Psychological Failings of Capitalism; Implications for Communists.

[FireFry]

In capitalism, stable families are rare. Unless of course, they're bound unhappily by church morals. Even then, when people marry, a conditioned abstinence leaves them unhappy, creating divorce. This is a problem for the psychological condition of children and future workers in society.

The key problem is this : the lack of a fatherly or a motherly figure. With children lacking parental figures, guess who takes that place?

That's right, the boss. The boss is the bastion of maturity and guidance, of course, this is extremely twisted. Imagine, a parent, who doesn't care about the well being of their child in any biological, nurturing sense. Who cares for the kid in the pure sense of "I love you because you make me money :drool:".

The implications for the communist movement are grand. Anybody would be reluctant, anytime, to harm their parents. But what happens when the boss becomes the parent? The boss earns a special status amongst the workers as a parent, and hence, labor security.

Any questions?

[Hit The North]

Any questions?

Yes, I question your assumption that workers love their bosses and view them as parental guardians.

What kind of infantilized stooges do you take us for? :cursing:

[Dros]

That's right, the boss. The boss is the bastion of maturity and guidance, of course, this is extremely twisted. Imagine, a parent, who doesn't care about the well being of their child in any biological, nurturing sense. Who cares for the kid in the pure sense of "I love you because you make me money :drool:".

The implications for the communist movement are grand. Anybody would be reluctant, anytime, to harm their parents. But what happens when the boss becomes the parent? The boss earns a special status amongst the workers as a parent, and hence, labor security.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol:

Are you fucking serious?


The boss earns a special status amongst the workers as a parent, and hence, labor security.

Have you ever had a job?

of course not I forgot...

Better question... Have you ever met anyone who has ever had a job?

If so, ask them about their boss.


Any questions?

Who taught your "Psych 101" class? Because I'm going to blungeon them to death with a volume one of the Standard Edition.

[FireFry]

There's always resistance to new psychological ideas.

Then tell me, why else do workers allow their bosses to treat them like shit? If you visit a sweatshop, in say, China or Taiwan, you'll find that bosses are very parent-like distributing punishments and rewards to good and bad workers. I'm not talking about dingy petty-bourgois restaurant labor or anything like that, I'm not about trained, sometimes skilled labor. And these workers have no parent figure around at all.

It's just an idea.

And yes, I have met people who have jobs, many without proper mother or father figures and they talk about how working makes them so "mature". Especially for teenagers.

A well knit-family is the backbone of labor struggles, when this collapsed in the sixties, so did the labor struggle with it. Hence, the borrgois victories in the seventies and the eighties : the hippies had no parent figures to help them grow up. Relying on corporate bosses and dummyvision for guidance in their lives.

Maybe some of the bourgois had already realised this long ago? And they liberalised divorce because of this ?? It suits their class interests.

The employer may feel some familial comradery too, especially if they are petty-bourgois, and after work may spend time with their employee conversing and leisuring.

The deeper psychological ideas behind this are even more outrageous, and I won't waste your time on that if you don't want me to.


What kind of infantilized stooges do you take us for

I take you for a human being, not a proletarian god ala Lenin. Which is interesting, as communism may arrive in a trap of bourgois flattery towards the workers.

http://www.cegur.com/VanGogh/PotatoEaters.jpg

[mikelepore]

Then tell me, why else do workers allow their bosses to treat them like shit? If you visit a sweatshop, in say, China or Taiwan, you'll find that bosses are very parent-like distributing punishments and rewards to good and bad workers.

I think the emperor Caligula explained that about class rule for all time: "Oderint dum metuant." -- "Let them hate me as long as they fear me."

[FireFry]

I think the emperor Caligula explained that about class rule for all time: "Oderint dum metuant." -- "Let them hate me as long as they fear me."

That's right, but these anxieties can be overcome psychologically by individuals. This idea is fundamentally situationist, that is, if they put on a big orchestra, a show, of fear inducing psy-op tactics : you will be afraid.

Of course, if people are calm, and realise that their own personal revolution is neccesary before a large scale, social revolution, then they can overcome class-society. And communist is a feasible idea for everybody. The human psyche is fundamentally communist, of course, there are internal conflicts within people that need to be defeated by the individual or with social assistance from parental authority. Look at pre-fuedal savage island societies. They're purely egalitarian, but they don't have the technology, philosophy and culture to stop themselves from ripping each other apart over family disputes. People are provided for, but they don't know what else to do but murder one another. We see this happening in middle-class, bourgois female society, it's extremely primitive and caged, hence the high-hysteria levels for these people.

