RIP School Survival Forums
August 2001 - June 2017

The School Survival Forums are permanently retired. If you need help with quitting school, unsupportive parents or anything else, there is a list of resources on the Help Page.

If you want to write about your experiences in school, you can write on our blog.

To everyone who joined these forums at some point, and got discouraged by the negativity and left after a while (or even got literally scared off): I'm sorry.

I wasn't good enough at encouraging people to be kinder, and removing people who refuse to be kind. Encouraging people is hard, and removing people creates conflict, and I hate conflict... so that's why I wasn't better at it.

I was a very, very sensitive teen. The atmosphere of this forum as it is now, if it had existed in 1996, would probably have upset me far more than it would have helped.

I can handle quite a lot of negativity and even abuse now, but that isn't the point. I want to help people. I want to help the people who need it the most, and I want to help people like the 1996 version of me.

I'm still figuring out the best way to do that, but as it is now, these forums are doing more harm than good, and I can't keep running them.

Thank you to the few people who have tried to understand my point of view so far. I really, really appreciate you guys. You are beautiful people.

Everyone else: If after everything I've said so far, you still don't understand my motivations, I think it's unlikely that you will. We're just too different. Maybe someday in the future it might make sense, but until then, there's no point in arguing about it. I don't have the time or the energy for arguing anymore. I will focus my time and energy on people who support me, and those who need help.

-SoulRiser

The forums are mostly read-only and are in a maintenance/testing phase, before being permanently archived. Please use this time to get the contact details of people you'd like to keep in touch with. My contact details are here.

Please do not make a mirror copy of the forums in their current state - things will still change, and some people have requested to be able to edit or delete some of their personal info.


Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Shadow Projection/Integration
Author Message
Æternas Offline
Rebel

Posts: 11
Joined: Jun 2013
Thanks: 28
Given 5 thank(s) in 4 post(s)
Post: #1
Shadow Projection/Integration

What are your thoughts on this?

Jung considered it the part of our self that we try to hide from others and ourselves. Our "dark side" that we disown and project onto others. Everything that you hate or don't accept about yourself or others gets repressed or pushed into this part.

For example: Catholic priests that take vows of celibacy and preach that sex (between consensual, but not married, people) is evil while molesting little boys and girls. Or even an empathic person that doesn't recognize the times where they are capable of showing a lack of empathy and feels hatred toward those who are unable or unwilling to empathize.

It may be considered 'pseudo-science' or clap-trap by some, but those who are willing to put the work in to integrate this part of themselves have benefited by it, regardless of what is thought of the person who was the originator of the idea or theory. Science is always changing and it's not "all there is", nor has it been able to account for everything as of yet, particularly with regard to the mind.
(This post was last modified: 06-15-2013 08:34 PM by Æternas.)
06-09-2013 02:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Potato Offline
Pariah

Posts: 673
Joined: Nov 2012
Thanks: 91
Given 64 thank(s) in 50 post(s)
Post: #2
Shadow Projection/Integration

what just happened?...
06-09-2013 08:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Desu Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 2,109
Joined: May 2009
Thanks: 165
Given 339 thank(s) in 182 post(s)
Post: #3
Shadow Projection/Integration

This thread went to shit so here's a very good Panty & Stocking cosplay I just saw

http://i.imgur.com/lZNE6Kw.jpg

RIP GORE GOROTH

He was an hero. He will always be remembered.
06-09-2013 08:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
xcriteria Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 3,090
Joined: Oct 2005
Thanks: 814
Given 930 thank(s) in 612 post(s)
Post: #4
Shadow Projection/Integration

What happened here? I was working on a response. I think there's something to the concept of the shadow and psychological projection, as well as the benefits of integrating one's self into a more coherent whole. That not sound "scientific," but in fact there's a lot of science behind it.

RationalWiki's coverage of the topic shows that those with a skeptical mind can appreciate the concept:

Projection is the psychological phenomenon where someone denies some aspect of their behavior or attitudes and assumes instead that everyone else is doing or thinking so instead. It is usually seen as the externalisation of a person's negative traits, placing blame on an outside force such as the environment, a government, a society or other people.

Wikipedia's article Psychological projection goes into more detail. The "shadow" is basically Carl Jung's term for those unrecognized aspects of self.

In short, people are complex, and have multiple sides to themselves. There are certainly unconscious mental processes, and it's possible to live a lie, or be out of touch with parts of one's self.

