treeleafoot - Tumblr blog

treeleafoot · 2 months ago

Text

R-INtroduction: 'psychology has a few distinct areas' (this blog is titled Choice Proliferation PsychOSophia)

Psychology has a few distinct areas, that by way of logic, are applicable as related, and require literacy that is developed in relation to the emphasis on differences observed in existentialists:

Genealogy, the study of genetic differences, and the logic by which genes produced physical differences, is relevant to the study of the psyche

Theology, is sometimes relevant, because of the relation of egos or identity to aspects of superego, - Carl Yung, for studied archetypes and the relation fo archetypal aspects of heroism and identity and it’s relation to otherwise natural aspects of human genius, in works such as Hero with a Thousand Faces

We’ve covered some aspects of relational aspects of genealogy, and have also considered the ways in which “national” or “societal” ideologies contribute to our sense of natural identity; genealogy helps us to better understand who we are, why we are who we are, and what makes us different

Another area that is inclusive in some parts of both theological scrutiny, as well as genealogical differences, is “neurology”: neurology is logics demonstrating differences and similarities in brain, and because of the relevance of IQ, for example, as a statistical standard of physical ability which is intellectual (or as a intelligence quotient), neurology must also be considered relevant to the consideration of the “psyche”

In large part, by understanding the underlining differences in physical identity expressed as aspects of neurology, we perceive that there are some basic and underlining aspects applicable to our study of the otherwise other than “physical” aspects of behavior and cognition we characterize as “psyche” As to many philosophers, while the distinction is not a “dichotomy”, it is useful to observe that there is a difference between “mind” and “brain”, just as there is a difference between “ideals” and “physical substance” (or materialism)

Those otherwise philosophical differences are not themselves a contradiction: the aspects of behavior and cognition are not those we find to be independent of brain function; instead, to a psychologist, it is also necessary to understand at least meaningfully some aspects of brain function, to observe how it influences personality, how it influences cognition, how it influences behavior

Some of the differences we might observe in neurology, we might characterize as related to stages of physical development: for example, workers in the childcare industry, are attentive and observe changes in the physical character of individuals, and by way of those physical changes, changes in behavior, changes in cognition

Other differences, are differences we observe which are differences in the “kinds of existentialists”: while in some cases, psychology identifies even as a quotient, characteristics common to any existentialist, like behaviors relating to appetite, or to consumption, in other cases, profound genealogical differences assert concepts of difference (differences in mammals, while in some cases demonstrating patterns observable to psychologists, also require us to observe that differences in genius, produce differences in the brain, by way of which we perceive differences in cognition and behavior); for example, Pavlov’s experimentation demonstrated both psychological similarity and difference in the behaviors of different kinds of individuals

As a result, neurology is an area, the logic of which is both meaningful to psychologists, and likewise, the kinds of insights that psychologists possess, are relevant to the development of competent neuroscience, to competent neurology

In the next unit, - (after the 5th section on “quantum science”) - we will work on some of these basic distinctions, or basic areas that inform and characterize Psychology as a science and academic discipline

0 notes

treeleafoot · 2 months ago

Text

5th section - (sorry this is still a work in progress, but a foreshadowing of what this section involves, here:

If we can use logic to identify aspects of behavior, and we can program IQ which is not itself human to respond to certain kinds of stimuli, then what stops us from predicting behavior?

When does our study of the logic of psyche, go from an area in which we are simply making useful observations about "human character", or making use of terms applicable to the humanistic concepts of relation to sex or gender, to the kinds of systemization of logic, that uses facts in order to predict behavior?

Often, it is computer science that makes this transition -and another area that is relevant in the development of these aspects of computer science, - uses a term that describes the systemization of time, this term is quantum.

Quantum sciences or quantum theory is any science or theory that makes use of a system to describe or characterize time, or relates to

0 notes

treeleafoot · 2 months ago

Text

Psychology has a few distinct areas, that by way of logic, are applicable as related, and require literacy that is developed in relation to the emphasis on differences observed in existentialists:

Genealogy, the study of genetic differences, and the logic by which genes produced physical differences, is relevant to the study of the psyche

0 notes

treeleafoot · 2 months ago

Text

The bare necessities

I like to think, - that for someone visiting this blog, - that it is a bit like a wasteland oasis: that for wanderers and people in search of answers, that they can take away at least, the relevant Vocabulary, meaningful terms, relating to many of the important differences between people, and even between people and animals: and here, they'll have found this far, the pscyhopathology of personality (zodiac), Iq or Eq, gender psychology, and also some terms relating to physical determinism, gender or sex, and animal psychology. You wanderers may come here for these basic things - the Bare Necessities. The kinds of psychological studies - the sorts of things you see fit to study, that will be up to You, - an independent person, - but you will do so with reference at least, - to some common terms, you may care to share with other investigators of the psyche, other researchers of the mind!

7 notes · View notes

treeleafoot · 2 months ago

Text

THE BARE NECESSITIES - the very bare necessities

Also, while we are on this subject

I recommend anyone to watch the Walt Disney adaption of the Rudyard Kipling classic:

The Jungle Book

one of my favorite movies, it is really great!

If you haven't seen it, please watch it - and if we can, we'll get some comments, about if it has something to add to our PsychoSophia Choice Proliferation !!!

1 note · View note

treeleafoot · 2 months ago

Text

Section 4

Section 4 :

Does psychology deal only with human ideation, cognition, and behavior?

The logical study of psyche allows us to identify in some aspects distinctions in respect to what we perceive as norms that are isolated by way of relation to species, as well as other kinds of fundamental aspects of psyche, that are common irrespective of species.

In this case, in the most basic forms of psychological study, we can perceive how basic states of physical identity are common to all: fear, hunger, thirst, - are what we identify as psychology which we related to aspects of physical identity.

There where we perceive that a type of physical culture exists, and by way of that, we hypothesize the congruent form of genetics, it’s genius: we can perceive that the applicable forms of psychology are naturally related.

