• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Studying Psychology

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Well. I have not seen any evidence that either Jung or MBTI is largely discarded.

In scientific psychology he has been but he was always more about therapy than lab work. Same for Freud.

But Jungian therapy his work is very much alive. Most major cities have analytical psychology therapists. There are conferences, international organizations. Books are continually being published, etc...

He is deeply appreciated very much by artists and art appreciates and his name keeps popping up in modern works.

For instance this article mentions Jung's appearance on a famous album cover:
Why Jung Is Important | HuffPost

The movie Full Metal Jacket has a Jung moment

Jung's influence through the notion of Introversion/Extroversion and the personality types is clear.

Jung's influence on artists in all mediums from music through motion pictures...

The 10 Best Movies Influenced By Carl Jung

...is clear.

I appreciate the many Jungian authors who were "disciples" of Jung such as Neumann, von Franz.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Well. I have not seen any evidence that either Jung or MBTI is largely discarded.
I just posted a good number of valid complaints about the Meyers Briggs. It's not scientific, and it is misused, it is misapplied, and it is rubbish.. That is not my opinion, that is the conclusion of many studies.
And if you study the field, you won't be learning much about Jung. He's still used, but hardly by clinicians and researchers. Kind of like Frued. Purple still do resort to his methods, but they are few and far between.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
What personality test is considered scientifically better?
The MMPI is considered good. But it must be administered by someone qualified to do so, and people have gotten into legal trouble for failing to do that and misusing it.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I assure you that it is still taught and appreciated by millions...
I know. But that is an ad populum defense, and teaching it and appreciating it is in par with teaching and appreciating astrology, phrenology, palmistry, and tarot cards.Andkeep in mind, Meyers Briggs does legitimately lack scientific support and validity.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
The MMPI is considered good. But it must be administered by someone qualified to do so, and people have gotten into legal trouble for failing to do that and misusing it.

The focus of that test is much different. It is attempting to assess psychological disorder. In that sense it can be put to more rigorous standards as other methods of diagnosis can be correlated against the test results.

The MBTI is not about psychological disorder at all and it requires the individual to subjectively complete the test based on their own understanding. Trained test administrators can evaluate whether testers have answered more to their desire than to an honest self assessment in some cases. The MBTI itself is not a scientific instrument as it can easily be "contaminated" by the subject.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I know. But that is an ad populum defense, and teaching it and appreciating it is in par with teaching and appreciating astrology, phrenology, palmistry, and tarot cards.Andkeep in mind, Meyers Briggs does legitimately lack scientific support and validity.

I agree that it lacks scientific support although studies of the brain, as I have mentioned, show promising signs of agreement with Jung's phenomenological observations.

I also don't dispute that the MBTI shares somethings in common with astrology and such. Using any system of abstract concepts to reflect on one's own psychological disposition can be very useful for dealing with personal issues of meaning. However, Jung's observations are based on his study of his patients and they do offer the promise of agreement with models of how the brain works. In his own book on the topic he also traced the historical view on personality in Western philosophy and showed how past philosophers had perceived the various styles that people's personalities seemed to reflect.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I just posted a good number of valid complaints about the Meyers Briggs. It's not scientific, and it is misused, it is misapplied, and it is rubbish.. That is not my opinion, that is the conclusion of many studies.
And if you study the field, you won't be learning much about Jung. He's still used, but hardly by clinicians and researchers. Kind of like Frued. Purple still do resort to his methods, but they are few and far between.

All Pshychology tests are qualitative.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
They aren't all the same, they aren't all created equal, they don't all have scientific backing and support. Meyers Briggs lacks those.

No Psychology test can be fully objective and empirical. And there are personal preferences. You initially used ‘hogwash’ for MBTI (and something similar for Jung). I agree to disagree.

The following article deals with the pros and cons of the MBTI.

Are Scores on the MBTI Totally Meaningless?
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
They aren't all the same, they aren't all created equal, they don't all have scientific backing and support. Meyers Briggs lacks those.

You cant live on science alone.

Science can't determine all the answers for the questions you may have in life that require answers.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
You cant live on science alone.

Science can't determine all the answers for the questions you may have in life that require answers.
Psychological tests should be grounded science. Or else they are no different or better than random online personality tests.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Psychological tests should be grounded science. Or else they are no different or better than random online personality tests.
I agree with you on your Myers-Briggs statement. But not on THIS statement because:

Scientific theories are only tested AFTER they logically make sense. And logical theories in psychology are more likely to come from non-scientists because they out-number scientists by a huge margin.
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I agree with you on your Meyer-Briggs statement. But not on THIS statement because:

Scientific theories are only tested AFTER they logically make sense. And logical theories in psychology are more likely to come from non-scientists because they out-number scientists by a huge margin.
No. If that were true we could expect more theories in biology and chemistry from non scientists. But that doesnt hold up. Those are layman theories and definition you speak of, not sciemtific theories. And everyone pretending amd wanting to be an expert is highly problematic.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
No. If that were true we could expect more theories in biology and chemistry from non scientists. But that doesnt hold up. Those are layman theories and definition you speak of, not sciemtific theories. And everyone pretending amd wanting to be an expert is highly problematic.
Psychology is primarily the study of human behavior. It doesn't require specialized training as in chemistry or physics. That's why psychology is called a "soft science." That's why there are an overwhelming number of very bright people qualified to think about it logically compared to the number involved in research on the topic.
 

Wu Wei

ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
I studied psychology at under-graduate level

I did one module in it on a degree program with six modules

On the whole I enjoyed it

I liked the Freudian bits and the social psychology bits

But not the stats side of it all - the p-value, t-value, normal distribution, SPSS etc.

So for me it had its highs and lows, I'd have got a higher result without all the stats bits

Although the stats are important to it, what with Psychology being a science and all

Has anyone else here studied psychology?

How did you find it?

I found it challenging and on the whole enjoyed it, except for the stats bit

I'm glad I didn't do a degree exclusively in it though

I think I only have 15 credits (3 credits per course) in Psychology from college, but that was many many years ago. I could be forgetting 1

General Psychology
Abnormal Psychology
Statistical Psychology
Behavioral Psychology
Developmental Psychology

I liked it, at one point was considering a major in it. Was really interested in a graduate degree in Forensic Psychology, but never pursued it. not sure I could of without additional Psych credits
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Psychology is primarily the study of human behavior. It doesn't require specialized training as in chemistry or physics. That's why psychology is called a "soft science." That's why there are an overwhelming number of very bright people qualified to think about it logically compared to the number involved in research on the topic.
You can't practice without training and certification.
 
Top