Analytical Psychology - is it just pseudoscience?

[Daddy]

Since people seem to really hate on Jung and psychological types all over the internet, I'd like to try and defend Analytical Psychology with an emphasis on the theoretical validity of Psychological Types.

First, I want to say that I think it is neither science, nor pseudoscience, and definitely not "mystical" (as some people often claim); instead I'd like to change the names from "Analytical Psychology" to "Unconscious Psychology" and from "Psychological Types" to "Psychological Filters". I think in this way we can understand Jung's contribution to psychology as an attempt to frame the role of the unconscious through our more conscious mental filters. A mental filter can be anything from a conclusion someone reaches from a given dataset, a given perception about something witnessed, or just a way to understand or act on the world around us.

So we can infer a couple things here about these filters. First, they are just frames of reference, kind of like drawing a map, they are not the terrain, but a way to "differentiate" and "describe" the terrain. I think the map is important because otherwise we would be overloaded with the infinite details about the terrain. The map is simplifying, truly, but it's also very useful and logical to do so. And of course the maps can be more or less accurate, depending on the map maker and how much detail they want to include or in how their maps are organized. These maps are our cognitive filters.

Given the explanation for cognitive filters, the question to me then is what are the most basic forms of these filters? Well, I think you have to start with a basic reality - since cognitive filters are maps, a map does not fundamentally consider the entire terrain and because it does not have access to all of the details of the terrain, it also makes generalizations about reality. So we can differentiate between people that spend more time interacting with the terrain and taking in more details about it and people that spend more time dealing with their generalizations about the terrain and kind of drawing away from it; I will call this difference as between introvert and extrovert. Now naturally, I think it's easy to see how both depend on and influence the other. So we can understand the extrovert as being unconsciously influenced by introversion (or the architecture of its maps) and the introvert as unconsciously influenced by extroversion (how many details it takes into account).

So now we have defined the conscious and unconscious as relating to introversion and extroversion. The next question is, what are the most basic ways in which an introvert will architect its maps and an extrovert will fill in the details of its maps? Are there different kinds of designs for maps or different kinds of details to consider? Well, in order to interpret details, we first need a basis for what those details are. In order to do that, we need to define things. Take a mountain for example; since each mountain will be different from every other mountain in terms of finer details, we need to define what a mountain is in order to treat them as such. This becomes our perception of the terrain and helps us distinguish the details. This might seem similar to how an introvert deals with the architecture of their maps, but it is more basic than that, since perceptions preclude the details of the terrain, while generalizations do not have too (unless of course we are talking about introverted+perceiving).
And just as there are perceptive filters that define the details, there is also the opposite, filters that accept the details as they are. Such a filter deals with static details and can reason and rationalize them. This we can call judging for that reason. Of course, both rely on each other as well, since your perceptions will effect your rationalizations and vice versa. So again, we have another case for unconscious influence between the two.

So we've got introvert/extrovert, judging/perceiving and an understanding of how the two are unconsciously linked in some kind of duality. So I'm actually going to stop here, since this is getting long, but I think this is more or less what Jung was explaining and I'm curious if you guys think that helps steer away from the misnomers that Jung was a mystic or pseudoscientist or other such thing. I think if I'd describe him as anything, I'd say he attempted to mix dualistic philosophy with psychology to help frame the unconscious. And I find it interesting that it can be used to model AI research and how they form decisions.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Most if not all of psychology and 75% of social sciences including most of economic theories are arguably insufficiently rigorous to be called scientific. Their research is not reproducible, is often financially or politically motivated and tends to last a short period of time before it is replaced by another seasonal fashion.

Anything typology or Jung related can be safely regarded as pseudoscience or feel-good science.

I think it's more polite to say that some part of psychology is unfashionable. MBTI is really unfashionable at this point, should be displayed in a museum. I guess this forum is its display case...

Psychology is what people do for small talk usually, so unless you are discussing the recent trends in psychology fashion you will not find people very receptive to your vintage psychology, might work as small talk with your grandparents or uncles.

But someone will say, 'MBTI and typology is genuine research!'
'It provides useful observations and discoveries that help you know yourself and others!'
'It was never created to sell piles of books about self-understanding!'

I'd say that, for the pioneers, selling piles of books about self-understanding was more of an afterthought, not a plan. Now it's a standard expectation.

 

[Daddy]

Well, I don't really disagree with you. I'm not saying this would necessarily help someone understand themselves and others by itself and I think it would be futile to try and defend "that".

What I'm arguing instead is that I think it's a pretty solid foundation for modeling the unconscious with the conscious. More specifically it does not fill in the content of such, but instead models it. To give an example of the difference, consider MBTI, it attempts to model the psyche, but also attempts to fill in the content of the psyche for each type by describing each type as belonging to certain manifestations and traits. This I think is the misnomer and the constant point of contention because it attempts to fill in the content of each type's model. But I seriously doubt that was Jung's intention.

Basically, imo, what I guess it comes down to is that MBTI and typology in general are a huge strawman for psychological types and a big detriment to analytical psychology. And my goal here is to try and clear that up.

 

[Niclmaki]

The best you can do to make psychology a “science” is to follow statistical analysis with applied scientific method. But, since the results will never be applicable to any specific individual, its use will be limited. CBT seems to be the best we have done so far. Aside from the physical study of the brain anyways.

Anything else is just ‘what’s in fashion’ or philosophy. While not scientific, it can still be useful.

On psychoanalysis specifically, I’d say it’s way more artistic than scientific. Not to mention, who’s going to fund a method that does not sell pills? Or, how many people seriously want to he self critical? This neo-liberal capitalism we’ve constructed is partially inherently at odds with psychoanalysis.

