Please, Psychology fags, HELP ME. I have a big fucking problem.

>>8211603
No

>>8211609

Maybe?

I am genuinely upset that no one seems to know what the fuck i'm talking about

>>8211603
Blah blah blah.

First, you're not insane. As such, you can look at another person and gather what is rational in observation of them.

That's where your projection ends and the subject starts.

This is only so exact as your observation is rigorous, reality is less real than your intercept of reality thru your senses limited by their precision and your cognition over them being imperfect.

Better than being concerned about this projecting of yours, look at the patterns delivered in the behavior and backgrounds of these Wrong women who are plague to your peace.

In development of a profile, you can go a long way toward predicting the expected behaviors of a person. Again, it's not perfect, it's just another tool to leverage.

All that you need be concerned about in terms woman is if she gives you what you want, whatever that might be. If she does, excellent. If not, throw her back and find another one.

It would be nice if you could just see it, but yes-- you do need to waste a bit of your time with her to understand who she really is, as a matter of her unguarded behavioral expression, enough to make the determination.

The reason why no one knows what you're talking about is because you're asking for psychology of the sciduck.

That's like asking a feminist to make you a sammitch,

Tl;dR: blah blah blah.

>>8211649
>This is only so exact as your observation is rigorous, reality is less real than your intercept of reality thru your senses limited by their precision and your cognition over them being imperfect. I think i'm too stupid to know what this sentence really means. Please elaborate.

>>8211649

also, i came to /sci/ cause psychology is also a science, isn't it?

>>8211614
I don't know

>>8211667
>Please... HELP ME. I have a big fucking problem.

Stopped reading there.

>>>/r/
>>>/adv/

>>8211603
Jung's work is of no relevance in finding a mate. You may as well be using astrology as a guide to love. Not all psychology is /sci/ence. Jung's dung is emblematic of unscientific shit.

Stop trying to make things more complicated than they are. Do you think animals are worried about "projecting" when seeking a mate? Do you think your ancestors knew about Jung's dung when they mated resulting in a bloodline, of which you are an unholy spawn?

Granted, human relationships last longer than those of most species so you want to find someone you get along with and will be attracted to over the longer term. So look for those qualities in a woman. I'm sure there are plenty of them with those traits. Then focus on having fun and doing things that are mutually enjoyable.

Jung is killing your boner. Stay away from that junk. Unclutter your thinking. Things are simpler than you know.

>>8211684

Of course animals don't need to worry about stuff like 'projection'. But in the case of humans, whose psyche is so evolved, projection constitutes something that is a matter of real concern. For example, it is a psychological fact that we resent those qualities in others, that we do not believe exist in ourselves. Thus the 'intellectual' holds in low regard the man who is driven more by is 'feelings', than the abstraction of conceptual understanding, and vice versa. This is only one example among a hundred other of such kind

>>8211684

Also, I think it is shameful to dismiss a man's work for just the fact that he dealt with matters that might be regarded as lying within the realm of the 'occultish', or whatever. After all, religion and other such matters are a real expression of a human's innate needs.

Am i really making a big deal out of nothing? Possibly. Maybe over analyzing such things just leads a man away from the real source of the problem. But in a world of infinite complexity, i think we ought to make the effort to reach out to such seemingly 'alien' realm of thoughts.

you need to learn about yourself and your traits before analyzing other people. you won't know what you're projecting unless you know who you are first.

>>8211700
>For example, it is a psychological fact that we resent those qualities in others, that we do not believe exist in ourselves.

Actually, this is untrue. Betas love Trump, for example.

>>8211705
Jung's work is of little use. It does not spur research or innovation. It does not improve treatment models nor educational methods. It might be entertaining and thought-provoking but it not helpful if you want to stay within the confines of science.

>>8211710
Watch Super Nanny or The Dog Whisperer for examples of how simple thinking and following a few basic principles of psychology can be extremely productive. Do NOT hire a psychoanalyst if you need help with parenting or training a dog. They spin gaudy tales while you spin your wheels and the problem remains.

You ask for help because you're in a predicament created (in part) by your tendency to over complicate things. But you then want to defend unnecessary complicating. If you're having trouble walking because you're overthinking walking and reading speculative junk about walking, then it's time to quit doing that and uncomplicate things.

>>8211734

Dude, beta's love trump cause Trump is the ultimate beta. I mean come on, they guy is moron, and the only reason he is popular is because there are a billion more morons who think that building a fucking wall will save them from 'the outsiders'.

Also, Jung's work may seem to be of little use to those who are unfamiliar with his actual contributions to society, which are quite vast.

Yes, i agree that I do have the tendency to over complicate things, and that may be a part of the problem at hand. But for the sake of science i do wish to know whether a human needs a woman to feel complete, or whether he can do without her. Of course, this goes against our biological imperatives, and hence would be derogatory for mankind, but i am not suggesting that the withdrawing of projections is something all people NEED to do. But for those interested in developing self awareness to a great extent, maybe such knowledge is a prerequsite. After all, the buddha experienced a degree of satisfaction through self awareness that he no longer felt the need for anything except for fulfilling his basic needs of survival. What is that other that the withdrawal of projection to the highest degree?

Sorry if i sound like i'm rambling.

>>8211765
>Dude, beta's love trump cause Trump is the ultimate beta.

I dislike psychoanalysis because it can be easily adjusted to fit any narrative. That doesn't help when doing scientific or theoretical work.

>Also, Jung's work may seem to be of little use to those who are unfamiliar with his actual contributions to society, which are quite vast.

I'm not dismissing his contributions. And I'm not dismissing his work either because it was an earlier step on the ladder of psychology that helped us get here. But if you want to see more and reach higher you can't stay standing on that step of the ladder, especially when there are higher steps.

>But for the sake of science i do wish to know whether a human needs a woman to feel complete, or whether he can do without her.

Buddhist monks, both males and females, do just fine without the companionship of the opposite sex.

>What is that other that the withdrawal of projection to the highest degree?

Look up reinforcement theory. I'd advise you to use language from empirically supported theories if you'd like to do well.

Girls are great. When you stop complicating them and look at them as just another member of the same species as you, you'll probably recover from your illusions.

Jung's stuff appears to be harming you, if anything. Let it go.