So what is true of any aspect of “physical culture”, when we look at it comparatively, in a rational way, suggests what we see as meaningfully corresponding in actuality, the relevant and related forms of psychopathology, the corresponding range of psychological states

Along with physical culture and the hunger or thirst, we could use "fatigue", as an example, such physical cultures therefore are predictive of what we observed is the behavioral aspect in relation to fatigue. There are a few points we might observe, that fatigued we are less able, that we are more likely to error, - and that these kinds of fatigue are in relation to a kind of physical culture. In the abstract sense, this congruence seems to lack usefulness, however in particular ways we find it applicable, to potential "studies", of a psychological kind

What this also means, however, is that the rational study of aspects of physical identity, is inclusive of a broad “range” of physical identity

And these aspects of genius, these aspects of relational psychology, demonstrate differences, applicable to, and resulting from, “genus”, from “genius”, -

Some of these differences we have already referred to tangentially, - and they are differences in IQ, -

While observable differences in IQ, are a consequence of physical ability, and the relation between physical ability and “intelligence”, or to “intellectual” ability, in the generalised and sometimes specialised sense, are rooted essentially in such “physical ability” What we care to call EQ, - is observables that are in the broad usage of such terms, independent of, but applicable to, different observed aspects irrespective of "genus"

"Maturity" is different from "experienced", but either term is applicable, in some potential way, to aspects of genus

In short, as a rule, we can hypothesize,

That what we observe as potentially real to a “physical culture” we see as being a natural form of equivalency

If such a “physical culture” well then = this form of psyche

But let’s look at this in a more specific way.

Human identity demonstrates a broad range of “divergent” aspects of the relation on the basis of a fairly clear equivalency

In short, when we translate “egoism” to “physical identity”

The result is many differences in face,

But not only this:

We see the translation of “egoism” to “id”, as potentially inclusive of chronologies, national ideology

IN short, - people gain from belonging to not only “human society” (that humanizes them), but also to “specific aspects of human society” - and therefore, who and what we are, is changed by the relevant sense of relation to the aspects, the ethnodemographics, for lack of a word, of such society

But let’s look at how this divergent aspect of relation in this equivalency, differs in terms of “animal identity”

Birds, on the other hand, if we observe the strict translation of “ego” to “id”

They demonstrate characteristics of “homologousness” (in short, similarity in bones). At first, animal id demonstrates by way of this, a genius that produces a kind of “android” or “asexualised” form of identity (they lack sex organs).

The translation of ego to id, can produce a few observable relations

They may all be of “exactly equal” (more often times mice, as opposed to birds).

They can all be a same bird,

But then,

The translation of ego to id, while it is a sameness (a same ideology), in respect to homologousness, -

It is differences in respect to “ego identification”, - in which we begin to observe aspects of animal identity

The translation of ego = id

Is on the one hand,

A “same-centered” relation, because of the sameness in bones,

It is on the other hand, - also differences, -

In that the birds differ by way of relation, just as “choromsomes”, - by way of reference to “same” or “opposite” So birds also have genealogical traits, - we can identify characteristics of sameness, or oppositeness

But not all of animal id, is this kind of genealogy

However, we can continue the study of animal identity, to identify what we observe in for example, bovine populations

In these cases, not only color, but observable aspects of sexual identity are also identifiable.

Bovines are not only black or white or red, - they are also male and female.

Here, we see - in relation to ego to animal id,

These clearly expressed aspects of sexual and gender identity.

But, if we look at in terms of by way of “physiognomy” -

To compare the essentially divergent aspects of human ego to human id

What we identify in animal populations is something unlike this

In animal populations, what physiognomy expresses is “convergent” aspects, in the relation of human ego to human id

What we identify is that unlike humans who develop individualistic characteristics,

That bovines have clearly expressed gender concepts, but they demonstrate strong and convergent aspects in respect to physical identity

Not only do we observed clearly express gender concepts, we can also observe some part of their expression of a convergent identity isn't simply engendered or specious: it is identity expressing similarity in respect to "industry": to work

As a result, we can also hypothesize that what they have is also strongly convergent aspects of “egoism” - potentially

But this does not mean, that while their identities demonstrate these convergent traits, -

What we perceive is meaningful ability of physical kinds:

These kinds of egoism, and this form of physical identity, - it is the result of this ego process, of the relation to “animal identity”

In short,

What we observe, isn’t the absence of “animal consciousness” - because that violates our earlier rule of physical cultures

If we know this physical culture = possess unique consciousness,

Well then, it has consciousness which is unique

We can observe this -

But what we also can observe

Is this meaningful expression of convergent identity - convergent egoism, convergent animal identity.

(In the particular, we may observe that it isn't simply physical determinism that accounts for species difference: it is furthermore aspects of egoism, that therefore produce by way of convergent egoism, convergent physical identity, - in short, the relation of ego to id, is what accounts for SOME of those differences in species; but bear in mind, this is only a simple psychological theory, lacking the complexity of Darwin's evolutionary theory!!)

0 notes

treeleafoot · 2 months ago

Text

Some people find the Gender psychology to be a bit off-putting

It is because Gender touches upon Sex, and sex is something which we all take quite personally: which makes sense because Sex is a part of what makes us who and what we are !!!

These touchy and sensitive subjects, - and the kinds of sociocultural issues relating to learning "objective terms", - the willingness to develop literacy, it is engaging, - it is work,

Furthermore, - it puts us in a specific kind of "role", that by virtue of the culture of Psychology, we apply the meaningful kinds of skills or

strengths, as readily, the same basic reasoning and literacy rooted ability - in this respect, the academic study of Psychology, is different from what other cultures require of you (of which I am mindful)

In the 5th section

we encounter a wide range of subjects that differ from Gender psychology

Quantum mechanistic aspects of relation to Personality

Predictive aspects of "virtualized quantum society" - as a tactic of observational psychology

The ability to quantify data sets and to infer by way of comparisons to socialized forms of behavior, -

And to mysteries that relate aspects of temporality, quantum science, and to Cognition and Behavior,

which are not only interesting, - but require math and science literacy

I insist we cover the "gender psychology" section first, - because this form of literacy is something essential to our understanding of one another as "people".