Most of the quick dismissal or even outright hate of Jung / typology is from folks who are taken in by ‘scientism’. I don’t say this as like a jab at those people, it’s just a different way of being. I just think if they were to stop and think about what their personal philosophies are, they’d come around to a different idea / perspective.

Now I can’t remember where I read this, but I think it was in Jung. That while there is an objective reality that can be measured, studied, tested, and learned from via the scientific method... there is also an inner, subjective world that ought to be measured, studied, tested and learned from as well. I think this was Jungs point about the individuation process.

 

[Daddy]

Lots to unpack here.

The best you can do to make psychology a “science” is to follow statistical analysis with applied scientific method. But, since the results will never be applicable to any specific individual, its use will be limited. CBT seems to be the best we have done so far. Aside from the physical study of the brain anyways.

+

Now I can’t remember where I read this, but I think it was in Jung. That while there is an objective reality that can be measured, studied, tested, and learned from via the scientific method... there is also an inner, subjective world that ought to be measured, studied, tested and learned from as well. I think this was Jungs point about the individuation process.

Is exactly why psychology is more complex than science; it can't be science because it studies unscientific things, subjective experience, as paradoxical as that may sound. And so it can't be pseudoscience either. It is something else.

Anything else is just ‘what’s in fashion’ or philosophy. While not scientific, it can still be useful.

To be fair though, that's just human nature. Even science gets popularized with various sensationalist propaganda to get people talking about things they are not familiar with or may not really understand, however brief and fleeting it may be.

On psychoanalysis specifically, I’d say it’s way more artistic than scientific. Not to mention, who’s going to fund a method that does not sell pills? Or, how many people seriously want to he self critical? This neo-liberal capitalism we’ve constructed is partially inherently at odds with psychoanalysis.

Hmm. I agree with you and that's a problem, but I'm not sure it is just 'art'. I'm running short on time, so I'll have to think about it and come back to this.

Most of the quick dismissal or even outright hate of Jung / typology is from folks who are taken in by ‘scientism’. I don’t say this as like a jab at those people, it’s just a different way of being. I just think if they were to stop and think about what their personal philosophies are, they’d come around to a different idea / perspective.

Yes, which is why I'd like to clear up that psychology isn't just "not science" or "pseudoscience", but that it doesn't truly fall under the realm of scientific inquiry to begin with.

 

[Niclmaki]

Hmm. I agree with you and that's a problem, but I'm not sure it is just 'art'. I'm running short on time, so I'll have to think about it and come back to this.

Firstly, thanks for responding to what was essentially just my rambling meditations on the subject lol.

Secondly, I just mean it is more like art than science. That is in the sense that while there are some ‘step by step’ guides for how to psychoanalyze someone, but it is not enough. You can’t just process someone through it and get results. The individuals involved matter, and the self-development process (individuation) will be different for everyone. Similar to how you can’t just teach someone how to create great art, then get great art as the output.

Related; I think this is where the scientific folks get their strongest criticism of psychoanalysis. Eg. It doesn’t work for everyone, results are not consistent, you can’t just change your method on a case-by-case basis. (But I guess this is just saying the same thing this thread has already has for the 5th time in a different way)

 

[Puffy]

I haven't read Jung in years and don't feel as enamoured by him as I was when I was younger. I'd comment on him as an example of someone who made contributions to psychoanalysis.

I agree that there can be a bias towards scientism on this forum, of not trusting wisdom that's derived from methods other than the scientific method.

Like, for example, if someone were to say to me that psychological projection isn't a thing as there isn't scientific papers to back it up I'd shrug. As if you observe people enough, and observe your own reactions with people enough, it's something that you can see people doing for yourself. It's an example of wisdom that emerges from observing and interacting with lots of people and seeing common patterns in how they deal with emotions or different situations.

Psychoanalysis to me represents the insights that come from countless hours of such observation of people. Someone like Jung is an example of a practitioner who made theories or contributions in attempts to understand his own thousands of hours of observing people. It doesn't mean everything that comes from it is accurate and shouldn't be observed and questioned for oneself but to dismiss it all out of hand as pseudoscience or pure conjecture also feels ignorant and extreme.

I guess the 'test' is whether such methods and insights are of help to people in their development. Such results might not be consistent or necessarily repeatable by necessity of it deriving from interactions with individuals -- one to one interactions, or group interactions -- and not statistics. Individuals are complex, with a unique history and are in essence infinitely variable. I don't see how someone could navigate that kind of terrain only with tools of the hard sciences. Patterns that apply to groups or categories can apply to individuals but psychoanalysts also have to find explanations and treatment unique to that person, which necessitates other skills like intuition and empathy.

People can be resistant to change or be difficult to treat for a variety of reasons and might not respond well to a therapeutic intervention. Someone could also go to a therapist and not get results and then see a different practitioner and get results. As people vary in experience or sometimes someone can simply have a better handle or intuition on someone to be of assistance to them.

 

[washti]

It seems that few people here consider qualitative research to be scientific. Sad occurance. Good to be in minority I guess.

The interesting thing about Jung is that the archetypes he observed are practically in every movie / TV series / game / book.

If Jung is wrong about the existence of the collective subconscious, why is there such a desire in people to relive these phantasmats endlessly in the works of culture?
What's in them? Why do we need these myths? Why are they selling so well?How to explain it? Will the Real Science please stand up?

 

[Puffy]

It seems that few people here consider qualitative research to be scientific. Sad occurance. Good to be in minority I guess.

