Psychology & Related Debate

I am opening this as a stub to move replies to from a topic that was somewhat derailed, so replies there can remain totally addressed to the OP’s actual situation, while discussion as to the overall value of psychology and related medications etc., can be in a different location.

Please keep posts away from politics, of all types, and provide sources for claims made regarding psychological research and practice where possible.

Also remember that the presumption the person you disagree with is mad, bad, or stupid, degrades the discource and does a disservice to the art of debate, and to your own arguments.

This is the post from which discussion about the overal topic stemmed:

1 Like

The only medicine I might trust comes from a real doctor, not a psychologist. They exist as a mechanism for control over society. Every conspiracy is made up by a schizophrenic psychopath. Everybody that doesn’t think exactly how they’re told to, are sociopaths. All bullshit.

thats a little bit over the top dont you think maybe? I mean im the first to say that most psychologists wasted my money and time, but not all are arrogant pissheads who dont know how to deal with abstract and complex problems

2 Likes

I’d say they’re all delusional fools, exploited by the governments that realize that having these concepts circulate among the public would result in them being able to exploit these concepts so as to better control their populace.

1 Like
2 Likes

Very, very touchy subject. I will always advocate professional help for anyone who feels they need it, not just extreme cases such as Schizophrenia.

That being said, I am going to give a fairly…dangerous answer. Personally, throughout my experience in life both as a mental health patient (a different case entirely but have friends with schizophrenia), a sorcerer, and a nerd who enjoys all things related to culture, the mind and social behavior, I think that everything mentioned here are pieces to the overall cure.

For example, the drugs are meant to lessen symptoms of the disorders, as previously mentioned. Therapy is meant to help strengthen the individual by understanding their triggers and building strategies to combat them. Ritual helps to create the subconscious shift needed to promote change within the individual.

However, on the ritual front, not everyone will be able to do it on their own and could in fact make things worse if not done properly while in an ill state of mind. It is something that would need to be done under supervision and when the individual felt stable enough to do so. But ritual is NOT a substitute for proper care of oneself, whether it is from medicine, therapy or both. These are all keys to open the door and one should not be expected to replace the others.

That is my two cents

8 Likes

and you said it perfectly

3 Likes

Fun fact, Terence McKenna was actually inspired by Carl Jung when he was a child, if I am correct

1 Like

I’m not outraged, I’m pointing out that psychology is at the same stage Chemistry was 700 years ago, not a real science.

So you admit that the drugs you prescribe are useless for the most part? Why not go read this article so as to clearly see the high positive correlation between the propensity for becoming violent and these drugs you’re so proud of your great benevolent peers concocting - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mad-in-america/201101/psychiatric-drugs-and-violence-review-fda-data-finds-link

I think you skimmed over the real point that I was trying to make, that psychology, since it’s in it’s infancy, should not be so popular. The reason for it’s popularity, along with sociology, is so as to create a method of controlling how people think, and silencing dissidents. We both know this is how video games and social media work. They rely on psychological knowledge to make people yearn for their applications.

I’ll also once again, defer you to this article regarding the CIA’s Gateway Process - https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5.pdf

Here’s a great quote: “Consequently, if the left hemisphere can be distracted either through boredom or through reduction to a soporific, semi-sleep state, external stimuli to include hypnotic suggestions are allowed to pass unchallenged into the right hemisphere where they are accepted and acted upon directly.”

In reality you never addressed my main claim, which is that it’s used for a tool to silence and control the public. Why else are conspiracy theories so taboo? Why intentionally put forth the most ludicrous ones so as to deter people from those that have already turned out to be true? Not related to psychology at all. MK Ultra, MK Often, MK Search, don’t even know what it’s branched off into by now, those are the last of it’s trail, but I doubt it’s done.

2 Likes
2 Likes

I do respect Jung, however I think that you are unaware that modern psychology does not. It’s not based on Jungian concepts, and instead consider his theories the ramblings of a madman. I am well aware of his connection the magic and his relationship with Wolfgang Pauli.

Pseudoscience is when someone claims that something is factual without physical proof through scientific means. An example of this would be flat earthers.

Psychology is not a pseudoscience by any stretch of the imagination. It’s recognized as a science of the mind. King Paimon, an expert on the sciences, specializes in psychology.

You say that as if occultists and scientists haven’t done similar things in the past.

All right, I’m not going to bring up the government for forum rule reasons, but I will say this: using the mass shooters in the US as an example is rather ignorant and insensitive.

