I found the videos dull, and didn't bother to comment. I don't see the connection to Jung and Freud, but in other news, based on my understanding of their understanding and definitely not your videos, I prefer Jung. Now what?
Reply to disspeach This is a philosophy forum, where arguments and points for debate are written out. It's OK to provide links to videos and other materials to support such arguments but simply putting up few words and a link to a video doesn't constitute a post in my view. Furthermore it doesn't do justice to such a weighty topic, which, in any case, is a matter for psychology rather than philosophy.
Reply to unenlightened I'm not philosopher, but It seems to me that Freud and Jung represents not only two ways of thinking but two "scenes" (I don't have better word) of method. I've tried to make the videos of how I understand these scenes and want to watch a reaction. Maybe some thoughts.
Reply to Wayfarer Well it is my first post. What I'm interested in is the structure of public speech which replies to some urgent topics like "Jung vs Freud" without any clarification of this confilct. Sorry, I'm not a philosopher, just interested of what philosophically minded people think
It seems to me that Freud and Jung represents not only two ways of thinking but two "scenes"
Well I will tell you very very briefly why I prefer Jung to Freud and see if it matches in some way your 2 scenes.
It seems to me that Freud is limited in his theory whereas the psyche is unlimited. Freud is in some sense the originator of the scientific approach to human nature, although his theories are largely discredited in scientific psychological circles. Jung, also largely discredited, but surviving in 'personality types', seems to me to present a more person centred, relational, and thus open approach. The archetypes are not mechanical. I am not a fan of scientific psychology, for reasons that you can explore in my recent threads.
seems to me to present a more person centred, relational, and thus open approach.
I've never understand this argument. Isn't it clearly political? This argument estimate psychological method by the liberal criterion
I am not a fan of scientific psychology
I'm too. And I've tried to show this in the "scenes". Psychoanalysis is presented as a form of violence in both of them. But difference is what and how victim speaks in those situations.
unenlightenedJanuary 27, 2017 at 22:56#505200 likes
Oh right. I start to see what you are getting at. Now can you say something in words about the nature of the violence, and how it hopefully differs from, say, this discussion? To be a little more specific, if you and I have differing views, as I think is to some extent the case, can we engage in a non-violent way?
hat I'm interested in is the structure of public speech which replies to some urgent topics like "Jung vs Freud" without any clarification of this confilct. Sorry, I'm not a philosopher, just interested of what philosophically minded people think
OK now I see. I studied a lot of Freud's essays as part of an arts degree, doing psychology, and also his general theories. I think Freud was obviously a very brilliant thinker and major cultural influence, but I never liked his absolute materialism and 'scientism'. Also I thought that he is wrong in ascribing all human motivation to 'libido', it is essentially another face of Schopenhaur's 'Will', or the drive to survive which animates all life (which is why it is a natural complement to Darwinism). I think overall Freud's influence on society and culture has been strong and often malignant, even if, scientifically, he is no longer held in high regard. The idea that 'repression is the cause of neuroses and unhappiness' and that libido is the main animating driver of human development, was one of the main sources of the so-called sexual revolution and one of the sources of 'identity politics' and Western culturally-approved hedonism.
Jung saw through Freud's materialism, and declared that Freud's obsession with sexuality was too narrow a base for a truly human science. Jung is a very complex character and his hardly studied at all in psychology or liberal arts any more, which I think is regrettable. I think Jung ought to be understood as representing a gnostic or alternative tradition in Western thought. That's one of the reasons why his work is thoroughly repressed in modern culture, his ideas are deeply subversive to the current cultural order. It's very hard to get an in-depth understanding of Jung, it takes a lot of study, reading, and requires deep insights. Check out the books of James Hillman, he's a very interesting student of Jung.
Reply to unenlightened I don't pretend to be deep thinker but I think that there are some themes that structure public discussion in very strict way. If you, say, ask what democracy is you will get the very specific set of arguments from public (audience). That's how I understand violence (violence of discourse). I think In discussion if you don't want to produce violence, you should not to support discourse yourself. In practice it means to consciously avoid some obvious arguments and lines of thought.