It's also possible to become more conscious, including by integrating the contents and processes of one's mind. It's very common for people to hate others with unusual intensity, for example, when part of the source of this is an unresolved, unrecognized aspect of their self.

This is a complex topic, but here are some related videos:

This video from neuroscientist David Eagleman establishes that people do have different sides (including different neural circuits) [3m]:



Watch on YouTube

People also tend to maintain inner contradictions, even to the point of hypocrisy. This is something that can be very difficult to confront. The whole idea of shadow integration is to look for those conflicting parts and become more conscious of yourself as a whole.

Here, psychologist Robert Kurzban, explains the book he wrote about human hypocrisy [5m]:


Watch on YouTube

Here, Dan Siegel talks about integration as a source of psychological well-being [13m]:


Watch on YouTube

It takes some effort to make sense of the implications of these ideas, and a desire to do so. Carl Jung made the shadow a big part of his theory of the psyche, right along side his ideas on temperament that were later developed into Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

The idea of MBTI is that people have some mental functions that are stronger and more natural to them than others. But what about those functions that aren't one's strengths? Those tend to be part of one's shadow, or rejected, undifferentiated, and mostly unconscious parts of one's self. For example, someone who is a strong Feeling type may be resistant to being analytical, and see evil in people who are analytical. Likewise, someone who is a strong Thinking type may see evil in anything that seems like pseudoscience or mysticism. But in both cases, there's a reason to step back and develop and integrate different sides of one's self into a coherent whole.

All of this depends on the idea that the brain is a dynamic process, and that people can grow, change, and develop. The science of neuroplasticity, and many people's experiences, shows that this is, in fact, possible.

This video from psychiatrist Norman Doidge [8m] hits on that topic of neuroplasticity and its implications for human nature:


Watch on YouTube

Does that make sense to anyone? Or not? Thoughts/questions?
06-09-2013 11:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
brainiac3397 Offline
Machiavellian Amoeba

Posts: 9,823
Joined: Feb 2013
Thanks: 20
Given 1983 thank(s) in 1428 post(s)
Post: #5
Shadow Projection/Integration

I was planning a response as well. Course, I still intend to post a response.

Personality DNA Report
(06-14-2013 08:02 AM)Potato Wrote:  watch the fuq out, we've got an "intellectual" over here.

Hidden stuff:
[Image: watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme-240x180.png]
Brainiac3397's Mental Health Status Log Wrote:[Image: l0Iy5HKskJO5XD3Wg.gif]
06-09-2013 12:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Potato Offline
Pariah

Posts: 673
Joined: Nov 2012
Thanks: 91
Given 64 thank(s) in 50 post(s)
Post: #6
Shadow Projection/Integration

op deleted all of his posts and i deleted all of my responses to them.

Quote:That not sound "scientific," but in fact there's a lot of science behind it.

RationalWiki's coverage of the topic shows that those with a skeptical mind can appreciate the concept:

just because rationwiki has a coverage of it doesn't make it science.

Quote:Carl Jung made the shadow a big part of his theory of the psyche, right along side his ideas on temperament that were later developed into Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

carl jung was a clueless superstitious nut who didn't know what the fuq he was talking about and didn't bother with doing science. he sat on his ass, thought about some astrology and shit, and made up some bs about shadow and what ppl's dreams mean and all kinds of pure nonsense. he has no credibility, his theories have no basis in any kind of experimental data, ppl need to stop taking him seriously.
06-09-2013 05:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
xcriteria Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 3,090
Joined: Oct 2005
Thanks: 814
Given 930 thank(s) in 612 post(s)
Post: #7
Shadow Projection/Integration

(06-09-2013 05:50 PM)Potato Wrote:  
Quote:That not sound "scientific," but in fact there's a lot of science behind it.

RationalWiki's coverage of the topic shows that those with a skeptical mind can appreciate the concept:

just because rationwiki has a coverage of it doesn't make it science.

Fair enough. So, what makes something science?

(06-09-2013 05:50 PM)Potato Wrote:  
Quote:Carl Jung made the shadow a big part of his theory of the psyche, right along side his ideas on temperament that were later developed into Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

carl jung was a clueless superstitious nut who didn't know what the fuq he was talking about and didn't bother with doing science. he sat on his ass, thought about some astrology and shit, and made up some bs about shadow and what ppl's dreams mean and all kinds of pure nonsense. he has no credibility, his theories have no basis in any kind of experimental data, ppl need to stop taking him seriously.
[/quote]

Why all the negative, ad hominem labels? Jung did a huge amount of research, interacted with a large number of patients, and did a lot of introspection. Some of his ideas may be strange, but that doesn't mean they are all nonsense.