A lot of shooters who were on medication were off of it when the shootings happened. Furthermore, the motives behind the shootings vary; some had really troubled lives, while others were just monsters.

While medication isn’t for anyone, there are a lot of people whose lives have improved because of it.

Here’s a story I have on that: Depression or Cursed?

2 Likes

For some reason you skimmed over the second post which provided a link that showed the FDA proved that the drugs increased aggression. I don’t have to reply to such a blatantly bias attempt to counter my argument, since you’ve also seemed to skim over the very point I was trying to make.

Since you didn’t do me the courtesy of addressing the point of my two long posts bashing psychology, I won’t do you the courtesy of explaining to you why it’s not a science, instead I’ll rely on links to arguments, maybe you’ll read theirs unlike you did mine.



https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_Psychology_Become_a_Science-Scott_Lilienfeld

Why would research gate be asking if Psychology can become a science if it’s already a science? It doesn’t meet all the criteria, that’s the short of it. The only people who think psychology is a science work as psychologists or sociologists, it’s a bias.

1 Like

That is pretty hard to say, as it appears that modern psychology is still split as it always been between Frued and Jung. There is still an entire section in the field where modern therapists are building on Jung’s work. The freudian approach is far more focused on what you have been discussing, and honestly should be credited for a vast majority of the failures of the field throughout the years, mainly on the patients’ suffering by extreme treatment methods. That being said, he was the first to try to listen to his patients and do something about it other than locking them in asylums.

Personally, I think another big problem in the medical field is that there seems to be a trend of primary care doctors outside of the field of psychiatry are able to prescribe antidepressants or anxiety medication. They do not specialize on the mind and that is just asking for people to end up on either drugs they do not need or do not work. Referrals to a psychiatrist as well as a therapist should be a requirement, not a choice by the primary care doctor.

Edit: and I know this is happening as I have witnessed it by both my own and my wife’s treatment

As far as the debate whether psychology is or is not a science, my opinion is that both responses are technically correct. Psychology has produced valid data on behaviorism via experiments like other hard sciences have, but it lacks a clear “core” that would define what exactly the field is beyond “the science of the mind”. In my opinion, it is a soft science much like sociology or anthropology. Valid in it’s own right, but should not be treated on the same platform of physics or chemistry.

1 Like

Nope, this is the issue I have with a handful of occult people who treat mental issues as some spiritual thing that caused it. Even in new age communities, some people tell schizophrenic people to stop taking their meds because it dulls their psychic senses, that schizophrenia is just them being too attuned to spirits. This is dangerous

Schizophrenia is a mental illness, simple, end, no discussion. There’s no spiritual side to it. I’ve witnessed a girl who listened to occultist with this absurd idea and next thing you know she was in a video call with a handful of us self harming herself.

4 Likes

I seem to have output a lot of text. If you (both the person I am replying to and the general forum readers) would like to learn more about Psychology (and therefore dark magick) and its political and business applications, read on. If you prefer to not have your beliefs questioned, you should skip this one.

I’m afraid I had to use more of a dense style with more difficult language than is my usual practice here. If you like my writing you’ll probably like this anyways, but I thought I’d point out that I typically make an effort to be more concise and accessible.

Science and Control Section

I suppose I’ll first say that I don’t believe Psychology as a scientific field (an Sociology even moreso) to be particularly “popular” or well-respected, at least among the cultures of elite academic institutions where the majority of high-impact research is conducted. I would say that most in other STEM fields believe it to be either pseudoscientific, or Science for Dummies. Not because of any well thought-out opinion, mind you, but just as a way to somehow inflate their already swollen egos even more. People love to talk shit on straw-men they don’t even realize are straw-men due to their ignorance.

I must also say that I find it quite confusing that you seem to believe that Psychology is both a pseudoscience that does not make correct claims about human cognition or behavior, yet you also seem to believe that governments or other organizations use Psychology to control the masses. If Psychology was fake rubbish, then it couldn’t be used to control people because it wouldn’t work. Much like magick, in that regard.

I am also confused as to why exactly you believe Psychology to be pseudoscientific. Just because a field is young and rapidly evolving does not mean it is invalid or unscientific in nature, as science is about the process and methodology used to advance knowledge, not the age of the discipline. If you choose to defend this position, be sure to include why you believe that statistics and careful use of experimental design are unscientific in nature when used by Psychologists, but not, say, Biologists.

The point you may be trying to make is that rhetoric, along with insights from psychological science, are used to control the masses. I would more or less agree with this point. Things like business advertising and political messaging make use of rhetorical and psychological strategies to influence how people think and behave, such that they buy your product or vote for you or believe in your agenda or what-have-you.

This isn’t exactly a new idea, however. We get the word and discipline of Rhetoric from the ancient Greeks, and humans have been persuading each other of things since the beginning. Nowadays we just have access to much more sophisticated methods, due to academic progress and experience, and widespread communication networks unlike anything we have ever seen before. The fact that I am able to have this conversation with you now, in front of an audience of silent onlookers, on a forum for the dark magick community, is testament to that.

To conclude this section, I will say that I believe most, if not all conspiracy theories to be illogical, mad ravings of people with uncontrolled paranoia (which, fun fact, could be Paranoid Personality Disorder). The leaps that people make are quite ridiculous when viewed by one unhindered by such a huge amount of cognitive dissonance. Now, that being said, I think it would be hard to deny that governments do some sketchy stuff in the name of maintaining power. Anyone who has worked with demons extensively should be familiar enough with this mindset to understand this. I don’t want to get political, however, so I will end this train of thought here.

Meds and Brain Stuff Section

Allow me to quickly address the meds issue. I am of the opinion that if you are able to use psychotherapeutic methods to overcome a mental disorder, such as major depression or generalized anxiety, then that is much better than taking drugs with a bevy of less-than-desirable side-effects.

With that being said, I also understand that for some, their condition is so severe that they are unable to engage with the therapy and practice what they are being taught. In these cases, I think it is good to carefully administer medication, while continuing therapy. The side-effects would presumably be less of a hindrance for the patient than the symptoms of their disorder, and would be worth bearing to eliminate said disorder.

I believe the problem that can arise from medications mainly has to do with treating mental disorders like biological diseases, to which they actually bear little resemblance. Illnesses are often a result of a foreign agent entering the body and causing negative disruption (to note, I am grossly generalizing and speaking outside my area here). Mental disorders, on the other hand, are more akin to a piece of the system itself malfunctioning from within (I realize that some diseases work this way as well, but elaborating further would require much more space, and is likely outside my ability to do well). Now, obviously with things like trauma there is an outside event(s) that triggers something like PTSD, but it is not the trauma itself, but the individual’s reaction to it that causes the disorder.

Aside from the scientific theory behind these disorders, which spans across all areas within the field today (clinical, cognitive, social, behavioral, personality, etc), this distinction can be quite clearly seen when one is given medication, but no therapy, and is later taken off medication. I’d have to dig up my sources on this one, but studies have shown that nearly every time this is done the patient will relapse back into their disorder (the study I am recalling was just for mood disorders, I should add). This seems to be because the patient has not learned how to think and behave in such a way that will alleviate their disorder. In other words, the meds only ease some of the symptoms, but they do not actually fix the problem.

I seem to have grown tired. I will end with a quick note. The quote about the left-hemisphere / right-hemisphere stuff doesn’t make any sense. That is not at all how brain functionality works. I can sort of see where they could be getting that (split brain patient case studies), but calling that logic a stretch is a huge understatement.


If anyone read all of that, or even a part of it, have an internet high-five :raised_back_of_hand:

3 Likes

Thought I’d add a quick note here. Modern clinical work is not split between Freud and Jung. It is something completely different that generally has nothing to do with either of these people. There are some schools that will teach Freudian psychoanalysis, but they are not accredited as doing legitimate scientific research. Some people like it, and if you do that’s fine, but its methods are not scientific.

Jung is even less popular than Freud nowadays. Pop culture still likes MBTI to an extent, which if I recall correctly is rooted in Jung’s work, but it has failed to scientifically replicate.

Please see my other comment if you want to know why this doesn’t make sense. Many people seem to have trouble with thinking statistically, along with the definition of the word “science.”

1 Like

I’m willing to bet that there are much less mentally ill people than there are claimed to be, that’s part of my point. I’m not mentally ill, but somehow you didn’t read my posts regarding SOMEBODY’s involvement in spreading psychology so as to silence dissidents and make people more violent, which an article linked above proves that the FDA has already proven.

Nitpicking is a clear way of avoiding the real subject.

1 Like

This is part of what I was trying to convey to these fruit cakes. Somebody doesn’t want civilians using magic, the fewer believe or practice it, the better for them.

1 Like