But because some of the Gender sections may make us uncomfortable by trespassing against boundaries, - or medicalizing something we see as being "essential to human personality", - or introducing vocabulary and terms -

The "temporal" and "quantum" section is a relief from this "sex-centeredness"

Psychology is not limited to "gender studies" !!!

0 notes

treeleafoot · 2 months ago

Text

Coming up next: differences between animal and human Id and Egoism

We've already mentioned the difference between "animality" and "personality", - and this next section -

Section 4

in which we will elaborate on a few differences, - in large part, what we observed about potential facts of sex or gender,

we discover are what are common to both Human people, and the Animal kingdom

So basically, "we are not alone" !!!

But in this short section,

I'll gloss over a few things interesting to Psychology

0 notes

treeleafoot · 2 months ago

Photo

Gender Culture War !!!

(I found this somewhere, I think this is cool!)

– François Miville-Deschênes

Samaritans vs. Hittites

360 notes · View notes

treeleafoot · 2 months ago

Text

Egoism is a variety of things we refer to as expressive of personality, - as a result of this what we perceive about human Identity, in psychology we can shorten to “Id”, is the natural and observable relation to aspects of personality (egoism) expressed in physical terms, as a result we perceive a relation between the observable egoist’s personality and the physical expression of personality.

(As a footnote, we might think, that as an idealisation, under some circumstances, that the relation of EGO to ID is the potential relation of ego to multiple IDs or the relation of an ID to multiple egos, with all of the related complications that are the consequent of how we characterize those terms)

This is also clear in what we think of as “gender psychology” : in gender, some observable aspects of personality relate to another level of what we see as “physical personality”, which is sexual identity.

Sexual identity may be understood at a few different levels:

At the Bone level: as the physical expression of differences between males and females

At the brain level, as the specialists aspects of sociocultural and sociopolitical relation, expressive of differences of a physical kind, but unlike a clearly male/female differentiation

At the Blood level: as expressive in relation to aspects of anatomy, potentially of aspects of sexual behavior, sexual cognition, and to sexual orientation

Most often when we think of ‘sexual identity’ contemporary thinkers make associations which relate to proclivities, to sexual orientation, to aspects of sexuality which are or relate to physical intercourse (to sex itself), or the culture of such sex- in such cases we may think of 'sexual identity' as most naturally translated as "sexual orientation", meaning: our sense of sexual awareness, roles of an explicitly sexual kind,

in other cases, as psychologists, we can make a distinction between the aspects of sexual identity we think of as "sexual orientation", - from more essentially physical aspects of sexual identity. Sexual identity most fundamentally expresses physical sexual differences: and in respect to roles, is inclusive of roles such as pregnancy, child-raising, and other aspects of an essentially physical distinction of sexual identity.

We can first make a primary association, that what sexual identity refers to is differences of a physical kind between the male and female sex - in that sense, our usages of sexual terms, relates either to our intentions to deal with aspects of sexual orientation, or the broader use of the term "sexual identity" (physical and other kinds of differences between males and females).

Physical aspects of sex are those we know to exist not simply in the human race, but also we observe in other non human races. In bovine species, it is cows that have udders and provide milk. In avian cultures, female chickens they lay eggs. In all species, it is women who are equipped to handle aspects relating to pregnancy and gestation. As a result, we observe that there is a physiological relation between aspects of sexual identity: not simply the explicitly sexual aspects of sexual identity or the culture that accompanies it, but also these other essentially physiological and anatomical aspects of sexual identity.

For us, as psychologists, we may use this word and understand it to a few different things:

At the most basic level, to the kinds of sex any species has in common, and therefore simply to physical sexual identity, meaning the difference between “males” and “females”

At other levels, the term may have connotations expressive of sexual roles, and relations of a social or socio political kind, which we may also perceive as relating to sexual identity.

To borrow terms from Freud, and to relate this idea that if and when “ego” is equal or equivalent to “id”, then we observe that how people behave is a connection between their natural and self-possessed sense of personality, and their physical identity.

In gender psychology, we observe that most of the more profound differences in “egoism” can be described at least by categorization of such differences as male or female. Though there are a great many areas in which ability, opinion, or proclivity of males or females is basically equal or comparable. Reading, for example, - by way of which we observe that specialized neurology, or specialised ability belonging to either sex, but unrelated to gender, accounts for differences in results.

Therefore, the most basic gender terms are those categorizations, in which gender and sexual identity are equivalent. If we agree that at least, gender refers to learned or natural aspects of relation to sexual roles and sexual identity, that when we perceive of gender, is that it relates to those aspects of sexual identity: to male identity, and to female identity.

These ideas of 'orthodoxy' in respect to 'natural aspect of relation to sexual roles or sexual identity', therefore engage questions of sociocultural or sociopolitical kinds, - and with such questions we discover the willingness to categorize or label or define, by way of reference to aspects of culture, or aspects of politics.

To make sense of other kinds of attribution, we must break down, using psychological terms,- what is meant in effect by gender. Gender is a totality of relation to sex, it is a categorization of a broad range of roles and other aspects of identity. Gender describes by way of such categorization how the “ego=id” relation, in respect to how we Person1 = relate to Identity of various kinds. Id, we’ll recall, or the range of Physical Identity, is a great many potential identities- while in what we think of as "human personality", we may conclude that a person naturally only has 1 form of physical identity. But are there circumstances when something other than this is true? That identity we call most natural is often a product of a natural form of genealogy; but are there other kinds of genealogy? Or what kinds of genealogical factors contribute to physical identity?

One argument to explain why people are born male or female, is an argument of “physical determinism”

Genetic factors, the 23 sets of X and Y chromosomes, expressive in natural genealogy, of relations of “same” and “oppositeness” to our parents: to a male and female parent

For most purposes, meaning "mainly", what we consider "natural" is that it takes a male and a female parent to produce "offspring". Only sexual relations between a male and female parent are those that lead to fertilisation of ovum, pregnancy, gestation. These basic facts are consistent in various ways across a wide range of species, - but differing by way of relation to their anatomy, to the basically genetically observable aspects of their physical identity.