For example, Jung's theory of psychological type, or temperament, has neuroscience and quite a lot of behavioral evidence to support it. What are your thoughts on Myers-Briggs? Why?

Next, what are your thoughts on other psychologists and psychological theories and concepts?

What do you think of the ideas discussed in the above videos?

Peter Gray & allies launching the Alliance for Self-directed Education

ASDE Newsletters: #1 Announcement | #2 History of ASDE | #6 Education Liberation


School Survival & Catalyst Learning Network featured on AlternativestoSchool's blog
“Mom, Dad, can I stop going to school?”

Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking when the Stakes are High

Hidden stuff:
06-10-2013 12:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: SoulRiser , Æternas
Potato Offline
Pariah

Posts: 673
Joined: Nov 2012
Thanks: 91
Given 64 thank(s) in 50 post(s)
Post: #8
Shadow Projection/Integration

Quote:Fair enough. So, what makes something science?
scientific theories are falsifiable and rely on agreement with experimentation.

Quote:Why all the negative, ad hominem labels?
i'm going ad hominem because the entire basis of these "shadow" theory claims is: "carl jung interacted with some patients and did some introspections and came to this conclusion" that's what aristotle did with physics, he did some introspection and got everything wrong. there is no data to dispute because none has been gathered. jung never bothered with science- at least as far as i can tell from ppl who propagate his ideas without ever referencing any data or statistics.

Quote:What are your thoughts on Myers-Briggs? Why?
the test results are unfalsifiable and unobjective, but easily predictable and manipulable. "you like to stand in the center of a room" *clicks no* "introvert 88%" oh what an insight.

Quote:Next, what are your thoughts on other psychologists and psychological theories and concepts?

this is real psychology:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks...sions.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_o..._code.html

that's someone doing studies and shit, not just putting out crazy conclusions and telling ppl to take his word for it because his introspection is correct because he says so.

Quote:This video from neuroscientist David Eagleman establishes that people do have different sides (including different neural circuits) [3m]
the brain is obviously a network of networks of circuits (it's not a battery and a light bulb), and everyone has experienced conflicting thoughts (and so do computers -*try to close a program, get an error, try to force quit, quits after several secs* competing programs ultimately result in a single behavior, exactly like the human mind.) but he didn't take the word "shadow," misdefine it, and then make up some shit about ppl seeing it in their dreams as a person of specifically the dreamer's gender.

Quote:Here, Dan Siegel talks about integration as a source of psychological well-being
that's someone blabbing like a modern carl jung expecting ppl to just take his word for it because as an introspective person, he thought about it before reaching a conclusion, so we all better believe what he says. scientific data is for ppl who can't introspect, right?
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2013 02:50 AM by Potato.)
06-10-2013 02:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
xcriteria Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 3,090
Joined: Oct 2005
Thanks: 814
Given 930 thank(s) in 612 post(s)
Post: #9
Shadow Projection/Integration

tl;dr: This is a point-by-point response to Potato's comments. It's really long, but hopefully it's thought-provoking. Taken one section at a time it should be readable if you have some time. Despite its length, I am trying to have a conversation here.

(06-10-2013 02:47 AM)Potato Wrote:  
Quote:Fair enough. So, what makes something science?
scientific theories are falsifiable and rely on agreement with experimentation.

Ok. One consideration here is that some areas of inquiry are harder to do this with than others. For example, the physical sciences are pretty open to falsifiability and experimentation. Even there, the theories people come up with can limit or guide what they look for.

When it comes to the social sciences, psychology, and learning science, experimentation is still possible, but things like individual differences, life experience, people's assumptions, motivation, and culture make things harder. One approach some people take is to assume human beings can't be understood, that the mind can't be understood, and that it isn't even worth trying.

That shuts down inquiry and investigation. Science is ultimately closely interrelated with the process of achieving knowledge and understanding. It's possible to actually be ignorant in the name of science by letting inquiry be shut down.

Scientists that make breakthroughs in science often use imagination and even introspection as part of the process. That doesn't mean any theory someone dreams up is going to be accurate, but it's part of the process of making sense of the world.

