You are quite correct sir, it's interesting that you thought of that.

Working hard does not mean rush. Nobody can chase Jung but that does not mean he was rushing ahead of somebody. Investigation is not a sportlike.

@@5xing8gua I think OP meant rushing to make evidence in his own mortal lifetime

i dont think he rushed at all

@@funkyboodah i think what he means is that one lifetime is not enough time for one man to create a complete psychological model from scratch. his theories were muddled and vague, but it was the best he could do at the time. jung was a pioneer of the field. lobotomy and shock therapy were common practice back then and thought to be the best legitimate treatments for mental disorders we didn't fully understand. and we barely understand them even nowadays. prescription medication is basically a form of chemical lobotomy, and the only alternatives we have are wishy washy "new age" stuff like somatic therapy or holistic medicine. psychology is still a very new science. Jung was eons ahead of his time. in a similar way as Nikola Tesla. but very few were willing to back either of them. for that reason their work never came to full fruition, and now all we have is bits and pieces of an unfinished puzzle we can take from and try to work with. Jung may not have been able to make any sort of real-world impact with his work but at least he offered a way for some people to get a grasp on reality without having to go through such invasive medical procedures, or getting roped into some cult.

That's because his red book was made for him, not you. You have to make your own "red book", have you tried applying the technique that Jung said?

The mark of intelligence is the ability to communicate complex ideas in a simple framework. Safe to say, Jordan is simply "above average", respectfully. "Maps of Meaning" isn't a tome...it's an anthology lol.

The levels of conciousness or unconscious to be able to think thoughts like Jung’s is hair raising

@@analisandohistorias not all of us want to take several years out of our lives directly experiencing the unconscious self. for a lot of people who repeat that experiment in some capacity it tends to end in disaster and bitterness.

never read the red book. i drew this conclusion years ago in principle, but it came into sharper focus in listening to some stuff by an avid appreciator of jung. makes me wonder how much this is intuitive to certain kinds of people, and how much certain big universities had access to this long before it was published. speech is layered, often manifesting several meanings within it, with the author frequently unconscious (sometimes wilfully) of the extent to which he is expressing inner matters.

And JPs made you want to die more than ever lmao

Hmm a professor and psychotherapist using Myers Briggs categorisation? Interesting.

@@dragster9070 I rly had the same thought lmao

Jung enlighten you? He thought personality was part of the collective unconscious. When a patient is having some neurosis, do you get a ouji board out like he did? Or do you prefer tarot reading his other tool. You believers in Jung are a bunch of fruit cakes. Psychotherapist are into Jung and psychiatrist are into drugs. No wonder the mental health field needs an overhaul. Forty percent of teens are on some kind of pill, therapy, or considered to have some mental health issue by you folks. That's outrageous. You folks are the ones with the problem.

INFJ is what?

And no coincidence, Jung had wanted to go into archeology as a profession, but family finances forced him into medicine.

💚🧚‍♀️

You saved your life too. The power of the individual.

I say the same thing about Jung. I gained so much perspective on the nature of my inner experience, and what it all represents, that it put me in the driver's for the first time. I do recognize the importance of the questions you referenced, but those questions just didn't mean anything to my personal experience, so it's like the psychology that speaks to us the most will reflect our personal dispositions, and without a doubt for me that's Jung. For some, Adler will be preferred, and so on. So really, the title is misleading. It should be something like, "where Jung was biased", or, "Jung's blind spot". Point being, it's much more nuanced the binary thinking of right and wrong.

Me too

To a degree, I agree. I'd bet odds are like 1000 to 1,,,that Mr. Peterson would approve (at all) of the chosen Title of this clip. Mr. Peterson says many sensible Good things yet he clearly is not without prejudices and they are obvious to those who analyze his concepts. He has too much certainty as do most. As Samuel Jackson would say, ""Nowadays M'fkers KNOW". lololol

Certainly not a PC of trash like jp

I see what you did there 😆

Jung was wrong. There ... I said it.

@@joshgraham4399 Wait, is this psychology class or did I accidentally walk into the wrong class room and we are studying philosophy. And Jung got himself confused. Yes, he did. Too much opium - the Marijuana of his day. You sound like my 13 year old friend after pot and watching the 1970s star wars movie. Say, how is Yoda.