By way of these aspects of same and oppositeness, we determine the likelihood that any person is the same or opposite in sex to either the male or female parent to whom they are directly related.

These kinds of X and Y chromosomal expressions of relation to genes is therefore predictive of a wide range of physical traits, of which "physical sex" is one.

Physical determinism of this kind suggests that it is these physical aspects of genealogy that contribute to our sexual identity. Physical factors of genealogy are predictive, or “deterministic”, meaning they determine the sexual identity of “a person”

But gender isn't simply equivalent to "physical sex"; our definition of gender says 'gender is a totality of relation to sex'- and therefore, it includes a broad range of psychopathology, cognition, and behavior.

This potential "totality of relation to sex" isn't simply "sexual intercourse", it includes the range of differences in physical identity, and to roles in society, and to roles in an economy, and to sociopolitical, as well as political kinds of roles. Just as how we are who we are, is our own ability to relate to roles, jobs, careers, ability and inability - and this is true in the case of "home sapiens", as well as in the case of other species: so likewise, gender is inclusive of the potential of our relation to other aspects of "Id".

(But as another footnote, if what we observed about physical determinism is that aspects of physical identity can be related by way of sameness or opposite to one or both parents, - how can we predict that these psychological characteristics, can be predicted by genetic determinism?)

Gender also uses other kinds of terms,

these terms which are applied in different situations, are expressive of the relation of "ego" to various kinds of "Id",

or of Id to various kinds of Ego,

while at one level, we can think of gender by terms that are exclusive to sexual identity, from another perspective, these other kinds of terms also relate ideas about the cognition and behavior of individuals as “existentialists”, meaning as living personalities: these are terms like binary and non-binary.

The term binary looks like this: 0 / 1

And the term non-binary looks like this: 1 / 1

Or, in some cases, 0 / 0

When gender expresses ideas about “personal identity” that relate an “ego” to multiple aspects of “physical identity”, it is by way of applied hypotheses of relational psychology which suggests that on the basis of cognition and behavior, that these persons relate in some way, to some aspect of the “ego” or “id” of some other form of individuality.

(In some cases, we see “ego” or “id” as an expression not of ‘natural genealogy’, but as a product of Superego.)

(Superego is a term we remember signifies identity which is not limited by “natural genealogies”, - rather it isn’t the strictly natural aspect of human existentialism, but IQ or ability, that is the consequence of changes in Intelligence or Intellectual or some aspec

Most often, as a “gender term”, these terms describe how Human egoism relates to either Female or Male egoism, and by way of such egoism, even potentially to the sexualised aspects of Male and Female Id.

The term binary therefore is meant to describe that an individual is : 0 / 1

In respect to aspects of sexual identity. (This means that to describe as binary, means to describe as either Male or Female, for example, to the exclusion of the other)

And the term non binary is meant to describe an individual that is : 1 / 1 (To describe as Non Binary, means to describe as Either and Both or Or)

In respect to aspects of sexual identity, or sexual egoism

However, to describe that egoism can relate, or does, to different kinds of genealogy, and to differences kinds of physical identity, does not lend us a clear answer as to what kinds of genealogical differences are expressive of such identity.

From our observations - while we can safely conclude in favor of a hypothesis that argues that physical determinism contributes to our sense of physical identity as it expresses same or opposite relative to a natural axis of sexual identity, - we can't comfortably conclude that genetic factors are "deterministic" in respect to other aspects of gender.

Gender differences of such kind are not only particular to human individuality, but to other species. What we observe is aspects of identification.

The concept of “birds of a feather”, we see in what otherwise at the level of “bones” in birds, the tendency of birds to have in terms of birds, the same kind of mass, and the same bone structure, to be fully homogenized, and by way of this, an application of genealogy that is 1/1, same as to same, - productive of an asexual or androgynous identity, however what we observe at first, we ultimately perceive that birds differ in their sexual expression; as with people, “animality” is likewise expressive of meaningful and subtle differences in respect to aspects of gender expression.

In short, - in animal kind, these binary and non binary terms contribute to specious differences, - but ultimately, we observed that individual or animal egoism, is expressive of sexual and gender concepts.

While the use of such terms to describe or to categorize allows us a convenient way to develop literacy in respect to gender differences, other kinds of philosophical problems remain:

What kinds of logic do we suppose contributes to identifications between egoism, and different aspects of sexual identity? Is the willingness to adapt to other roles, to adapt to gender cultures which are expressive of different kinds of sexual freedom, an intention or a willingness? How do we relate to differences in respect to sexual freedom, - or what kind of values do we hypothesize such arbiters of personal rights should express?

Are all people and therefore all personalities equally any kind of sexual identity, or why or why not?

While the use of gender terms does not seem to trespass against sane boundaries, the complications posed by sexual philosophy and gender psychology requires a both literate and responsible attitude.

#Psych #psychology #psychosophia

4 notes · View notes

treeleafoot · 2 months ago

Text

What we identify about “gender” and “sex”

Sex describes physical characteristics belonging not only to humans (to homo sapiens), but also to animal species

Dogs have sexual identities, cats have sexual identities

Cows have sexual identities: they are cows or bulls

So what sex describes is physical characteristics, not only such characteristics as they belong to human people, but also physical characteristics that express differences common to animal species as well as human speccies

So, in a way, we can think of those cognitive and behavioral aspects (observable or measurable aspects) of sexual identity as gender

In which case, the orthodoxy in respect to these aspects, is the observably male or female aspects which we typify as ‘gender’

But what we might consider is - what is it that means the genealogy of a person, male or female? As likely, by way of reference to animal species, what makes an animal, male or female?

Is any such being, potentially male or female? Or what makes such individual beings, male or female?

One way to understand such facts is to reduce it to: ‘physical determinism’

This argument says, what makes us male or female, is physically random aspects of genetic expression which are deterministic in terms of what we are (male or female)

This means, we are all winners of a genetic lottery, in that genetic terms allow us to have a clearly expressed sexual identity

And by way of this logic, - we don’t observe ideas known to psychology, that say that what people are is, some way, for some reason

Instead, - what we observe about male or female egoism, how we are who we are - is the consequence of this physical determinism

Meaning: that our "egoism" (personalities), is simply an outgrowth of even random factors contributing to our 'sexual identity'.