(06-10-2013 02:47 AM)Potato Wrote:  
Quote:Why all the negative, ad hominem labels?
i'm going ad hominem because the entire basis of these "shadow" theory claims is: "carl jung interacted with some patients and did some introspections and came to this conclusion" that's what aristotle did with physics, he did some introspection and got everything wrong. there is no data to dispute because none has been gathered. jung never bothered with science- at least as far as i can tell from ppl who propagate his ideas without ever referencing any data or statistics.

Two parts to this:

First part

One is evaluating Jung's ideas themselves, including how he came up with them. That means unpacking a few epistemological questions:

- can one acquire knowledge by interacting with people, observing them, looking at the things they draw, write, and say, creating case histories of them, and following their development over time?

- can one acquire knowledge by introspection... by reflecting on past memories, one's states of mind, one's motives, one's feelings, one's beliefs, and one's knowledge? can, over time, these instances of introspection and explanations of them be examined as evidence of mental processes themselves?

- can one learn things by studying large bodies of output of the human mind -- including mythology, religion, literature, art, and philosophy, and looking for patterns and explanations in them?

- do seemingly spiritual or mystical practices have anything to do with observable brain function and change?

(...all of this and more are topics to discuss in further depth elsewhere. They blend right into the discussion about testing and assessment in education as well as mental health.)

Second part

The second issue you mentioned has to do with people who have picked up Jung's ideas. Many of those people take the mystical side of things very far, but Jung himself had a lot more of a scientific mindset much of the time. Many Jungian followers dispense completely with the mindset and approaches he used to develop his ideas in the first place.

Keep in mind that Jung worked at a particular point in history, including the history of psychology, as did Aristotle. Just because someone is wrong about some things, or particular people cherry pick their ideas and go haywire with them, doesn't mean everything they say is complete nonsense.

In general, it's helpful to interpret what people think and say in the context of history, including the ideas that came before them and the ideas popular in their fields -- even within sciences. One of the biggest flaws in most education, as I see it, is how this rarely happens. Ideas are taught in isolation, without showing historical context. There's more to Jung's story than many people are familiar with -- for example, his early work examining the delusions and word associations of psychotic patients who had been left to rot in insane asylums, his collaboration and dramatic break with Freud over the dogmatic over-simplicity of Freud's theory, and so on. But even Freud did come up with some ideas that aren't complete nonsense.

(06-10-2013 02:47 AM)Potato Wrote:  
Quote:What are your thoughts on Myers-Briggs? Why?
the test results are unfalsifiable and unobjective, but easily predictable and manipulable. "you like to stand in the center of a room" *clicks no* "introvert 88%" oh what an insight.

Evaluating Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Granted, many of the Myers-Briggs tests on the web are extremely simplistic. They've been criticized on that basis, and there is a difference between taking one of those tests and developing an understanding of MBTI theory and understanding people as more than just "types," but as consisting of a whole set of inner parts, some of which are preferred in a given person.

Here's one Youtuber who does Myers-Briggs videos ripping apart the superficial tests:



Watch on YouTube

Some of those tests can give a rough indication, but they can also be wrong. Another aspect of type is that as people develop their "shadow" functions, they'll grow and their brain activation will be different. (Yes, there's that term again.')

See the talk I linked on the Look at me, not out the window thread, where Jane Kise explains her own research using video cameras and Dario Nardi's EEG research on type. Here he explains the EEG side of things:



Watch on YouTube

There really are objective, observable correlations between a person's well-established MBTI type and (1) brain science, (2) personal observation, (3) observable behavior. Does everyone fit perfectly into one type? Not necessarily. Are there many other factors that can affect brain function, conscious experience, and behavior? Absolutely. Those factors include other dimensions of individual differences, life experience, conscious decision-making, and even learning, meditation, and imagination (all which have experimental support -- which leads to some big questions which are great material for further discussion.)

(06-10-2013 02:47 AM)Potato Wrote:  
Quote:Next, what are your thoughts on other psychologists and psychological theories and concepts?

this is real psychology:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks...sions.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_o..._code.html

that's someone doing studies and shit, not just putting out crazy conclusions and telling ppl to take his word for it because his introspection is correct because he says so.[/quotes]

Yeah, Dan Ariely is great. He asks great questions and does experimental research. I recently participated in his Coursera class, A Beginner's Guide to Irrational Behavior, and I've been following his work for a while. His team actually used the class itself to gather experimental data.

