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