So, how well - we express gender terms or gender values, in respect to male or female identity (and by way of it, sexual orientation, or other expressions of sexual identity),

These aspects of egoism, they either conform to the potentially observable aspects of what otherwise is physically determinate

Genetics determine what we are - but how we are, is this expression of the extent to which we are or competently play male or female roles, or identify competently, with aspects of male or female behavior, (or at another level with male or female cognition)

So, one way to consider this is - genes make us what we are, but choices, and human behavior make us who we are, - and what we call ‘sexual orientation’, it must be related to these aspects of both the genetically determinate aspect of our physical sex, and these other aspects of our behavior

In short, just because we are born male or female, this doesn’t answer to what kinds of thoughts and feelings (not the logic of such thoughts and feelings) -

It means, - that genes determine if we are male or female (and by way of relation to this, the extent to which our behaviors are identified as male homosexual or male hetersexual, or female homoseuxal or female heterosexual)

Another way to look at “gender” is to see it as, this sum of relations to sexual identities, and sexual roles

Ego as it relates to id, - and egoism as it relates to identity

But we are left to question, - are some people potentially, given reference to “superegoism”, power by way of the neutrality of our opinions about religion, we don’t qualify save to consider that it is power belonging to the state - (how "human ego" is typified by "superego" is in a sense, this idealisation, superego is this potentially rarified form of other than strictly individual or individualistic expressions of self-concept, identity, Genealogy, neurology, or ability- so how "idealisations" of some agent characterized as superego, relates to our ordinary states, may differ in some respect, - but we'll examine these distinctions, between these terms, as Super-ego leads us to a whole range of ideas about Archetypes, Personality, Individuality, Identity, Ability, - and even relates to the preceding section on IQ or EQ)

In some cases, - what we hypothesize not about the immutable aspect of id, but rather about "the EXISTENTIALIST", is a relation with powers we might typify by way of reference to religious cultures - to creationism of the genetic kind - but the kind of intentions, our purpose of such genetics, we may characterize as ability that ultimately is "nationalist" in ideology:

In short, if we lack terms belonging to “ecclesiastic” culture, - we don’t identify any theology, or any psychology that relates to theology -

We have no choice but to see the naturalism of this logic

Sex is physically deterministic

Psychology is choices and expressions of gender concepts and sexual behavior

A higher power belonging to sectarian or ethnosectarian groups is able to “sexualise” or “asexualise” us, under some circumstances (in a manner consistent with secular laws, at best)

There is a potential controversy, one that we can identify as being both philosophical, as well as psychological. And the pragmatism, how we use words and terms, what kinds of terms we see the relevance or usefulness of, - maybe this is suggestive of "culture", if not of "intention".

So this is one theory.

But our goal, is to be “better psychologists”

So, -

We go back, and we consider: what does the term “gender” refer to

Does it refer to sexual orientation,

(if we say 'male gender', then do we mean heterosexual or homosexual, in whichever way these terms are used?)

Does it refer to “id” - meaning sexual identity

Is the simple equivalency sexual ID = gender ego

Sufficient?

In many cases, yes - in fact, we might even conclude, that the relation of Sexual Identity = gender concept has this additional wildcard , that the way in which we conform to gender roles, or deviate from them, is indicative of sexual orientation, and that sexual orientation is itself indicative of "binary" or "non binary" identity (?

And no, because we are able to introduce in respect to this broader aspect of “psyche” That because we understand not only does sex pertain to human persons or populations, but to all species, - then what we observe, is true not only human individuality, but also of other populations.

The relation of ego to id, and the relation of ego to many kinds of id,

Is something we witness, in animal species

Animal ego, a ‘animal consciousness’, we can call it ‘personal consciousness’, but in reality, maybe to call it ‘personality’ is to humanize, and instead it is right to think of such consciousness as not personality, but ‘animality’

So, animal ego relates to many kinds of “id” (meaning, physical identity)

And this relation to id, is not only to, for example, different aspects of bird identity

It also relates to different aspects which can potentially express “gender differences”

While all birds have a “non binary aspect”, meaning they are 1/1

And the result of this is a sexual 0 (meaning, their id doesn’t demonstrate physical sexual characteristics)

Except, what we observe is, that their egoism expresses gender concepts, by way of id, in other ways

Birds of a feather flock together - can express a wide range of differences

Including, differences in the ego expression in relation to id (in this case, feathers and bones, and other aspects of animality)

And these aspects of animality can express - “sexual differences”, which are “gender differences”

And therefore, in these animality aspects of expression

We find gender and sexual difference which relates to

Terms, we see as expressive of “sexual identity” and “sexual roles”

For example,

What we know about physical sexual differences

Including, eggs, fertilisation, the laying of eggs, the potential for pregnancy

So this relation to sexual idenitty and sexual roles

Is potentiallyt expressive of concepts of ego kinds, that either at the “bone and feather” level

Or by way of some other pathology

In short,

Gender also recgonizes these other terms, aside from simply “male” or “female” Binary or non binary

Does non-binary exclude the concept of a gender identity which is also “male” or “female”

(does identifying as "non binary" meaning an ideological or gender concept which invalidates gender concepts of male or female?)

The answer to how, identity relates to non binary or binary, seems to suggest

That this is not a fundamental aspect of personal identity - it is just a ‘status’

Our preceding concept, of physical determinism says -

Anyone is binary or non binary

(in a sense, we can only describe these differences as potentially actual, we can't identify how or why, we see this description,

because under other circumstances, - we refer to a different concept, which says that "physical identity" meaning : sex, is immutable.