The interesting thing about Jung is that the archetypes he observed are practically in every movie / TV series / game / book.

If Jung is wrong about the existence of the collective subconscious, why is there such a desire in people to relive these phantasmats endlessly in the works of culture?
What's in them? Why do we need these myths? Why are they selling so well?How to explain it? Will the Real Science please stand up?

Yeah, I was tempted to say that psychoanalysis is scientific and an example of qualitative research as you say. While I do agree that is an important aspect of it, I'm unsure if psychoanalysts like Jung can be described wholly in terms of that. I can't quite put it into words but something about the method leans heavily into the intuitive and imaginative in a way that I find difficult to fit entirely into a scientific framework.

Jung as opposed to other psychoanalysts tends to be more popular with people into spirituality or altered states of perception, like psychedelics, deep meditation, etc. In my opinion, that's as you tend to run into phenomena & 'archetypes' that can be described from a Jungian framework when you explore that as well, and people value having experiential maps to make sense of and give meaning to what can be quite bewildering experiences. People of a scientism mindset tend to either be dismissive of this area altogether or are only willing to approach it from a neuro-chemical perspective and so they won't see the experiential maps as having much/any value.

 

[Black Rose]

Grammarly is the only correct way to assess literary art.

And I guess statistics is the best way to assess human nature.

math may indeed give us the golden ratio but why is beauty contained in ratios.

 

[Muteki]

In psychoanalysis I've also come to understand the intuitive nature of its observation, we all have an indirect intuitive nature affecting us on various levels.

Of course there's just too much we can't reliably measure, but humanity is a spectrum, and if something occurs for one person more than likely there's a least a small group in which it's also occurred. Small-scale phenomenon have their own explanations even if we can't see them.

There's a method to everything, anything that occurs in reality has a system which allows that thing to happen, whether it's psychological, metaphysical, paranormal or what have you. I'd say even the most spiritual aspects of the world possess a science, we simply don't understand them yet.

It's entirely possible to intuitively theorize phenomenon with a modicum of accuracy, but as a whole we've still barely broken the ice.

 

[Hadoblado]

Is this thread about what I was saying in the gender thread? The dates line up. Am I the exemplar Scientismist?

I just don't think Jung did science, that psychoanalysis is science, that Freud did science, or that much of psychology is scientifically valid. I wasn't saying that only things that are science have value - I just have a pet peeve of people simultaneously rejecting science while also muscling their preferred theories into scientific canon. I likened Jung to more of a philosopher than a scientist and that is completely okay. I personally practice individuation because I think it's valuable. In terms of psychological school my outlook incorporates a comparatively heavy emphasis on psychodynamics that I feel is lacking in a lot of psychology.

Really, most of what these people say is either too simple (e.g. id, ego, superego), untestable (defense mechanisms), unlikely given convergent evidence (psychosexual stages and Oedipus complex), or verifiably wrong (women failing to orgasm vaginally is a sign of frigidity that requires psychiatric assistance). But they are explorers of ideas who derive their insights by working backwards from their views in a time before our current understanding was available. They are not scientists and that's okay, just please don't pretend they are. I think the subconscious is enormously important in understanding people, and I think it's largely absent from a lay person's understanding of psychology. In fact, I think it's under-rated by students and experts alike. There is a bias against it because it is difficult to measure, which is understandable and born from limitation, not some unjustified dismissal based on hubris.

So somewhat awkwardly, I believe a lot of this stuff is pseudoscience, but pseudoscience isn't another word for wrong. It's a category of claim. Pseudscience:
- is proclaimed scientific when it is not
- frequently exaggerates or fabricates claims
- makes claims that are not testable
- has an emphasis on confirming theories rather than disproving them
- has little process when it comes to hypothesis generation
- works backwards from conclusions in order to find evidence, rather than working forward from evidence in order to find conclusions
- ignores or dismisses mutually exclusive conclusions even if those conclusions are much more substantiated

If people stop claiming it's science it just becomes philosophy. If people make the claims falsifiable it will become science even if it's wrong.

The mere fact so many people feel compelled to 'defend' MBTI suggests that the mechanism of its perpetuation is not scientific. It holds a personal value to people in how they look at themselves and others. It behaves more like a worldview than a scientific theory. People feel a call to action to defend/attack perceived scientific consensus that holds political weight (e.g. gender and sexuality, climate change, demographic IQ statistics, existence of coronavirus, the age of the earth and carbon dating, evolution). They do this due to these conclusions competing with their own deeply held beliefs or interests. MBTI and Jung's other ideas calls people to action in its defense in the same way because by disregarding it you are belittling the accomplishment of their human understanding. Or that's how I view it anyway.

If you want to believe it, and you do so based on your own observations or understanding, that's cool with me. That's what I do for a lot of the beliefs I hold such as individuation. I just don't think it's science.

Peace out.

 

[scorpiomover]

pseudoscience isn't another word for wrong. It's a category of claim. Pseudscience:
- is proclaimed scientific when it is not
- frequently exaggerates or fabricates claims
- makes claims that are not testable
- has an emphasis on confirming theories rather than disproving them
- has little process when it comes to hypothesis generation
- works backwards from conclusions in order to find evidence, rather than working forward from evidence in order to find conclusions
- ignores or dismisses mutually exclusive conclusions even if those conclusions are much more substantiated

You've just described 99% of science. Think about something commonly used in science: the scientific method.

1) Where exactly is the the process of the formulation of a hypothesis described? It's just either the hypothesis being examined scientifically, or that it's "based on prior evidence".

2) The scientific process works by proposing a prediction based on a hypothesis, and testing said prediction in repeated empirically-measured experiments. If the results closely match the prediction, then that is considered a scientific proof. That is an emphasis based on confirmation. What happens if there's a different answer that can generate the same result?

3) Some scientific papers use what is known as "the null hypothesis". The null hypothesis assumes no correlation. The alternative hypothesis is whatever hypothesis is being proposed. If the data doesn't match the null hypothesis and does match the alternative, then the null hypothesis is disproved and the alternative hypothesis is proved. That's confirmation again. Any number of alternatives might also match the data as closely. Also, it might be that the null hypothesis is true and the situation has a completely different factor that has not been considered, that is skewing the results in the same way as the alternative.

 

[Hadoblado]

You've just described 99% of science. Think about something commonly used in science: the scientific method.

1) Where exactly is the the process of the formulation of a hypothesis described? It's just either the hypothesis being examined scientifically, or that it's "based on prior evidence".

2) The scientific process works by proposing a prediction based on a hypothesis, and testing said prediction in repeated empirically-measured experiments. If the results closely match the prediction, then that is considered a scientific proof. That is an emphasis based on confirmation. What happens if there's a different answer that can generate the same result?

3) Some scientific papers use what is known as "the null hypothesis". The null hypothesis assumes no correlation. The alternative hypothesis is whatever hypothesis is being proposed. If the data doesn't match the null hypothesis and does match the alternative, then the null hypothesis is disproved and the alternative hypothesis is proved. That's confirmation again. Any number of alternatives might also match the data as closely. Also, it might be that the null hypothesis is true and the situation has a completely different factor that has not been considered, that is skewing the results in the same way as the alternative.

Hypothesis Formulation
Hypotheses are not just opinions. They are predictions derived from evidence or reason with the intention of testing theoretical frameworks. They should be stated before looking at results. The standard of evidence required to substantiate a hypothesis varies based on what evidence is available. If it's a new field, something that feels right will probably do because there isn't much alternative. If it's an established field, hypotheses should probably be constructed to test prevalent theories before positing your own. My honours thesis had ten hypotheses (not including nulls) on top of exploratory measures (which had the intention of gathering data to derive future hypotheses). Some of them were manipulation checks, some of them were mutually exclusive, some were specific, and some were general. While there isn't a specific formula because different fields have different requirements and limitations, there are certainly hypotheses that are more scientific and less scientific. The process by which hypotheses are derived is flexible but you want to have scientific reasons for why you do it the way you do.

Scientific Proof
Proof is for maths and logic, not science. There is no such thing as proving a hypothesis in science. Any "proof" is provisional or misconceived. Either a hypothesis is supported or not supported. It is never proved because it's always possible to find more evidence that will overturn your "proof".

Null Hypotheses
The null hypothesis is not usually a real prediction but a statistical tool for making statements about the likelihood of the observed result (or one of greater magnitude) in the absence of a real effect. They serve to bound interpretation by comparing P values to Alpha values. Before you start explaining your observation, you want an idea about whether your observation is just noise.

Alternative Hypothesis
An alternative hypothesis can be one or two-tailed. Essentially, it is either broad enough to encapsulate every alternative to the null hypothesis (two-tailed), or it does not (one-tailed). If your alternative hypotheses do not represent every possible alternative to the null hypothesis, then rejecting the null hypothesis does not necessarily support the alternative hypotheses to any meaningful degree.

Null/Alternative Hypotheses Continued
As mentioned earlier, you cannot prove either the null or the alternative hypotheses. You can reject or fail to reject the null (although I dislike this wording as it conveys subjective intentions), or you can support the alternative hypothesis. This is not a process intended to confirm although admittedly scientists are often incentivised to treat it as a process of confirmation. If other alternatives are not considered then your hypotheses were likely not well-conceived. If there is an equal and opposite effect counter-acting the measured effect resulting in a failure to reject the null, then you likely failed to properly conceptualise the framework and control for extraneous variables. These outcomes would suggest that your hypotheses are poorly formulated (wow full circle wooooww!!) due to incomplete understanding of the literature or experimental design.

For the Record
Psychology as an institution is flawed in its current state. The above explanations are about how it should work in theory, not how I observe it to work in practice. I think P values and significance testing are overemphasised and poorly regulated. I would advocate for converging measures such as Bayesian statistics, effect size, and graphical demonstrations on top of regulation of p-hacking techniques and a tightening up of alpha levels (on top of a whole bunch of other things, psychology is very sick). As such, I don't really have much respect for Null Hypothesis Significance Testing. Psychologists aren't statisticians, but honestly, they kinda need to be in order to understand wtf they're talking about.

 

[BurnedOut]

People find it quite easy to shit on Jung and Freud especially when a lot of their ideas don't fit the preciseness of the ideas which were concocted in the late 1900s. There was a remarkable shift in the presentation of theories and ideas and it is clear that this era tends to rely on statistics. However, overreliance on statistics itself becomes a shady business (Read Thinking Fast and Slow). Anyway, my point is that Jung did contribute quite significantly to the field of psychology. In my opinion, he was more a philosopher thinking of the mind than a researcher actively asserting via proofs.

The closest psychology gets to a pure science is Behavioural Economics. If this is included in the field of psychology, it the most empirical of all of them. Other empirical proofs provided for the validity of the theories arise from longitudinal studies of persons (subjects) receiving therapy of a particular kind. Research has found that Psychoanalysis is also a workable form of therapy. But ultimately, the theories are a tool in the hands of the therapist. If he is very experienced and astute, he will oftentimes yield impressive results.

One example would be mine. My counselor uses Transactional Analysis and Gestalt Therapy on a majority basis. Of course she's taught me REBT but I found that TA works good for me. Now Gestalt Therapy is erroneously considered out of fashion and TA is treated with not so much mirth. However, it does not mean that the driving literature is entirely crap.

To answer your question, Jung abstracted a great deal of musings of the minds and presented them in a coherent manner. His theories work from an angle, if considered, without contradictions therefore I will not be prudent if I say that his theories do have some substance and they are not mere pseudoscience like fucking homeopathy. His theory is more like philosophy. Talk about Plato(Jung) vs Aristotle(Skinner).

 

[Daddy]

So I know I took a long break from this, but I'm back I guess.

Hmm. I agree with you and that's a problem, but I'm not sure it is just 'art'. I'm running short on time, so I'll have to think about it and come back to this.

Firstly, thanks for responding to what was essentially just my rambling meditations on the subject lol.

Secondly, I just mean it is more like art than science. That is in the sense that while there are some ‘step by step’ guides for how to psychoanalyze someone, but it is not enough. You can’t just process someone through it and get results. The individuals involved matter, and the self-development process (individuation) will be different for everyone. Similar to how you can’t just teach someone how to create great art, then get great art as the output.

Related; I think this is where the scientific folks get their strongest criticism of psychoanalysis. Eg. It doesn’t work for everyone, results are not consistent, you can’t just change your method on a case-by-case basis. (But I guess this is just saying the same thing this thread has already has for the 5th time in a different way)

So I think I know a better word than art. Somebody used the word "occult" on another forum and that's not much different from mystical, but the Latin it comes from, occultus, is "knowledge of the hidden", according to wikipedia. And that seems very appropriate.

But I think that's where I have to disagree with you. I don't think psychoanalysis is supposed to be step-by-step. That would be weird. I think its goal is in realizing patterns of behavior and thought that previously have gone unnoticed. What somebody does with that knowledge or how they choose to frame it and make decisions about it is kind of a secondary concern imo.

I haven't read Jung in years and don't feel as enamoured by him as I was when I was younger. I'd comment on him as an example of someone who made contributions to psychoanalysis.

I agree that there can be a bias towards scientism on this forum, of not trusting wisdom that's derived from methods other than the scientific method.

Like, for example, if someone were to say to me that psychological projection isn't a thing as there isn't scientific papers to back it up I'd shrug. As if you observe people enough, and observe your own reactions with people enough, it's something that you can see people doing for yourself. It's an example of wisdom that emerges from observing and interacting with lots of people and seeing common patterns in how they deal with emotions or different situations.

Psychoanalysis to me represents the insights that come from countless hours of such observation of people. Someone like Jung is an example of a practitioner who made theories or contributions in attempts to understand his own thousands of hours of observing people. It doesn't mean everything that comes from it is accurate and shouldn't be observed and questioned for oneself but to dismiss it all out of hand as pseudoscience or pure conjecture also feels ignorant and extreme.

I guess the 'test' is whether such methods and insights are of help to people in their development. Such results might not be consistent or necessarily repeatable by necessity of it deriving from interactions with individuals -- one to one interactions, or group interactions -- and not statistics. Individuals are complex, with a unique history and are in essence infinitely variable. I don't see how someone could navigate that kind of terrain only with tools of the hard sciences. Patterns that apply to groups or categories can apply to individuals but psychoanalysts also have to find explanations and treatment unique to that person, which necessitates other skills like intuition and empathy.

People can be resistant to change or be difficult to treat for a variety of reasons and might not respond well to a therapeutic intervention. Someone could also go to a therapist and not get results and then see a different practitioner and get results. As people vary in experience or sometimes someone can simply have a better handle or intuition on someone to be of assistance to them.

Yes, I agree. But I want to clear up that I think psychoanalysis is just useful for helping to see patterns. I think maybe there's this idea that it's supposed to also solve problems. But I think understanding a problem and solving a problem are two different animals. Though it should certainly help to have a good understanding of a problem in order to solve it well.

It seems that few people here consider qualitative research to be scientific. Sad occurance. Good to be in minority I guess.

The interesting thing about Jung is that the archetypes he observed are practically in every movie / TV series / game / book.

If Jung is wrong about the existence of the collective subconscious, why is there such a desire in people to relive these phantasmats endlessly in the works of culture?
What's in them? Why do we need these myths? Why are they selling so well?How to explain it? Will the Real Science please stand up?

Yes! Exactly. It's so weird that people want to trash it because it's not science, yet if people sit and think about it occurring in their lives, it's more than obvious. Sometimes I think people expect way too much from things.

It seems that few people here consider qualitative research to be scientific. Sad occurance. Good to be in minority I guess.

The interesting thing about Jung is that the archetypes he observed are practically in every movie / TV series / game / book.

If Jung is wrong about the existence of the collective subconscious, why is there such a desire in people to relive these phantasmats endlessly in the works of culture?
What's in them? Why do we need these myths? Why are they selling so well?How to explain it? Will the Real Science please stand up?

Yeah, I was tempted to say that psychoanalysis is scientific and an example of qualitative research as you say. While I do agree that is an important aspect of it, I'm unsure if psychoanalysts like Jung can be described wholly in terms of that. I can't quite put it into words but something about the method leans heavily into the intuitive and imaginative in a way that I find difficult to fit entirely into a scientific framework.

Jung as opposed to other psychoanalysts tends to be more popular with people into spirituality or altered states of perception, like psychedelics, deep meditation, etc. In my opinion, that's as you tend to run into phenomena & 'archetypes' that can be described from a Jungian framework when you explore that as well, and people value having experiential maps to make sense of and give meaning to what can be quite bewildering experiences. People of a scientism mindset tend to either be dismissive of this area altogether or are only willing to approach it from a neuro-chemical perspective and so they won't see the experiential maps as having much/any value.

Yes! It's a bit of a shame. It's like they don't value subjective experiences and what are we without them anyway, robots?

Is this thread about what I was saying in the gender thread? The dates line up. Am I the exemplar Scientismist?

I just don't think Jung did science, that psychoanalysis is science, that Freud did science, or that much of psychology is scientifically valid. I wasn't saying that only things that are science have value - I just have a pet peeve of people simultaneously rejecting science while also muscling their preferred theories into scientific canon. I likened Jung to more of a philosopher than a scientist and that is completely okay. I personally practice individuation because I think it's valuable. In terms of psychological school my outlook incorporates a comparatively heavy emphasis on psychodynamics that I feel is lacking in a lot of psychology.

Really, most of what these people say is either too simple (e.g. id, ego, superego), untestable (defense mechanisms), unlikely given convergent evidence (psychosexual stages and Oedipus complex), or verifiably wrong (women failing to orgasm vaginally is a sign of frigidity that requires psychiatric assistance). But they are explorers of ideas who derive their insights by working backwards from their views in a time before our current understanding was available. They are not scientists and that's okay, just please don't pretend they are. I think the subconscious is enormously important in understanding people, and I think it's largely absent from a lay person's understanding of psychology. In fact, I think it's under-rated by students and experts alike. There is a bias against it because it is difficult to measure, which is understandable and born from limitation, not some unjustified dismissal based on hubris.

So somewhat awkwardly, I believe a lot of this stuff is pseudoscience, but pseudoscience isn't another word for wrong. It's a category of claim. Pseudscience:
- is proclaimed scientific when it is not
- frequently exaggerates or fabricates claims
- makes claims that are not testable
- has an emphasis on confirming theories rather than disproving them
- has little process when it comes to hypothesis generation
- works backwards from conclusions in order to find evidence, rather than working forward from evidence in order to find conclusions
- ignores or dismisses mutually exclusive conclusions even if those conclusions are much more substantiated

If people stop claiming it's science it just becomes philosophy. If people make the claims falsifiable it will become science even if it's wrong.

The mere fact so many people feel compelled to 'defend' MBTI suggests that the mechanism of its perpetuation is not scientific. It holds a personal value to people in how they look at themselves and others. It behaves more like a worldview than a scientific theory. People feel a call to action to defend/attack perceived scientific consensus that holds political weight (e.g. gender and sexuality, climate change, demographic IQ statistics, existence of coronavirus, the age of the earth and carbon dating, evolution). They do this due to these conclusions competing with their own deeply held beliefs or interests. MBTI and Jung's other ideas calls people to action in its defense in the same way because by disregarding it you are belittling the accomplishment of their human understanding. Or that's how I view it anyway.

If you want to believe it, and you do so based on your own observations or understanding, that's cool with me. That's what I do for a lot of the beliefs I hold such as individuation. I just don't think it's science.

Peace out.

Well, I've heard it all over the internet. People are very critical. And that's fine. But people are also very critical, while also being very ignorant at the same time. And I guess that kind of bugs me.

But this is interesting. You mention individuation, as well as MBTI, self-identity, and how people form conclusions based off their idea of things like that. And this is exactly the problem I'm speaking of. Psychoanalysis isn't supposed to decide all of these things. It's simply elucidating cognitive/behavioral patterns that people aren't aware of, not telling people that "women failing to orgasm vaginally is a sign of frigidity that requires psychiatric assistance", lol. I also don't think individuation is a matter of type or finding some kind of definition of oneself. I'm almost certain it is just a metaphor for understanding the self, for what essentially amounts to self-reflection, regardless of the conclusions reached and especially if it makes someone feel like they have less of an identity, because even that is a step in learning about themselves, for example.

People find it quite easy to shit on Jung and Freud especially when a lot of their ideas don't fit the preciseness of the ideas which were concocted in the late 1900s. There was a remarkable shift in the presentation of theories and ideas and it is clear that this era tends to rely on statistics. However, overreliance on statistics itself becomes a shady business (Read Thinking Fast and Slow). Anyway, my point is that Jung did contribute quite significantly to the field of psychology. In my opinion, he was more a philosopher thinking of the mind than a researcher actively asserting via proofs.

The closest psychology gets to a pure science is Behavioural Economics. If this is included in the field of psychology, it the most empirical of all of them. Other empirical proofs provided for the validity of the theories arise from longitudinal studies of persons (subjects) receiving therapy of a particular kind. Research has found that Psychoanalysis is also a workable form of therapy. But ultimately, the theories are a tool in the hands of the therapist. If he is very experienced and astute, he will oftentimes yield impressive results.

One example would be mine. My counselor uses Transactional Analysis and Gestalt Therapy on a majority basis. Of course she's taught me REBT but I found that TA works good for me. Now Gestalt Therapy is erroneously considered out of fashion and TA is treated with not so much mirth. However, it does not mean that the driving literature is entirely crap.

To answer your question, Jung abstracted a great deal of musings of the minds and presented them in a coherent manner. His theories work from an angle, if considered, without contradictions therefore I will not be prudent if I say that his theories do have some substance and they are not mere pseudoscience like fucking homeopathy. His theory is more like philosophy. Talk about Plato(Jung) vs Aristotle(Skinner).