I only partly participated in the course, because I'm trying to build a better way to go about learning. Lots of people are offering courses and lectures, but I think there's a better way to put the pieces together.

One of Ariely's announcements during his course featured this paragraph:

Code:
Some of you have expressed dismay at the sparsity of actionable solutions that are offered to you through the field of behavioral economics. The honest truth is, it’s not always clear what recommendations are borne of the results of experimentation, and we simply don’t always have the answers. When you rely solely on empirical evidence, you have to gather quite a bit of data before you can comfortably offer solutions to complex real-world problems.

This is an important point to consider, especially when it comes to applying experimental results to making better decisions in real life, or doing teaching and learning better. I think some of the answers come by linking different disciplines together, and looking for ways to optimize learning experiences.

This short talk from Ariely gets at a fundamental question, and provides a path forward:



Watch on YouTube

Summary and transcript:
Hidden stuff:
(Ariely was badly burned in an accident when he was younger, and went through many treatments. Here he talks about a doctor pushing him to get whiskers tattooed onto the side of his face that can't grow hair, and he resisted.)

"...and then came one of the biggest guilt trips of my life... he said 'Dan, what's wrong with you? Do you enjoy looking nonsymmetric? Do you have some kind of perverted pleasure from this? Do women feel pity for you and have sex with you more frequently?' None of those happened. And this was very surprising to me because there were many treatments I decided not to do, and I never got this guilt trip to this extent. But I decided not to have this treatment, and I went to his deputy and said, 'what is going on? where is this guilt trip coming from?'

And he explained, that they have done this procedure on two patients already, and they needed a third patient for a paper they were writing'" -- he goes on to describe a situation where he was tempted to alter an experiment based on expected results, and continues --

"these stories, and lots of other experiments we've done on conflicts of interest, basically bring two points to the foreground for me. The first one is that we encounter many people who in some way or another try to tattoo our faces. They just have the incentives that make them blinded to reality and give us advice that is inherently biased. I'm sure that we all understand we all recognize, and see that it happens, understand that it happens. The most difficult thing is the recognize that we, too, are blinding by our incentives, and this is a much more difficult lesson to take into account, because we don't see how conflicts of interest work on us."

"When I was doing these experiments, in my mind, I was helping science, right? I was eliminating data to get the true pattern of the data to shine through. In my mind, I was actually a knight, trying to help science to move along. But this was not the case. I was actually interfering with the process with lots of good intentions. And I think the real challenge is to figure out where are the cases on our lives where conflicts of interest work on us, and try, not to trust not our own intuition to overcome it, but to try to do things that prevent us to falling prey to these behaviors, because we can create lots of undesirable circumstances."

"I do want to leave you with one positive thought... I mean, this is all very depressing, right?, people have conflicts of interest, we don't see it, and so on. The positive perspective is, if we do understand where we go wrong, if we understand the deep mechanisms of why we fail and where we fail, we can actually hope to fix things."

To just provide the conclusion:
"I do want to leave you with one positive thought... I mean, this is all very depressing, right?, people have conflicts of interest, we don't see it, and so on. The positive perspective is, if we do understand where we go wrong, if we understand the deep mechanisms of why we fail and where we fail, we can actually hope to fix things."

So, yes, we can be wrong, self-deceived, and so on. But does this mean acquisition of knowledge and understanding of the mind is impossible? Does it mean imagination, introspection, and self-reflection are completely meaningless endeavors?

[quote='Potato' pid='491174' dateline='1370796464']
Quote:This video from neuroscientist David Eagleman establishes that people do have different sides (including different neural circuits) [3m]
the brain is obviously a network of networks of circuits (it's not a battery and a light bulb), and everyone has experienced conflicting thoughts (and so do computers -*try to close a program, get an error, try to force quit, quits after several secs* competing programs ultimately result in a single behavior, exactly like the human mind.) but he didn't take the word "shadow," misdefine it, and then make up some shit about ppl seeing it in their dreams as a person of specifically the dreamer's gender.

Okay, the reality of inner conflict is a good starting point. This conflict is something that can be introspectively observed at times. It can also be seen by observing a conflicted person, and it can be seen in some form with neuroimaging. How those conflicts get resolved when they're more than superficial links directly into looking at temperament as well as the question of conscious choice, any the "why" behind what people say and do.