Some of those conflicts are defeated for the worse within the individual,. Some, for the better. The outcome changes depending on the family and class situation.

I guess what I'm really saying is, all social structures are typically psychologically examined through the lens of family society. Unless you were raised in the wild.

I guess I could also say that bourgois children are fundamentally orphans, with parents too busy to seriously care beyond giving the kids business advice, which is saddening, but also dangerous as they become psychopathic. That's probably true. This is why the working class doesn't co-operate with the bourgois, unless the working class tries to "live" the same way that the bourgois does, pampered and lazy, but then the working class, having a family tradition, finds it too disgusting and revolts against this.

[Raúl Duke]

I might have known quite a few people who live in single-parent families, etc...

None of them (well except one but he was considered odd by everyone) consider the employer as a "paternal/maternal figure." (although anecdotes are not evidence)

Actually, this psychological theory might sound "interesting" (although it doesn't fit in to what I see) but little of us are going to go for it unless you whip out some sort of statistics (i.e. divorce rates by social status, etc).


If you visit a sweatshop, in say, China or Taiwan, you'll find that bosses are very parent-like distributing punishments and rewards to good and bad workers. I'm not talking about dingy petty-bourgois restaurant labor or anything like that, I'm not about trained, sometimes skilled labor. And these workers have no parent figure around at all.


Most likely than not: the traditional family in china is probably in a better condition there than in the US. Actually, many of the people who work in foreign textile industries are young women who usually send what little money to their families.

Maybe in a certain way the masses view the ruling class in a paternalistic scope (i.e. they know what they're doing, the system is working fine, etc) although if they begin to fail (i.e. lose a war, unable to fix the economy, etc) that those illusions are crushed.


I guess I could also say that bourgois children are fundamentally orphans, with parents too busy to seriously care beyond giving the kids business advice, which is saddening, but also dangerous as they become psychopathic. That's probably true. This is why the working class doesn't co-operate with the bourgois, unless the working class tries to "live" the same way that the bourgois does, pampered and lazy, but then the working class, having a family tradition, finds it too disgusting and revolts against this.

:huh:

In my experience, it's bourgeoisie families who are most likely to stay together, the mother can/may stay at home and take care of children, etc. The working class is the one who's experiencing the most problems of family (Although, for either class, family relations are no longer stable as before...).


We see this happening in middle-class, bourgois female society, it's extremely primitive and caged, hence the high-hysteria levels for these people.

:confused:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What interest me is what is the implications of supporting this theory among the left?
Are we all going to go "pro-family values"? :glare:

[R_P_A_S]

it's funny you mentioned this because I've known TWO people in my life who happened to grow up with out a father and would look up to their boss in admiration and as a role model on how to be successful and get to the top. These two friends of mine worked with me at 2 different restaurants... and Our boss knew that they were hard working kids who were trying to be the father figure at home for their moms and siblings... I even remember our boss taking them under his wing and teaching them, training them in different aspects of the restaurant business.

[Luís Henrique]

There's always resistance to new psychological ideas.

Yes, there is always resistance to (all) new ideas. Which is not, however, an argument in favour of any of them.


Then tell me, why else do workers allow their bosses to treat them like shit?

Because they fear losing their jobs.


If you visit a sweatshop, in say, China or Taiwan, you'll find that bosses are very parent-like distributing punishments and rewards to good and bad workers.

Evidently; they are in a position of authority, just like parents. Which only means that the formal aspects of all authority are similar, not that workers confuse bosses with their parents...


And yes, I have met people who have jobs, many without proper mother or father figures and they talk about how working makes them so "mature". Especially for teenagers.

But working is of course an element of maturity; it is the way you cease to depend on your parents for everything, and can start doing things for yourself. It is the exactly opposite of acquiring a parental figure.


A well knit-family is the backbone of labor struggles, when this collapsed in the sixties, so did the labor struggle with it.

On the contrary. To the extent that your argument about bosses and parents has any standing, a parental figure prepares workers to obey their bosses unquestioningly.

What do you propose, that we rebuild 1950-ish families? How?


Maybe some of the bourgois had already realised this long ago? And they liberalised divorce because of this ?? It suits their class interests.

So we should now campaign for the end of legal divorce? :scared:

Luís Henrique

[FireFry]

Yes, there is always resistance to (all) new ideas. Which is not, however, an argument in favour of any of them.

This is psychology, I'm talking here. People resist because it relieves them of their anxieties (fears and hatreds), something the ultra-ego within the mind doesn't allow. The ultra-ego is the internal characterisation of the father figure, authority, the phallus or all three. It changes between times. I didn't make this stuff up, I've just discovered it to be true with a little inspiration.

