General introduction to the progression of psychology

[Singu]

This is a very pertinent introduction to the general progression of the history of psychology (psychoanalysis -> behaviorism -> cognitive psychology), as well as a very interesting introduction to how the belief of self-efficacy works:



1. Psychoanalysis (Freudian, Jungian, etc) (1900's~1930's):

"Explains" the motivation behind the behavior, but can't actually predict anything due to all the explanations being made after the fact.

2. Behaviorism (1920's~1960's):

Study of behaviors and behaviors alone. Can predict behaviors, but doesn't explain what's going on inside of the mind.

3. Cognitive psychology (1960's~now):

Takes the best of both worlds, explains predictable behaviors via cognitive explanations. Takes empirical and testable approach. A certain kind of cognition is what causes certain behaviors. Real causality.

Self-efficacy: A simple theory that your belief in something is what will create the result. A kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Backed up by statistical data and evidence.

Example: Telling people a lie that they can quit smoking, is way more effective than telling the truth that it's very difficult to quit smoking (say, only the top 5% can actually quit). This actually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, where if they were told that only 5% can quit, then only around 5% actually quit. But if they were told the lie that they can quit, then the number becomes 60%.

So the lie becomes the truth.

[hatchback176]

There isn't any progress until Cognitive Psychology can causally explain how Jung and Freud were able to make their correct observations that were later substantiated. You can't claim victory for investigating phenomenon unrelated to the original events.

[Chae]

Tremendously like threads like these
@hatchback176 Which ones of Freud's observations do you refer to in particular?

[hatchback176]

OK...

[Singu]

History of "personality theories".

Namely:

1. Trait theory ("Big 5", etc)
2. Social-cognitive theory



It seems that the weaknesses of a trait theory is that:

1. It's less reliable under specific situations and in different settings (e.g. an "aggressive" person may not be aggressive in certain situations).
2. Traits not may regulate behavior. Physical sameness in appearance, speech, and expressive behavior can sway impressions of consistency although the person's actions are variable. People simply act differently under different circumstances.
4. It has no explanation of how the mind works, as it is more concerned with its predictive utility.
5. Can only "predict" behaviors under very limited set of traits.
6. Self-reports are less reliable.

The bottom line is, PEOPLE ACT DIFFERENTLY UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES, regardless of their traits. It would be better to find out how people act under different circumstances, than trying to find out how people act consistently no matter what the circumstance.

[Singu]

That description of self-efficacy is a bit of a vast over-simplification... so here's one in a bit more detail:



And here's one in even greater detail:



Knowing about self-efficacy will CHANGE your life!

[Singu]

Well, perhaps Freud was right about "defense mechanisms" like rationalizations, but he was wrong to attribute all of it to something sexual (Oedipus complex, penis-envy etc.). He was also right that our thoughts are mostly unconscious, and it was mostly the unconscious that influenced our behavior (again, he was wrong to attribute most of it to something sexual or childhood history).

I don't know what Jung was right about, maybe things like extroversion and introversion. I think things like "functions" are a bit too vague and broad to be useful.

[ouronis]

Well, perhaps Freud was right about "defense mechanisms" like rationalizations, but he was wrong to attribute all of it to something sexual (Oedipus complex, penis-envy etc.). He was also right that our thoughts are mostly unconscious, and it was mostly the unconscious that influenced our behavior (again, he was wrong to attribute most of it to something sexual or childhood history).

I don't know what Jung was right about, maybe things like extroversion and introversion. I think things like "functions" are a bit too vague and broad to be useful.

Jung's thing was that Freud was right, except it had roots in more than just sex. And then he tried to explain why, and how he saw it, and in doing so create an ecosystem of his own claims related to the workings of the unconscious.

Specific claims other than that, can't recall.