Psychology applied to territory, triggered this one!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

RB: 

An analogy:

Shaman: I turn the key, the car starts.  That's how the car works.

Psychologist: You have to open up the hood, there's these little bits in there that work together, if you fuck with one of them, the car behaves differently.



PLEASE NOTE that the analogy implies that while the psychologist has a better understanding than the shaman, they still don't really understand internal combustion.

Psychaitrist:  "YOU HAVE TO POUR PROZAC DOWN THE GAS TANK."

[Luna]

RB: 

An analogy:

Shaman: I turn the key, the car starts.  That's how the car works.

Psychologist: You have to open up the hood, there's these little bits in there that work together, if you fuck with one of them, the car behaves differently.



PLEASE NOTE that the analogy implies that while the psychologist has a better understanding than the shaman, they still don't really understand internal combustion.

Psychaitrist:  "YOU HAVE TO POUR PROZAC DOWN THE GAS TANK."

Win.

[Slyph]

Shaman: WALK THRICE WIDDERSHINES AROUND YE CARRIAGE, RAISE HIGH THE TOTEM OF ALL OPENINGS AND INTONE "OOZHO MEEKE ABABACK-WAH" IF FUCK ALL HAPPENS YOU JUST DIDN'T *BELIEVE* ENOUGH

[Wyldkat]

Sorry ahead of time for the length.

Wyld, I'm not sure you're aware of this, but you're speaking on so many different levels that the different points you're trying to make are all mixing together into one big mess of contradiction, conflation, and correlation.

You might want to take a step back and re-think the various aspects of your argument and try again.

Not a bad idea.  Two nights of almost no sleep have got to be worse than one for thought cohesion...  I can tell it's not coming across as clearly as I'd like.

So I did and read back over the whole thread this morning.  I can't find the contradictions you are talking about though and although some of it was a bit exhaustion blurred the points I was trying to make are there.

Most of it tied directly into these parts of the OP:

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!

---

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.     

I really liked the OP and was very interested in a discussion about some of the aspects of it.  The response I got actually surprised me.  It wasn't what I had expected of these forums at all.  I mean I had expected to get flamed for joining here, but I hadn't expected the assumptions and preconceptions that got thrown at me ITT.  Different people research different things.  Some people research wold leaders, sports cars or well pretty much anything there is out there to research.  I personally have done a lot of research on shamanism and have found that there are a lot of tie ins with psychology and other modern fields of study.  It's right there for anyone to read about, it's part of history.  Rather than talking out my ass about things I know nothing about I was working off of a base of research so as to NOT be talking out of my ass...  For some reason, even though the concepts were there many people chose to simply latch onto a word "shamanism" and immediately disregard the idea that anything serious could be involved.  (To those who didn't, thank you.)  My posts were also misread (I never said shamans were scientists, for example, at least I didn't see anywhere that I did) simply to further people's attempts to drag the concepts I was trying to get across through the mud.  I had expected intelligent debate, and there was some, but much less than I had thought there would be.

Rather than simply reiterating the same things I've already said, I'm going to quote Roaring Biscuit! who summarized it nicely already:

Manipulation =/= understanding of psychology.

I don't think that's really in question.

I think what Wildcat is trying to say, is that shamans (or in fact any leader ever) have/had an intuitive knowledge of social dynamics and human thinking (which is, in case you needed reminding, rather central to psychology).  While this is almost certainly true, as any leader either has to be either considerably stronger or considerably smarter to stay on top*, equating shamanistic practices with psychological study is pretty much bullshit.  Whether shamans had a knowledge of the workings of the human mind or not is basically irrelevant, as I can pretty much guarantee you it was an informal knowledge.  Much like (I can't remember who said it) Chi being described as an intuitive metaphor for psychosomatics, whatever shamanistic "study" may have occurred does not equate to science, regardless of how effective it may or may not have been, as useful and effective as a symbolic shamanistic interpretation of social dynamics may be in terms of manipulation and leadership, it is still symbolic.  It does not explain the underlying causal mechanisms, nor does it attempt to, nor does it have the tools that one might use to do so.

