Why psychology?

[typondis]

Having looked through some of the forum, in general, and not finding anything I'm really interested in commenting on (I have a bit more to look at, but I'm a little impatient), I'm going to make a splash in my debut, and just put something right on the fucking chopping block:


- question: What use is psychology?


- pre-answer, awaiting others' commentary, etc: none. Why? The only thing one need be concerned with is their emotional range of motion - defining what this means, and being interactive with it.


Now your turns.

 

[Jennywocky]

It's just a framework of knowledge one can use to be able to recognize and then effectively respond to patterns in other people's behavior.

It's a more holistic soft science that lays a foundation for other forms of knowledge to build upon. (Rather like philosophy that way.)

 

[Adymus]

Through knowledge of how the mind works, comes understanding of difference and anomaly.
Without Psychology people who exude "abnormal" behavior would just be passed off as crazy, retarded, possessed, stupid, immoral, etc; and for all we know, may be imprisoned or even executed for a solvable natural problem.

Now with modern Psychology, much of what I just mentioned above still exists, false diagnostics and what have you. But it is an uphill slope, it was terrible yesterday, and it's not great now, but it's getting better.

More importantly, in order for human beings to live as a macro scale community, we must be able to understand each other if we ever want to reach a point where we are not just a bunch of monkeys killing each other.

If not any of that, then because of the self-exploration. Understanding your own psychology allows you to be able to tap into parts of your mind that you may not have even been aware of, and maximize your own potential and growth.

 

[typondis]

It's a more holistic soft science that lays a foundation for other forms of knowledge to build upon. (Rather like philosophy that way.)

Holistic doesn't mean inspecific. Philosophy by and large is very specific. It's only when it gets into....unnecessary....topics such as sentience, cognition, and free will, that it gets....oblique.

If not any of that, then because of the self-exploration. Understanding your own psychology allows you to be able to tap into parts of your mind that you may not have even been aware of, and maximize your own potential and growth.

What more does one need to explore the cosmos in its entirety besides the following?

child-like-cosmic curiosity - dauntless, yet casual, self-exploration - ultimate disclosure


These are general boundary conditions that require little or no technical/intellectual expertise or ability, they're extremely encompassing, yet not prescriptive....and they address that other stuff you said about humans being able to co-exist, without having to find ways to do it. In essence, it obviates culture.

 

[Da Blob]

The best Psychology is merely a rather practical Philosophy. Knowing "how" things occur in one's mind can assist in most endeavors. For example, mental disorders - virtually everyone suffers from a period in their lives where things seem disordered mentally and applied psychology can do a great deal in supplying therapy and relieving the stress associated with what, hopefully, is just a temporary condition.

However, there needs to be a disclaimer, there exists a vast gap between "generic psychology" and Applied Psychology. A lot of Psychologists like to think of their profession as a science, when technically, it is not. Applied Psychology is very scientific, while a lot of other stuff that is currently classified as 'psychology' will be classified differently in the future, maybe as a dying branch of philosophy or perhaps even (bleh!) sociology....

 

[Adymus]

What more does one need to explore the cosmos in its entirety besides the following?

child-like-cosmic curiosity - dauntless, yet casual, self-exploration - ultimate disclosure


These are general boundary conditions that require little or no technical/intellectual expertise or ability, they're extremely encompassing, yet not prescriptive....and they address that other stuff you said about humans being able to co-exist, without having to find ways to do it. In essence, it obviates culture.

If you would prefer to keep your head down, and not try to understand anything beyond eating, sleeping, and fucking, then by all means proceed. But if you would like to at least try to get a peak at the bigger picture, exploration of the cosmos is necessary.

It is not as simple as writing a prescription to save mankind from themselves. The voice of psychology and sociology is not a loud voice and that is why it solves no problems, not because it lacks the ability to. Culture will exist no matter what, it cannot possibly be obviated, however with psychology you can at least be able see through another culture without complete ethnocentricity.

Say what you will, but psychology is far more desirable than the non-existent psychology.

 

[Jaico]

I'd have to say plenty. At its core (like all sciences, I suppose) psychology sets out to answer one burning question: why? Why do people act the way they do? What can we do to understand others? What's the truth? Sadly, psychology does have the label of being more of a pseudo-science than the harder sciences, but that doesn't mean it's not just as useful to a lot of people (if not even more useful).

Although psychology is primarily descriptive, it can be applied in a variety of ways; findings from a study can help a psychologist determine whether a suspect is malingering or is genuinely suffering from a mental illness, assist in those who may be stigmatized against (as in the case of many mental illnesses), and, of course, help others understand each other and the world around them (the MBTI being one example of this).

Really, it's about exploration, and about following, learning, and creating new ideas. In a world that's as diverse as ours, knowing how to understand others who will more than likely think in ways different than you, as well as knowing how people also think alike, is definitely beneficial.

 

[typondis]

If you would prefer to keep your head down, and not try to understand anything beyond eating, sleeping, and fucking, then by all means proceed. But if you would like to at least try to get a peak at the bigger picture, exploration of the cosmos is necessary.

It is not as simple as writing a prescription to save mankind from themselves. The voice of psychology and sociology is not a loud voice and that is why it solves no problems, not because it lacks the ability to. Culture will exist no matter what, it cannot possibly be obviated, however with psychology you can at least be able see through another culture without complete ethnocentricity.

Say what you will, but psychology is far more desirable than the non-existent psychology.

I think you're missing the auspice within which what I presented is functioning. I'll give a hint: the person who turned me onto this forum is a transhumanist. I see nothing so far here that indicates anyone is in the same cart as she in this regard.

I'm not looking for yes-people. I'm very specifically probing this field of 'space', with the intent of falsifying the conceptualisms I have arrived at, or at the very least augmenting them. As yet, neither has happened, because said conceptualisms are beyond the human condition.

 

[Da Blob]

I think you're missing the auspice within which what I presented is functioning. I'll give a hint: the person who turned me onto this forum is a transhumanist. I see nothing so far here that indicates anyone is in the same cart as she in this regard.

I'm not looking for yes-people. I'm very specifically probing this field of 'space', with the intent of falsifying the conceptualisms I have arrived at, or at the very least augmenting them. As yet, neither has happened, because said conceptualisms are beyond the human condition.

define the word, human, Human

 

[Beat Mango]

Analysis of the human condition has always been around - psychology is merely an attempt to make it scientific. What use is their in knowledge of your fellow human? There would be many, I would have thought: some good, such as the the ease of suffering in individuals, and some more questionable, such as the manipulation of other humans for one's own good. Although from a transhumanist perspective, perhaps the latter is not such a concern.

PS - your obfuscatory way of writing is highly irritating.

 

[typondis]

Actually, if I am human at all, it is very little. Human is largely biology - biological drives, though of course of a subset of mammalian ones - which affects everything else on up. Nature trumps, precedes, and supercedes, nuture - however much people wanna think otherwise. (Yes, it's worse than that.)

But, more specifically, 'human' is a certain kind of animal-brain creature. To whatever degree, they need other humans, they need to procreate, they need to have some kind of purpose, they need to achieve something to have worth, and part of their worth comes from cultural identity.

 

[Da Blob]

Actually, if I am human at all, it is very little. Human is largely biology - biological drives, though of course of a subset of mammalian ones - which affects everything else on up. Nature trumps, precedes, and supercedes, nuture - however much people wanna think otherwise. (Yes, it's worse than that.)

But, more specifically, 'human' is a certain kind of animal-brain creature. They need other humans, they generally need to procreate, they generally need to have some kind of purpose, they generally need to achieve something to have worth, and part of their worth comes from cultural identity.

And therein is the quandary, it is actually illogical to make such generalizations about humanity. Any definitions of Humanity must also encompass all of the 'human' outliers - such as myself and other members of this forum. I, for example, am a spiritual creature, merely housed in this animal casing for a short time. It is merely a Chrysalis ...

 

[typondis]

PS - your obfuscatory way of writing is highly irritating.

Yeah, I've gotten that before. It's quite interesting how people get locked into a certain kind of relating after a certain age. This is a human trait. You have to discover new tools.

And therein is the quandary, it is actually illogical to make such generalizations about humanity. Any definitions of Humanity must also encompass all of the 'human' outliers - such as myself and other members of this forum. I, for example, am a spiritual creature, merely housed in this animal casing for a short time. It is merely a Chrysalis ...

Being close to the boundary does not make you outside of it. But I'll do ya one better: are you moral?

 

[Da Blob]

Being close to the boundary does not make you outside of it. But I'll do ya one better: are you moral?

No, morality is useful only for the spiritually immature... It is a social structure that provides guidance for those who need guidance.

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

What do you think the definition of 'morality' is, Da Blob?

 

[Da Blob]

What do you think the definition of 'morality' is, Da Blob?

The Law

(those who live the Golden Rule are above morality)

 

[typondis]

Morality is simply a set of rules about what is right (and wrong). While not a useless tool, morality is inherently arbitrary according to one's comfort level.


Blob: 'need guidance'? Golden rule? Elaborate.

 

[bananaphallus]

The Law

(those who live the Golden Rule are above morality)

Laws are not inherently moral - Apartheid, for instance. I've often wondered just how much respect a legislator could actually have for a law they've created, or helped to create - in much the same way some people have difficulty imposing dietary restrictions on themselves and abiding by them.

 

[typondis]

Laws are not inherently moral - Apartheid, for instance. I've often wondered just how much respect a legislator could actually have for a law they've created, or helped to create - in much the same way some people have difficulty imposing dietary restrictions on themselves and abiding by them.

What? I think I grok what you're talking about, but it doesn't really follow. Besides, if you eat according to your metabolic type, your body eventually normalizes and tells you what you can eat that is healthy for you.

 

[Da Blob]

Morality is simply a set of rules about what is right (and wrong). While not a useless tool, morality is inherently arbitrary according to one's comfort level.
Blob: 'need guidance'? Golden rule? Elaborate.

Sorry, for the confusion. I was responded to Nicholas, without realizing that Others might not know of the antecedents i was referring too. The Law is what the Ten Commandments are referred to in the New Testament. Christ made the Law more or less obsolete. He said that if one is able to Love (correctly), one has fulfilled the purpose of the Law and the Golden Rule...
"Do unto others..."

Morality is not an arbitrary thing. It is a set of socially acceptable behaviors, which children and newcomers to that particular society have to be 'guided' into obeying. Morality is more or less a meaningless concept unless it is in a social context. There are certain societies - Ancient Sparta for example, where the Morality of that society demanded complete disregard for "Comfort levels"...

 

[Darby]

I think typondis' point is more that there is no ultimate moral rule, and the word arbitrary is being used to describe that. Morality is a very real thing, but morality changes from one place to another, and therefore is not specifically defined for all of us as a universal code of co[n]duct

EDIT: I can't believe I let that n lay silent for so long

 

[bananaphallus]

What? I think I grok what you're talking about, but it doesn't really follow. Besides, if you eat according to your metabolic type, your body eventually normalizes and tells you what you can eat that is healthy for you.

Yeah, it was a bit of a disjointed post. The first sentence was a witty, incisive (being facetious, no dirty looks please) retort to Blob's post and is unrelated to everything that follows - which was me just thinking out loud.

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

Sorry, for the confusion. I was responded to Nicholas, without realizing that Others might not know of the antecedents i was referring too. The Law is what the Ten Commandments are referred to in the New Testament. Christ made the Law more or less obsolete. He said that if one is able to Love (correctly), one has fulfilled the purpose of the Law and the Golden Rule...
"Do unto others..."

I disagree. Certain details of the Old Law were certainly outmoded - but the very heart of them, the Commandments? What is your argument for this?

Oh yeah, and I think morality is one universal, timeless, absolute law. Which was perfected by Christ. Yep. A discussion for another time perhaps?

 

[typondis]

I disagree. Certain details of the Old Law were certainly outmoded - but the very heart of them, the Commandments? What is your argument for this?

Oh yeah, and I think morality is one universal, timeless, absolute law. Which was perfected by Christ. Yep. A discussion for another time perhaps?

A-heh heh heh heh heh heh.

Yeah, it was a bit of a disjointed post. The first sentence was a witty, incisive (being facetious, no dirty looks please) retort to Blob's post and is unrelated to everything that follows - which was me just thinking out loud.

Ah. Groovy.

I think typondis' point is more that there is no ultimate moral rule, and the word arbitrary is being used to describe that. Morality is a very real thing, but morality changes from one place to another, and therefore is not specifically defined for all of us as a universal code of coduct

Exactamundo.

Blob, jesus, an I was thinkin maybe you were only new-age-ist. (I've looked up the golden law before, but wanted to see what you'd say.) I don't know as it's feasible to continue discussion with you on this because of your....predilection....but for general purposes I will say the following: I have seen no scientific-like (let alone truly transcendental) methodology in human culture that enables the greatest degree of development. (So I had to discover one.)

 

[Da Blob]

I disagree. Certain details of the Old Law were certainly outmoded - but the very heart of them, the Commandments? What is your argument for this?

Oh yeah, and I think morality is one universal, timeless, absolute law. Which was perfected by Christ. Yep. A discussion for another time perhaps?

The Law as given by Moses was just a manifestation of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Christ as the second Adam ate from the other Tree...

 

[Da Blob]

Blob, jesus, an I was thinkin maybe you were only new-age-ist. (I've looked up the golden law before, but wanted to see what you'd say.) I don't know as it's feasible to continue discussion with you on this because of that, but I will say the following, just in general: I have seen no scientific-like (let alone truly transcendental) methodology in human culture that enables the greatest degree of development. (So I had to discover one.)[/QUOTE]

I do not understand your point(?)

Trying to validate ideas by placing the meaningless adjective, scientific, in front of it seems to indicate a POV that exalts "Science" to something beyond mere methodology....(?)

 

[typondis]

Trying to validate ideas by placing the meaningless adjective, scientific, in front of it seems to indicate a POV that exalts "Science" to something beyond mere methodology....(?)

Dude, we use different tools. Until you use the same ones, or can show me some better ones, we're not gonna commune on this topic.

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

The Law as given by Moses was just a manifestation of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Christ as the second Adam ate from the other Tree...

And the earth is infected by the inhabitants thereof: because they have transgressed the laws, they have changed the ordinance, they have broken the everlasting covenant.

Everlasting?

Wherefore the law indeed is holy: and the commandment holy and just and good.

These both seem to be referring to the Commandments.

 

[Da Blob]

Everlasting?


These both seem to be referring to the Commandments.

God meant to be an everlasting covenant, but man broke it. The Law was good - just insufficient - hence the necessity for Christ's sacrifice...

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

I agree with your second sentence there (The Law was good - just insufficient - hence the necessity for Christ's sacrifice... ), but if it was an everlasting covenant, then it was an everlasting covenant. Maybe it was insufficient, but God was certainly aware of that when he gave it to Moses. If you're saying that it is no longer in force because it was insufficient, but that God did not intend it to no longer be in force, then I reply that God did intend it to be insufficient. Yet God called it everlasting. That would contradict your connection between the Old Law being insufficient and the Old Law being outmoded.

If anyone gets annoyed at this discussion just say something and we can move it. I know some of you guys are so terrified of religion you don't even want to hear it discussed.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Okay, is this what you want to hear?

"It is a myth that there are givens."

Dave

 

[Da Blob]

I agree with your second sentence there (The Law was good - just insufficient - hence the necessity for Christ's sacrifice... ), but if it was an everlasting covenant, then it was an everlasting covenant. Maybe it was insufficient, but God was certainly aware of that when he gave it to Moses. If you're saying that it is no longer in force because it was insufficient, but that God did not intend it to no longer be in force, then I reply that God did intend it to be insufficient. Yet God called it everlasting. That would contradict your connection between the Old Law being insufficient and the Old Law being outmoded.

If anyone gets annoyed at this discussion just say something and we can move it. I know some of you guys are so terrified of religion you don't even want to hear it discussed.

It is done
See thread The Law

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=5287


sorry for derailing this thread...It happens...