Once their anxieties are relieved, people feel free. Capitalism is a psychological system most of the time, not a physical one. Of course, like a father spanking his child in adolescence and telling him to shut up, the threat of violence always exists. I think it's high time that the father dies of old age and that the child takes over the family legacy of mankind. Isn't that how it always happens anyways?


1950-ish


EXCUSE ME MISTER HISTORY DID NOT BEGIN AFTER THE FIRST WORLD WAR.

This is funny, as it represents another psychological failing of capitalism, that is the failure of people to realise that a world existed before they arrive and will exist after they die. And that families will always exist, sorry. Having parents is always better than being orphaned.


Then tell me, why else do workers allow their bosses to treat them like shit?

That's bollocks, gb2eighteenth century, son. There are hundreds of other opportunities for workers today, but most workers have what I call Library Anxiety. Working at a factory is no longer the pinnacle of existance for most. Of course, most of them would rather be in management, but some of us situationists would rather say there are other things you can do. This is another form of orphanage and parental anxiety, that is, people refuse to fall back on their parents and would rather fall back on their boss for economic support. This is bad.

I'm not saying, live with your parents forever, that's mentally unhealthy to live in that type of reppressive condition forever. It's always mentally unhealthy to live under repressive conditions, of course, capitalist scientists today have managed to artificially up peoples' boiling points with anti-psychotic and anti-distraction medications. Of course, the conservative puritans might argue against this, but they're not competent bourgois, so they've been phased out.

I'm not arguing puritanism, I'm arguing psychological loving sanity for your god's sake!! Most of you might not understand this, and if you want proof of anything I've claimed, I'll provide it. But I hope that you'll find evidence within your own accumulated knowledge over the years. That would be far healthier than relying on me for facts.

[Dros]

Then tell me, why else do workers allow their bosses to treat them like shit?

Damn your good. Let me think about that one... Oh right! Because they get paid by them!


If you visit a sweatshop, in say, China or Taiwan, you'll find that bosses are very parent-like distributing punishments and rewards to good and bad workers.

Okay. So authority in all systems manifests itself in similar ways.


It's just an idea.

A very very bad one.


And yes, I have met people who have jobs, many without proper mother or father figures and they talk about how working makes them so "mature". Especially for teenagers.

Observe their relationships to their bosses. Notice how they all hate them and act very unfilially toward them.


A well knit-family is the backbone of labor struggles

Really? I thought the family was the backbone of capitalism...


the hippies had no parent figures to help them grow up. Relying on corporate bosses and dummyvision for guidance in their lives.

That is patantly untrue. Both of my parents were "hippies" and I've met my very very parental grand parents. Hippies had parents. Believe me. Go ask some hippies.


The employer may feel some familial comradery too, especially if they are petty-bourgois, and after work may spend time with their employee conversing and leisuring.

:lol:

[STI]

Object-relations theory would predict that, if the boss were seen as a parental figure then all people (not just those raised in single-parent homes) would tend to see their bosses in ways similar to how they see their parent (presumeably, the parent of the same sex as the boss).

This could be examined correlationally using self-report from workers. If a correlation did exist between how one views one's parents and how one views one's boss, then that would support object relations theory and open up exaning further relationships between childhood family dynamics and adult workplace dynamics (ie: siblings & co-workers).

If firefry's speculations are correct, then those workers who grew up in single-parent families, especially those wherein the absent parent parent is of the same sex as the boss, will report more trust, respect, and affection for their boss.

[We probably wouldn't need to worry about the effect of social desireability here because, whether workers trust, respect, and like their bosses would probably match how they *think* they should feel toward their bosses].

I'm not aware of any research into the topic as of this moment, and until any such research is done, all we have are contradicting anecdotes and speculation.

Ooh, also worth examining would be whether people from single-parent homes are more or less likely to resist their bosses than those from multi-parent homes. Again, the jury is still out.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This is completely off topic, and I appologize for that, but it's great to see STI posting.

[FireFry]

Off topic of what precisely?

Communism is a social theory, Psychology is also a social theory, they seem to fit within the same Venn Diagram, don't you think?

People have tried a psychological analysis of Communists and Capitalists before, and what do they get? They get turned away as "Revisionists", "Counter-Revolutionaries", etc, etc.

I think you'd be better off directing your libidinal energies somewhere else.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I was saying my post was off topic. Relax.

[STI]

This is completely off topic, and I appologize for that, but it's great to see STI posting.

Consider yourself forgiven :D

An Admin now! Movin' on up. Congrats, even if it happens to be "old news".


Communism is a social theory, Psychology is also a social theory, they seem to fit within the same Venn Diagram, don't you think?

