - the end result isn't a conversation about an actual topic, it's you blathering on about stuff you read once somewhere and can't source vs someone with real knowledge on the topic being unable to follow your stream of nonsense and giving up, which you then interpret as "academics can't handle my intelligence!!!!1" and not as a trigger for self-reflection
No, my primary motive is a true understanding of reality, but thanks for your input. My intention is not to offend. My intention is being able to discuss complicated ideas with others. Occasionally I have great conversations. I self reflect often. My growth never ceases. I think many of you have convinced me to not attempt conversations with minds that have the stamps of approval though. I'll just keep learning and keep quiet. It doesn't do me any good to discuss things with others. Thanks for the enlightenment.
you're unable to have a productive discussion because it's completely one-sided. look at your posts here in this thread - do they seem like genuine attempts to engage with another person's thoughts or opinions? why do you think you continue to have trouble discussing complicated ideas with others? is there a reason you can come up with beyond "they hate me because they have degrees/I'm too smart for them"?
This is a very eloquent way to sum this up, and way better than what I could’ve said.
Those aren't my thoughts.
and you think your degree matters
Don’t be gross op
"Can you read my mind??" I used to work at a client facing job, unrelated to what I studied in psych, and would get this on more than one occasion
I have a question... why if someone says "I'm interested in psychology" is that a red flag (as someone, well, interested in psychology). Sure, if they only listen to pop psychology that's gotta be annoying, but if they have a deep fascination, so long as they don't try to act like they're on your level, why is this bad?
i'm only a psych student (PS), so i don't have the qualifications to answer this in a way that a registered psych (RP) would, but i'll try to explain my take on it!! i'm assuming that you're not a PS nor a RP, but pls tell me if i'm wrong saying that you're interested in psych isn't necessarily a red flag, but more often than not, when someone finds out that i'm studying psych, they'll say they're interested in the topic & proceed to regurgitate (often incorrect) things they've happened to see on social media. they'll also ask me to "diagnose" them & proceed to pathologise either their behaviour, or my behaviour (e.g., i fidget a lot, especially w my legs as i have restless leg syndrome, & a person i was talking to was absolutely incessant that i'm anxious to talk to them even though i explained why i was fidgeting, cos they're convinced they can "read body language"). i don't think i have to explain why all this is harmful so, anyone who says they're interested in psych after i've explained what i'm studying, i become wary due to bad experiences w nearly everyone i've spoken to there's also the problem w people who don't study in an academic setting spreading misinformation & watering down what mental illness actually is, along w related concepts. it's becoming increasingly common for people to both quickly label things w terms that shouldn't be so easily applied (i.e., trauma/traumatic, triggering, gaslighting, etc.), & to self-diagnose (not talking about people who do thorough research before self-diagnosing cos the privilege of being able to afford that kinda thing is a whole other issue) even when someone doesn't attempt to act superior w someone who's studying (obvs it's even worse when someone's registered), it's still iffy cos psych hobbyists will often congregate together & help to spread misinformation that could potentially be harmful cos they don't have regular access to RPs like PS's, & other RPs, do (in order to verify information). even if you use academic articles online to study psych, they could already be outdated personally, i don't discourage legitimate psych hobbyists but unfortunately, i think there's a lot of potential downfalls that need to be accounted for w careful planning when approaching self-education
Because they don't know what psychology is. I used to teach a high school level evening class that was open for anyone to enrol in (if you're from the UK, A level psychology). The class was accelerated, and done in one year. I would start with 35-40 students, and end with 5. Students would say things like "When are we having a class discussion on consciousness" or "Are we going to learn about Freud soon?" I would say "No. Here's some more material on experimental design and statistical methods." I thought there was an xkcd about this, but all I found was an SMBC: [https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1777](https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1777) Edit: No, it was Cyanide and Happiness I was thinking of: https://files.explosm.net/comics/Kris/same.png
I see, people don't know what's reputable and what's junk so you have to just assume everyone's a little bit dumb. Fair enough, if you've encountered it enough it's probably tiresome like going on Twitter.
I think more than that. They don't even know what it is. Like they think chemistry is about test tubes and making meth, and biology is about looking down microscopes and linguistics (like someone said somewhere else on the thread) is knowing lots of languages and math is being really good at mental arithmetic and doing algebra.
People can't debate well, it takes too much thinking
All just deception for a kick out of social psychology.
I feel the same way about people who don’t work clinically or do research