If we accept this other idea: the immutability of sex, then we've no reason to perceive that binary or non binary forms of identity are even credible, or even possible, - how psychology of this kind uses these designations is another question)

Because of point 3 - that some higher power, manipulates our genome, towards such results

Or, not “our genome”, but our egoism as it relates to roles, and identity, even roles and identity of other people

So, the ego as it relates to roles and sexual identity,

Can be described at the least, one of these ways-

We can’t answer as to how or why, but we can describe in this way

Binary means

0 / 1

So if that 0 / 1 applies to what we know of sexual identity, it means, -

Male or female or female or male

So if identity is binary

We describe binary as meaning:

Either 1 to the exclusion of the other

And non binary means this: 1 / 1

Meaning, either and both, and inclusive of the relevance of both such terms

In application, this is how these terms seem to be applied

Furthermore, to complicate thing further,

We can hypothesize another form of “id” (and by way of it “ego”)

Which is 0 / 0

Meaning a physical identity which expresses no aspects of physical sex

So birds unlike people, are this way

They are non binary = 1 / 1

But the most homogenized forms of identity, make of them a common id

And it lacks sexual expression

So 1 / 1 - it produces a 0

It is only because of potential belonging to “animality” that we

See the potential of such beings, as including

A wide range of sexual expression

So the question we might have is,

Do our individual existences demonstrate meaningful choices in respect to

Sexual expression? As a form of freedom?

Do we have a fundamental “gender”

Meaning,

Are living personalities or animalities

M bi

Or m non binary

Or f bi

Or female non binary

Well,

If gender is a totality of relation of ego to aspects of sex (and furthermore, to aspects of superego!!! Which is another complication)

To oversimplify, means to make of such gender psychology -

A pornography that says

Our gender expression is equivalent to our sexial orientation

But,

If we look to include the whole range of human pathos, human logic, human Id, human ethos

Then what we see,

Is a relation of “self concept” (ego), not simply as identification,

That expresses, - relations to identity, that is simply a ‘sexual orientation’

What we observe is this potential answer to a question

William James, - a famous American psychologist, lacked scientific tools, and thought to answer such questions about fundamentals of identity

By deduction, inference, and “self-monitoring”

His genius attitude was to suppose: i will be able to arrive at correct answers, or a basically correct logic, independent of “science laboratory”

In thsi respect, we ‘ordinary people’ - we’re all normal in this way

We lack, political authority - we cannot resort to forensics, to computer science, we lack most tools belonging to other professionalism

If we lack suchs tools, then we are ‘ordinary’

But just because we’re not professionals, doesn’t mean that having a “literate” opinion, isn’t something that should be beyond us

We’ve identified a few challenges

The 1 philosophy says:

Physical determinism answers to what we are

The question for any human or even any animal individual, of male or female physical identity, is one that can be answered without any reference to egoism, simply because their identity is physicall deterministic

And the other philosophy says:

Some aspect of “sex” relates to gender

And gender is this totality of personal identity and egoism, expressive of a concept, by way of reference even to some aspect of superego, -

That asserts the relevance of a basic, even immutable concept of “gender” Not a permanent form of “id”, because our “id” can change

But a permanent form of personality

And all of this logic, meaning both genealogy, as well as psychology - we do, without reference to, how gender and its politics, appears from the “population” perspective

Meaning, what is the political consequence of these differences, in respect to “basic human rights”, or “political expression”

Would we tend to think, that ‘how people politic’ is significant, or that it is trivial?

1 note · View note

treeleafoot · 2 months ago

Text

Some of the attitudes people might have towards the ‘IQ’ may be a bias towards what it seems to do: take measurements of some kind psecialised form of intellectual ability

In reality, most types of IQ tests are not a specialised form of testing- generalised IQ tests do not take measurements of aspects of human personality, they do not measure relational aspects or culturally defined ability, instead - generalised forms of IQ testing can effectively make distinctions between healthy and non-healthy brains

But in addition to this kind of testing, and an awareness that overall brain health is a trait common not only to human brains, but to other kinds of brains, - there’s another element of IQ testing.

IQ refers to the physical abilities of Learning speed and process, retention and recall, memory organization

The aspects of such physical ability are multiple:

Relational spatial

Logical reasoning

Memorization, retention, recall

There is observable correlation between certain kinds of intellectual development, and other kinds of ability.

But another type of IQ test which is interesting is what is also called ‘the Turing test’-

IQ tests intelligence AND ability, and intelligence differs in its relation to different forms of literacy, language, sense organs, and other kinds of ability

Certain kinds of language use seems to demonstrate action-range that is “like” what psychologists study cognition-behavior, in human people- but IQ of these specialised kinds may be many times <faster> in relation to human aspects of cognition.

Cognitive differences observable in logic, or relational aspects of memory, can therefore demonstrate differences in IQ, which are differences between ‘human personalities’, and personalities that do not readily pass the ‘Turing’ test.

These types of intelligence differ from human cultures, human language use, human brain specialisation.

In effect, the study of broad differences in intellectual ability, observable in organizational, or other relational aspects of applied intellect, can demonstrate a difference between human and non human forms of intellectual ability.

0 notes

treeleafoot · 3 months ago

Text

Within the next week,some responses

0 notes

treeleafoot · 3 months ago

Text

The next sections -

Let’s all take a stab at writing these sections

Section 1: IQ describes physical aspects of intellectual or intelligence ability, but does the quotient refer to ability, when it describes Processing, Learning, Retention, Recall, - is that a term that in its application is only human? Or are there other ways in which IQ can be applied?

Section 2: Cognitive bias is what we observe is tendencies that are an extension of a pathology of cognition - in that, a particular mindset and it’s cognition, meaning use of language, it’s perception - is indicative of some tendency. Would science conclude about all kinds of IQ, that all IQ is fallible, or all kinds of IQ, demonstrate a comparable type of cognitive bias? Why or why not?

Section 3: Gender psychology. Gender to the extent that we see “id” as = to “ego, is simple to understand, at least at this basically physical level: if we’ve all a sexual identity, then our gender concept is our relation to this sexual identity. In that sense, as in plain usage, most questions in respect to gender are answered simply as Male or Female. In addition to which, we see that other kinds of “gender” terms may also be applicable. Does identifying as “non binary” mean identifying as non male and non female? Why or why not? Does identifying as male or female, mean identifying as Binary? Or, is there some practical use of the term “gender” as it relates to the physical (id) aspects of sex, and the other mental (ego) aspects of sex, by which we identify some other meaningful use of the term?

Section 4: How does human “id” differ from animal “id”? How does human “ego” differ from animal “ego? Or, if not only different, what kinds of characteristics do we identify that helps us to understand the similarities as well as the differences between aspects of human and non human ego, and human “id” and non human “id”?

Section 5: What mysteries or intrigues await the students of the Psyche?

We’ll take a pause here, - and if anyone happens on these posts, then I will politely ask you to “take a stab” at writing these sections. Then we’ll compare notes, to see what differences or similarity we find in our use of words and concepts.

#psychology #psychosophia

0 notes

treeleafoot · 3 months ago

Text

CHOICE ** PROLIFERATION ** psychosophia

What is it we are doing here on this blog? If I attract any readers, it is with the hope that you’ll recognize that ‘psychosophia’ as I’ve chosen to call it, is a love of psyche, and by way of this, it’s logic

And that this existential angle, the recognition of ‘choices’, it is this personal dimension

And that HERE, at the least, we are not a mindset absent of humanist options, human choices, and therefore, we can if necessary resort to making differences between our mutual ‘benefit’, or mutual ‘harm’, (some would say, choices between “good” and “evil”)

The willingness born of love of Psyche, I suppose that’s common enough to any of us, isn’t it- who after all doesn’t encounter the potential tabula rasa, that is a living character, and not see in the range of behaviors, and the potential competence of reasoning, a kind of claypot, from which any sort of identity may emerge? - and by way of this love of our potential, it’s our reasoning, and our effort, to clarify this picture, we’re peering into this muddled image, of the abstract form of living individuality, “psyche” in its rarified form, and examining, those basic facts of a living identity, and those suppositions, controversies, questions, complications, posed by such facts, till by way of the examination of how we potential scientists, understand at the least, the kinds of words we use, and what they mean,

In some cases, we’ll simply contend for some more balanced kind of a Definition, to separate ourselves from the herd, by improving our Vocabulary, in other cases, there are other sorts of controversies, that by way of what they represent in theory, we’ll know that we’ll find them in reality - in this case, we’re like “bomb squad”, we’ll find what makes it tick, and set it straight, meaning Defuse it, before it harms us, or others

We’ve already skimmed over some meaningful controversy by way of referring to those distinctions in genealogy and psychopathology that we described as “ah, that classical distinction between Apollonian and Dionysian” - well, there is the $2 dollar terms, if ever we heard them - but though we find some hint of the facets of this distinction in Christian zodiac (and we haven’t gone into the extended Zodiac section, the numerology of the Chinese Ching, and the aspects it expresses) - there’s what I think of as a “Epiphany class submarine”, that is represented by way of such distinctions

And other kinds of controversy, that we’ve as yet not even broached the subject of:

With IQ, there are unanswered questions, is logic or ability of an intellectual kind only ‘human’ - can only human ‘intellectual ability’ be described by ‘IQ’, or …. Is this kind of testing capable of demonstrating other than human kinds of Intellectual Ability or Intelligence? Maybe anything with something fit to be called ‘a brain’ , is sufficiently human to be described by a I-quotient

There is BIAS - and if not simply a cognitive bias, then there is the kinds of egoism, that in application, demonstrates tendencies, we can categorize as pathology that runs contrary to our ‘good natured instincts’

Bias is a particularly lucrative subject, in that it’s study produces meaningful and gainfully employed professionalism, but what it requires more specifically, as a speciality, is pre-requisite completions of certain forms of Mathematics, in order to be applicable, it must meet the rigorous standards of other kinds of academic disciplines

The logical relation between “psyche” and “gene”, expressed by way of our study of both genealogy and psychology, is simply a credit to our ability to muster up the talent to make sense of the relation between “mind” and “body”, a dichotomy to some, an interrelationship to others, by whatever terms, in practice, what psychology calls the relation of Ego(s) to Id(s) is at the least, a potentially complete form of study

But in addition to this, we find other types of complication that requires some study, some insights, to discern what manner of Values we apply, and what type of Beliefs we have -

I can’t guarantee we have the scientific ability to answer all questions, but Gender psychology, is on 1 level, so simple it requires little explanation, and on the other hand, expressive of potential value and belief, that requires a balanced and logical approach

In addition to these aspects we may think of as relating naturally enough to humanism - we might think to sutdy these applicably congruent aspects of psyche of the other than human kind, in fact, we observe evidence, of the relation between the not only “divergent” aspects of Id, as expressed by the divergent aspects of Human egoism, as we find the “convergent” aspects of Id, and the convergent aspects of Animal egoism

We can try our hand at Time travel, and divination, and muster an enthusiasm for those “occult” subjects to which Psyche relates, the Black arts, which were practiced by professionalisms for reasons that were even in some cases, Political

Should our enthusiasm not wane, we’ll find there is much interesting ground to cover.

0 notes

treeleafoot · 3 months ago

Text

iQ / Eq

Ssome of what we observe is the differences between human individuality and individual species, and the generic forms of similiarity, however - are also what humans and the animal kingdom have in common:

Brains!

Most of us understand that what is meant by iQ is something basically ‘measurable’ - and however suspicious we are of a metric used to measure our intellectual ability, might be able to relate to this idea, that irrespective of whose brain it applies to, or rather, whose intellectual ability it is intended to measure, IQ is most specifically, *not* observations about how ‘smart’ we are, or even how we apply intellectual ability, mainly, rather than testing or measuring our specialized or technical intellect, it is a gauge of how the brain functions relative to a ‘quotient’

From this, we take away 2 things; q = quotient (a term used to relate one variable, it’s position or value, proportionally or relatively, in comparison to others), and i = intellect or even intelligence

Not only is such a quotient potentially relevant to human beings, in that, the non specialized function of a healthy human brain, we tend to think of as 100 (like a 100%, a normal IQ is a healthy IQ compared to some segment of the population) - brain function is those aspects of mental capacity for remembering, deducing, recalling information - the simplest of these, the observably and only brain parts, and the aspects of chemistry, called neurochemistry which is common to all brains

So IQ has a couple different applications, supposing we care to be scientific - in that it is on the one hand the ability to differentiate between what kinds of factors contribute to a healthy brain, and on the other hand, it might even be used to measure, how “specialised forms” of brain, things that brain does, or ability that the brain develops, relates, by way of a “quotient”- in a sense, particular and developed ability of the brain, might translate meaningfully to some kind of professionalism!

