Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Post
  • Reply
Moon Atari
Dec 26, 2010



Canned Ferret

mr_gay_sex_fan posted:

Can any psych majors chime in on this topic? Is this stuff taught in college now?

From the description it sounds like he has arranged a bunch of very well known stuff about heuristic biases, noncognitive processes, and rumination being bad into some sort of a narrative argument that might be useful for self development. It seems like it would probably be extremely obvious stuff for any student of psychology, but might still be an interestingly articulated collection of ideas.

The bit about Freud's ideas about the unconscious dominating is far more relevant to philosophy majors than psychology. For a very long time now psychology has only cared about Freud in a historic sense, for teaching lessons about the development of the field and philosophy of science. Modern psych is mostly dominated by the combined philosophies of cognitivism, behaviourism, and neurobiology: all three of which contain reactions to and rejections of Freud's ideas, as well as each other. Whereas philosophy majors will still argue that Freud is useful for introspection and self knowledge, often with such conviction that they explicitly reject all developments post-Freud.

The "adaptive" part of the title suggests that it will probably make some reference to the pop psychology interpretation of neural plasticity, which is an extremely popular topic in all pop psych of the last decade or so. Or maybe it will be about environmental and experiential influences.

I'm not sure why you would find any of it disturbing rather than mildly interesting unless you are unusually dedicated to psychological introspection.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Moon Atari
Dec 26, 2010



Canned Ferret

mr_gay_sex_fan posted:

Because the implication is that the thinking self just rationalizes decisions and motivations made at a deeper level.

Well, yeah. It should be obvious that pure cognition doesn't rule human behaviour. If it did we probably would act at least a little more rational. Even just looking on the level of internal experience we are actually consciously aware of you can see that affect often precedes cognition, or interferes with or contradicts it. But it isn't like cognition is just a passive slave to the unconscious. Both interact with one another. To some extent thought can change deeper level stuff, or ignore the commands of that stuff.

That being said there are more or less infinite unconscious processes influencing behaviour in unknown ways. Things like attentional and memory biases can take effect at the level of basic perception, literally selecting the sensory information you receive, not just what you do with it.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply