On Psychologizing
I see a lot of psychologizing on this forum. Your biased, you practice self-deception, you're projecting, etc.
I think there should be some name for doing this. Like the psychologizing fallacy, a derivative of the classic and well-known ad hominem fallacy.
Yet, one way or another we have to incorporate the beliefs, prejudices, and biases' of a person when we engage in a dialogue with him or her.
Therefore, for starters, what is the ego for males and females?
Google provides the following:
So, Google comes to the rescue? Not quite. There is an issue with equating the ego with self-esteem and self-importance as if the self could not exist without these qualitative traits. Logically, there can be a person with no self-esteem or no sense of self-importance and still have this thing called an "ego".
Reading along, the answer derived from psychoanalysis is that it's the part of the mind that practices "reality testing". OK, I understand that much; but, that just shifts the question to the phenomenological issue that arises as to what is "reality testing"?
Reading along some more, we strike bedrock. Philosophy describes the ego as "a conscious thinking subject." So, now we have the thorny issue of the subject-object divide.
Does anyone else see where this is going? This is like Derrida's deconstructivism in real life. It never ends.
Therefore I propose, by extension, that psychologizing anything is meaningless and futile separated from the context where the concept arises. Taking this to the logical conclusion, we will never know the entire context of where or why someone said so and so or from what defence mechanism so and so is being hostile or paranoid.
To idiotize the issue we just don't have a measuring stick to measure and examine this thing called "the ego" or self-esteem or self-importance.
Finally, I propose we do away with psychologizing altogether. It's a honey pot that trolls and the like use or weaponizes for their satisfaction.
I think there should be some name for doing this. Like the psychologizing fallacy, a derivative of the classic and well-known ad hominem fallacy.
Yet, one way or another we have to incorporate the beliefs, prejudices, and biases' of a person when we engage in a dialogue with him or her.
Therefore, for starters, what is the ego for males and females?
Google provides the following:
So, Google comes to the rescue? Not quite. There is an issue with equating the ego with self-esteem and self-importance as if the self could not exist without these qualitative traits. Logically, there can be a person with no self-esteem or no sense of self-importance and still have this thing called an "ego".
Reading along, the answer derived from psychoanalysis is that it's the part of the mind that practices "reality testing". OK, I understand that much; but, that just shifts the question to the phenomenological issue that arises as to what is "reality testing"?
Reading along some more, we strike bedrock. Philosophy describes the ego as "a conscious thinking subject." So, now we have the thorny issue of the subject-object divide.
Does anyone else see where this is going? This is like Derrida's deconstructivism in real life. It never ends.
Therefore I propose, by extension, that psychologizing anything is meaningless and futile separated from the context where the concept arises. Taking this to the logical conclusion, we will never know the entire context of where or why someone said so and so or from what defence mechanism so and so is being hostile or paranoid.
To idiotize the issue we just don't have a measuring stick to measure and examine this thing called "the ego" or self-esteem or self-importance.
Finally, I propose we do away with psychologizing altogether. It's a honey pot that trolls and the like use or weaponizes for their satisfaction.
Comments (96)
Ego is complemented by superego; narcissism needs collective narcissism. How someone relates to themselves when alone is of tremendous import as ego and narcissism aren't possible with a cloistered lifestyle.
Enter psychologizing, which for me is none different than auto-psychoanalysis. Completely necessary. Also, projection and introjection are often seen in severe mental illness. Why we wouldn't want to talk about this I can't understand. As said, ecocentrism is confusion of self and other...in other words precisely caused by projection and introjection,... these issues can't be ignored whatever term you choose to denominate the process.
Well, as you have said yourself, these are psychological problems that philosophy is ill-equipped with in dealing with. I used to be very concerned about people posting about mystical experiences or deep depression (I'm one to speak, aye) and then rationalizing it with some Nietzsche or Schopenhauer rationale of how things out to be or are. It reeks of confirmation bias and is an issue that only trained professionals (ought to) examine.
I've wondered whether certain logical fallacies are possible to circumvent. Is it really possible to fully disengage in cognitive bias/confirmation bias? Confirmation of an idea would seem to be central to brainstorming. How is it possible to follow the associations of ideas without a touch of confirmation bias. And if you aren't confirming, perhaps the denying, insofar as it is seeded and framed by what is denied instead of confirmed is no less of a bias. Disconfirmation bias in this case. When a scientists formulates a question, it is an automatic cognitive bias, really, since predictions presuppose what doesn't actually exist evidentially.
Withal, are philosophy and psychology really so distinct ambits? I can't fathom how if so.
Yes, it can be a type of ad hominem or some other fallacy of irrelevance. But, nevertheless, I have said that it can be important to express these assessments, because if you don't express them, then you aren't making anyone aware of what you have identified as a problem, an if you don't make anyone aware of a problem, then you aren't even taking the first step towards a possible resolution. And also, as people with a keen interest in philosophy, we should care about pointing out the truth as we see it, and expect like-minded people to likewise care.
My psychological assessments seem come to me intuitively. It's probably that I'm picking up on something, reading between the lines. Or, of course, I could be reading things into something that isn't actually there, and I could be off the mark. I'm aware of my own fallibility. But, basically, if the shoe fits...
I don't agree that comments of this sort should be silenced or shut down. I'm in favour of freedom of expression here. And I don't approve of any disapproval on the grounds of etiquette or political correctness.
People are puzzles, and I like puzzles. I like putting together the pieces, and sometimes they just seem to connect in all the right ways.
Yeah, that needs deflating.
Quoting S
@unenlightened would jump out of his socks over this "assessment". I mean if you're going to take a conflict resolution approach contrary to assuming a position of authority over the mental state of another interlocutor, then at least make it so that some Rogerian agreement can be had in the end. I've seen (not only yours but, others to be fair) such assessments as promoting flame wars and some such matters like, "I didn't say anything like that", "Oh; but, that you did too!".
Quoting S
Yes, there's a huge overlap between psychology and philosophy. All I'm saying is that some line should be drawn before we start conducting "assessments" of people on online forums.
Quoting S
Confirmation bias. Can't get around it once an "assessment" has been made.
Quoting S
Not, but they should be monitored. Keep in mind that philosophers throughout the past have conducted their own form of assessments of human nature, and what good has that produced?
Quoting S
Yeah, that may be true; but, psychologizing and assessment making are one thing, rational discourse another.
So I can wallow about like you? No thanks.
Quoting Wallows
That's fine, and I agree. We probably just have a different sense of where exactly to draw the line. I am much more of a freedom of expression type than you, but not as extreme as Terrapin. For example, you've complained before about expressions of humour not to your taste.
Quoting Wallows
Monitored? You mean that we should rely on our judgement and exercise restraint when deemed appropriate? I already do that, and we have the moderators for anything that slips through the net and goes too far.
Quoting Wallows
They have the same aim: the truth. That's something I think everyone here should care about.
See, just another attempt at psychologizing me, now.
Quoting S
Now, I might be psychologizing too; but, you seem to derive some satisfaction from pushing people's buttons and seeing what happens. That's immature and childish. Can we act like adults now?
Quoting S
Well, clearly, with the latest thread that popped up, you were not displaying restraint.
Quoting S
Yeah, well now that's dogmatism and quite dangerous if you don't mind me adding.
Yes, and there's nothing wrong with me doing that.
Quoting Wallows
Nothing wrong with that. Please do, I find it interesting, and it can be productive.
Quoting Wallows
I agree with your psychological assessment, and I think that I am quite aware of my habitual behaviours, vices, psychology, etc.. I think that we're both quite self-aware.
I tend to mix it up. I can be deadly serious one moment, and facetious the next. Provocative one moment, and tedious the next. Profoundly wise, extremely childish. What can I say? I am human, all too human. Guilty as charged.
Quoting Wallows
I exercise restraint when I feel like doing so, not when you want me to do so.
Quoting Wallows
That is not dogmatism at all! How absurd. Aiming for the truth is not dogmatism. You should look up what dogmatism is.
Maybe not; but, you've supplanted your psychologizing efforts and deemed them worthy of "the truth". Isn't that some derivative of dogmatic thinking or at least extremely biased thinking?
No, I said that they aim for the truth. They're my best shot at it. And I even said that I could be reading too much into things at times and could be off the mark, but you don't care so much about that, do you? You care more about your own narrative of vilification. As if I don't get vilified enough as it is around here without you jumping on the god damn bandwagon.
Let's not get paranoid or needlessly hostile here. This thread wasn't all about you.
Now, I've been on the internets for a while now, and criticizing a person attempt at aiming at the truth, is like gasoline on a fire. I wish you well.
Wallow wallow.
No, not all about me, but I could see through it straight it away. Anyway, I thought that we had built some sort of connection which I found to be of great value, but it seems you've reacted badly to our recent exchanges. Maybe I will take a step back and leave you be.
Have fun wallowing. I am not such a big fan of wallowing, but like said, I am only human.
See and this is where psychologizing ends. Resentment, sulkiness, and grudge-bearing. I think you should be aware of that.
Phew, now time to pop a Xanax.
No, it doesn't have to be like that. Dare I say it, but could that be projection? It is understandable for someone to react negatively to insinuations of paranoia and needless hostility. You don't have to be a psychologist to work that one out. But, I believe you said something about self-restraint, and our emotions and our psych can be restrained to some extent, which is important to bear in mind in relation to what you bring up and what we've been discussing.
Quoting Wallows
I don't take orders from you, and I find your judgement to be questionable.
Since you made this thread about yourself, I had no alternative.
Oh, come on. Be more transparent. You made it with me in mind.
That's what you want to think; but, if it brings you satisfaction to your ego, then so be it. It may or may have been about you. And, it was far from a veiled/double standard attack.
I mean common Sapentia, it can apply to anyone on this forum, not only you.
Okay, fine, whatever you say. I am a deluded egomaniac and this discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with me. I should shut up and stop psychologizing, because you don't approve of it.
Yes, I can read between the lines. You've said your piece, and it has failed to gain dominance over me. You can go back to your wallowing now.
I wallow contently. And, who cares about dominance. My cat is more dominant than me. How is your cat doing?
Lots and lots of people do. It is everywhere you look, if you know what to look for.
Quoting Wallows
I haven't had her back at my place for a few months, and I miss her.
You know, I've seen things in therapy that indicate that dominance is intrinsically tied to ego-dom. I shit on that idea because I think it is dangerous to society and anyone interacting with. But, then again I have my issues. And, no, I ain't projecting them on poor you.
What was her name?
It is very, very apparent in my workplace, for example.
Quoting Wallows
Anyway, see? I told you I mix it up. That was a sincere and heartfelt answer instead of a humorous diversion. The latter is my coping mechanism, you see.
Her name is Oksa. And she appreciates my sense of humour.
I wen't on retirement (disability) at the age of 25. Beat that.
Quoting S
Oksa is a nice cat.
Oh yeah! Well I work full time breaking my back shifting heavy loads for minimum wage, plus commission if I can be a manipulative son of a bitch, also known as a good salesman. :meh:
Quoting Wallows
Yes, she is. Sometimes, when she's snuggled up in a little ball on the coach, I give her a kick, because it makes me feel better.
Ultimately if one wants that kind of slave life, then so be it. I found a shortcut, and am content and happy despite my depression or in spite of it. Who knows these things?
Quoting S
Ok, then she's in better hands now.
And no she isn't. Take that back, or I'll wait until you're all cosy and warm, fast asleep in bed, and then drive a sword through your chest.
You know, giving up on all those things ain't all that bad.
Wallow wallow.
Quoting S
Nuh huh. If you kick and beat her then she deserves better. I'm glad Oksa is with your mom.
It wouldn't be the end of the world. Or maybe it would be for me. But anyway, I'm convinced that I would be worse off otherwise, otherwise I would have simply quit. Quit my job, moved out, abandoned my principles, and so on.
Quoting Wallows
My mom? She likes to stick sharp pins in her and swing her around by her tail.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, as they say.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist%27s_fallacy
The common objection is that it's irrelevant. It is a fallacy of relevance, after all. It addresses the person rather than the substance of the argument. It's uncalled for.
Except that, sometimes, comments about the person you're talking to are very relevant. It's not all about the substance of the argument. It is not uncommon to encounter problems because of the person you're talking to.
That's an odd opinion, given that Psychology (granted, that's not the same as psychologizing, but still...) is one of Philosophy's children.
In Freud's (simplified) three-layer cake of the mind there is the Superego, the Ego, and the Id. The Superego is the embodiment of society: we should do this, we should do that; You'd better, you'd better not, just do what you're told, OBEY, and so on. Social Rules and Regs. The Id is, in sum, our most basic desires and needs; It's sex, status, gratification, love, all that stuff. All very powerful.
What's left for the Ego? The task of the Ego is to mediate between the imperatives of society and the imperatives of the body (the Id). This is where reality testing comes in: what priorities of the Superego can be ignored; what demands of the Id can be set aside. How do I (the sentient subject) get through this situation? What can not be ignored; what has to be sacrificed?
So, if one had never heard of Sigmund Freud, had he been run over by a train when he was five years old, we wouldn't use these terms. If you were a Skinnerian behaviorist, you'd just dismiss all that ego business as pure bunk anyway. You'd use the tools of philosophy and science to come up with some other way of explain behavior.
BUT: Explaining human behavior, human thinking, human personality, and so on is not outside of philosophy's purview. It's right down its alley.
This is distorted. Just because psychology is a child of philosophy that does not grant authority by or from a philosopher to expound beliefs or assessments or some such matter in regards to what exactly is human nature.
And I think we can both agree when talk about psychology becomes psychologizing.
They already have that authority. We all do. We have it by default. On the contrary, you do not have the authority to silence us. It is our right to freedom of expression.
You have the right to disagree, not to silence.
If I like the drift of somebody's psychologizing, then it is OK. If I don't like what I'm hearing, they'll have to be taken out back and be given a good beating.
Well described. Ego is Freud's notion. Common use is different. Philosophical use, according to that link... seems bunk to me. An astute philosopher would be using Freud's notion as he intended, or else common use, and s/he ought make that much clear either way. That said...
As true as the above is, this is a philosophy forum and the only appropriate reply to personal attacks, regardless of the possible psychological underpinnings, is calling it out. It is unacceptable, and is usually a clear sign that the author's position lacks 'substance'. If that doesn't help, it is usually best to simply ignore such people.
Then what was your point? Saying that they don't have the authority to do what they're doing suggests that you don't think that they're permitted to do so, and should be silent unless they have approval from this presumed authority of yours. Who is this presumed authority? Is it you? Must we acquire your permission?
This highlights the problem well. What you're saying there is either true or false, but that's not a full explanation. What's interesting is why you might be saying it. That's part of the overall explanation.
It's the beginnings of one. And it's true. There is no better ground.
Some folk are interested in irrelevant things. Most - arguably all - Western philosophers have been for the better part of two centuries.
What's that...
..."the overall explanation"?
Always against the rules of formal debate. However, it is often knowingly used, despite being struck from the 'official' record, because some know you cannot strike the rhetorical effect/affect from the mind of the listener.
As the saying goes, "spare the bullet and then you have to put up with dipshits that much longer."
Hmm.
Maybe that is also true of someone who wants to make this about "personal attacks", which demonstrates a clear violation of the principle of charity.
My cat and my wall are my two best friends. They're also my only friends. We have such riveting conversations. They're good listeners.
That's what matters, surely. No one minds being told what they're like and what they think as long as it's right. I'm a good listener too, so it is quite pleasing to me when someone says that talking to me is like talking to a brick wall.
:grin::up:
Whether it is productive to speculate about anothers psychology is a different story. The only one who knows whether such speculations are true is the person themselves, and even if it would be true, their state of mind may deceive them into denying it is true.
Isn't much of psychology speculation, anyway? And I think in some cases, the person might well not know it to be true on any level, even subconsciously.
And here you highlight the problem. When is one right about one's ideas about the other person?
Surely, someone might take offence to it.
Quite so. And given this is an online forum, then aren't such attempts quite futile even if done sincerely?
[quote=Wikipedia]Generation Snowflake, or Snowflake Generation, is a neologistic term used to characterize the millennial generation as being more prone to taking offence and having less psychological resilience than previous generations, or as being too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own.[/quote]
Yeah, and good for them to be snowflakes. As I always say, whatever floats your boat. And, please don't rock my boat too.
Sorry if I just rocked your boat so damn hard it sent you flying into the ocean. Except I'm not really sorry. Sue me.
And, you're the one to say that? Puh-leeze.
What's your point here? That I'm neurotic? Hah so be it, spare me the panderings.
I don't know, but it was funny.
So, you have stated that you find satisfaction in pointing out other people's lack of "resilience". Doesn't that make you some pseudo internet bully?
I find satisfaction in humour, and mockery is a form of humour. If you don't, then I don't really get you. I have thick enough skin to laugh at being mocked myself. Would good does wallowing do? It doesn't. The cancer is not the cure.
Wallowing is a safe and healthy practice. It helps the soul. :)
And it's safe to say I don't even get myself either. I don't think I have an ego.
I [I]knew[/I] you had an appreciation for humour!
But, if we are being Socratic, then there's little that either of us knows. So, spare the psychologizing, which never was conducive towards the truth.
You should get a cat.
No, I talk to myself because I'm a solipsist. You are a figment of my imagination.
I don't know to raise awareness perhaps?
Or perhaps to stoke the fire.
Nah, I'm a content and mellow wallower. Der bee nou evail phrom mee.
Ah yes, I forgot. I'm the only troll around here. All of the other trolls are in fact just decent law abiding citizens. You, for example, would never even dream of such behaviour.
Must I remind you that this thread isn't exclusively about you, despite your frantic attempts to make it about yourself? Sheesh. Give me a break @S.
Pissing contest?
Well Wallows, if I point out that your threads tend to be self-indulgent, (that means ego-indulgent,) and you are always wanting to be the centre of attention (which is incompatible with solipsism by the way), then I am, as usual, right. But my being right does not prevent you from taking offence.
But a troll is one who delights in giving offence. A surgeon cuts, and so does Jack the Ripper. One of them is trying to be helpful, and the other is just having a dig.
And just because the tactics of some in this regard are less subtle than others, I wouldn't think for a moment that everyone else isn't doing just the same. If you're concerned about the harms, look up ostracisation in any good psychology text book. I guarantee you that every single one will report that the polite ignoring you seem to be advising is far more harmful than a slew of insults.
Yeah, but it can be overcome with strength of will and psychological resilience.
Absolutely agree, and I wouldn't want to give the impression that I think there's anything wrong with ostracisation either, it's a perfectly acceptable strategy in some cases for a community to make clear its preferences for membership.
My point was only to call out the hypocrisy in people who think they are taking some moral high ground by ignoring (or advising such with) the posts them deem 'unworthy' whilst at the same time mitigating a low level of gentle insult on the grounds of the 'harm' it may cause. The harm from the former is fairly well agreed upon to be greater than the latter. This doesn't, in my opinion, mean either should not be used, only that it is inconsistent to advise one but not the other on the grounds of harm.
As to what can and cannot be overcome, I agree with the general problems of snowflake generation, but I also have a deep belief in the autonomy of individuals and communities, and if a community wants to ban insults or wrap its members in psychological cotton wool, then that's their perogative. It's just not a community I'd spend a lot of time in.
My ego is non-existent. It has been eaten by my ID or super-ego, as the two were tired of its impotence.
Says who?
Says me the wallower in chief.
The question then becomes, who in the hell made it "your" role to advise other people on how they ought to live their lives? Isn't that the paradox of philosophy summed up as succinctly as I can? Isn't that the role of sophistry and not philosophy (as much as it would like to assume).
Are you suggesting that that's what he was doing? That wasn't contained in what you quoted. Where are you getting that from?
When me says there is no me, eyebrows rise.
It's the truth! I plead innocence! As I told you, there was a coup a Ribbentrop-Molotow as they say between the super-ego and ID, as the ego was unwilling to want to mediate between the two. What resulted was a coup-on my ego by them both.
Well you know what happens to the innocent - they get crucified.
But, psychologizing myself. Isn't it true that if the ego is unwilling to mediate, those strange things start happening to it?