Psychology is, more precisely, a scientific investigation of human behaviour and menal processes. It tends toward focusing what effects hold across populations as effecting humans on the individual level, whereas Marxism tends more toward being an economic and sociological theory. There's overlap, no doubt, and it's worth exploring... so long as that exploration is done well, using real data and solid methodology.

Milgram's obedience experiments (when viewed in their entirety), Learned helplessness theory, and the fundamental attribution error as applied to "human nature" (as well as other cognitive biases more broadly) are all useful in understanding why people remain loyal to capitalism despite being exploited, so you're right in that Psych and Marxism are far from mutually exclusive. As capitalism ages and proletarian revolution approaches, we might see the emergence of a "Revolutionary Psychology" (pardon the pun), but as of this writing no such school of thought exists insofar as I've been taught in bourgeois academia.


People have tried a psychological analysis of Communists and Capitalists before, and what do they get? They get turned away as "Revisionists", "Counter-Revolutionaries", etc, etc.

To whom are you referring here? I'd like to check out the work done on the issue.

[FireFry]

Psychology is, more precisely, a scientific investigation of human behaviour and menal processes.

Well, psychology is not one of the primitive sciences of Chemistry and Physics. It is a biological advanced science that explores relationships between organisms. There are no social relationships within an organism. The foundation of Psychology was actually Darwins, not Freud's. When Darwin said "The ability of an organism to survive is determined by not it's complexity, by not it's size, but by it's ability to adapt."

Using this Freud made a model, a sculpture, of the organisation of the brain's focus. That is, what we react from our all 5 senses. And he determined that our personal reactions were based on adaptive traits. The modern psychologists propose a mind that is RAW id. This is false, the mind has the ability the become conscious (else, why call it the mind!?).

Modern scientists are typically religious defects. People like Mister Dawkins Dog-Fucker say "have faith in scientific prediction" when in reality, they're just ad-libbing "scientific" for "religious" and "prediction" for "tradition". The laws of science forms the super-ego where the laws of faith (sins) once sat. Creating some of the most bizarre, inhumane stupid creatures on the face of the planet. I won't even call athiests humans, because they can't accept the fact that they're in the dark in terms of knowledge of the universe as the rest of us. They deny the reality that life doesn't have to be organic to be considered life.

The idea of the hope of every psychologist that someday every psychological problem that has physiological roots will have a simple remedy in the form of a pill, is patently INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EVEN FRIGHTENING.

Which is another frightening psychological failing of capital that may consume us all if we aren't on guard. Ever since psychoanalysis isn't covered by Health Insurance in the states, this has been the dominant mantra. Psychoanalysis ended for the lay person in 1982.

I've actually taken these so-called medications, in reality, they are some of the most toxic substances known to man.


To whom are you referring here? I'd like to check out the work done on the issue.

I'm referring to the Hoaxhists, who are actually a very fascinating people, however, they don't understand the reality of class struggle and the need for cultural unity within workers.

[FireFry]

Also, another fascinating point about modern America. Before during the age of steam ships (probably safer and more efficient transport of people) when the arrived in America, guess what they saw??

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/Liberty_2005_3.jpg

Today, few people ever see this structure in person, unless you're a rich tourist. The idea of creating monuments in honor of, not people, but ideals, is extravagant. Of course, these ideals are bourgois, and the communists should have created a Statue of Labor, for their harbors, but nevertheless, psychology prevails.

It may seem a little big for most of your screens, and rightfully so, such a size would be about the size of a filing cabinet (which really aint that big), I'm just trying to psychologically put everybody in their place here. Instead of this super-confused state of SCIENCE that doesn't explain anything except that we should trust our good graces in our good Reverend Dawkins.

[STI]

If not for the so-called "primitive" sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology, you'd be hard-pressed to be on the internet or get a decent meal every day. Forget about receiving decent medical care!

This isn't to shove the benefits of modernity in your face or throw together an ad hominem, but to illustrate why science is so highly regarded: it works!

When scientists make a prediction that turns out to be correct and replicable, the theory making said prediction gains credibility. When that isn't the case, the theory is discredited. That's how science improves itself, how we know more now than we did 10, 20, or 200 years ago.


There are no social relationships within an organism.

Psychology, though, is more than an inquiry into social relationships. Cognitive Psychology, Personality Psychology, Learning & Conditioning, and even a good chunk of Social Psychology all deal with thought, emotion, and behaviour as it applies to the individual.


The foundation of Psychology was actually Darwins, not Freud's.

Either one of those accounts would be factually incorrect.

Evolutionary Psychology can be traced back to Darwin, but its emergence is a relatively recent phenomenon.

If anybody can be understood as the "founders" of psychology, the honour would have to be shared by Wilhelm Wundt and William James, with the former having established the first perception laboratory in the 19th century's latter half (the "mental processes") and the latter taking to understand humans based solely upon that which is explicitly observable (the "behaviours").


The modern psychologists propose a mind that is RAW id. This is false, the mind has the ability the become conscious (else, why call it the mind!?).


What? Even hardcore behaviourists acknowledge some aspect of conscious awareness as existing, and they'd be the least disposed of any discipline within psychology to do so.

Modern psychologists rarely ever take Freud into consideration when developing hypotheses. If Freud can be said to have made any meaningful contribution to our knowledge-base, it's in two ways:

1)Positing that some mental functions happen outside the realm of conscious awareness.
2)Listing and describing defense mechanisms, some of which exist but are better explained by alternative theories (ie: rationalization viz. cognitive dissonance theory).

Freud is the darling of pop psychology, and not much more. His analytical methods don't triangulate with one another (that is, find the same things for the same people across instances and observers), and his "theories" produce hypotheses which are largely unfalsifiable, much less supported by research.

Ideally, I won't have to do any more Freud-bashing for the rest of the thread. It's a guilty pleasure of psych heads and I couldn't resist:D


People like Mister Dawkins Dog-Fucker say "have faith in scientific prediction"

Erm... no they don't. Real scientists make predictions (hypotheses) based on theories (ways of understanding the world), and if the prediction matches the available evidence, the theory gains credibility. If a scientist ever asks you to have faith, they're being inconsistent and ought to be corrected like all hell broke loose.


Creating some of the most bizarre, inhumane stupid creatures on the face of the planet. I won't even call athiests humans, because they can't accept the fact that they're in the dark in terms of knowledge of the universe as the rest of us.

Is that so? If the worst humans you can find are atheists and scientists in the first world, you need to be more rigourous in your investigation ;)

Your assertion is just that - a bold, defamatory assertion without any supporting facts. Thanks to the work of modern chemists, physicists, cosmologists, biologists, archaeologists, and geologists (to name a few!) we as a species know far more about the universe and how it works than any other humans in history. This is evidenced to the layperson by how this knowledge can and is applied practically in our day-to-day lives.


The idea of the hope of every psychologist that someday every psychological problem that has physiological roots will have a simple remedy in the form of a pill, is patently INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EVEN FRIGHTENING.


Why? If legitimate mental illnesses (ie: clinical depression, OCD, shizopherenia, borderline personality disorder, bipolarism, etc) which severely impede a person's ability to lead a happy, meaningful life can be treated with psychoactive medication, what's the harm? SSRIs are effective (though far from perfect) in treating anxiety disorders, depression, and OCD. The notion that psychological disorders with a physiological underpinning may be treatable with medication is far from insane, it's the case right now!

Now, I don't know what you mean when you call psychoactive meds "toxic". Maybe you're referring to the side-effects? Having never taken them, I really can't comment (though that'll change in a few weeks as I'm taking part in a drug study and will be on MAO inhibitors for 14 days). Or is it something "deeper"? Some moral objection to chemically altering the way a person thinks, feels, and acts?


I'm referring to the Hoaxhists

I wiki'd and google'd for the Hoxhaists and only found stuff on "anti-revisionist marxism-leninism", nothing on psychology. Anything in particular you can link me to?


Instead of this super-confused state of SCIENCE that doesn't explain anything except that we should trust our good graces in our good Reverend Dawkins.

If that's really what you think science does, check out these videos by the user potholer54 on YouTube. An outline on just a few of the many things science actually does explain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok - History of the Universe (made Easy) Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMQk6MveZOE&feature=related - History of the Universe (made Easy) Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4&feature=related - Orgin of Life (made Easy)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN8XXaDrK4A&feature=related - The Story of the Earth (made Easy)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4&feature=related - The Age of Our World (made Easy)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8&feature=related - Natural Selection (made Easy)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&feature=related - The Theory of Evolution (made Easy)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ&feature=related - Human Evolution (made Easy)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8edyoZFW-Lg - Human Anscestry (made Easy)

All of these seem to have been made with the aim in mind of discrediting young-earth creationism and explaining what contemporary scientists think and why with regard to our origins from the big bang through to human migration out of Africa. Informative, interesting, and highly recommended to anyone with even a passing interest in any of the subjects.

[Raúl Duke]

The founders of psychology as science were Wilhelm Wundt (the 1st to study psychology in a academic somewhat scientific setting), followed by the likes of the Gestalt Psychologists, John Watson (I think his name was; one of the 1st behaviorist), and William James.

Actually William James is the psychologist who was inspired by Darwins.

Before it was usually something speculated in philosophy (i.e. the mind-body connection, where knowledge is derived, etc I suppose) and Freud is largely discredited and he and his followers weren't quite scientific (although they're still strong in clinical settings; the cognitive-behaviorist therapists are catching up and actually have better results.).


As capitalism ages and proletarian revolution approaches, we might see the emergence of a "Revolutionary Psychology" (pardon the pun), but as of this writing no such school of thought exists insofar as I've been taught in bourgeois academia.Actually there's something called "Critical Psychology." (and other branches with similar names) Look it up, it might be what you are looking for.


Creating some of the most bizarre, inhumane stupid creatures on the face of the planet. I won't even call athiests humans, because they can't accept the fact that they're in the dark in terms of knowledge of the universe as the rest of us. They deny the reality that life doesn't have to be organic to be considered life.:glare: Go Fuck yourself!

So what's better? a priori mystical make-believe?

[#FF0000]

I have a question for OP:

What's your background in psychology, exactly?

[STI]

I'm a third year Hon. Psych student for now.

[FireFry]

Go Fuck yourself!

Everyday.

[FireFry]

What's your background in psychology, exactly?

Aha, a family reference, how savage!

I've read the summaries of all of Freud's work, and slowly, with personal resistance, I've become aware of the elemental evolutionary bases of our behavior. Freud had no background in psychology.

[Dros]

Modern scientists are typically religious defects. People like Mister Dawkins Dog-Fucker say "have faith in scientific prediction" when in reality, they're just ad-libbing "scientific" for "religious" and "prediction" for "tradition". The laws of science forms the super-ego where the laws of faith (sins) once sat. Creating some of the most bizarre, inhumane stupid creatures on the face of the planet. I won't even call athiests humans, because they can't accept the fact that they're in the dark in terms of knowledge of the universe as the rest of us. They deny the reality that life doesn't have to be organic to be considered life.

:)And I thought it was impossible for you to say anything stupider than you already have...

Your "argument" (I use the term loosly in this instance) here is flawed on more levels than I can count on both hands. For starters: you clearly have no understanding of science, the scientific method, or Dawkins. There are incredibly important qualitative differences between science and religion that you seem to forget about. This is called METHOD. The primary difference is that religion relies on blind faith (yes BLIND faith) while science stands on an elaborately constructed scafold of observations and tests which is constantly being strengthened. Nowhere has Dawkins ever advocated "faith" in science (a contradiction in terms to anyone who understands either faith or knowledge). Provide an (intelligent) critic
of the scientific method with evidence and analysis. Or shut the fuck up.


I've actually taken these so-called medications, in reality, they are some of the most toxic substances known to man.

If you had been exposed to the most toxic substances known to man, you would not be around to spam this garbage.


I'm referring to the Hoaxhists, who are actually a very fascinating people, however, they don't understand the reality of class struggle and the need for cultural unity within workers.

:lol::lol::lol:

An infantile lecturing MLs on the reality of class struggle!

[Ismail]

Also, another fascinating point about modern America. Before during the age of steam ships (probably safer and more efficient transport of people) when the arrived in America, guess what they saw??An unnecessarily enormous jpg file which then proceeded to fall and crush the steam boats, quickly dispelling all views of hope and positivity.

Also, what do you think of sociology? (Which is what I focus on)

[Hit The North]

STI:
Having never taken them, I really can't comment (though that'll change in a few weeks as I'm taking part in a drug study and will be on MAO inhibitors for 14 days).Isn't that what Drosera99 should be prescribed? Arf.

Mrdie:
Also, what do you think of sociology? (Which is what I focus on)Hey, just because he said your "people" were fascinating, that's no reason to invite this pretentious idiot to pontificate on sociology :glare:

[STI]

I've become aware of the elemental evolutionary bases of our behavior.Evolutionary factors play a role. The principles behind our behaviour are adaptive mechanisms (operant conditioning or social learning, for example), but what really makes the difference on the individual level is what, specifically, is learned because of what is reinforced and observed.

Social learning can teach you to hit your girlfriend or buy her flowers. Operant conditioning can get you addicted to drugs or make you an avid reader. It's the input that effects behaviour, and it isn't always adaptive.


Freud had no background in psychology.Nowadays, Freud largely has no credibility either.


I've read the summaries of all of Freud's workIf you'd like to get a working understanding of current, scientific psychology, check out the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

It's a bit of a read, but it can't be as bad as Freud :P

[FireFry]

Nowadays, Freud largely has no credibility either.