I think overall Freud's influence on society and culture has been strong and generally destructive
I also don't understand this argument. It sounds like you are talking on political debates. What is this destruction specifically and why we are afraid of destruction in science (or philosophy) at all?
unenlightenedJanuary 27, 2017 at 23:37#505540 likes
I don't pretend to deep thoughts but I think that there are some themes that structure public discussion in very strict way. If you, say, ask what democracy is you will get the very specific set of arguments from public. That's how I understand violence (violence of discourse). I think In discussion if you don't want to produce violence, you should not to support discourse yourself. In practice it means to consciously avoid some obvious arguments and lines of thought.
That's a bit dispiriting. If we cannot discuss without violence, then it seems unfair to complain that Freud and Jung cannot manage a talking therapy without violence. You seem to make it endemic in all social relations.
But consider this. When I go to the dentist, he pokes about in my mouth and causes me discomfort. Yet I do not consider this intrusion an assault, and undergo it willingly. So I wonder if violence is the right term to characterise human relations in general and psychoanalysis in particular?
On the other side, though, I do see the potential for violence in the relationship that inevitably examines the faults, failings, madness, disorder, of the client, from the point of view of authority, sanity, and expertise of the therapist. It can be violent, but I don't think it must be.
if violence is the right term to characterise human relations
Maybe not. But I don't think that the violence is something bad in itself, it just a fact. And by that reason I would probably choose the side of Freud, because Jung propose something worse than the violence - the (I believe) fake liberation from neurosis through myth. Freud is more honest and he don't play with hope of patient. I think that you are victim of the violence (in this context) when you feel guilt for not doing something. If someone force you to go to the dentist it is violence but it is obvious so you can confront it. But if you feel guilty for not visiting dentist is more like hidden violence and I believe it more effective.
I prefer Jung, though by his own suggestion, he was an artist.
I think though, that the moment you give anyone more authority over your experiences, you've created a recipe for being gas lighted. Driven insane by being made to deny your own intuitions and accept someone else's about your own experiences.
I won't say "maybe I'm paranoid, because it is a certainty -- but besides offer perspectives and such, or as a consultant, I don't think that you should ever hold anyone as an authority over your own experiences. Psychologists are the only doctors that don't know anything about the organ they're supposed to be treating too. Neurological disorders can manifest in many different arrays of symptoms, and only neurologists can diagnosis what kind of treatment or medication would be appropriate. I also think that if the neurologists can't find anything wrong with you, then there isn't.
Driven insane by being made to deny your own intuitions and accept someone else's about your own experiences.
Thanks for reply. But let's say you have a symptom. For example, you feel the need to wash your hands every 3 hours. Isn't it a sign that your own intuitions of how your desire works failed.
I wasn't suggesting that neurological disorders don't exist, just that psychologists aren't helpful. Or at least aren't needed, though therapeutic they may be, like listening to music, or a brisk stroll.
Terrapin StationJanuary 28, 2017 at 18:58#508600 likes
Terrapin StationJanuary 28, 2017 at 19:09#508630 likes
Slightly more seriously, with the first one, given only ten seconds, I doubt I'd be able to come up with anything more than, "I'm the god of thunder--and rock & roll. The spell you're under will slowly rob you of your virgin soul."--In other words, I'd wind up quoting KISS lyrics. I doubt it would mean anything to them.
With the second one, that was far easier. I'd simply say, "Man, it's even worse than the beginning of the 90s--the Bills have made it to the Super Bowl ten times in a row now and they've lost every time!"--if saying something traumatic would work, that would do it. He's from Buffalo and a huge Bills fan. You don't schedule anything with him when the Bills are playing. He has to be in front of a TV and he won't brook any interruptions whatsoever. As I'm a Dolphins fan, this creates a (kind of) friendly rivalry for us.
I didn't find the videos at all interesting or helpful.
Both men are irrelevant from the perspective of current psychological practice. Freud's ideas dominated the field up until the 1960s (a good 60 year run); Jung's ideas did not have traction as a therapeutic method, but he has been somewhat popular as a cultural vehicle. I would credit Freud with being more influential. Both Freud and Jung are worth studying, if one has nothing better to do, but other psychological theorists are more useful. Freud's schema was more complete than Jung's.
Pioneers can have brilliant ideas alongside some that are just plain cuckoo. Wilhelm Reich, one of Freud's apostles, cooked up the 'Orgone Box' which was supposed to concentrate psychic energy (one sat in the Orgone Box.) Nutso, to use the technical terms. On the other hand, his ideas about authoritarian personalities and adolescent sexuality are very substantial.
I think Freud was wrong about a lot, but some of his ideas about psycho dynamics (Id, Ego, Superego) reflect human behavior. The Oedipus and Elektra complexes are pretty much worthless, and men have a lot more penis envy than women do.
It is important to remember where Jung and Freud came from. Both were born in the 19th century--Freud I'm 1858, Jung 1875. Jung was Swiss, Freud was Viennese. Both were more or less bourgeois. The field of psychology really was hatched around this time. William James, born in 1842, was the first person to offer a "psychology" class in college. This generation created the field.
Didn't get it all right? Not to worry. We still haven't gotten it all right.
Reply to Wosret In siding so heavily with neurology, you are overlooking psychodynamics. Neurology will probably never explain why mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, have all the hostilities they sometimes have for each other. Or the unusual affection, either. Or how suddenly some people switch from being a nice sibling to being a total son of a bitch sibling.
I can't seem to keep my right hand on the proper keys today. I keep typing "m" when I mean "n". Who can better explain this? Freud? Jung? Dr. Neurologist? A deck of tarot cards?
I accept that their texts was influenced by the social context. But (even being kind of leftist) I must admit that our current 'democratic' psychology (I mean these group therapies and neurology) is huge step back of what Freud did.
I think Freud was wrong about a lot,
I actually don't understand how such statements works, how they are valid.
I don't trust them fuckers. Behaviorism, and introspection are not reliable enough. Multiple different causes can manifest the same symptoms. Think about all of the things that could cause you to be worried, and how little you could infer beyond symptoms based on their behavior. We can then ask people why they're worried, and they can be wrong, or lying. Not that I don't think that anything interesting comes out of there, but just as a supposed medical profession, they should be looking for physical causes, and things they can reliably check, and prove.
As a system of formalized morality, not at all based on any supposed or even speculated upon physical abnormalities, but entirely based upon social, or spiritual causes, which are nearly impossible to confirm or deny.
Reply to Bitter Crank Videos were just some simple intuitions about two strategies of psychoanalysis. Jung style analysis is more like priest with the patient on the sacrificial altar. And when patient is forced to speak in this position it's natural that all this pretentious mythological discource is coming from patient's mouth. Patient becomes sort of painting for analyst's pleasure. That's why I believe Jung style analysis is more authoritarian, though it is considered as all about liberation somehow.
Reply to Wosret I could accept the argument that psychoanalysis is not scientific and do not deals with physical facts. But consider these two points:
1) main organ, examined by psychoanalysis (so as in psychiatry) is speech. And you can not speak about speech as you speak about physical organs.
2) I noticed that when it comes to discussions between 'scientific' and 'non-scientific' psychologists the most worried is the first one. I'm just interested why there is such strong anxiety if the position of scientific psychologist is so strong and can not be undermined by the psychoanalysis.
I actually don't understand how such statements works, how they are valid.
What statement -- the one about Freud being wrong about a lot? Not complicated.
For Example:
Freud's error was not in identifying infantile sexuality; the error was in magnifying it's importance way too much. Sexuality continues from infancy forward, but Freud found the cause of too many neurosis, odd behaviors, and so forth in sexuality.
Take gayness. Freud can't be blamed for not identifying genetic or pre-natal maternal influences on the development of sexual deviance. He had neither the chemical nor genetic tools to even begin thinking about such things. He found the cause of homosexuality where he happened to be looking -- mostly in the neurotic lives of Viennese middle class hausfraus. Had he examined the histories of 1000 more or less happy, reasonably successful homosexuals, he would likely have come up with a different theory -- but he wasn't (could hardly) review a thousand cases of out, happy, successful homosexuals in late 19th/early 20th century Vienna, or anywhere else.
