From slightly off-the-wall territory, seeing this video of Joe Biden at Nuke’s place sent me down a rabbit trail. (Some might say down the rabbit hole. *heh*)
Let’s start with the premise that p-sychology is about as scientific as voodoo and p-sychs might as well wear dreadlock wigs and shake chicken bone rattles as inflict any one of the current fads in p-sych on their unwitting victims. Still, voodoo does help some folks deal with life, and so does p-sych. Seriously. It’s not all bad, and some perceptive p-sychs can actually do genuine good despite their training.
That said, I do find some personality theories/p-sych models interesting and even useful constructs for viewing the world. Without much comment, here’s a list of some p-sych thinkers I find intriguing, even sometimes useful:
Roberto Assagioli–Psychosynthesis
Viktor Frankl–Noetic counseling (more useful than most, IMO)
Medard Boss–Daseinsanalysis (useful framework)
William James–known as a Pragmatist who attempted to present psychology as a natural science (failed, IMO), but his “Varieties of Religious Experience” is a p-sych tome that’s a very interesting read.
Ludwig Binswanger–a pioneer existential p-sych
It’s interesting to me that while James attempted to cram p-sych into a natural science mold, Medard Boss–who attempted no such thing–came closer to actually providing some sort of falsifiable model of personality (close but no cigar–still, he wasn’t trying to do so). No, I’ve never heard a p-sych professor claim this, but then I’ve yet to meet a p-sych professor who had much understanding of scientific modeling. (OK, OK, one.)
There. A throwaway post having not much to do with anything at all, just one of those voices in my head (or two or three) clamoring* for an opportunity to speak… *heh*
Addendum: I guess this’ll be a kind of catchall post. Here’s an unrelated thought found while reading about eating pine bark:
It has been my frequent observation that many writers merely regurgitate what they have read elsewhere, rehashing over and over the same errors so much so that eventually the error becomes embedded in nearly all literature on the subject and is thought of as the gospel truth even by those considered an authority on the subject.
Well, of course. Glad someone else has noticed that as well. *heh* “Conventional wisdom” often isn’t, of course. Oh, it’s conventional, all right, just often not very wise. I’m reminded of self-described “conservative” writers touting “traditional values” who, when asked to define them, often stumble and mutter a bit about “family and religion or something” demonstrating that all they’re really doing is parroting someone else’s catch phrase. And even when they can delineate what they really mean by the term (indicating they’ve given it some thought) just as often they’ll reveal a stunning lack of historical knowlege while doing so.
Ditto with ideologues of other persuasions (heck, anarcho-tyranist lefties often can’t even define their terms at all, because, often, all they have is parroting-points).
Off to catalog stands of pine trees in America’s Third World County, now…
* I always seem to have to pause and think to differentiate between “clamor” (make an outcry, hubbub, commotion) and “clamber” (climb awkwardly, scramble, struggle gropingly), although here either would probably have worked. 😉