In fact, the brain is wired to make sense of the world via story. Including how people weave tales of who should be believed and who shouldn't, how the world works and how it doesn't.

Michael Gazzaniga: Your Storytelling Brain [3m]
Hidden stuff:

(06-10-2013 02:47 AM)Potato Wrote:  but he didn't take the word "shadow," misdefine it, and then make up some shit about ppl seeing it in their dreams as a person of specifically the dreamer's gender.

So, on to the word "shadow," and how Jung used it to describe a psychological concept. This raises the whole subject of definitions, word meaning, and how concepts are formed and used. It's straightforward enough to think about this with concrete objects, but when it comes to psychological phenomena, things can get more complex.

One question in all of that is when it makes sense to "make up" a new concept. Certainly, one can build a metaphysical theory based on mumbo-jumbo, but that doesn't mean everything that feels like ridiculous mumbo-jumbo has nothing to it. Just because something seems strange, foreign, not integrated into a given worldview, doesn't mean it's not true.

However, that puts a burden on anyone trying to make sense of what's true. When you encounter some strange concept like "shadow," how do you even go about deciding if there's anything to it? At first, your sense of "that's sketchy" kicks in. (That in itself is an example of something people can learn to consciously recognize through introspection, and by learning to perceive and give names to psychological states and processes.)

So, is there anything to this concept of shadow?

Based on my understanding of things, there's definitely something to the phenomena Jung was talking about when he developed the term shadow. There *are* parts of people that are not automatically integrated into their sense of who they are, or ego-identity. This includes Jungian/Myers-Briggs mental functions that aren't dominant -- and which relate to real neural circuits and observable brain activity (see below.) What Jung described as the shadow also includes memories that people may not have processed and integrated into their sense of self.

Unprocessed memories

In general, everyone has things they've done or experienced that run counter to their conscious sense of identity, of "who I am" and "who I am not." Sometimes these are just anomalous occurrences, but sometimes they're recurring patterns. Sometimes people are conscious of these conflicts -- but the less-desirable, less-comfortable, foreign and perhaps intriguing parts of one's self are what Jung meant by the Shadow.

Is there nothing to any of those ideas?

This concept has been explored in literature and music... for example Billy Joel's song The Stranger :

"Well we all have a face
That we hide away forever
And we take them out and show ourselves
When everyone has gone"

Of course, just because something's woven into a story or a song doesn't make it real, but there's a reason people put certain things into lyrics and a lot of people relate to them for a reason. That's something to apply science to, as well -- which Jung tried to do in his time, but which can be done in new ways in the modern world.

(For example, TV Tropes: Shadow Archetype.)

"Character-wise, it's the part of the personality that embodies everything a character, called the 'Self', doesn't like about themselves, the things they deny and project on to others. To show these things to the audience we need an embodiment of some sort. Around here, we call some of those embodiments things like..." (read more.)

Jung's process and the Big Questions

One of Jung's major activities was digging deep into comparative mythology, looking for patterns and common themes in myths and art across cultures and throughout history. He took this background and looked at people's dreams and artistic output, including his patients and himself.

One of the questions he addressed was whether there are innate, archetypal structures in the psyche, that give rise to the common patterns he observed in these various sources. The complete opposite view is that people are born as blank slates, and their minds are purely a product of what they take in from parents, culture, education, and inquiry.

That's a big discussion, but certainly, Jung didn't just cook up some random mumbo-jumbo, he was asking Big Questions and looking for answers. Many of his followers don't ask those questions, especially not to the depth they can be explored now, with neuroscience and so on.

Michael Gazzinaga referenced that pattern of avoiding analysis of the mysterious in the video I linked above. Dan Siegel challenges that avoidance, as well. But likewise, many who study neuroscience have avoided asking the big questions, and shut down any discussion of the mind as more than purely mechanistic. Either approach is one-sided folly, in my book.

(06-10-2013 02:47 AM)Potato Wrote:  
Quote:Here, Dan Siegel talks about integration as a source of psychological well-being
that's someone blabbing like a modern carl jung expecting ppl to just take his word for it because as an introspective person, he thought about it before reaching a conclusion, so we all better believe what he says. scientific data is for ppl who can't introspect, right?

Siegel does have some overlap with Jung in some of what he says. However, what he says is based on a large amount of research, as well as working with patients and yes, introspection. People shouldn't believe what someone says just because they say it, but at the same time, it doesn't make sense to write people off as having nothing to say just because they are "like" someone else or some people interpret them in a certain way.