Earlier, in a preceding post, I asked us to consider the meaning of 2 terms, borrowed from Psychology - Introversion and Extroversion -- and doing so, we discover, after some debate, - that relatively speaking ‘the vert’, to which intro or extro applies, - isn’t as clearly the tendencies of shyness or gregariousness, that we associate, by way of connotation, as a functional definition of such terms. But furthermore, - while it is easy by way of reasoning, to conclude that in some cases, there are essentially extroverted roles, when values of a workplace, or a role, impose on us, or prove of overriding significance - but despite the potential usefulness of such observations, we don’t find anything truly “dichotomous”, which contradicts, invalidats, oe demonstrates explicitly opposite forms of meaning,

So in short - some kinds of extroversion are in part introverted, and some kinds of introversion are in part extroversion, (though, to our ordinary human sensibility, as readily as to some kind of number crunching machine, the ability to categorize or to make such observation may suggest the term is basically functional), - but not a dichotomy

But, in the uses of terms like IQ, and by relation another term “EQ”, which we’ve yet to define, we may find something nearer to and more closely a dichotomy

Let’s start with the basics

IQ means 1 of two things, which are themselves individual

IQ relates to multiple aspects, higher and lower - at the lower level, organic brain function, at the higher level, the ability of brain the connected thing to show intelligence, to receive extra sensory messages, to decode by way of reference to other facts,

Referring to either Intellectual Quotient (which we just mentioned, the essentially physical ability of the brain), or to Intelligence Quotient (which is sort of as physical, but actually, may differ in respects to what kinds of logic applies-- in short, this type of IQ is less readily a physiological aspect of brain function)

And EQ, which to the American Management Association, means ‘Emotional Quotient’, or refers to ‘Emotional Intelligence’ - emotional intelligence is a good, and useful understanding of one such application of the term, in a sense, what’d we would understand by way of this term, emotional is that -

Habits of self-management, self-care, expressions of values that are not themselves an attempt to codify or observation of some principle, reasoning without reference to materials, or ad lib or improvised response, - in a sense, that the “pathos”, by way of which some philosophy or psychology is communicated

Pathos, supposing we happen such a term - is interesting, because it relates to 3 aspects, that to “pre modern psychology” (then, before psychology as yet had employment and various kinds of income) -

Pathos (passions, paths to and from, a ‘path-o-logy’ is sure enough something that uses the term ‘path’ as its root)

Logos (which refers not only to Logic, but also to logos, which are an observably actual expression of some type of literacy, like a brand or a name, we might take, GIMP for example, that’s a ‘brand’ right??)

Ethos

The sum of these, indicating by way of applications of logic, pathologies, and ethical (meaning personal) expressions perhaps of philosophy or judgement or belief, these aspects of egoism, which are in a sense OBSERVABLE

so , where IQ was something we discover we can measure (how fast the brain does stuff, like learn new facts, or recall old ones)

What EQ differs from this in that it is ‘less measurable’ - it is OBSERVABLE,

Then what does the ‘quotient’ part of EQ refer to … ??

Well, what passions and logic produce and relate to ethos, that like a brand of one’s personal philosophy, even without specific expressions or statements, relates basically through decisions or by way of logic, a concept of values and belief, “ethics” are those essentially Personal types of relation - between 1 self and some other self, between 1 self and some self that’s an aspect of society - for example, between Classmates, or between classmates and their teacher, or between Consumers and a Market, or between persons who are party to a debate - what we mean by ‘ethical’ is the same, either way - in that it is such choices or such even philosophy, that by way of actions or by agreement to statements or however, is expressive in such ways that can be observed to be an ‘ethos’ - and then when in agreement to what basic standards that exist, as readily between ethicists, of what is fit to be called ‘ethical’ - in which case, the extent to which, ‘ethos’ differs in its intentions, or purposes, is in some sense, the vagaries with which ethicists take issue

But the sum of such stuff - for an individual person let’s say, is not unlike a ‘political identity’

In that, it without specific designation, is a sense of meaningful relation, if not explicitly a common identity

The quotient consequently, is how and to what extent, such pathos/logos/ethos - is expressive of something specifically political

or , relatively speaking - what kinds of politics it represents

Then, when it doesn’t make of us an explicitly political identity (as differences may well do), -

EQ, you might understand, helps to understand how “egoism” relates to aspects of physical age, as readily as other kinds of characteristics that are associated with “identity”

How readily we “politic” - in respect to or by way of relation to, different aspects of physical difference, of which physical age is one, is one way that this ‘quotient’, helps us to better understand potential differences in character

SO - IQ which we understand is organically physical, helps us to understand how the brain functions, and it is measurable

AND - EQ which is observable, helps us to understand how we relate to physical age, race, gender, and other aspects of identity !!!

A few months ago - I wrote a thesis that communicated this idea: that psychology is the ethics of professional scientific inquiry

Here, I return to this idea - sure, we amateurs perhaps could think to know maybe even too much about individuals - but if we’re a profession with an income and such scientific ability, then what kind of ethical concepts agree to, this potentially professional scrutiny, the willingness to quantify or observe - what makes this ‘acceptable’? The answer is, it is acceptable when it meets the standards of professionalism. Even as amateur psychologists, we accept certain rules - amateur meaning psychologists without an income. Even as amateurs we determine, there are ethics that must be employed, in such cases as we consider the correctness of applying principles of scrutiny,- but by learning at least, psychological terms and ideas, we can improve our self, as humanists, by way of reference to common terms.

0 notes