That's because it was ruled in 1982 that insurance companies didn't have to pay out psychoanalytical bills. Instead, mental hospitals today just use subtle forms of mind control like they did during the fifties, like brain medication and group therapy. And look at how that's working out!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/ChoSh.jpg

He has crediblity everywhere but Amerikaa. Freud's biology was ecological. Your's is capitalist scientific, there is a difference you know!!! Look out your window for christs' sake, and see human society as it really is, not as your textbooks say.

[FireFry]

And while I'm in the spirit; a tribute to our memory of Freud..

http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lg2564+whats-on-a-mans-mind-sigmund-freud-poster.jpg

....for whatever remains of that in our post-9/11/2001 giant castration anxiety society. Bush isn't going to take your penis away, sorry. We're psychologically regressive today, people are sitting more than ever, they're not flushing their toilets more than ever, they're masturbating less more than ever, and look at how that's working!! Walk into any public mens bathroom, and you'll find that maybe only 1 out of 4 toilets is flushed, and the one that is the janitor did for them. They're all rotting with shit in them, in a way, it's a reflection of everywhere else. Rotting old shit. As soon as the towers were hit, guess what came back in style? Bell bottoms.

It wasn't that so many people died only maybe 1 in 3 000 Americans did, which isn't a complete devastation, but that the towers were really a phallic symbol of our paternal world that was totally demolished. Some individuals' anxieties were realised, like Rudy Giuliani's, others were only further developed (which is progress!).

Is this the same society that which is capable of a violent revolution??? Only in your wildest dreams, kiddo.

When I first read about Castration Anxiety, I remembered that I used to have dreams where my father secretly cut off my dick when I slept at night and sewed it back on when I woke up the next morning. Of course, Americans don't dream anymore, they're all too busy running in circles shoving caffeine and marijuana in their body and caught in a repitition complex to be cured. All they remember of their parents is their anxieties of their parents, not their parents' characters.

This is why the current Amerikaan election is really funny, because election is basically a euphemism for erection. Hehe. A woman...with an erection...??

ONLY IN BIZARRO LAND. :laugh:

[FireFry]

hey, what the hell, you fucks deleted my image. FUCK OFF YOU FEMINAZIS.

[FireFry]

oops, forgot the image.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/430062/2/istockphoto_430062_middle_finger.jpg

[STI]

That's because it was ruled in 1982 that insurance companies didn't have to pay out psychoanalytical bills. Instead, mental hospitals today just use subtle forms of mind control like they did during the fifties, like brain medication and group therapy.

Research psychologists stopped using Freud to guide their work long before 1982. He'd long since fallen out of relevance, and only the "Neo-Freudians" take him even marginally seriously.

There's moe to the mental health field than meds and group therapy. Ever heard of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy?


And look at how that's working out!!It'll take more than a picture to convince me that the V-Tech massacre (or any of the others) is the result of psychotherapy no longer being covered by insurance companies.


He has crediblity everywhere but Amerikaa.Like? What researchers ground their work in Freudian theory?


Freud's biology was ecological. Your's is capitalist scientific, there is a difference you know!!!I hadn't even mentioned biology. Care to elabourate on the difference?


Look out your window for christs' sake, and see human society as it really is, not as your textbooks say.When I look out my window, I do it without using the lens of an unfalsifiable collection of speculations. What am I missing?

[FireFry]

I hadn't even mentioned biology. Care to elabourate on the difference?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Humans are animals, you know!!!!

DUHRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..................... .............

[Herman]

hey, what the hell, you fucks deleted my image. FUCK OFF YOU FEMINAZIS.

Feminazis?

[STI]

Look out your window for christs' sake, and see human society as it really is, not as your textbooks say.One can't help but wonder whether the ratio of unflushed toilets to total toilets is higher now than it was before 9/11.


As soon as the towers were hit, guess what came back in style? Bell bottoms.Actually, Bell Bottoms came back in the late 90s. In the couple years following 9/11, 70s retro-chic was in. Then, it's 80s retro-chic, and now we're inching into 90s retro-chic. I think this phenomenon is better explained as a symptom of a fashion industry running out of ideas than as a function of mass regression.



It wasn't that so many people died only maybe 1 in 3 000 Americans did, which isn't a complete devastation, but that the towers were really a phallic symbol of our paternal world that was totally demolished. It wasn't that the towers were a phallic symbol, it was that American home soil hadn't been attacked since the War of 1812.



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Humans are animals, you know!!!!

DUHRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..................... .............

I was referring to the difference between "Ecological biology" and "Capitalist scientific biology". Biologically speaking, humans are animals. Psychologically, there's a difference.