Freud is one thing. Freudians are something else. Sort of like Marx and Marxists, or Christ and Christians. The followers are not always clear reflections of the leader.
I don't trust them fuckers. Behaviorism, and introspection are not reliable enough. Multiple different causes can manifest the same symptoms. Think about all of the things that could cause you to be worried, and how little you could infer beyond symptoms based on their behavior. We can then ask people why they're worried, and they can be wrong, or lying. Not that I don't think that anything interesting comes out of there, but just as a supposed medical profession, they should be looking for physical causes, and things they can reliably check, and prove.
OKAY, don't trust them. Fine by me.
Yes, many 'psychological' or psychiatric problems are presumably caused by physical causes. Unfortunately, the means to look for causes in the brain (or elsewhere I'm the body) just haven't existed until relatively recently. Researchers have found no physical marker in the brain for bi-polar disease. It does seem to be inherited, but the means by which genes trigger an attack is just not known at this point. Same for a number of other major mental illnesses.
I believe we will eventually get to the point where we can say "This person is bi-polar, or paranoid schizophrenic, because xyz gene is overactive or xyz chemical is metabolized too quickly (or not quickly enough. But... we aren't there yet.
As for ordinary depression, there might be causes; or maybe depression is mistaken for something less clinical like: to much alcohol, chronic debt, working too much (or not nearly enough), bad relationships, bad on the job working conditions, and so on.
unenlightenedJanuary 29, 2017 at 16:03#510560 likes
I believe we will eventually get to the point where we can say "This person is bi-polar, or paranoid schizophrenic, because xyz gene is overactive or xyz chemical is metabolized too quickly (or not quickly enough
We know, by definition, that there is no gene for PTSD. We know, as Freud started to know, that childhood trauma in the form particularly of physical and sexual abuse is a major contributor to various mental illnesses. And we already know that genes play only a contributory part in schizophrenia.
Not ill founded. Of course there is no gene "for" PTSD and child abuse or gunshot wounds. These are caused by experiences of extreme violence, often repeated and prolonged. Schizophrenia, OCD, bi-polar disorder, and other major mental illnesses have entirely different origins.
There are either defective genes which produce certain disorders in the body (like Huntington's disease or bi-polar disorder), there are structural malformations which occur in utero (like mental retardation), or there are external causes of disease such as prions, viruses, bacteria, metallic poisonings, radiation, pesticide/herbicide exposures, etc. There are also diseases of aging which are caused by exhausting the body's capacity to renew itself.
[We have recently learned that the British are eating a lot of burnt toast and scorched potatoes. Whether the inability to operate a toaster is inherited or not, hasn't been determined. The descendants of the English in the US and Canada seem to be capable of toasting bread properly.]
we already know that genes play only a contributory part in schizophrenia
Your link doesn't support your view that my belief is ill-founded. There seems to be a genetic connection between genes and schizophrenia. Granted, it's not a genetic slam dunk as genes are for Huntington's disease or a couple dozen other specific genetically caused diseases. That there are other factors as well is also the case.
unenlightenedJanuary 29, 2017 at 19:59#511440 likes
I believe we will eventually get to the point where we can say "This person is bi-polar, or paranoid schizophrenic, because xyz gene is overactive or xyz chemical is metabolized too quickly (or not quickly enough.
Psychoanalysis is presented as a form of violence in both of them.
I think I see the "violence" you are talking about. In each clip you are asked to speak when the question asked is difficult to answer. The forcing you to speak when it is difficult to speak I suppose is some sort of violence. But there is no true violence here, because you always have the option of not replying. The scenarios created are not real, so it's not like you must reply in order to save your life, or to save your friends life, so whatever violence that may be there, it is not real, it's artificial, an illusion.
So I don't think that either technique is very useful, because they assume to put you into a specific situation to see how you would respond, when you are not really in that situation. This means that you'll have many factors such as how committed and how capable, an individual is to putting oneself in that situation, to deal with,
The video responses would have been interesting to compare, but there was only one. Any response would have had one shed a little light on one's own personality and views/values/philosophy.
For the Jung/Cannibal test, there are two answers the the question "What kind of God are you and why do you come to our land?"
My answer was, "Come with me and your questions will be answered." This would not only save you from being cooked, but it would benefit them.
For the Freud/Coma test, and the instruction, "Say something traumatic to the person in a coma", that depends on what kind of person is in a coma. The first 'type' of person that came to my mind was a vain and petty female, so I said, "Your hair is a mess and badly needs shampooing" which would be traumatic to such a person.
As for self-analysis based on my responses, my Jung response reflects my desire to communicate my new philosophy of survival for higher consciousness to the world (me being in 'instructor' mode). My Freud response is more hazy - it probably reflects my still searching for my first true love, and my continued frustrations with a general mental paradigm driven by pettiness and vanity.
Comments (41)
What do you want to discuss?
I found the videos dull, and didn't bother to comment. I don't see the connection to Jung and Freud, but in other news, based on my understanding of their understanding and definitely not your videos, I prefer Jung. Now what?
Well I will tell you very very briefly why I prefer Jung to Freud and see if it matches in some way your 2 scenes.
It seems to me that Freud is limited in his theory whereas the psyche is unlimited. Freud is in some sense the originator of the scientific approach to human nature, although his theories are largely discredited in scientific psychological circles. Jung, also largely discredited, but surviving in 'personality types', seems to me to present a more person centred, relational, and thus open approach. The archetypes are not mechanical. I am not a fan of scientific psychology, for reasons that you can explore in my recent threads.
I've never understand this argument. Isn't it clearly political? This argument estimate psychological method by the liberal criterion
I'm too. And I've tried to show this in the "scenes". Psychoanalysis is presented as a form of violence in both of them. But difference is what and how victim speaks in those situations.
OK now I see. I studied a lot of Freud's essays as part of an arts degree, doing psychology, and also his general theories. I think Freud was obviously a very brilliant thinker and major cultural influence, but I never liked his absolute materialism and 'scientism'. Also I thought that he is wrong in ascribing all human motivation to 'libido', it is essentially another face of Schopenhaur's 'Will', or the drive to survive which animates all life (which is why it is a natural complement to Darwinism). I think overall Freud's influence on society and culture has been strong and often malignant, even if, scientifically, he is no longer held in high regard. The idea that 'repression is the cause of neuroses and unhappiness' and that libido is the main animating driver of human development, was one of the main sources of the so-called sexual revolution and one of the sources of 'identity politics' and Western culturally-approved hedonism.
Jung saw through Freud's materialism, and declared that Freud's obsession with sexuality was too narrow a base for a truly human science. Jung is a very complex character and his hardly studied at all in psychology or liberal arts any more, which I think is regrettable. I think Jung ought to be understood as representing a gnostic or alternative tradition in Western thought. That's one of the reasons why his work is thoroughly repressed in modern culture, his ideas are deeply subversive to the current cultural order. It's very hard to get an in-depth understanding of Jung, it takes a lot of study, reading, and requires deep insights. Check out the books of James Hillman, he's a very interesting student of Jung.
That's a bit dispiriting. If we cannot discuss without violence, then it seems unfair to complain that Freud and Jung cannot manage a talking therapy without violence. You seem to make it endemic in all social relations.
But consider this. When I go to the dentist, he pokes about in my mouth and causes me discomfort. Yet I do not consider this intrusion an assault, and undergo it willingly. So I wonder if violence is the right term to characterise human relations in general and psychoanalysis in particular?
On the other side, though, I do see the potential for violence in the relationship that inevitably examines the faults, failings, madness, disorder, of the client, from the point of view of authority, sanity, and expertise of the therapist. It can be violent, but I don't think it must be.
the fact that people advocating such views prefer Freud is a validation of my attitude, I feel.
I think though, that the moment you give anyone more authority over your experiences, you've created a recipe for being gas lighted. Driven insane by being made to deny your own intuitions and accept someone else's about your own experiences.
I won't say "maybe I'm paranoid, because it is a certainty -- but besides offer perspectives and such, or as a consultant, I don't think that you should ever hold anyone as an authority over your own experiences. Psychologists are the only doctors that don't know anything about the organ they're supposed to be treating too. Neurological disorders can manifest in many different arrays of symptoms, and only neurologists can diagnosis what kind of treatment or medication would be appropriate. I also think that if the neurologists can't find anything wrong with you, then there isn't.
Freud or Jung? I'd change majors.
With the second one, that was far easier. I'd simply say, "Man, it's even worse than the beginning of the 90s--the Bills have made it to the Super Bowl ten times in a row now and they've lost every time!"--if saying something traumatic would work, that would do it. He's from Buffalo and a huge Bills fan. You don't schedule anything with him when the Bills are playing. He has to be in front of a TV and he won't brook any interruptions whatsoever. As I'm a Dolphins fan, this creates a (kind of) friendly rivalry for us.
I didn't find the videos at all interesting or helpful.
Both men are irrelevant from the perspective of current psychological practice. Freud's ideas dominated the field up until the 1960s (a good 60 year run); Jung's ideas did not have traction as a therapeutic method, but he has been somewhat popular as a cultural vehicle. I would credit Freud with being more influential. Both Freud and Jung are worth studying, if one has nothing better to do, but other psychological theorists are more useful. Freud's schema was more complete than Jung's.
Pioneers can have brilliant ideas alongside some that are just plain cuckoo. Wilhelm Reich, one of Freud's apostles, cooked up the 'Orgone Box' which was supposed to concentrate psychic energy (one sat in the Orgone Box.) Nutso, to use the technical terms. On the other hand, his ideas about authoritarian personalities and adolescent sexuality are very substantial.
I think Freud was wrong about a lot, but some of his ideas about psycho dynamics (Id, Ego, Superego) reflect human behavior. The Oedipus and Elektra complexes are pretty much worthless, and men have a lot more penis envy than women do.
It is important to remember where Jung and Freud came from. Both were born in the 19th century--Freud I'm 1858, Jung 1875. Jung was Swiss, Freud was Viennese. Both were more or less bourgeois. The field of psychology really was hatched around this time. William James, born in 1842, was the first person to offer a "psychology" class in college. This generation created the field.
Didn't get it all right? Not to worry. We still haven't gotten it all right.
I accept that their texts was influenced by the social context. But (even being kind of leftist) I must admit that our current 'democratic' psychology (I mean these group therapies and neurology) is huge step back of what Freud did.
I actually don't understand how such statements works, how they are valid.
I don't trust them fuckers. Behaviorism, and introspection are not reliable enough. Multiple different causes can manifest the same symptoms. Think about all of the things that could cause you to be worried, and how little you could infer beyond symptoms based on their behavior. We can then ask people why they're worried, and they can be wrong, or lying. Not that I don't think that anything interesting comes out of there, but just as a supposed medical profession, they should be looking for physical causes, and things they can reliably check, and prove.
As a system of formalized morality, not at all based on any supposed or even speculated upon physical abnormalities, but entirely based upon social, or spiritual causes, which are nearly impossible to confirm or deny.
1) main organ, examined by psychoanalysis (so as in psychiatry) is speech. And you can not speak about speech as you speak about physical organs.
2) I noticed that when it comes to discussions between 'scientific' and 'non-scientific' psychologists the most worried is the first one. I'm just interested why there is such strong anxiety if the position of scientific psychologist is so strong and can not be undermined by the psychoanalysis.
What statement -- the one about Freud being wrong about a lot? Not complicated.
For Example:
Freud's error was not in identifying infantile sexuality; the error was in magnifying it's importance way too much. Sexuality continues from infancy forward, but Freud found the cause of too many neurosis, odd behaviors, and so forth in sexuality.
Take gayness. Freud can't be blamed for not identifying genetic or pre-natal maternal influences on the development of sexual deviance. He had neither the chemical nor genetic tools to even begin thinking about such things. He found the cause of homosexuality where he happened to be looking -- mostly in the neurotic lives of Viennese middle class hausfraus. Had he examined the histories of 1000 more or less happy, reasonably successful homosexuals, he would likely have come up with a different theory -- but he wasn't (could hardly) review a thousand cases of out, happy, successful homosexuals in late 19th/early 20th century Vienna, or anywhere else.
Freud is one thing. Freudians are something else. Sort of like Marx and Marxists, or Christ and Christians. The followers are not always clear reflections of the leader.
OKAY, don't trust them. Fine by me.
Yes, many 'psychological' or psychiatric problems are presumably caused by physical causes. Unfortunately, the means to look for causes in the brain (or elsewhere I'm the body) just haven't existed until relatively recently. Researchers have found no physical marker in the brain for bi-polar disease. It does seem to be inherited, but the means by which genes trigger an attack is just not known at this point. Same for a number of other major mental illnesses.
I believe we will eventually get to the point where we can say "This person is bi-polar, or paranoid schizophrenic, because xyz gene is overactive or xyz chemical is metabolized too quickly (or not quickly enough. But... we aren't there yet.
As for ordinary depression, there might be causes; or maybe depression is mistaken for something less clinical like: to much alcohol, chronic debt, working too much (or not nearly enough), bad relationships, bad on the job working conditions, and so on.
We know, by definition, that there is no gene for PTSD. We know, as Freud started to know, that childhood trauma in the form particularly of physical and sexual abuse is a major contributor to various mental illnesses. And we already know that genes play only a contributory part in schizophrenia.
So your belief is ill founded.
Not ill founded. Of course there is no gene "for" PTSD and child abuse or gunshot wounds. These are caused by experiences of extreme violence, often repeated and prolonged. Schizophrenia, OCD, bi-polar disorder, and other major mental illnesses have entirely different origins.
There are either defective genes which produce certain disorders in the body (like Huntington's disease or bi-polar disorder), there are structural malformations which occur in utero (like mental retardation), or there are external causes of disease such as prions, viruses, bacteria, metallic poisonings, radiation, pesticide/herbicide exposures, etc. There are also diseases of aging which are caused by exhausting the body's capacity to renew itself.
[We have recently learned that the British are eating a lot of burnt toast and scorched potatoes. Whether the inability to operate a toaster is inherited or not, hasn't been determined. The descendants of the English in the US and Canada seem to be capable of toasting bread properly.]
Quoting unenlightened
Your link doesn't support your view that my belief is ill-founded. There seems to be a genetic connection between genes and schizophrenia. Granted, it's not a genetic slam dunk as genes are for Huntington's disease or a couple dozen other specific genetically caused diseases. That there are other factors as well is also the case.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That modification is a lot more acceptable.
I think I see the "violence" you are talking about. In each clip you are asked to speak when the question asked is difficult to answer. The forcing you to speak when it is difficult to speak I suppose is some sort of violence. But there is no true violence here, because you always have the option of not replying. The scenarios created are not real, so it's not like you must reply in order to save your life, or to save your friends life, so whatever violence that may be there, it is not real, it's artificial, an illusion.
So I don't think that either technique is very useful, because they assume to put you into a specific situation to see how you would respond, when you are not really in that situation. This means that you'll have many factors such as how committed and how capable, an individual is to putting oneself in that situation, to deal with,
"cynical" was the word you were looking for...
The video responses would have been interesting to compare, but there was only one. Any response would have had one shed a little light on one's own personality and views/values/philosophy.
For the Jung/Cannibal test, there are two answers the the question "What kind of God are you and why do you come to our land?"
My answer was, "Come with me and your questions will be answered." This would not only save you from being cooked, but it would benefit them.
For the Freud/Coma test, and the instruction, "Say something traumatic to the person in a coma", that depends on what kind of person is in a coma. The first 'type' of person that came to my mind was a vain and petty female, so I said, "Your hair is a mess and badly needs shampooing" which would be traumatic to such a person.
As for self-analysis based on my responses, my Jung response reflects my desire to communicate my new philosophy of survival for higher consciousness to the world (me being in 'instructor' mode). My Freud response is more hazy - it probably reflects my still searching for my first true love, and my continued frustrations with a general mental paradigm driven by pettiness and vanity.