| flash card: revisionist psychology #001 |
Self-analysis is not the fulfillment of grandiose wishes. It will not make you what you cannot be. It might if you make the passage correctly, make you a better human. It should reduce the consequences of neurosis in your life, and assist your understanding of others. |
| Don't try to remenber this. It will stick in your mind relative to what it means to you. |
Friday, November 20, 2009
flash card: revisionist psychology #001
Monday, June 8, 2009
Is keeping two blogs on self-analysis going-self defeating?
Is keeping two blogs on self-analysis topic going-self defeating?
I am undecided on this question as the Blog seems totally lost to search. Further Blogger.com since Google has taken it over is now more functional than before. For this reason I am cross linking the two blogs. As confusing as that may be at first. it permits compartmentalization of different themes, useful to separate the spin off of the teachings of Leopold Szondi and the Self-analysis of yourself, by yourself. This double theme, I hope to demonstrate is not really double or far distant separated, but that one supports the other when the cognitive self can locate reference points useful to determining where it is at and make better navigation, to where it should go for a better life. Using Szondi's terms, the fate we find we are in and may have good reason to want to change is fate analysis.
A little know aspect of Fateanalysis is that their exists (AS determinable in the Szondi Test) evidence of settings of the basic drive directions of individuals.
Szondi argued red that these settings reflect the preferences that lead to a persons fate in life (hence the “fate analysis term). These settings can only be partly explained as being determined by imitation, education, Pavlovian conditioning or environmental pressures.
Szondi offered a gene theory as the recasting in one’s life.
His ancestor set drives and preferences. His special insight was, that these drives are when exaggerated the same as eight basic psychiatric conditions, universal in humans. He came to this opinion from a decade long genealogy study.
These impulses, he theorized, must be set in some manner and that his test invention showed in graphic form that the that such controls exist and can be filtered out for observation. They are by this projective type test revealed, when understood, as an individuals drive system. The term drive and drive system was useful addition to Szondi’s work,
This meant a person’s drives are also the result of existing settings.
This was something like the permissions and defaults we have come to know as the software actions in a computer programs today but were not in the vocabulary of 1937. An analogy is, when some are ‘on’- certain others are ‘off’ but still exist, ‘grayed out’ and not accessible until a certain task is completed or canceled [as need satisfied].
These CONTROLLING SETTINGS [also called, cleavages] have a range permitted by heredity in external pressures on an individual’s personality system. This defines the limits, that imitation, education and conditioning can make on an individual’s thinking, feeling, and behavioral possibilities. Real limitations as well as fundamental drives must balance. Normal is in this view a balanced mixture of the eight universal psychiatric conditions, thus there are many normals,
The setting range is limited by an individual’s inheritance as to intelligence, emotional responses, and neurological state. However the Szondi test shows also, the theory, as it represents in an analog form that which a known about the individual from his history and specific clinical empirics.
The gene theory, If true, then one has to accept that, many individuals do not effectively control what they do inherit.
There is reason to believe that the possibilities, an individual uses in his development can unfold only within the control possibilities that pass to him from the gene mixture. Control are not totally fixed, the evidence each individual used a preferred setting modes, within several available to him.
In order to understand these settings and the resultant thought feeling and behavioral out comes, we have to filter them out and set them into the fame of referece based on the eight psychiatric conditions that Szondi used. Other conditions would filter out other aspects of personality, just as other tests and inventories filter out different things. No one tests or procedure can cover every psychological events or outcomes.
Then hopefully to use this knowable to assist that person to satisfy the needs in a social positive manner. In particular those that define his ways or modes of satisfying his innate drive needs. (Innate drives needs are those common to all humans and discernible with similar goals in animals. Thus, hereditary and biological in nature.) This may sound like double talk until you can you can form a table of the possibilities and display the possibilities.
The great minds of the past from Aristotle, through to the philosophers and today’s modern psychology theorists, all offer useful but partial examples of such possibilities and limitations. Our knowledge situation is much like the state of chemistry before the insights of the Russian professor, Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev 1834-1907, the creator of the first workable predictive version of the periodic table of elements. Unlike other contributors to earlier chemistry tables,
The Mendeleev display predicted the properties of elements yet to be discovered. This was with some inconsistencies do to an incomplete array of findings, the rarity and transient nature of some elements and limited tools of analysis that existed in his day. [Note the parallel to psychology to day.] Our ability to display the graphic analogs of the human drive system is about at the level of and shares similar problems as the Mendeleev display.