Is this the same society that which is capable of a violent revolution??? Only in your wildest dreams, kiddo.Right now, at this moment, American society (or rather, the people living in it) don't appear capable of proletarian revolution... but that's a phenomenon better understood as a function of widespread reactionary attitudes and insufficient technological development.

You seem to have begun self-destructing here. Have a smoke ("just a cigar", promise), clear your head, and come back when you can contribute more than unfounded assertions, jpegs, and rants.

[Raúl Duke]

Well...ignored my post except for a small bit...but I see that STI does have a background in psychology that's probably better than mine so I'll leave it to him.

So, I'll just mention a few arguments over somethings that were said:

Actually Freud has no relevance to psychology anywhere in the world (except in some clinical practices).

To STI, I myself have mention other alternatives therapies to psychoanalysis such as CBT, I think, but was ignored. Also, someone mention that one day they might make a revolutionary psychology theory. Well, they already have something quite like that called Critical Psychology.

[Dros]

Will someone delete this thread please?:glare:

[STI]

Sorry for having not followed up on your mention of Critical Psychology earlier, Johnny Darko. I read the wikipedia article, and it seems pretty cool ("This inattention to power has resulted in conventional psychology tending to assume that how things are is how they should be, that the current state of affairs is the natural state of things", "Systematic examination of how some varieties of psychological action and experience are privileged over others, how dominant accounts of ‘psychology’ operate ideologically and in the service of power", and "Study of the ways in which all varieties of psychology are culturally historically constructed, and how alternative varieties of psychology may confirm or resist ideological assumptions in mainstream models" especially).

I'll probably end up getting a book on it and reading it through the summer (have to pwn this semester, not so much time for personal reading). Big thanks for the referrence.

Heh, two days back on RevLeft and my life is already being impacted again.:D

I fuckin' love this place.

[Dimentio]

Will someone delete this thread please?:glare:

Never, it is history.

[Raúl Duke]

Sorry for having not followed up on your mention of Critical Psychology earlier, Johnny Darko. I read the wikipedia article, and it seems pretty cool ("This inattention to power has resulted in conventional psychology tending to assume that how things are is how they should be, that the current state of affairs is the natural state of things", "Systematic examination of how some varieties of psychological action and experience are privileged over others, how dominant accounts of ‘psychology’ operate ideologically and in the service of power", and "Study of the ways in which all varieties of psychology are culturally historically constructed, and how alternative varieties of psychology may confirm or resist ideological assumptions in mainstream models" especially).

I'll probably end up getting a book on it and reading it through the summer (have to pwn this semester, not so much time for personal reading). Big thanks for the referrence.

Heh, two days back on RevLeft and my life is already being impacted again.:D

I fuckin' love this place.

No problem comrade! I like it when I do something that is helpful. (my problem was actually because I mention some arguments like yours earlier but firefly ignored them, instead for a little bit, and yet answered yours. This isn't really much of a problem since I suppose you are more knowledgeable in psychology than me, I'm only a AP student {although, I could say, one of the best in my AP class :cool:}, and can argue more knowledgeably than me. It's just that I'm developing recently this slightly paranoia that people in revleft ignore what I say purposely...but it's really just an irrational feeling I should get over with soon.)

I myself should consider getting a book too (although don't know which) since I plan to get into (academic; as in doing research for university. Not planning into clinical practice ) psychology.

What's interesting is that one of the authors (Issac P;sorry I don't remember the last name) is a professor in UM here in Miami where there aren't many "critical" people, if you know what I mean. I think he wrote an intro text.

[Dean]

There's always resistance to new psychological ideas.

Then tell me, why else do workers allow their bosses to treat them like shit? If you visit a sweatshop, in say, China or Taiwan, you'll find that bosses are very parent-like distributing punishments and rewards to good and bad workers. I'm not talking about dingy petty-bourgois restaurant labor or anything like that, I'm not about trained, sometimes skilled labor. And these workers have no parent figure around at all.

First off, the bosses I've dealt with have never acted like fathers or mothers. In fact, my current boss is a joke.

Secondly, most parents who dole out punishment and reward as if it were parenting are goddamn fools. That is something common to all irrational authority, but most healthy families are absent of distinct reward / punishment systems. Healthy families tend to humanize the relationship between parent and child, which invariably destroys any rigid system of punishment and reward, and removes any acceptable way to maintain authority. Parents, when good, are always striving to remove the dependance their children have of them. They don't seek punishment, but education, which will allow the children to grow past the need for guidance. This is contradictory to the job of a manager, who necessarily tries to maintain power and keep workers ignorant of their rights and capabilities to work without them.