Exactly. What I've observed, after watching a bunch of Peterson videos, is that he is extremely "outward" oriented which is just insane considering the fact that he is not a motivation guru or influencer, but a psychologist. His job isn't to tell a person to fix themselves from the outside-in, but to help fix themselves from the inside out. Until and unless you're sorted out on the inside, you can't be a properly sorted out person. Even with the nihilistic tendencies question, his answer, while obviously was helpful, seemed too simple to me...imagine you start chasing relationships and job and all to deal with nihilistic patterns, and say you even start feeling better...but what if your friend betrays you, or your partner cheats on you, or you are fired...you'd crash face first into the darkness again. Because you didn't try to locate or fix the root cause, you just fixed up the branches.

Exactly.

@@Sunshine-yk2eg Inside - out and outside - in are two sides of the same coin. Building habits has an arguably bigger impact on your psyche consciously and subconsciously than thinking through the hypothetical trauma. If a person is so terrified by his own psyche often the only thing one can do to stabilize their life is start with building healthy ways of behaviour that shortly after lead to a new way of thinking since often people become so stuck, that they can't even imagine ever doing something productive. What I want to say is: You can't have one without the other and that goes both ways

Persona or Ego indeed is a product of mind (as play of memory and imagination which is commonly called as thought process). Therefore sanity can not be evaluated by comparing personal with social which proves Jung is right and Peterson is stuck in his insane imagination...

@@Sunshine-yk2eg He makes the point that Jung viewed things from the perspective of an open introvert. Do you think Peterson is an introvert? I don't. I believe he is limited in the same way that Jung was. As an extrovert, his answer to the the question of fending off nihilism was spot on. These things are likely more important in developing personal satisfaction and meaning than focusing solely on self reflection.

In the case of Jordan Peterson, prepare to spend around 100 000 dollars... In the case of Jung, he usually managed to have "contributions" from his clients which hormally became his acolytes, int the million dollar range

@@r.e.campos8857 I never had a personal session with Jung or any Jungian counsellor but his books are a cheap gold mine of priceless practical grounded wisdom. I owe him a huge debt of gratitude.

You couldn't have had a session with Jung, he died in 1961. His Red Book is not that cheap and when issued cost almost 150 US dollars. Having been helped by reading him and recognizing it is more an indication of what a good person you are than Jung's person. When reading the Red Book, beware because Jung actually deep down presents himself as a prophet revealing a new, unusual and revolutionary face to God, which is the contents of the red book and the black book quite contrary to the established idea of God.

@@r.e.campos8857 Dude, you are just talking shit.

I would choose both peeling The Onion ..

Introversion is not a weakness. Introversion just means your energy is recharged when one spends time alone vs. extroversion means one is recharged from time with others.

@@magee2161 by weakness i meant overdoing the introverted lifestyle. Even if you are naturally something you need to put some effort into the other direction. You dont have to be fully extroverted.

@@kernalfleak Ah I see, that makes sense

He said Jung thought with the mind of an introvert. Getting married and going to parties doesn't mean Jung gained the ability to think as an extrovert would.

@Richard Allen To add to your last sentence, JP very often gives credit to other people's ideas and discoveries, so OP just sounds a bit like a hater imo. He even gives credit to not just people but to papers they've written or studies he's read.

Not just that.

Right. There's a reason psychology has so many fields. Analytic, neuro, developmental, cognitive/behavioral. The human psyche is multi-layered and there's no one size fits all. If you're open minded, creative and whimsical then just cleaning your room and getting a girlfriend isn't gonna cut it for long. Equally, telling an obsessive and ambitious workaholic to write down their dreams and feelings probably won't resonate that much.

Great quote.

Brilliant comment, thank you.

Wish I saw this much earlier in my life.

Search for jobs and people that suit your temperament, at the same time work on your weaknesses. So if you are disagreeable, try and focus more on doing things for others. That's a good start, JP has a few videos on it.

@@Zoney06 Great! Thx.

He's not as emotionally stable to handle his own damn gift Carl Jung knew how to channel his gifts ito a positive light or experience. "Genius syndrome ".

I really like JP's mannerisms 😀

He’s a very neurotic individual himself.

May just be his natural face

I think with the nihilism question he's repeated these obvious answers of how our behavioral patterns effect our psyche ad nauseum. Probably gets a bit old answering the same question lol.