Also we note that Szondi’s test instrument, that he always called his test experimental, and the test ensemble has not been revised or supplemented with new reagent quality visage photos since it’s introduction in 1937. Nor has the eight psychiatric conditions used as core to his filtering out of the settings been brought into the thinking of DSM IV. In fact Catatonia, Hysteria. Epilepsy and Manic-Depressive have new OR modified definitions and if we are to understand Szondi correctly, we must use his definitions. Be this as it may, we must persist, using the tools we have, rather than lose the insight and prediction capabilities inherent in the Szondian tables, filling in as we go from our own findings tested against the opinions of L. Szondi and his coworkers, particularly Susan Deri, who offers a psychology approach and Jacques Schotte, in Belgium, who developed a special 'Pathoanalysis' approach, using new tables of a natural development circuit he uncovered. (Too complex to include here.)
.
The Possible Settings (Following Szondi) are four main divisions. They also may be conceived as being related - Heredity spheres.
1.Sexual
2. Paroxysmal
3. Ego,
4. Contact
Each sphere is an important study and the cluster of controls within each are needed to explain particular aspects of human psychology. Limited, as is our present ability to do so is at thus time. To recognize a setting you must know the like and dislike set positions of the two factors in that sphere.
A heredity sphere is also called a “Vector” a term borrowed from navigation science. The reagent visage photo dyadic forming a Vector Sexual: Homosexuals and Sadists. Paroxysmal: Epileptics and Hysterics. Ego (Sch): Catatonics and Paranoids. Contact: Manics and Depressives. FOUR HEREDITY SPHERES OF HUMANS as understood WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE SZONDI TEST. These four Spheres when set into a Mendeleeve-like table forms a relative system, within which psychological needs and behavioral strivings are in a (determinable by the experimental test) relationship. With each such setting determined one can attach a term or phrase that reflects its nature. This nature term may be appropriate in some cases and not others, but offers a starting point for logical analysis.
The clinical empirics found in others with known conditions or symptoms or behavior syndromes have to support it as being a common to others that have that setting. (This is also the case with other projective tests, such as the Rorschach Ink Blot test as one of the validity indexes.) Each Sphere, has 16 possibilities that exist within it. This number is do to the constraints of the test's construction. Perhaps a further developed test set could filter out additional settings or even strivings of a different nature, if a more refined process for the separation was constructed. At present we must use what we have. However, as limited as one can argue that the Szondi Test 'instrument' is, it is still a useful. For decisive analysis one must not rely on any one test or test method. A method to advance our knowledge and findings. The findings then force a change in out theoretic. We are not attempting the teaching the test. Here we are illustrating its unique possibilities that may spin off into education, vocational selection, social work, mental hygiene, personal psychotherapy or self-analysis.
The back link to my other Blog is fateanalysis.com
August 27 2009
fateanalysis.com is {HERE}
E-mail is fateanalysisguy@gmail.
I am undecided on this question as the Blog seems totally lost to search. Further Blogger.com since Google has taken it over is now more functional than before. For this reason I am cross linking the two blogs. As confusing as that may be at first. it permits compartmentalization of different themes, useful to separate the spin off of the teachings of Leopold Szondi and the Self-analysis of yourself, by yourself. This double theme, I hope to demonstrate is not really double or far distant separated, but that one supports the other when the cognitive self can locate reference points useful to determining where it is at and make better navigation, to where it should go for a better life. Using Szondi's terms, the fate we find we are in and may have good reason to want to change is fate analysis.
A little know aspect of Fateanalysis is that their exists (AS determinable in the Szondi Test) evidence of settings of the basic drive directions of individuals.
Szondi argued red that these settings reflect the preferences that lead to a persons fate in life (hence the “fate analysis term). These settings can only be partly explained as being determined by imitation, education, Pavlovian conditioning or environmental pressures.
Szondi offered a gene theory as the recasting in one’s life.
His ancestor set drives and preferences. His special insight was, that these drives are when exaggerated the same as eight basic psychiatric conditions, universal in humans. He came to this opinion from a decade long genealogy study.
These impulses, he theorized, must be set in some manner and that his test invention showed in graphic form that the that such controls exist and can be filtered out for observation. They are by this projective type test revealed, when understood, as an individuals drive system. The term drive and drive system was useful addition to Szondi’s work,
This meant a person’s drives are also the result of existing settings.
This was something like the permissions and defaults we have come to know as the software actions in a computer programs today but were not in the vocabulary of 1937. An analogy is, when some are ‘on’- certain others are ‘off’ but still exist, ‘grayed out’ and not accessible until a certain task is completed or canceled [as need satisfied].
These CONTROLLING SETTINGS [also called, cleavages] have a range permitted by heredity in external pressures on an individual’s personality system. This defines the limits, that imitation, education and conditioning can make on an individual’s thinking, feeling, and behavioral possibilities. Real limitations as well as fundamental drives must balance. Normal is in this view a balanced mixture of the eight universal psychiatric conditions, thus there are many normals,
The setting range is limited by an individual’s inheritance as to intelligence, emotional responses, and neurological state. However the Szondi test shows also, the theory, as it represents in an analog form that which a known about the individual from his history and specific clinical empirics.
The gene theory, If true, then one has to accept that, many individuals do not effectively control what they do inherit.
There is reason to believe that the possibilities, an individual uses in his development can unfold only within the control possibilities that pass to him from the gene mixture. Control are not totally fixed, the evidence each individual used a preferred setting modes, within several available to him.
In order to understand these settings and the resultant thought feeling and behavioral out comes, we have to filter them out and set them into the fame of referece based on the eight psychiatric conditions that Szondi used. Other conditions would filter out other aspects of personality, just as other tests and inventories filter out different things. No one tests or procedure can cover every psychological events or outcomes.
Then hopefully to use this knowable to assist that person to satisfy the needs in a social positive manner. In particular those that define his ways or modes of satisfying his innate drive needs. (Innate drives needs are those common to all humans and discernible with similar goals in animals. Thus, hereditary and biological in nature.) This may sound like double talk until you can you can form a table of the possibilities and display the possibilities.
The great minds of the past from Aristotle, through to the philosophers and today’s modern psychology theorists, all offer useful but partial examples of such possibilities and limitations. Our knowledge situation is much like the state of chemistry before the insights of the Russian professor, Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev 1834-1907, the creator of the first workable predictive version of the periodic table of elements. Unlike other contributors to earlier chemistry tables,
The Mendeleev display predicted the properties of elements yet to be discovered. This was with some inconsistencies do to an incomplete array of findings, the rarity and transient nature of some elements and limited tools of analysis that existed in his day. [Note the parallel to psychology to day.] Our ability to display the graphic analogs of the human drive system is about at the level of and shares similar problems as the Mendeleev display.
Also we note that Szondi’s test instrument, that he always called his test experimental, and the test ensemble has not been revised or supplemented with new reagent quality visage photos since it’s introduction in 1937. Nor has the eight psychiatric conditions used as core to his filtering out of the settings been brought into the thinking of DSM IV. In fact Catatonia, Hysteria. Epilepsy and Manic-Depressive have new OR modified definitions and if we are to understand Szondi correctly, we must use his definitions. Be this as it may, we must persist, using the tools we have, rather than lose the insight and prediction capabilities inherent in the Szondian tables, filling in as we go from our own findings tested against the opinions of L. Szondi and his coworkers, particularly Susan Deri, who offers a psychology approach and Jacques Schotte, in Belgium, who developed a special 'Pathoanalysis' approach, using new tables of a natural development circuit he uncovered. (Too complex to include here.)
.
The Possible Settings (Following Szondi) are four main divisions. They also may be conceived as being related - Heredity spheres.
1.Sexual
2. Paroxysmal
3. Ego,
4. Contact
Each sphere is an important study and the cluster of controls within each are needed to explain particular aspects of human psychology. Limited, as is our present ability to do so is at thus time. To recognize a setting you must know the like and dislike set positions of the two factors in that sphere.
A heredity sphere is also called a “Vector” a term borrowed from navigation science. The reagent visage photo dyadic forming a Vector Sexual: Homosexuals and Sadists. Paroxysmal: Epileptics and Hysterics. Ego (Sch): Catatonics and Paranoids. Contact: Manics and Depressives. FOUR HEREDITY SPHERES OF HUMANS as understood WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE SZONDI TEST. These four Spheres when set into a Mendeleeve-like table forms a relative system, within which psychological needs and behavioral strivings are in a (determinable by the experimental test) relationship. With each such setting determined one can attach a term or phrase that reflects its nature. This nature term may be appropriate in some cases and not others, but offers a starting point for logical analysis.
The clinical empirics found in others with known conditions or symptoms or behavior syndromes have to support it as being a common to others that have that setting. (This is also the case with other projective tests, such as the Rorschach Ink Blot test as one of the validity indexes.) Each Sphere, has 16 possibilities that exist within it. This number is do to the constraints of the test's construction. Perhaps a further developed test set could filter out additional settings or even strivings of a different nature, if a more refined process for the separation was constructed. At present we must use what we have. However, as limited as one can argue that the Szondi Test 'instrument' is, it is still a useful. For decisive analysis one must not rely on any one test or test method. A method to advance our knowledge and findings. The findings then force a change in out theoretic. We are not attempting the teaching the test. Here we are illustrating its unique possibilities that may spin off into education, vocational selection, social work, mental hygiene, personal psychotherapy or self-analysis.
The back link to my other Blog is fateanalysis.com
 |
August 27 2009
fateanalysis.com is {HERE}
E-mail is fateanalysisguy@gmail.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
At Chirobut's hosted Blog Fateanalysis.com, a new mode of thinking about self-analysis is being introduced in the metaphors of a software writer guy, who seems to tell us his metaphors for the mind functions can be recast more or less in your very own metaphors.
He writes:February.... I've covered approximate 20, 45 minute Self-Analysis sessions, thus sticking fairly close to my contract with myself. Reaching the depth level free association process described, as essential for self-analysis (as defined by Karen Horney was not always possible for me in some sessions. In addition, I know I dream almost every night, but was able to capture in awareness and later write down only a couple each week. These were generally useful..
At the end of each session, I make a summary of anything that I can attribute to resistance or mood detection
. My method of doing so is partly based on my experience as a software writer, where at the end of writing several pages of code, I must run the code to discover what does not perform correctly, and locate what ever 'bugs' that caused it's malfunctions. Some pages debug simply, others seem impossible and you know you have resistant work ahead of you. I ask myself how did this session go, and how do I feel about the section of code I am exploring. Is new code presenting itself and is the problem inherent in it do to the legacy code that rules over all subsequent code. Or later family set code? Just how neurotic does it make when aberrant unwanted code runs?
Other may be more comfortable with different metaphors, but as they read this they can say to themselves-“How would I say something like that to myself?” and they will find their own way of talking to themselves without being considered crazy.
The concept of resistance in my self-analysis (for me anyway) draws on this model. Some sessions I feel inclined to skip and ask mysekf if this self assigned 'extra self torment' is worth the effort. As no one waits for any answer. My friends and myself like me- (I think) more or less as I am? Is not this kind of thinking none other than 'bugs' in my brains software? And is t not also resistance in my self analysis. Some say elf-analysis ia impossible to do. I still want to try."
He writes:February.... I've covered approximate 20, 45 minute Self-Analysis sessions, thus sticking fairly close to my contract with myself. Reaching the depth level free association process described, as essential for self-analysis (as defined by Karen Horney was not always possible for me in some sessions. In addition, I know I dream almost every night, but was able to capture in awareness and later write down only a couple each week. These were generally useful..
At the end of each session, I make a summary of anything that I can attribute to resistance or mood detection
. My method of doing so is partly based on my experience as a software writer, where at the end of writing several pages of code, I must run the code to discover what does not perform correctly, and locate what ever 'bugs' that caused it's malfunctions. Some pages debug simply, others seem impossible and you know you have resistant work ahead of you. I ask myself how did this session go, and how do I feel about the section of code I am exploring. Is new code presenting itself and is the problem inherent in it do to the legacy code that rules over all subsequent code. Or later family set code? Just how neurotic does it make when aberrant unwanted code runs?
Other may be more comfortable with different metaphors, but as they read this they can say to themselves-“How would I say something like that to myself?” and they will find their own way of talking to themselves without being considered crazy.
The concept of resistance in my self-analysis (for me anyway) draws on this model. Some sessions I feel inclined to skip and ask mysekf if this self assigned 'extra self torment' is worth the effort. As no one waits for any answer. My friends and myself like me- (I think) more or less as I am? Is not this kind of thinking none other than 'bugs' in my brains software? And is t not also resistance in my self analysis. Some say elf-analysis ia impossible to do. I still want to try."
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
A NEW YEAR
New Year= New Concepts Unfolding.
Filed under: SELF HELP SEARCH, self-analysis — [Tags:] analysis, CHIROBUT, Ego-Egg, fateanalysis, fateanalysis.com, FREUD, self, self-help, SZONDI —
#Please join us for the leap forward in 2009!
The post:
SELF-ANALYZE YOURSELF WITHOUT THE HELP OF ANY THERAPIST AT ALL
-Had some sucess as a Blogger post in 2008, but most of its thrust played out at my other Blog,
fateanalysis.com. The forbidden yeachings of Lipot Szondi capturing the most attention there.
New Year 2009 Resolutions:
1. Unfolding Szondi teachings in a comic strip format.
2. Keep alive support for serious self psychoanalysis without any Analyst except yourself!- You can and should do this, if you believe in psychology at all.
3. Show you yourself as mirrored in the Szondi Test with emphasis on your genic shifts. Without the third pool of the unconscious explored, you have not been fully analyzed.
Come on in- Join the party- You are truly welcome here! Thinking about what it is all about can be fun! Little Ego-Egg opens the door to anyone that comes to the place. His childish innocence makes you smile in respect to your own crushing problems. Where they so crushing after all? Quirky Chirobut- centuries out of date, will make you laugh. Jane, so clever- so in control you will hope stays that way. Henry her boyfriend and would be sport’s psychologist may stir your ambivalence up- Is winning the game as so important as he see’s it to be?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
