Chaos Theory, Sick Society and You

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by CraigD

* Do children who are treated cruelly (or harshly) tend to grow up to be cruel (or harsh) adults? Do children who are treated kindly tend to grow up to be kind adults?

* Do different cultures at different times differ substantially in the ratio of children who are treated cruelly to those who are treated kindly (CtoK)?

* If so, are conditions that effect CtoK created by large populations, or by a few atypical individuals?

Answer to the first question, as best as such an answer can be without going of into more esoteric psychological explination is, yes

…

The answer to the second one, in short, is also yes

…

Answer to the third Question: Depends on the individuals who make up the group dynamic. Individuals can lead the society into a new psychoclass, but the drive to do so ultimately is statistical. So in general, the group as a statistical sampling of various psychoclasses will tend to advance according to the majority psychoclass.

My guess is also yes to all 3.

 

My objection to deMause’s Psychohistory is not its conclusions, with which I intuitively agree, but its formalism, which is strongly psychodynamic (eg: Freud, Jung). Though I spent a lot of time – thousands of hours – studying psychodynamic theories of personality, despite how intuitively resonant they are, I’ve come to strongly suspect they are terribly, fundamentally flawed. Nearly without exception, they fail to withstand statistical or hypothesis testing comparison to objective data. I think this is reflected in Psychohistory’s

[lA. 3.] Like psychoanalysis, psychohistory uses self-observation of the emotional responses of the researcher as its prime tool for discovery; nothing is ever discovered "out there" until it is first felt "in here."

This manifesto is necessary, I believe, because without the subjective “in here” input, Psychohistory’s formalism isn’t supported by objective “out there” data.

 

Human behavior, individual, small group, large group, and global, can, I believe, be understood by a sufficiently accurate model of individuals and their interaction with each other and other environmental factors. I don’t think 19-20th century Psychological theories, even extensively modified, can do this. Rather, new Psych theories strongly based on molecular neurology will be required.

 

It’s not all in the methodology – the theoretical model must be correct enough, also.

[IDMclean]

What I mean by it's all in the methodolgy is the methodology defines what is and is not exceptable in making a hypothesis, theory, law, priniciple, conclusion, conjecture, anecdote, axiom, etcetra. It's the boundries of the field of study and the tool set in examining said field.

 

A theologist's methods very quite a bit from a physicist and a psychoanalysis. They may share things and common, and those ultimately will lead to the new proto-synthe-sciences, but they have glaring differences, and many areas where they are fundamentally incompatable.

 

Now, admittedly, Psychohistory does lack a complete integration, but like any good science, it is a fairly decent basis to form a future science on, as the data becomes available. At current, psychology is a very new science, as is biology, though arguably they have roots that are older, they have only in recent (past 300 years), become excepted in any large scale way.

 

So, One must make do with the tools at hand, and worry about making it better after one formulates a stable basis to go from.

 

Certainly Molecular Neurology will be synergistic, and may ultimately triumph Psychohistory in predictive power, but at current it doesn't. I rather have advances in the fields we have, leading to new synthesis, than to put off trying to figure things out until we have better technological technique.

 

Sure we don't have the microscope of the psyche yet, but then again we don't even really have a definition of the psyche yet, now do we? Data without context is meaningless. Context without data is like wise. Stockpile both, and analyze and eventually you might see a pattern or two emerge which will work towards a greater understanding.

[Michaelangelica]

My guess is also yes to all 3.

 

My objection to deMause’s Psychohistory is not its conclusions, with which I intuitively agree, but its formalism, which is strongly psychodynamic (eg: Freud, Jung). Though I spent a lot of time – thousands of hours – studying psychodynamic theories of personality, despite how intuitively resonant they are, I’ve come to strongly suspect they are terribly, fundamentally flawed. Nearly without exception, they fail to withstand statistical or hypothesis testing comparison to objective data. I think this is reflected in Psychohistory’sThis manifesto is necessary, I believe, because without the subjective “in here” input, Psychohistory’s formalism isn’t supported by objective “out there” data.

I agree but they were useful models in their day.

They are so much a part of our environment now that we don't notice them anymore.

 

Psychology is not good at making models that help explain behaviour.

We have countless thousands of experiments on Uni kids and rats but not a lot of pulling together of all these disparate bits of knowledge

 

Human behavior, individual, small group, large group, and global, can, I believe, be understood by a sufficiently accurate model of individuals and their interaction with each other and other environmental factors. I don’t think 19-20th century Psychological theories, even extensively modified, can do this. Rather, new Psych theories strongly based on molecular neurology will be required.

I think that would be far to complex.

It would explain everything so then would not be a model.:)

 

I studied Economics for a time and became disenchanted with their simplistic models so I studied Psychology because they lied to me in Psy 101 by saying they knew and studied behaviour.

It is interesting that 50% of Physicists are employed by stockbroking firms. What does that tell you about chaos theory?

It’s not all in the methodology – the theoretical model must be correct enough, also.

Models should have some predictive value it is what i object to in De Muse (which sounds more like political; manifesto than a scientific model.)

I also have doubts about biologist's Natural Selection for the same reasons

[IDMclean]

I would highly suggest that you read through the verious materials, both of DeMause and of other contributors to the Psychogenic theory, before you make a value judgement.

 

What I have discussed here is very limited. Tip of the ice berg taught by a novice. I am discussing this here and now as an excersize for myself, thereby learning the material gradually. I have studied with my mom (undergraduate Sociologist and Statistician) in a limited fashion over the past year or so, so I have a toehold understanding at current but far from comprehensive.

 

Also, if this is a political manifesto, what is the motivation? What does DeMause have to gain, and what does he have to lose?

 

I have already showed some of the more important portions of the frame work, though like I said already, far from comprehensive. What Psychohistory is, is a frame work from which to make predictions from, and to either prove or disprove.

 

Brain crash at: 5:48AM, Shutdown and Recover Mode Set.