I think he does it more so to boost the audience's attention, rather than having a blank face. And he is trying to critique... So he will appear more neurotic because of the latter. In this one.

He was a cultural relativist anti-realist . A "noble savage" follower of Rousseau. A "past worshipper."

Jung predicted the advent of totalitarianism when the conscious mind moves away from the self. Seems like thats whats happening right now.

@@alanvinayak9685 I would agree. Look at the surge of christian nationalism we are now witnessing in the U.S. We see countless conversations of these people expressing contradictions as though rational. It's clear they are out of touch with 'the self'. But we've seen this before. Fascism and nationalism, will always be with us. The author Norman Mailer once declared that totalitarian governments were more in alignment with the human condition because of its simplistic appeal- namely a parent or authority figure making things easier. "Yes... no... do this... don't do that!" Democracy really does take more effort and maturity of emotion as it requires concessions. And thus... knowing 'the self'.

yep, i can sum up jung w/out a phd or masters. go into plato's cave, your wildnerness, get feral with your grief, rescue your inner child, and gtfo and keep that child protected and raise her up to be the amazing person she is using mindfulness to invoke archetypes we all know and understand to some extent. that's all it is in a nutshell. now there are better and worse ways, but that's the gist of it.

@@opheliawild well stated ma'am. I think your inner child is quite safe and had grown into Her Greatness. Good evening.

Desk

@@jeremyhennessee6604 You guys are both fools if you believe you can 'sum up' Jung. You can't compress Jung because given the way he writes, most of what he says is already in a compressed form. You unpack Jung, you don't summarize him. You're doing the opposite of reading him if you imagine that he can be compressed into some brief apothegm, let alone what ophelia wrote. Instead of reading him, you're reducing him, and I imagine you do that with most everything you read, judging by your attitude and your own statement to the effect that most psych. texts are "overcomplicated" and can be puked back out into a Twitter post. I don't think you could even explain what 'active imagination' or 'individuation' mean if I asked you to do so without GPT or google or something, that goes to both of you. Do you even know what an 'archetype' is? You think that's just about positive visualization and we all have automatic access to this world of archetypes? An archetype is a vital form whereby the inner acts upon the outer and the outer acts upon the inner, a liminal reality between spirit and matter that normally unconsciously conditions the dialectical movement between the one and the other, between inner and outer, spirit and matter, self and other, (Hence it was through study of the alchemists and their symbolism of transformative processes that Jung really began to understand it) but can actually be made conscious through prolonged active imagination; (the fulfillment of alchemical gold, the 'philosopher's stone') where that dialectic normally works through simple enantiodromia, with mental states simply emerging from highly energized excitations and falling back into depleted moments of recovery, (this potential intensification or tension between excitation and depletion is what others like Klages call man's 'daemonic' potency) when it is made conscious one gains new agency over their own pathos: the archetypes fertilize and activate this patterning between the inner and outer worlds, which is what 'individuation' is. They exist both inside and out of man's head, which is why they are called collective by Jung; he doesn't mean they are a genetically ancestral reservoir we can plug back into like a hivemind. He calls them collective because they are objective realities that we discover, not invent, much like mathematics; they existed before humanity and will exist after humanity, and any alien conscious being that might exist out in the universe will 'discover' the same archetypal forms because they are simply the abstract forms whereby any dialectical mediation between the inner and outer can be maintained. The human being, without this process of individuation, is by default in a kind of self-servitude, a purely 'daemonic' being at the mercy of their own unconscious. I'm really sorry to have to be blunt but it's just such arrogance, the worst kind of arrogance because it isn't even amusing, to sit there with the gall of saying you have the great genius to sum up someone like Jung in a paragraph- because his own writing? Nah he was just making it complicated to look smarter or something, and you know better than he did what he wanted to say, so you're going to say it for us. Bullshit. By the way, has the thought occurred to you that these theorists are not overcomplicating things for the fun of it, but that the subject in question really is itself that complicated? Because the subject is the latent and obscured machinery of the human mind actively working against the very analyst trying to decipher it. There's not any other more complicated subject.

Correct. He mentioned in M,D,T that it was both his work with his patients and the time he dedicated to his family that kept him grounded in reality as he explored the unconscious

To add on i think even if you read Jung literally, you would be able to get a gist of what he is saying, i think jordan just skimmed through the books or relied too much on the modern academia knowlegde to interpret the books by Jung.