Siegel is big on scientific data as well as personal experience, other people's accounts, and yes, introspection. He helps patients and people in general learn to introspect and engage in mindfulness practices like meditation. These techniques have been scientifically demonstrated to help people improve their mental function and quality of life, and change their brain in the process. (Mindfulness Meditation: How It Works In The Brain) People's self-reports of their experience count as data and evidence, do they not? They're evidence of something, they're produced by the mind, and even when they're wrong, it's possible to look at why and where they come from.

The question then becomes how to interpret that evidence. Ultimately, that question applies to any learning one engages in, how one spends one's time, how one interprets videos, posts on the web, and so on.

Conclusions

Again, introspection, feelings, beliefs, ideas can be misguided or completely wrong, but all of that can be part of an iterative process toward figuring out what is real, including with one's own inner motives, conflicts, and states of mind.

Here's another talk on integration... from a the standpoint of thinking like a detective -- also part of the scientific process:

Maria Konnikova: Unclutter Your Brain Attic Like Sherlock Holmes

Peter Gray & allies launching the Alliance for Self-directed Education

ASDE Newsletters: #1 Announcement | #2 History of ASDE | #6 Education Liberation


School Survival & Catalyst Learning Network featured on AlternativestoSchool's blog
“Mom, Dad, can I stop going to school?”

Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking when the Stakes are High

Hidden stuff:
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2013 09:16 AM by xcriteria.)
06-10-2013 07:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: SoulRiser , Æternas
Potato Offline
Pariah

Posts: 673
Joined: Nov 2012
Thanks: 91
Given 64 thank(s) in 50 post(s)
Post: #10
Shadow Projection/Integration

i'm just going to make the point that i think is most important because responding to your entire post would take too long.
for a claim to be verifiable and unambiguous, it must be falsifiable. a claim that does not clearly distinguish between the conditions which would arise from it being true and the conditions which would arise from it being untrue- is unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Jung's theory of shadow projection is too vague to be verifiable.

an example of a verifiable claim in psychology might be- the size of thread posts correlates inversely with the likelihood of having over half of its content read. the prediction made by this claim is testable- you can get a few subjects and ask them to read through any amount of a thread they like, and track their eyes to measure how much of each post was read. if the resulting data (or combined data, if it was done multiple times) showed that the correlation didn't exist, then the claim would be falsified in its unmodified version without any additional data.

a simple claim that one has engaged in introspection is not evidence that one is right. so stop bringing it up
06-15-2013 04:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoulRiser Offline
Site Founder

Posts: 18,240
Joined: Aug 2001
Thanks: 2674
Given 1978 thank(s) in 1208 post(s)
Post: #11
Shadow Projection/Integration

Being right isn't everything, sometimes being interesting is more important. It's precisely the ambiguous things that can be the most interesting things to think about and look into. Who cares if it's right or not? Maybe after studying it further there will even be something verifiable about it. Or not. But that shouldn't stop a person from thinking about something (just because it can't be proven either way).

"If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them." - Dalai Lama
Help & Support - Get help with leaving school, unsupportive parents, and more.
Click here if school makes you depressed or suicidal

Support School Survival on Patreon or Donate Bitcoin Here: 1Q5WCcxWjayniaL92b8GfXBiGdfjmnUNa2
"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." - André Paul Guillaume Gide
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination." - Albert Einstein
"I'm pretty sure there's a lot of beauty that can only be found in the mind of a lunatic." - TheCancer
EIPD - Emotionally Incompetent Parent Disorder

Push Button for Collection of Useful Links:
Hidden stuff:
06-15-2013 05:59 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: Æternas
xcriteria Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 3,090
Joined: Oct 2005
Thanks: 814
Given 930 thank(s) in 612 post(s)
Post: #12
Shadow Projection/Integration

Potato Wrote:for a claim to be verifiable and unambiguous, it must be falsifiable. a claim that does not clearly distinguish between the conditions which would arise from it being true and the conditions which would arise from it being untrue- is unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Jung's theory of shadow projection is too vague to be verifiable.

There's no way to discover anything new without exploring things that aren't totally 100% proven.

