Ive gone off Carl Jung.

Im now into Alfred Adler. I think i like his ideas more.
Jung is all about trauma and going over the past and blame, whereas Adler is more about self ego and finding ways to overcome inferiority and strive for confidence.
I think that's healthier and more optimistic.

Top | New | Old

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

Why even pick one... just read as much as you can and try to figure out where they make sense and where they don't.
I need to read one more book... and then I'm probably going to delve into René Girard. I really need that guys work this year, because I've procastenated enough. But if you are intrested in a view on human beings and social interactions, maybe you want to look into that too.

NOS4R2 · 41-45

@Kwek00 thanks so much, yes please.
I feel so ignorant of psychology now that I've realised mainstream is based so much on Jung and so few others. Seems ive opened a new a whole new area of ideas so im grateful for any direction or options.
Its annoying that YouTube is so algorithm-ised that i see too limited a field of my interests.
Thanks again

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@NOS4R2 Not sure about everyone looking at jung though.

My psychology research isn't that big... But I read something from time to time. Something I found super intresting was the analysis of Erik H. Erikson, on how identities are formed. But Psychologists aren't my first go too when I like at human beings. Maybe it's because most psychologists are more intrested in the self... while my interests are more for the collective and social interactions. The closest that I read to an understanding of the self, was from a neuroscientist called Robbert Sapolsky... the book was "behave". I've not read "determined" yet. He's a leading figure in the debate of the non-excistence of "free will".

Sweetpoison · 41-45, F

Maybe it sounds healthier but going through your past and traumas is what you need to do to heal them or to at least try to "understand" , it’s called psychoanalysis

NOS4R2 · 41-45

@Sweetpoison that psychoanalysis came from Jung. It was his view and hypothesis.
We have historically taken on Jungs views and run with it. No questions asked.
It seemed a good model.
But there is new evidence coming out in neurology that it might not be what we thought it was. That going over trauma again and again only writes it into the brain deeper.
These new findings are only in their early stages of study, but still valuble.
I like the idea of moving on.
I do think Jungs theory has a time and a place, but i also think that there needs to be a model to move onto to heal and grow.
Jung only gets you so far

Add a comment...