See, I don't know. I've heard the idea that Jung's analytical psychology is more akin to philosophy. But it seems more than that. For example, philosophers will often argue about the nature of things or break things down in a certain way and then build them back up with some kind of justification. They usually have some kind of understanding they end up with.

Jung, on the other hand, seems to take all the different basic philosophic ways of understanding and frames how each one would show up in a person's psyche. This is a bit more than philosophy. It's a kind of hidden knowledge of the mind.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I do not see the meaning in the word of pseudoscience.
I think this is used by people just to puff up science against other knowledge.
Fair, but also misguided. I get that science is very important.
For example alternative medicine is not the same as formalized medicine, but if it does work and heal a person does it really matter?
One could perhaps argue that alternative medicine is full of bullshit, and Id say to that even modern medicine is to a great degree. Also matters who the doctor is.
Because the same way one doctor can screw up a heart surgery and another will not same a person can give you a herb that does nothing and herb that basically cures you. Not to mention that alternative medicine actual has a habit of being more cost effective and sometimes less risky and in odd chance can heal people despite modern medicine not able to.

 

[Hadoblado]

I do not see the meaning in the word of pseudoscience.
I think this is used by people just to puff up science against other knowledge.
Fair, but also misguided. I get that science is very important.

Pseudoscience is anything that mimics the aesthetic of science without adhering to the scientific method. It is not about puffing up anything, it's an important distinction. It doesn't just mean 'wrong' or 'inferior'. It's not intended as a flex term.

For example alternative medicine is not the same as formalized medicine, but if it does work and heal a person does it really matter?
One could perhaps argue that alternative medicine is full of bullshit, and Id say to that even modern medicine is to a great degree. Also matters who the doctor is.

"By definition, Alternative Medicine has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call Alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine." ~Tim Minchin

 

[ZenRaiden]

Pseudoscience is anything that mimics the aesthetic of science without adhering to the scientific method. It is not about puffing up anything, it's an important distinction. It doesn't just mean 'wrong' or 'inferior'. It's not intended as a flex term.

So why many people insist that MBTI is pseudoscience?

"By definition, Alternative Medicine has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call Alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine." ~Tim Minchin

Obviously that may be the case, but traditional medicine or folk medicine or any kind of medicine does exist. I think most people would refer to these as alternatives to normal medicine.
We are just talking about how to name things not necessarily what they are.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

It's considered malarkey simply because there are better tools and methods to use with more descriptive and prescriptive options and fewer if any drawbacks. You'd be a joke if instead of pulling out the DSM-5 to solve a problem, you instead pull out an extremely antiquated and miss/ill-intentioned PRODUCT like MBTI. [lastname][lastname] is simply too vague and imprecise to be used in any definitive way. All it does is divide aspects of personality and describe them so that the average joe can think they are a psychologist. The group of people that surround themselves with things revolving MBTI either want a tribe, or want a deeper understanding which I will admit MBTI can provide. Most alluring of it, is that it gives you a promise of showing you not only how you are, but also everyone else. I think it somewhat delivers.

It's a social tool if anything, not one that should be used for treatment and anyone who says it should is a quack. The best use I've seen it have is in the business environment so that people have a general idea about someone, add diversity of thought, and have rudimantry expectations. Big-5 is too jargony and nonapperant/judgemental.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I think most of this comes down to semantics and what people actually mean. Home remedies with certain ingredients can help someone, but not in any deliberate way. My dad is trying to convince me that boiling lemons in water and drinking it is one of the best things you can do for your body. Maybe if I'm lacking in vitamin C, am dehydrated, or have an internal wound that could use disinfecting, but it's not gonna make my cough go away because "it has a lot of nutrients." Whatever, he made it with love, and that likely does more than whatever the fuck else he puts in the drink.

 

[Daddy]

About Modern medicine,
I saw a documentary about a guy that drinks pasteurized human breast milk to treat his prostate cancer. For some reason it works for him and he can see direct correlations in his PSA levels from when he is drinking the breast milk and when he is not. But this isn't known to work for other people. The medical professionals find it strange and baffling. And if this guy only went by what modern science told him was true, he would have had to have an invasive surgery that might have failed or led to other complications. It's worth noting that the reason he tried it was because breast milk is known to have things like antibodies and enzymes that can help the person (usually a baby) grow and be healthy.

So my point is, when it comes to medicine, the scientific method only leads to statistical probabilities, not absolute certainties. And that makes it somewhat foolish to think alternative medicine can't help or that you can't do a little experimenting with stuff to see what your own body likes or doesn't like.


About MBTI,
I'm not actually defending MBTI. This is more about Analytical Psychology. Anyone that uses the MBTI to psychoanalyze people is pretty ridiculous; I think we all agree. It's purely prescriptive, whereas analytical psychology is descriptive. Big difference imo.

 

[Hadoblado]

Rebel has the right idea IMO.

From your current position, you are unaware of the difference in the evidence available for MBTI compared to other tools, but you still believe MBTI to be science.

If you assume I am correct about that evidence, then your belief in MBTI's scientific credentials indicates that it is not just wrong, but pseudoscience.

Here is a recent article that quickly illustrates some issues faced by MBTI in meeting scientific criteria of reliability/validity. I only briefly read over it just now, the journal that accepted it is in the upper 15% ish of impact despite being relatively new although the article has few citations.
One thing that rubs me the wrong way is how MBTI is framed within different contexts. On the internet on boards like this one, people treat it as some underdog that gets no recognition from scientists for biased reasons. Contrast this how the scientific community sees it, a theory that brings in tens of millions a year dwarfing all other theories despite lacking demonstrable value relative to its competitors.