Defense Mechanisms: Neuroscience Meets Psychoanalysis

Quote:Advances in technologies such as functional magnetic resonance imaging permit scientists to directly measure brain activity. This ability has led to a revival and reconceptualization of key psychoanalytic concepts, based on the idea of inner forces outside our awareness that influence our behavior. According to psychodynamic theory, unconscious dynamic processes defensively remove anxiety-provoking thoughts and impulses from consciousness in response to our conflicting attitudes. The processes that keep unwanted thoughts from entering consciousness are known as defense mechanisms and include repression, suppression and dissociation.

So, what would it take to prove or disprove the existence of these phenomena? Scapegoating is closely related to the idea of shadow projection.

Quote: Scapegoated groups throughout history have included almost every imaginable group of people: genders, religions, people of different races or nations, people with different political beliefs, or people differing in behaviour from the majority. However, scapegoating may also be applied to organizations, such as governments, corporations, or various political groups.

Projection: Unwanted thoughts and feelings can be unconsciously projected onto another who becomes a scapegoat for one's own problems. This concept can be extended to projection by groups. In this case the chosen individual, or group, becomes the scapegoat for the group's problems. "Political agitation in all countries is full of such projections, just as much as the backyard gossip of little groups and individuals."[3] Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung considered indeed that "there must be some people who behave in the wrong way; they act as scapegoats and objects of interest for the normal ones".

How do you explain this phenomenon? Why do people harshly, passionately hate or obsess over others, while neglecting to "look in the mirror" at their own selves?

A big part of science is about looking at phenomenon that exist, and then looking for explanations. Science is not only about disproving and blocking out any thought about a given phenomenon.

Peter Gray & allies launching the Alliance for Self-directed Education

ASDE Newsletters: #1 Announcement | #2 History of ASDE | #6 Education Liberation


School Survival & Catalyst Learning Network featured on AlternativestoSchool's blog
“Mom, Dad, can I stop going to school?”

Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking when the Stakes are High

Hidden stuff:
06-15-2013 10:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: Æternas
Potato Offline
Pariah

Posts: 673
Joined: Nov 2012
Thanks: 91
Given 64 thank(s) in 50 post(s)
Post: #13
RE: Shadow Projection/Integration

Quote:Being right isn't everything, sometimes being interesting is more important. It's precisely the ambiguous things that can be the most interesting things to think about and look into. Who cares if it's right or not? Maybe after studying it further there will even be something verifiable about it. Or not. But that shouldn't stop a person from thinking about something (just because it can't be proven either way).

i think you get the point- "shadow projection" might be good poetry but it is inadequate as a tool of science, because it fails to describe a criteria for falsification-it does not clearly distinguish between the conditions which would arise from it being true and the conditions which would arise from it being untrue-it "can't be proven either way." i just think people often like to take jung's word for gospel, and it is an appropriate thing to do because his theories are just a mess of incoherent, unscientific ambiguity, e.g. 'A man who is possessed by his shadow is always standing in his own light and falling into his own traps ... living below his own level' uhhhgg vomits* i hate poetry

Quote:There's no way to discover anything new without exploring things that aren't totally 100% proven.

true, but proven is not the same as verifiable, and i'm talking about verifiability, or the potential to be proven. don't give me that red herring

Quote:How do you explain this phenomenon? Why do people harshly, passionately hate or obsess over others, while neglecting to "look in the mirror" at their own selves?

i guess you could make the prediction that higher levels of self-hate correlates to lower rates of reproduction, if you define hate and figure out a way to measure it, that might give you an evolutionary explanation.

anyway, the wikipedia article on shadow opened with two alternative definitions, so that gives you an idea of how vague the whole explanation is, so idk if this is the accepted interpretation: the qualities which one does- but does not like to- possess is attributed to other people. even that is very unspecific and untestable. it might be quasi-testable...

let's pretend that jung was a bit more scientific about it and made a prediction that the more hygienic someone is, the more negative that person would be in evaluating the hygiene of other people. you might be able to somehow measure a person's hygiene and then ask them to kind of grade and evaluate the hygiene of a few other people and see how the two numbers correlate, or something like that. anyway, i think (assume) that the prediction i made up would be falsified, so what i'm saying is that- had jung been scientific, he would have been wrong.

Quote:A big part of science is about looking at phenomenon that exist, and then looking for explanations. Science is not only about disproving and blocking out any thought about a given phenomenon.

"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2013 05:22 PM by Potato.)
06-19-2013 05:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  astral projection and science and experimental processes Guest 13 1,931 02-13-2007 01:29 PM
Last Post: Rebelnerd

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | School Survival | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication