Hello fellow psychology nerdfighters,
The lists of discussions seems kind of empty, so perhaps the group could stuff it full of lectures, famous favorite experiments, and awesome facts on their geek-out specialties. My personal one's sociology, and the bits of Freud that make sense(Going to pretend he said anything about an anal stage...)! For example, the id, ego, and superego, on how the id's like this dumb little devil that wants pleasure, avoids pain and the superego's this dumb little devil that says everything's wrong and the ego has to deal with both of them! YAAAAY! Fun Fact: I don't actually like Freud.
...Sounds better than when being written. But that's some weird little plan! Geek out! The boards need to be filled with knowledge somehow!
I find contemporary theory more interesting than Freud's structural theory. For example, object relations theory supposes that we form ideas of ourselves and others in the paradox that is neither self nor other but both, the "space between" of imagination. That is, according to Winnicott, it is when we lose ourselves in play that we create self and other. With insufficient boundaries or rigid constraint this space between cannot exist, and then ideas of self and other are not able to be whole. Instead what is perceived, both outside and in, are merely pieces of good and bad without integration or autonomy. I think I may be geeking out too hard here- it's difficult to explain a theory that exists in paradox in such a short statement.
What is particularly fascinating to me is how people who have not had the developmental experience of security in separateness end up relating to other people as parts of themselves, and looking outward for some solution to the incomplete internal puzzle. That desperate loneliness that is not the lack of the other, it is the lack of the self.
There's no such thing as geeking out too much. This is actually the first time I've ever heard of contemporary theory.
Psychological theory is so severely undersold in university settings and in the mainstream. There is a real effort among the research community to replace all dynamic theory with cognitive behavioral medical model bandaid type ideas, simply because they are easy to measure- those ideas are useful, but they do not get at how people make meaning of their lives and how that meaning is influenced by interpersonal dynamics and internal or intrapersonal dynamics that are related to development. It's like the mainstream of psychology is trying to sell an oversimplified version of how to understand people, and ignoring the issue of how complicated real people are.
A cheap guide to what a majority perceives as detrimental to primal needs, it honestly astounds me when people are learning for education's sake. Please pardon my unsophisticated vocabulary, I'm a self-educated high school student hoping to go into the field.
Well, kudos to you! High school is where the issue is even further simplified, although that is when I developed my interest in psychology as well. I was always interested in the people that I encountered, from my family to friends to random homeless people who would tell me their stories... Underlying the interest in psychology is a curiosity about people. After many years of study I am a wealth of knowledge, so feel free to ask me anything! I think there is some value in learning through academia, but you have to use your own instruments to learn anything beyond a basic foundation. And your vocabulary far surpasses the meager skills I had at that stage, btw. What gave rise to this interest for you?
Ack, I would tell you the whole root of the matter, but this isn't the correct board to post it in. When I find a place to put it, I'll definitely write it out.
I found this blog entry today by an author specializing in synesthesia, and it's about a guy who, with his synesthesia, can perceive these "time wheels" around him and stick events onto them like a calendar. I thought that was so cool :D I mean, FORGET coloured numbers. This guy can essentially, in his awesome specially wired brain, see time o_o
This I find really interesting because I'm not sure if we have a good theory of how we perceive time. I remember in my Psych AP class, my teacher taught us about the kinesthetic and vestibular sense. I thought that was so weird that they were considered senses that I asked whether our "sense of time" is a sense. She just said no and didn't explain any further. Ever since then I've been wondering about this.
Just a great source to begin with before moving in to your favorite subjects, maybe a jump-start for those interested but don't know how to start, be SURE to check out online intro course at Yale! The course is really inviting and the professor's really amusing! Paul Bloom actually focuses his research most on how children and adults understand the physical and social world.
There's also philosophy on death, the psychology and politics of food, and game theory, if you want. Game theory's just there because it's game theory. Yes, it may be a bit watered down, but it's a good base for those with absolutely no experience in the field.