@Daddy
The standard that documentaries are held to in terms of rigour is... Non-existent. While surely there are some good ones, the extent to which documentaries deceive is far too high to take on their views uncritically. I'm not saying you're factually incorrect or that the documentary lied, just that I don't believe that stuff unless I follow up and find converging evidence.
But yes, particularly in psychology, all these prescriptions are statistical in nature. It's not that alternative medicine never works, it's that it hasn't been shown to work and misleads people into thinking there is reason to believe it works. This is a big problem if it results in reducing the chance people seek the help they need - e.g. if they buy a crystal to cure their otherwise treatable cancer only for that cancer to get worse and ultimately grow past the point of being treatable. Alternative medicine is like buying lottery tickets, sometimes you get lucky, but lottery winners did not make better decisions than someone who instead decided to invest their money regardless of comparative outcome.

 

[Daddy]

@Daddy
The standard that documentaries are held to in terms of rigour is... Non-existent. While surely there are some good ones, the extent to which documentaries deceive is far too high to take on their views uncritically. I'm not saying you're factually incorrect or that the documentary lied, just that I don't believe that stuff unless I follow up and find converging evidence.

Just fyi, but you might like the documentary (Unwell) - https://www.netflix.com/title/81044208
It comes from a similar critical view and the guy drinking breast milk was just something they found out, while being critical of everything else. You'd probably find it a bit more convincing in this case.

But yes, particularly in psychology, all these prescriptions are statistical in nature. It's not that alternative medicine never works, it's that it hasn't been shown to work and misleads people into thinking there is reason to believe it works. This is a big problem if it results in reducing the chance people seek the help they need - e.g. if they buy a crystal to cure their otherwise treatable cancer only for that cancer to get worse and ultimately grow past the point of being treatable. Alternative medicine is like buying lottery tickets, sometimes you get lucky, but lottery winners did not make better decisions than someone who instead decided to invest their money regardless of comparative outcome.

I see your point and I think agree with you.

I am a bit skeptical about modern medicine though, since it is profit motivated. It's not uncommon for pharmaceutical companies to disparage practices and medicines that they can not own the rights to and sell at a nice profit. For example, herbal medicine has been known to be more than a placebo for certain things, but if you look up research into it online, all the medical websites just say they are potentially dangerous to use because they aren't well researched. But they aren't researched well because these things are hard for a pharmaceutical company to own and profit from...and it starts to become a problem.

Sometimes pharmaceutical companies will even make their own derivative from something they find in nature and will push that over the herbal solutions. This can be good and bad because sometimes they do improve them, but other times they end up with much worse potential side effects and the public is generally unaware. I wish the drug companies and healthcare in general operated more on a non-profit basis with a certain percentage of income always allocated to research (or even donations if people or government want to help fund research), but I guess that will only happen in an ideal world.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Yeah. US government combined with the power that pharmaceutical companies have = corruption, or at the very least, shady shit. The only reason a lot of these drugs are dangerous is because they are made into their most potent and concentrated form whilst their natural source (plants, animals, nature shit) are restricted by political regulations. I don't think anyone should be able have a coca farm, I'm just noting that these restrictions hugely infringe on personal liberties, and probably do more harm than good as it creates black markets and makes it illegal to grow certain plants.

No change will ever happen, pharmaceutical industry is mostly an oligopoly, and Amazon just joined the business, so you know it's only going to get worse.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Daddy
The standard that documentaries are held to in terms of rigour is... Non-existent. While surely there are some good ones, the extent to which documentaries deceive is far too high to take on their views uncritically. I'm not saying you're factually incorrect or that the documentary lied, just that I don't believe that stuff unless I follow up and find converging evidence.

Just fyi, but you might like the documentary (Unwell) - https://www.netflix.com/title/81044208
It comes from a similar critical view and the guy drinking breast milk was just something they found out, while being critical of everything else. You'd probably find it a bit more convincing in this case.

But yes, particularly in psychology, all these prescriptions are statistical in nature. It's not that alternative medicine never works, it's that it hasn't been shown to work and misleads people into thinking there is reason to believe it works. This is a big problem if it results in reducing the chance people seek the help they need - e.g. if they buy a crystal to cure their otherwise treatable cancer only for that cancer to get worse and ultimately grow past the point of being treatable. Alternative medicine is like buying lottery tickets, sometimes you get lucky, but lottery winners did not make better decisions than someone who instead decided to invest their money regardless of comparative outcome.

I see your point and I think agree with you.

I am a bit skeptical about modern medicine though, since it is profit motivated. It's not uncommon for pharmaceutical companies to disparage practices and medicines that they can not own the rights to and sell at a nice profit. For example, herbal medicine has been known to be more than a placebo for certain things, but if you look up research into it online, all the medical websites just say they are potentially dangerous to use because they aren't well researched. But they aren't researched well because these things are hard for a pharmaceutical company to own and profit from...and it starts to become a problem.

Sometimes pharmaceutical companies will even make their own derivative from something they find in nature and will push that over the herbal solutions. This can be good and bad because sometimes they do improve them, but other times they end up with much worse potential side effects and the public is generally unaware. I wish the drug companies and healthcare in general operated more on a non-profit basis with a certain percentage of income always allocated to research (or even donations if people or government want to help fund research), but I guess that will only happen in an ideal world.

Yep. Be skeptical. You shouldn't trust them blindly. I only advocate that skepticism not be applied selectively. The witch doctor is selling something too, and does not possess the means to test the claims they make. They are just proto pharma with additional obstacles to serving your best interest (means).