@ the OP:  Nice rant, I thought it was all getting a bit anarcholame towards the end, but then it turned out to be anarchoawesome.

xx

edd


*there is some evidence that the need for greater understanding of social dynamics is one of the main adaptive pressures that drove the evolution of our massive brains and that our "intelligence" is largely geared towards manipulating the social environment.

It's not exactly how I would have phrased it, but no where in any of my posts did I say that there was any formalized study of psychology by shamans.  What they (and other historical leaders) did and learned thought trial and error and centuries of practice helped lay a base and bring up concepts that would later become studied and explained in the field of psychology.  It all ties directly into the OP "Until the late 19th Century, and Freud's research into psycho analysis, 'psychology' was wholly in the hands of Wiccans,  tricksters, charlatans, and mountebanks.

I also liked this:

RB: 

An analogy:

Shaman: I turn the key, the car starts.  That's how the car works.

Psychologist: You have to open up the hood, there's these little bits in there that work together, if you fuck with one of them, the car behaves differently.



PLEASE NOTE that the analogy implies that while the psychologist has a better understanding than the shaman, they still don't really understand internal combustion.

The only thing I would add is that shamans might have opened the hood and dumped some sand in there, knowing that it might effect something and seemed like a good idea to  try at the time. 

This seems to have evolved to make the point that everything builds off of what came before it, althought that hadn't been my original intent.  Our understanding of science, the human brain, everything is constantly evolving and changing.  As the OP said we now understand what is going on in the field of psychology much more than we ever have in the past.  We have the choice to use or ignore that knowledge.  There are times when knowingly ignoring that knowledge is a good thing and times when using it matters. I'm teaching my kids how the adds on TV are made to manipulate them into wanting to buy things.  I want them to be able to make the choice on whether to use that knowledge or not. 

Heck the scientists thought the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat for how long?

Which scientists were those?

Already answered in this thread:

There was a debate between the two models. The Heliocentric model lost cause it couldn't predict where the planets would be at anyone time. Aristarchus was one of the more famous proponents, also the ancient Indians (Hindus) played with the idea as well. But it went back it forth with the Heliocentric model only slowly gaining more predictable value by the time of Kepler and his laws of planetary motions. Even after Newton there was still some geocentric support. It wasn't completely resolved until Bessel.
But it had to do with what model was better at predicting the motion of planets at anyone time. Of course religion and politics got involved as well.

See even though those astronomy classes where 3 hours long and started at 8:00 pm I didn't completely sleep through them.

Exactly.

[East Coast Hustle]

I think you have a misinformed idea of what the word "science" actually means.

[trippinprincezz13]

I really liked the OP and was very interested in a discussion about some of the aspects of it.  The response I got actually surprised me.  It wasn't what I had expected of these forums at all.  I mean I had expected to get flamed for joining here, but I hadn't expected the assumptions and preconceptions that got thrown at me ITT.  Different people research different things. 

Just to throw in my .02....While I am all for researching whatever strikes your fancy (I, personally have an interest in "paranormal", topics, whatever that may entail), I think that some of the clashing is coming from the fact that while (from my experience), the people on this forum appreciate having the research/knowledge/experience behind what you are talking about, topics of majikque and the like don't hold much water here.

So for some/many, comparing psychologists and shamans, however indirectly, would be sort of like me trying to compare the speed of a horse to a unicorn, however, well-thought out the research may be.

I know you already tried to clear this up, just figured I'd throw out a reason as to why your expectations may not have been met

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Which scientists were those?

Already answered in this thread:

There was a debate between the two models. The Heliocentric model lost cause it couldn't predict where the planets would be at anyone time. Aristarchus was one of the more famous proponents, also the ancient Indians (Hindus) played with the idea as well. But it went back it forth with the Heliocentric model only slowly gaining more predictable value by the time of Kepler and his laws of planetary motions. Even after Newton there was still some geocentric support. It wasn't completely resolved until Bessel.
But it had to do with what model was better at predicting the motion of planets at anyone time. Of course religion and politics got involved as well.