Additionally he has not read any of Jung's students works. Marie louise von franz is the greatest student of Jung and frankly give a much more simplified explanation of his work.

Not very accurate but I see the point you’re trying to make, Good try!

^THIS!

Tum

is clickbait.

Nietzsche belonged in a mental institution along with Jung.

@@stephenwipf5224 Seems like you beat them to it tho 😂

@@aconfusedshoe6240 What do you know? your a confused shoe..........

@@stephenwipf5224 "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

@@Eminovici Where Nietzsche,is concerned it's also no measure of health to manipulate half of history to his lunatic idiosyncratic rantings either.

I do not know what you mean by redundant. Also, Where is your 'self-evident' line?

@@GRichter1996 _”the capacity to experience negative emotion seems to be the core feature of everything we regard as psychological illness”_

@@-John-Doe- Well It seems to me. It depends upon how an individual defines psychological illness. Please try to refrain from just ctrl c + v your responses it is very upsetting. I was asking a genuine question which at least deserves a genuine response don't you think?

Marcus Aurelius, the greatest emperor of all time and the founding pillar of Stoic philosophy, was an unrepentant life-long dopehead: opium, all day, every day. (His philosophy of non-reactivity, emotional distance, resignation, and letting things go makes a lot of sense when you know that about him, if you know anything about opioids. They are my own weakness.) Heroin before there was heroin. Everybody has a weakness, I was not surprised by JP's.

You serious? You think he’s behind Jung? Bruv if you study psychology in university you’re 1000% going to study Jungian psychology, Mr Peters Son won’t be there. I think we give people to much credit sometimes instead of ourselves and we make people famous for no apparent reason whilst we stay poor!

I am no pro, but have loads of experience being neurotic. ;) I went to the grief instead of running from it. I find most are white-knuckling every way they can to avoid facing their jabberwocky of rage and grief. once we do, we learn to ride that mf'er. or at least, it begins to take some naps. you see grief leads to purging, feral like tragic grief processing, then comforting rains of acceptance, then we integrate the lesson and the soil is turned for rebirth and new growth.

Same but I only understand 2 of them 🤣

By "have" do you mean "read", or just look good on the shelf?

@@mrchoon2010 have read. I have read these books

@@abcd-ur8fo that's awesome. There aren't many people like you in the world

Same here, (almost). I've read Maps of Meaning and 12 rules for life by JP, not sure yet whether I wanna dive into Beyond Order next. I've read a couple of books by Jung when I was younger and recently reread them, currently finishing Man of Symbols. Still so fascinating but also overwhelming at times. 😳 I haven't dealt with the Red Book nor Aion yet,... I'm sure these two will be the most admirable ones. Oh I'd love to meet people in real life who study such material as well!

Tow

oh well i consider he did a great work whit it, of course there could be some fails, but let me tell you about his perspective on the theosophical society and how he made our way pretty clean in a lot of esoteric superstitious stuff there, even exposing the danger of the theosophical society trying to CREATE a "new religion" and the danger that it coul bring (all in a letter to SMITH, that you can read for example in chatgpt where i did at first. just ask about jung knowing the danger of the theosophical society trying to create a new religion, its pretty cool data.) The man is a really non stoping rabbit hole when you discover his letters data.

how

Lok

Can you flesh this out? What do you think of the Myers Briggs model?

@@ewallt I use the Majors model (Majors PT Elements). Superior to Myers-Briggs statistically and in terms of getting a real-time read of the 8 Function-attitudes. 93% accuracy. Adheres to Jung’s thinking. Can share more if desired. Keep in mind Jung’s work was based on observation.

@@ctrchg or use the enneagram if you want to go a bit deeper

@@holycannoli64 I’ve been trying to find time to get into the E’gram. Great tool.

Is the 5 factor model wrong?

Jung was a fruit cake. I find it laughable how you conflate mysticism with what should be modern medicine and psychological.

@@joeboxter3635 Laugh then.

Fum

Jung would disagree.

Jung would certainly admit hes not without flaw, but Jordan Peterson has no footing to speak on the subject.

@@Alice-im2ek True

Exactly.

Exactly my take!

Yes! Subtle snark. “Did the best he could but it wasn’t that good.”