Psychology applied to territory, triggered this one!

[BadBeast]

Here's one that started in TCC, as a kind of "Of course Psychology is a proper Science, you silly Wiccan!" post, then developed into the kind of  blaaaah blahdy blah meandering  blurty rant  that needs to be released into an environment where such things can realistically be left to prosper, or to rot, stink, and die according to their merits.
So here goes.

Psychology IS a proper Science, you mumbling superstitious thwickyn,  The fact that it is (mostly) abused by people in order to influence others doesn't detract from it's validity as a Science. Until the late 19th Century, and Freud's research into psycho analysis, 'psychology' was wholly in the hands of Wiccans,  tricksters, charlatans,
and mountebanks. And what is their legacy? Superstition, Religion, and fear of the *insert Goblin/Communist/Bogeyman of choice* under your beds!
Now (for better or worse) our understanding of how the mind works, and the dynamics of Human behaviour are pretty accessible to anyone who wants to know, in meticulously researched and documented format. We have working, formulaic techniques for achieving specific results, the same as we have in Physics, or Chemistry.
The science of Psychology, is applied as the Science of manipulation. We are fed impulse triggers, reinforced by repetition, all day long on TV by advertisers. That's just applied Psychology. Cause and effect. A pretty shitty application of Psychology IMO, but it works every time. But just because that is one of the most exploitative and base examples of it's abuse, doesn't mean the same techniques couldn't be used, just as effectively in beneficial ways.
   
The staggering extent to which we have been manipulated psychologically, throughout History, is not a comfortable revelation, and it (quite rightly) scares the living shit out of people. But at least Psychology, as a Science, can show us which particular historical tricksters, figured out how to work their Mojos on people, how they applied it, and why it worked.
   For instance,  Look at the way Hitler manipulated the German people in his climb to power. Without using Psychology as a referential tool of explaination, the only way to describe what happened there, would be in terms of him casting  "MaHJicK spellZ" over the whole population, or using "DemoniAcal influenceS" to command the Soul of the Nation.                                         And while that might be kind of valid as an explanation, for simple, superstitious Medieval Peasants, the exact mechanics of  what he did can be precisely mapped with all the relevant dynamics named and explained scientifically, unambiguously, and empirically using Psychology.
It  won't stop people from falling for the same tricks, from all bloody manner of  psychopathic madmen, but at least we can (If we care to) tell when they're doing it now. Which brings us to another uncomfortable moot point.
Now we have means of spotting the tricks, we also get to choose whether to follow, or resist. Unfortunately that means taking responsibility for ourselves. And it seems on the whole, people aren't quite ready for that one yet. 
So now we knowingly allow them to do it to us, by making justifications where we really shouldn't. And that is not looking good.     

Let's face it, we all know our leaders are ruthless, conniving, self serving liars, cheats and thieves. But we justify allowing them access to power, using old, tired devices like absolving our responsibilities to somebody else "political process"
and falling for that colossal old lie, "Might is right" "Democracy"  or whatever flavor of turd our systems of government dress it up as.                       Now we all have access to the same 'Technology', on a personal level, as anyone else. And make no mistake, Psychology is a technology. ( An "exact knowledge") Which brings us nicely around to "Territory", because territory, whether personal or collective, is claimed, and maintained through the use of Psychological dynamics.                             

At it's most basic, it's simply the ability to say, with conviction "This is MY territory, and in it,  I am sovereign". That disempowers the ones who say "You will comply with my wishes". If enough people say it, then it changes everything, dramatically. Like in Libya, today, or the **insert name of favourite rebellion** when the oppressed masses rose up as one, and the whole fucking show

If we suffer no trespasses upon our personal Territory, and tacitly agree to uphold each other's sovereignty over theirs , there would be no need for anyone else to spoon feed govern us, according to their particular paradigm, no matter how benign or despotic they are.

Territory is a necessary dynamic for Humans to prosper, and be healthy. But we need to define it for ourselves before we can draw it's borders and expect others to respect them. In this way, the whole World and it's resources can become the territory of everyone who lives in it. For instance, if you need to access a water source, then you can, nobody can effectively claim all the water as 'their rightful territory', because territory is not just a geographical thing, but a psychological one. So if you are thirsty, then that water is your territory, and you can rightfully drink as much as you need. But if you want to own it all, that is overstepping your boundaries, and anyway, you won't be able to maintain any effective border control over it.
A person with no proportional concept of where their own territory begins and ends, is invariably either incorporated as a part of someone else's territory, (consensual, practical, and acceptable) or they invade everyone else's territory, until somebody (Us, not just anyone else)  stops them. That's our job, as a ruling sovereigns.

But allowing someone else to be the ruling sovereign over millions of other people's lives isn't just unfair, it's stupid, insane, and  always, always ends up in a huge ugly mess.
So define what you are sovereign over, maintain your borders, seek not to encroach on what is not yours, and then we'll see how it goes, shall we?  Are we all agreed?   

"Yeah, but, . . . . . . . . . . NO!" 
No yeah, buts!  No capitulation, or false justification, or spurious claims will be upheld. No more bullshit, because that doesn't actually work out so well for us. No need for coercion, if we all agree on those things that there is no reasonable argument against.
The USA  had such a thing in their grasp once, in it's Bill of Rights. It's Constitution, before you started bolting "Yeah, buts" "Amendments" onto it. It was fine as it was! You didn't realise it at the time, but it was almost perfect.  Hindsight, (Epimetheus) is just a tool, that enables us to develop Foresight. (Prometheus) And the development of foresight is absolutely essential for turning cabbage headed monkeys, into proper Hu-mans.

They'll still have lapses where they start chucking shit at each other, but they'll be capable of realising that all that shit just stinks the place up, fot them as much as for their targets, and hopefully stop before they get left behind as recidivist stupid superstitious hippy dippy "Cuntjurors,  practitioners of "Divers Arts, & Warlockery" or we burn them at the stake. leave them to fester in their shit covered rat holes. Either way, they're not coming with us, if they insist on stinking of shit all the time.
It's no good to just say "My Grandpappy stank of shit all his life, and it didn't do him any harm"! Or to pretend there's no stink there at all. Shit smells like that for a reason. The reason is to remind us to get as far away from it as possible, not to chuck it around like confetti, and pretend it's clever. It's not. It never was.
If that's how you roll, then feel free to FUCK OFF AND DEVOLVE into Homo Foetidus Cacoturdus, just do it a long way away, or we will burn you all until the stink has gone.

Now, where was I?    

     

[Requia ☣]

Freud wasn't the first psychologist by a long shot, just the most popular, and he's a huge part of the reason people don't take psychology seriously today.  His work bears about as much relationship to science as Aristotelian physics does.

[Aufenthatt]

I'd have gone with Wilhelm Wundt.

[East Coast Hustle]

Nice rant. Too bad the first 2 posters to comment on it couldn't keep their pedantry in their pants.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Nice rant. Too bad the first 2 posters to comment on it couldn't keep their pedantry in their pants.

THIS.

I rather liked it, BB.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

NICE!!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nice rant. Too bad the first 2 posters to comment on it couldn't keep their pedantry in their pants.

THIS.

I rather liked it, BB.

Thirded!

[Laughin Jude]

I'm a psych major, so that's where my biases lie. My thoughts/agreements/added discussion:

-Of course psychology is a science. It occupies a strange realm in science because the more we learn about the Universe (by which I mean our advances in physics, chemistry and biology) the more it straddles the line between the "hard" and "soft" sciences. Physics determines chemistry determines biology determines (through a shit ton of complications and with a lot of philosophical arguments about the nature of free will tossed in) psychology. It's all connected.

-The potential uses of psychology as a science are varied, and history repeatedly shows that potential can have both constructive and destructive aspects. In some ways, furthering knowledge of how the human mind works is even more fraught with peril for abuse than has been uncovering the secrets of atomic energy.

-It's really stupid for those who practice "magick" not to see magick for what it really is: applied psychology (and sociology, actually). How can you read something like The Satanic Witch or The Holy Books of Thelema and not comprehend that the great "magicians" aren't beings imbued with supernatural powers but really just IRL tricksters and trolls who apply their studied understandings of human behavior to manipulate people and social structures? (I know one answer to that is that these "pagans" are too busy reading Sylvia Browne to study Aleister Crowley, but c'mon.)

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm a psych major, so that's where my biases lie. My thoughts/agreements/added discussion:

-Of course psychology is a science. It occupies a strange realm in science because the more we learn about the Universe (by which I mean our advances in physics, chemistry and biology) the more it straddles the line between the "hard" and "soft" sciences. Physics determines chemistry determines biology determines (through a shit ton of complications and with a lot of philosophical arguments about the nature of free will tossed in) psychology. It's all connected.

-The potential uses of psychology as a science are varied, and history repeatedly shows that potential can have both constructive and destructive aspects. In some ways, furthering knowledge of how the human mind works is even more fraught with peril for abuse than has been uncovering the secrets of atomic energy.

-It's really stupid for those who practice "magick" not to see magick for what it really is: applied psychology (and sociology, actually). How can you read something like The Satanic Witch or The Holy Books of Thelema and not comprehend that the great "magicians" aren't beings imbued with supernatural powers but really just IRL tricksters and trolls who apply their studied understandings of human behavior to manipulate people and social structures? (I know one answer to that is that these "pagans" are too busy reading Sylvia Browne to study Aleister Crowley, but c'mon.)

Most of these "pagans" are too lazy to read anything heavier than spellbooks by Cunningham. They haven't touched Crowley, let alone Adler, Starhawk, or Bonewits, all of whom are part of a very basic neopaganism reading list for people who want to actually understand the ritual.

But they don't want to understand the ritual. They want mahadjique.

[BadBeast]

Thanks Guys. Re-reading it, it seems more coherent than I remember. All I know is it would have been wasted in TCC on people whining about how psychology wasn't proper science. Not that I'm claiming to be a psychologist, but from people who still put milk out for the wee folk, it comes across as pretty facile.

But as far as inner territories go, after not watching any TV at all for about 9 months, I'm a lot more selective about what I will watch now. And the bit I really find intrusive is the commercials. The little tricks they use to embed themselves into our minds, the repetition of certain words, an then when a chink of identification is opened, they crowbar as many trigger words, spurious pseudo-scientific bullshit, and brand association hooks as they can get in 30 seconds. Then finish with a repulsive but catchy jingle or phrase.  "Because you're worth it" or some other shit. It's a hostile incursion, exploiting peoples most receptive waking mind state, and I'm glad I have enough understanding of this "not really science" to be able to see how they do it.
And if they can openly apply these techniques to re-enforce Brand Loyalties, then they will certainly be applying them covertly for other, less ethical and more manipulative reasons too, like gradually polarizing whole populations to accept harmful malware, like the Islamophobia that  has been carefully nurtured in the West over the last 15-20 years.  Next thing we know, we're involved in three separate conflicts in the middle east. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, how much easier it is to go to War on behalf of a population already filled with subconscious reasoning over-rides, and embedded, ready formed opinions on what constitutes "reasonable provocation. Frightening stuff really.     

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The USA  had such a thing in their grasp once, in it's Bill of Rights. It's Constitution, before you started bolting "Yeah, buts" "Amendments" onto it. It was fine as it was! You didn't realise it at the time, but it was almost perfect.

Unless you happened to be Black or female.

TGRR,
Knows that only one amendment ever restricted rights, and it's been appealed.   Amendments were never the problem, the problem is that nobody pays attention to the constitution, anymore.

[LMNO]

WE DO!
   \




Says "FUCK THE POOR", don't it?
   \

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, some psychology is science.  It can be measured, tested, and repeated.  Leary's work on "circuits", for example, is used by advertisers and the US government (military basic training is the most obvious example), because it WORKS.  EVERY TIME.

On the other hand, a pile of it is failed ideas that people still teach as valid.  Freud, for example, is utter shit, but doesn't invalidate the parts of psychology that actually are measurable.

[Laughin Jude]

I look at Freud in much the same way I look at Plato: he's someone whose major contribution was asking interesting questions and inspiring later students to dig deeper into the field, even if his own answers were shit most of the time.

Luckily, while Freud's still studied for his part in the historical narrative, mainstream psychology nowadays doesn't seem to pay his ideas much mind, at least not as a be-all, end-all approach. It's more of a "while experiments and later discoveries about brain structure have made Freud's ideas about X fall out of favor, his concept of Y did lead to studies in Z, which found that..." kind of stuff.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I look at Freud in much the same way I look at Plato: he's someone whose major contribution was asking interesting questions and inspiring later students to dig deeper into the field, even if his own answers were shit most of the time.

Luckily, while Freud's still studied for his part in the historical narrative, mainstream psychology nowadays doesn't seem to pay his ideas much mind, at least not as a be-all, end-all approach. It's more of a "while experiments and later discoveries about brain structure have made Freud's ideas about X fall out of favor, his concept of Y did lead to studies in Z, which found that..." kind of stuff.

Yeah, Plato was a windy old fraud.

Another thing:  Maslow has been utterly discredited by America™.  Here, your every need is met.  People don't "self-actualize" when that happens, they become fat, useless teabaggers, and spend all their time worrying about what the other monkeys are doing.

If you want "self-actualization", lean on the monkeys, hard.  That's where you get Gandhi and King and Franklin.  When you stop fucking with them, you get Sarah Palin.  It's analogous to genetic load.