I am so triggered by this tweet I might almost care enough to have stern words with you.
Almost.
Suffice it to say, disagree.
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Conversation
I do feel that Peterson abuses Jung by inserting him in contexts where he doesn't belong (i.e. serious discussion of modern psychology).
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
History of psychology, totally OK. Peterson uses him interchangably with concepts like IQ or Big Five, which is ridiculous. His ideas are more coherent w/o.
Jung was a fairly accomplished mystic. Lots of interesting things to say in every other context. More than many arhats etc
1
1
Psychoanalysis and analytical psychology are nonsense - but, spoiler alert, so is every therapeutic movement, as there are no good established methods.
1
Psychology doesn't present a coherent model of much of anything. It's a collection of modules and lenses, good for different things but not holistic in any way.
Any drive to unify what is there, without introducing new stuff, is foolhardy.
1
Peterson actually has many interesting things to say about discrete areas of psychology, but he has a nasty habit of trying to unify them.
1
After seeing all the stuff that gets flouted about him because of his (shit) politics, I do wonder how much his critics *actually* know about psychology, though.
As far as I can tell, the answer tends to span from "a bit" to "absolutely fucking nothing", and that bothers me.
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Personally, it can work. As can behaviourism, analytical psychology, humanistic psychology, etc.
Objectively, they're as good as talking to a pastor on average.
I tend to think there isn't quite enough research on individual differences here. There are some promising hints that different people have better traction with different systems.
But then it really doesn't help that they tend to sweep the field in fads.