BF2S Forums Race relations thread

jung was not a scientist. he was a psychoanalyst with a background in myth and ... literature. he believed in concepts that are fringe even by the standards of modern psychology, and is read pretty much exclusively in ... literature departments. jung is like freud, only worse. jung is like lacan. like freud, both wanted to lend a veneer of scientific 'rigour' to their new discipline; but not many people in scientific circles are talking about penis envy and wanting to kill your daddy because he fucked your mummy, are they?

are you really dropping wikipedia-level knowledge on me about jung, just because you hastily googled 'extraverted' to save your ass and found a blogpost (the URL for it is in the picture you linked, dipshit). now you're going to mount a defense of jung? have you actually read any jung? i have read several of his books and find his philosophy and interest in gnosticism absolutely puzzling. he was also a huge nazi sympathiser and sold out his jewish colleagues for his own career. great bloke.

fyi i just spent 12 months flat sharing with a guy who ... is training to be a jungian analyst. i think i'm good on this subject. the fact you are holding him up to be a 'polymathic scientist' as opposed to my 'flimsy arts' knowledge is absolutely hilarious. nobody but NOBODY in the 'scientific' field of psychology reads jung anymore. he is a curio for private therapists and cranks. if you knew the slightest thing about this subject and weren't just googling out of boredom/to save your pathetic ass, you would know how ludicrous you are being. for someone who is avowedly anti-religious, you citing jung, a massive spiritualist and god freak occultist, is fucking hilarious.

Woman is compensated by a masculine element and therefore her unconscious has, so to speak, a masculine imprint. This results in a considerable psychological difference between men and women, and accordingly I have called the projection-making factor in women the animus, which means mind or spirit. (From The Syzygy: Anima and Animus , Collected Works, 9ii, par. 28f.)

The animus is the deposit, as it were, of all woman's ancestral experiences of man - and not only that, he is also a creative and procreative being, not in the sense of masculine creativity, but in the sense that he brings forth something we might call... the spermatic word. (From Anima and Animus, Collected Works 7, par. 336.)

ah, yes ... SCIENCE! glorious. the whole reason jung isn't used in psychology at all now is because his stuff is essentially imaginative literature (check out the 'liber novus' for a real trip). put anything resembling the scientific method near a jung book and it evaporates. have fun testing his theories of 'the shadow self', 'the collective unconscious', and exploring how 'to rebirth a new image of God in the soul of man'. swill your mouth out with some of that 'spermatic word' whilst you're at it, i hear it's good for you.

You're an ignoramus

Last edited by uziq (2019-04-08 20:01:44)

people still train to become jungian psychoanalysts. just like they train to become freudians. they are not 'official' schools and are essentially private academies. you can pay a lot of money to 'qualify' in homeopathy too, if you want. go nuts! the guy is planning to do what any private therapist does: sit rich people down on a couch and listen to their problems and to comfort them with technical-sounding argot. science, eh? you seem hopelessly ignorant about the fact that the scientific body of knowledge about mental health and the functions of the brain are very divorced from the various 'therapies' and 'healing' techniques that individuals may choose to pursue as a private matter or as an idiosyncratic intellectual hobby (and jung has a legion of occult acolytes).

jung is not taught in psychology courses and absolutely has no place in psychiatric practice. his ideas are, like i said, and much like freud's, LITERARY. there's no jung on a hospital ward, no jung in a university psychology course beyond the historical disciplinary stuff that also gives freud his credence for 'the unconscious' (which isn't really even relevant in clinical psychology or neurology now, but hey: science!)

sharing a flat with someone doesn't make me an expert. unfortunately i have read several of his books in-depth (unfortunately is the word), and, most unfortunately for you, they are full of stuff about rebirthing religion and man's need for irrationalism and guff like his 'anima' and 'shadow self'. all very scientific, you see.