See even though those astronomy classes where 3 hours long and started at 8:00 pm I didn't completely sleep through them.

1.  Aristarchus was not a fucking scientist.

2.  No scientist before OR after Kepler advanced heliocentrism.  Catholic church did.

Or post links.

[Kai]

Psychology is definitely a science, but it's a weird combination of hard and soft science.  It is most definitely a tool that can be used to manipulate people, for good or bad.  That is probably one of the main reasons I have such issues with psychology as a professional field when it is not dealt with as a science.  I've seen way too many instances of people misusing their training when counseling people or simply not understanding their field enough to know what they are doing.  When a fourteen year old boy can totally hoodwink a trained psychologist.... 

From my study of shamanism I quickly learned that, to be successful as a shaman in their tribe or group of influence, a shaman HAS to be a master of psychology, trickster, charlatan, manipulator, doesn't matter the word you use they have to be one.  Some of the stories out there are amazing.  The methods and application vary, but it all comes down to understanding social dynamics, thought processes and understanding how to manipulate those to achieve the desired effect. 

It's not just shamans though, pretty much any social leader has to have a good grasp on psychology to remain a leader for long.  That or their immediate support group does...

Um.

Wait.

Science = Shamanism?

Fuck YEAH I'm a Shaman.

And if you listen close, I may be willing to "grant" you my shamanistic secrets of life. For a price.

[Requia ☣]

1.  Aristarchus was not a fucking scientist.

2.  No scientist before OR after Kepler advanced heliocentrism.  Catholic church did.

Or post links.

I assume you mean geocentrism?

Does Ptolemy count as a scientist?

[Phox]

Psychology is definitely a science, but it's a weird combination of hard and soft science.  It is most definitely a tool that can be used to manipulate people, for good or bad.  That is probably one of the main reasons I have such issues with psychology as a professional field when it is not dealt with as a science.  I've seen way too many instances of people misusing their training when counseling people or simply not understanding their field enough to know what they are doing.  When a fourteen year old boy can totally hoodwink a trained psychologist.... 

From my study of shamanism I quickly learned that, to be successful as a shaman in their tribe or group of influence, a shaman HAS to be a master of psychology, trickster, charlatan, manipulator, doesn't matter the word you use they have to be one.  Some of the stories out there are amazing.  The methods and application vary, but it all comes down to understanding social dynamics, thought processes and understanding how to manipulate those to achieve the desired effect. 

It's not just shamans though, pretty much any social leader has to have a good grasp on psychology to remain a leader for long.  That or their immediate support group does...

Not quite what I said, but correct in a way.  Shamans through out history have had to rely on observation and repetition of results to achieve their goals.  Not today's science, but part of the foundation of it.

I was trying to point out the importance of understanding psychology to leaders of groups and attempting to make the point that that knowledge was necessary no matter what the technological level, but obviously I didn't get that part across very clearly.  Not surprising seeing as I'm going on about 3 hours of sleep.  Basically for someone to lead a group of people they have to understand the dynamics of the group and of the people in it (that part gets more general the larger the group).  They don't have to be scientists or even have a degree is anything to do this, but it is still the application of knowledge of psychological principles even if the people applying the knowledge don't realize that.

Something can be a science and used scientifically both skillfully and unskillfully.  The ways I have seen it applied in the field of psychological therapy have been very unskillful and very unscientific.  The fact that a fourteen year old boy can fool someone with a college degree at her own profession was an attempt to make that point.  

Protip: Do never invoke shamanism/religion/superstitious fuckery in scientific discussions.

Seeing as the topic was psychology and in all the research I have done, it plays a key role in the position and actions of most if not all leaders of people, religious or otherwise, I don't see how it isn't relevant.  I'm not talking spells or any of that stuff, I'm talking about the ability of people to manipulate knowledge of psychology to further their goals as leaders.  It's been a part of leadership since the dawn of humans and for most of human history the majority of  leadership roles were directly related to religion, many leaders even being seen by the people as deities themselves.  If that is not the ultimate sign of understanding how to manipulate people, I don't know what is.

Bolded parts relevant to my position. Also, please to be noting what I said.

So... according to her... psychology and manipulation are interchangeable words.

Manipulation =/= understanding of psychology. P.E.R. I. O. D.

How this ties to the OP:

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.

[/b]
Applied psychology as manipulation =/= "Manipulation = understanding of psychology".

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.     

Analyzing manipulation through psychology =/= "Manipulation = understanding of psychology". After this, the rant does not have much to do with psychology in regard to  understanding of .

Protip: Do never invoke shamanism/religion/superstitious fuckery in scientific discussions.

Please note what I said.

[Igor]

Which scientists were those?

Already answered in this thread:

There was a debate between the two models. The Heliocentric model lost cause it couldn't predict where the planets would be at anyone time. Aristarchus was one of the more famous proponents, also the ancient Indians (Hindus) played with the idea as well. But it went back it forth with the Heliocentric model only slowly gaining more predictable value by the time of Kepler and his laws of planetary motions. Even after Newton there was still some geocentric support. It wasn't completely resolved until Bessel.
But it had to do with what model was better at predicting the motion of planets at anyone time. Of course religion and politics got involved as well.

See even though those astronomy classes where 3 hours long and started at 8:00 pm I didn't completely sleep through them.

1.  Aristarchus was not a fucking scientist.

2.  No scientist before OR after Kepler advanced geo*centrism.  Catholic church did.

Or post links.

*Corrected, I think

I've been reading The Discovery of Dynamics by Julian Barbour recently. (It is awesome, if a bit over-exhaustive at times)
And yes, I would agree with point one. It is also questionable whether Aristarchus ever seriously advanced heliocentrism.

Point two is more difficult, since the concept of a "scientist" wasn't really concrete at any time before Kepler. But Tycho Brahe definitely counts, and he did have a geocentric model. Although, his model had the sun going round the Earth, but all the other planets going round the sun. So he was halfway there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe#Tycho.27s_geo-heliocentric_astronomy

tl;dr: Roger is right, but I read an interesting book and wanted to share details.

Edit: Requia mentions Ptolemy, and his epicycle/deferent geocentric model was definitely the standard up until Copernicus. He and the Hellenistic astronomers were some of the first people to make detailed astronomical observations, and theorise based on them. But there is firstly, evidence that Ptolemy had a tendency to fudge his observations in favour of his theories, and secondly his measurement for the size of the moon (2 degrees) was 4 times too large. And no one seemed to question it.

So if he was a scientist, he wasn't a very good one...

[Don Coyote]

Wyldkat, have you actually studied any upper division psychology courses at an accredited institute for higher learning?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

1.  Aristarchus was not a fucking scientist.

2.  No scientist before OR after Kepler advanced heliocentrism.  Catholic church did.

Or post links.

I assume you mean geocentrism?

Does Ptolemy count as a scientist?

Yes.  My mind was consumed by rage at this assbaggery.

No.

[Cain]

Political science has more to do with mastering manipulation than psychology (where it is merely a useful byproduct).

FUCK YEAH IMMA SHAMAN!  I shall use my mastery of douchebaggery to sit as like unto a giant parasite on the top of your social pyramid by claiming a vast number of events have been prevented or made to happen through my excellent skill (no verification required).  And then I shall be unseated by an unforseen event which causes much damage and that I take the blame for not preventing, through inflating expectations.

Wait, that sounds so familiar...

[Don Coyote]

Political science has more to do with mastering manipulation than psychology (where it is merely a useful byproduct).

FUCK YEAH IMMA SHAMAN!  I shall use my mastery of douchebaggery to sit as like unto a giant parasite on the top of your social pyramid by claiming a vast number of events have been prevented or made to happen through my excellent skill (no verification required).  And then I shall be unseated by an unforseen event which causes much damage and that I take the blame for not preventing, through inflating expectations.

Wait, that sounds so familiar...