I don’t bring up hylomorphism when I talk about physics
Psychology isn’t a question of physics. The complex machine that is the human brain isn’t some single-action lever with a discrete well-defined input/output relationship. Neither is the human brain some binary circuit governed by logic gates and trivially deterministic sequences.
At some point, you have to approach psychology experimentally. You can’t just wave your hands and assume you know how the black box of the mind is going to work. And you can’t dismiss the accumulated experimental data because you don’t like the person who spearheaded its compilation.
And you can’t dismiss the accumulated experimental data
I don’t. I actually read psychology meta-analyses about accumulated experimental data, and relatively few individual papers are using terms like “superego” (and I can find two meta-analyses, one of which is just describing psychoanalysis). Even then, it’s within a modern framework of psychoanalysis which has evolved over 100 years, not regurgitating what they think “Freud would say”. You’re citing Freud specifically by literally saying “here’s what Freud would say”, so don’t strawman me by pretending I’m anti-experimental data or whatever the fuck.
Psychology isn’t a question of physics.
I’m not saying it is; it’s an emergent phenomenon in a chain thereof. I’m saying it is a science that deserves to actually be taken seriously, not mired in “here’s what someone who barely understood the field as we understand it today would’ve said” like that holds literally any weight about why people behave the way they do.
Psychology isn’t a question of physics. The complex machine that is the human brain isn’t some single-action lever with a discrete well-defined input/output relationship. Neither is the human brain some binary circuit governed by logic gates and trivially deterministic sequences.
At some point, you have to approach psychology experimentally. You can’t just wave your hands and assume you know how the black box of the mind is going to work. And you can’t dismiss the accumulated experimental data because you don’t like the person who spearheaded its compilation.
I don’t. I actually read psychology meta-analyses about accumulated experimental data, and relatively few individual papers are using terms like “superego” (and I can find two meta-analyses, one of which is just describing psychoanalysis). Even then, it’s within a modern framework of psychoanalysis which has evolved over 100 years, not regurgitating what they think “Freud would say”. You’re citing Freud specifically by literally saying “here’s what Freud would say”, so don’t strawman me by pretending I’m anti-experimental data or whatever the fuck.
I’m not saying it is; it’s an emergent phenomenon in a chain thereof. I’m saying it is a science that deserves to actually be taken seriously, not mired in “here’s what someone who barely understood the field as we understand it today would’ve said” like that holds literally any weight about why people behave the way they do.
Your vibrations in the ether seem distressed my friend. A nice warm cup of tea will help re-balance your humours.
God. Damn. It. A cup of tea sounds really refreshing right now, and I’m going to have one. Stupid science bitches finally made I more smarter.