...

https://i.imgur.com/s4zYaan.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/IvDCMBC.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/jvDgzim.jpg

all this because you're too stubborn to admit that, rather than relying on a spelling from niche-specialist literature of a subfield of psychoanalysis only read and endorsed by cranks, and not the commonly accepted usage by an order of magnitude (see here) and admitting you made a typo, you'd rather dig up a blogpost from page one of a google search result and pretend to know or care a fuck about carl jung of all fucking people. unlucky. some of us actually read books.

Last edited by uziq (2019-04-08 20:45:25)

how about you just take my word for it when i tell you that jung isn't on your side in this life -- he ain't even sitting on the bench. you wouldn't take 10 pages of his prattle.

it is pretty ironic that the only people perpetuating his original concepts of 'extraversion and introversion' are people working within a niche discipline who feel obliged to cite the original faithfully, even though in the main the practitioners of that discipline have moved on from jung and his ideas on extraversion/introversion. the irony is that they are NOT well-accepted at all and, much like his ridiculous myers–briggs personality archetypes, have only become 'accepted' in a popularised and general sense ... whilst being discounted and left aside in the actual professional discipline. professional psychologists do not talk about introverts and extroverts (the blog post you hastily ripped that paragraph of text and picture from goes on to detail this exact point).

were you really referring to jung's ideas on extraversion when you said all schoolchildren should become them? until 30 minutes ago you hadn't even read the poor neglected fellow's wikipedia bio, let alone the 'specialist scientific literature' (lol again) on the subject.

Last edited by uziq (2019-04-08 21:01:52)

no. there is a psychology based on the scientific method. it’s not apodictic or getting at first truths but it is evidence-based. stop trying to downplay your utter ignorance. it’s fatuous in the extreme that you made out jung was a scientific titan and i was some arty wastrel; it’s solely the non-scientific branch of psychology that has kept his work alive. i’ve read several of his books and find them a waste of time, average philosophy wrapped in the most arrant nonsense about religion and faith and finding god in a secular desert. you come across as an utter fool when you cite jung favourably one minute and then go and rail against ‘all religions’ the next.

back to our point about scientific racism: do you have any equally suspect sources for your poorly read thoughts?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Black Africans underachieve all around the world Ken.

We share 70% of our genes with fruit flies, maybe Macbeth should expect the fruit flies in the bell jar to achieve 70% of the SAT scores of the people in the class?

I'm never going to be a pro-basketballer due to my genetically determined height, black kids have trouble focusing in Anglo-Saxon schooling.

Its 2019 and people still haven't got this.

Not true at all. Immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean Islands perform on par with white people here. It's native poor black culture here that holds them back in school, not ability.

Where do Indians fit in?

I'm getting serious old-school BF2s vibes from this argument. Thanks, guys.

DesertFox- wrote:

I'm getting serious old-school BF2s vibes from this argument. Thanks, guys.

ditto.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Black Africans underachieve all around the world Ken.

We share 70% of our genes with fruit flies, maybe Macbeth should expect the fruit flies in the bell jar to achieve 70% of the SAT scores of the people in the class?

I'm never going to be a pro-basketballer due to my genetically determined height, black kids have trouble focusing in Anglo-Saxon schooling.

Its 2019 and people still haven't got this.

Not true at all. Immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean Islands perform on par with white people here. It's native poor black culture here that holds them back in school, not ability.

Maybe American-Africans are descended from the people who were dumb enough to get caught and sent of as slaves, the new immigrants descended from the people who did the capturing and sending off?

Here's an example of how quickly evolution can work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

You still live with your parents and your cat though yeah? That's not gonna further your evolutionary ideals anytime soon.

Last edited by coke (2019-04-09 17:44:22)

haha dilbert 'human beings have adapted to alcohol: here's a study on lactose intolerance' and 'human intelligence evolves like moths'.

did this guy actually get a fucking science degree? lmao i'm deddddd

Last edited by uziq (2019-04-10 00:42:27)

"I loathe all religions equally."

*lambastes Islam specifically with sweeping generalizations in most anti-religion posts*

Like people aren't brainwashed by Mormons or Baptists or Scientologists.

Should we even count Scientology as a religion?

that^ and it's just as insane and horrible as every other "big" religion out there.