Reddit reviews What Is Wrong with Jung?

I'd start with What's Wrong with Jung? or The Jung Cult : Origins of a Charismatic Movement

As in all areas that have a cult-like following for something, it's a good idea to read the criticisms before you start on the cult-forming material.

Ha! Everything you linked me is either non-sequitur or unproven bunk. Your links prove nothing, other than your own lack of understanding, and inconsistent argument.

I’m not a scientist in this field, so I’m not replying to disprove it. I’m here to shut down your fallacious logic, and provide links to why your pseudo-science is hot garbage.

Let’s start with the non-sequitur:

Biological genetic memory doesn’t equal psychological genetic memory! One doesn’t prove the other, and you’re arguing for the latter. Biological genetic memory is merely for cell development, and other microscopic functions, and has nothing to do with brain memory.

As for psychological genetic memory, did you even read the wiki page you sent me? Straight from that page: “In modern psychology, genetic memory is generally considered a false idea.”

Further, that string of google scholar links is all about the biological genetic memory, which has zero to do with anything you’re talking about.

————

Now for the garbage fire that is your main argument and links:

The PsychologyToday link... oof, where to begin?

Carl Jung was great for many things, but his “popular theory of the collective unconscious is especially criticized as an example of over-interpretation and a failure to examine the diversity of cultural evidence.”

Also, Noam Chomsky is also great for many things, but his universal grammar theory is not related to what we’re discussing, at all.

Lastly, the creator of morphic resonance, Rupert Sheldrake, is widely panned as a pseudo-scientist by the scientific community, and his theory has never been proven, and has been disproven numerous times.

> “the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience.”

And more from his page:

> "there is no way that this straightforward and impressive body of evidence can be taken to imply that memories are not in the brain, still less that the brain is tuning into some indeterminate, undefined, resonating and extra-corporeal field."

And more:

> “Sheldrake's interpretation of the data was "misleading" and attributable to experimenter effects.”

This guy you’ve decided to believe is a whack job, and his theories hold as much weight as saying crystals heal the body.

Get the tinfoil off your head.

>What parts of Jung's work were "demonstrably proven false?"

There's a whole genre of book based around his theories being false

There are just TONS of them

You can go on for days about why his theories don't hold up. There are good bits, and those good bits live on. Depth Psychology was abandoned by psychologists as a whole, because there's nothing there.

> Are the archetypes non existent? was synchronicity not proved by his work with astrology and marriage? Could alchemy not be construed as a model for individuation? Idk what could possible have been demonstrably proven false.

You're going to try to tell me Jungs work holds up, because of astrology.

>Jung's method was simply to talk to folks.

There is no big couch that people sit on, because as it turns out, that's not an effective way to work through problems. That's an outdated method of psychology that only lives on in movies.

>I have read no Freud.

You can't read Jung and not read Freud. You're ignoring the whole reason he came up with Jungian psychology as a refutation of Freud.

>You don't think pills are good, but you think I'm wrong for saying they're bad. Soooo your point is something like " Hey! You're dumb!" ??

No, I think you're wrong for taking the role of an actual licensed therapist, whose actually studied psychology, and going up to their patients and going "You don't need drugs! Jung says we don't need drugs!"

Which is odd, because Jung liked drugs


>Lol how are you comparing Jung's talk-it-out approach to drilling a hole in someone's head?

Because they're both methods of psychology that went out of date as newer and better methods for treatment became available.

>The way I see it, capitalism is an evil system built on a mental illness ( greed )

Greed is not a mental illness. You can be right about it being an evil system, but greed is not a mental illness.

>Including profiting off the sickness of folks.

Awesome, then support Universal Health Care.

>o deny the possible effects of capitalism in every aspect of life is simply ignorant.

It's weird that we're suddenly talking about capitalism when it never came up before in the conversation, it's like you're changing the subject.

>To assume that everything is corrupt because of capitalism is also ignorant,

Weird how we're making assumptions in a conversation we weren't having.

>but I find this side of assumption to be right more often than not.

Psychology 102. Take a class on it.

Carl Jung is intellectually a fucking joke. He settled for spirits, seances, and the make believe. Raised by a lunatic mother, he spent the rest of his life trying to put the pieces of his shattered-dual-personality-existence-psyche back together. Follow in that shadow at your own peril.


“In this detailed and systematic critique of the theories of psychologist Carl G. Jung (1875-1961), Don McGowan exposes the many flaws in Jungian analysis and methodology. Beginning with Jung's interpretation of religion and his attempts to draw parallels between mythology and his patients' dreams, McGowan finds a consistent lack of rigor, a highly selective use of evidence, and a tendency toward broad generalization, which ignores important cultural distinctions.”


“Jung's popular theory of the collective unconscious is especially criticized as an example of over-interpretation and a failure to examine the diversity of cultural evidence.”


https://www.amazon.com/What-Wrong-Jung-Don-Mcgowan/dp/0879758597


“This reassessment of Carl Jung and the present-day applications of his theories will please few followers of Jungian thought. Noll argues that Jungian analysis has evolved to a cult of personality around its founder, to the point of becoming a religion--with Jung as its prophet, and today's analysts its priesthood. If it's a religious movement, Noll argues, there's too much focus on economic and personal promotion. As a way to explain the workings of the human mind, Noll asserts, Jungian theory contains little that is truly new, borrowing as it does from nineteenth-century occultism, social Darwinism, and neopaganism. Noll further takes to task many cornerstones of Jungian thought, such as the collective unconscious.”



https://www.amazon.com/Jung-Cult-Origins-Charismatic-Movement/dp/0684834235/ref=pd_sim_sbs_14_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=51KRdxqf8RL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL320_SR208%2C320_&psc=1&refRID=8Z9GVGMYEGSVGF7HXHN7


“His system has a revelatory, unproveable basis of much introspection and fantasising ("creative imagination") firmly grounded in the Aryan "New Age" ideas of his day, spiritualism and gnostic ideas spread through Theosophical publishing and the vitalistic, Lamarckian, Haeckelian "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" pseudo-science of his childhood. It is ironic that nearly 100 years later he is used as an "authority" by the latest round of "New Age intellectuals".


“Jung's followers have a large Internet presence.”


http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/gurus/jung.htm