Good Authors = Good Psychologists?

[Firehazard159]

So, upon reading this thread, and more specifically these quotes:

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=237&page=2

Heh. I'm taking part-time Psych BSc and Jung is barely mentioned and if he ever appears, is quickly brushed aside or trivialized. The irony is, compared to Psych students/teachers, more people in the Arts, esp Literature, are aware of Jung and his theories and willing to discuss/apply them.

Yeah, I've noticed that a lot in literature. From what I've read from Shakespeare, he was way ahead of his time with his knowledge of psychology.

I've often thought some of my favorite authors have a great grasp of peoples personalities, which is in part what makes their writings so grand. It pulls you in because it is believable. And the general idea that people involved in 'art/literature' have a (potentially/probably?) greater grasp of the mind (intuitively?) would start to seem likely.

So I just wanted to see what your thoughts were on the subject :P Is there something to this?

 

[Adymus]

I completely agree with this.

Having an understanding of human personality puts the reader into the story. Bland characters with no distinct personality traits makes for an unrelatable story. But characters that remind you of people you know, or remind you of yourself actually allow the reader to feel like they are somehow a part of this story.
As for the archetypes, well that is just the unconscious language of humanity. The archetypes speak directly to the psyche, you can be from any culture and their effect will be the same.
An author should know how to communicate people beyond just words, and that is where psychology comes in.

 

[Anthile]

But then again, a good psychologist doesn't make a good writer.

I think we are talking about two different skill-sets that come together.

 

[Firehazard159]

Exactly, Anthile. Why is it authors have this grasp that psychologists do not? I often hear about mbti being skimmed over, like the quotes are suggesting. I feel like mbti/jung theory tends to be considered irrelevant, yet it seems fairly solid. I hear about it being used in business classes and such, but it's like it is skimmed over by psychology courses.

It all just seems odd to me. Why are so many psychologists missing the mark? Or what information am I missing that they know?

 

[Adymus]

Because Jung's approach to psychology is not Quantitative, and the psychology community finds that unexceptionable. He actually denounced the idea of trying to approach the mind through attempting to measure it through testing:

Anyone who wants to know the human psyche will learn next to nothing from experimental psychology. He would be better advised to abandon exact science, put away his scholar's gown, bid farewell to his study, and wander with human heart throught the world. There in the horrors of prisons, lunatic asylums and hospitals, in drab suburban pubs, in brothels and gambling-hells, in the salons of the elegant, the Stock Exchanges, socialist meetings, churches, revivalist gatherings and ecstatic sects, through love and hate, through the experience of passion in every form in his own body, he would reap richer stores of knowledge than text-books a foot thick could give him, and he will know how to doctor the sick with a real knowledge of the human soul. -- Carl Jung

On top of that, his theory is very spiritual in nature, anything leaning in the direction of spirituality is throw out by Psychology, which is why he had to hide much of that part of his model when approaching mainstream psychology.

The way I see, current psychology has too much Ti, and not enough Ni.

 

[amorfati]

Some of the best psychologists have been authors of fiction. Dostoevsky being my favorite.

 

[Ermine]

Exactly, Anthile. Why is it authors have this grasp that psychologists do not? I often hear about mbti being skimmed over, like the quotes are suggesting. I feel like mbti/jung theory tends to be considered irrelevant, yet it seems fairly solid. I hear about it being used in business classes and such, but it's like it is skimmed over by psychology courses.

It all just seems odd to me. Why are so many psychologists missing the mark? Or what information am I missing that they know?

Not only what Adymus said, but I think that psychologists as a whole are much more focused on "helping" people than they are on figuring them out. And authors would be much more motivated to figure people out than they would to psychologically heal them. Some of the best stories revolve around messed up people that the author is trying to figure out.

 

[Firehazard159]

Interesting. We've got an argument for psychologists being too scientific and an argument for them being too uninterested in the scientific aspect o.O