Can I get a better education in psychology by reading on my own then I could getting a 4 year degree at a state school?
I'm a junior regretting majoring in English who wants to switch to psychology. I don't mind staying an English major if I can give myself a decent education in psychology.
To be honest I haven't retained much of what I have learned and I normally look at school as a system to beat but maybe I would retain the psychology knowledge.
Other urls found in this thread:
ted.com
twitter.com
I hope you're not looking to Yea Forums(nel) for guidance on important life decisions.
I am user
If you have to ask , no
>Can I get a better education in psychology by reading on my own then I could getting a 4 year degree at a state school?
No.
>I'm a junior regretting majoring in English who wants to switch to psychology. I don't mind staying an English major if I can give myself a decent education in psychology.
I switched from English to Psychology late freshman/early sophmore year and managed to squeeze some bio and neuro in and still hate my life. You should stay in college an extra year or two and do premed. They like applicants with unusual majors who still meet all requirements.
Op here, I’m surprised lit isn’t telling me I could learn more reading on my own
Nonsense question. An absolute plethora of factors need to be known before giving even a remotely meaningful answer
You probably could get a satisfactory education by just reading, but it largely depends whether you are looking for an education or a credential.
In your case... I would recommend you switch to the psychology major. Majoring in English, in most cases, is a big scam. It is essentially a worthless degree unless you want to teach English, and even for that it's mostly unnecessary when there are certifications like TESOL or tertiary education in Teaching - which open up more doors. In short: anything you can do with an English degree is something you need to specialise in anyway (editing, content writing, screenwriting, etc. etc. etc.), so just get started to do the specialisation rather than the English degree.
But again, it depends whether you are looking for an education or a credential. (Majoring in English, in many higher education institutions, is neither.)
Majoring in English and transferring into a mental health in counseling MA.
I know next to nothing about psychology as of now and I'm worried this could easily effect my future job. On the other hand I also thought I would spend the next 40 years of my life reading psychologists and scientific studies and assumed a state school education wouldn't be that helpful.
Psychology is a really easy thing to learn. Psychology would probably offer you more options in life however there are many, many people doing Psych. Psychology you can learn almost all of it within a year and still get an advanced understanding of it all in half of one. Either way I think you should of thought a bit more about this.
Start with Jung's Modern Man in Search of a Soul (the essays are ordered in such a way that each one was better than the prior). Then Jung's a History of modern Psychology lectures. Then you have should go back to say reading William James writings: 1878 - 1899. Then William James writings: 1902 - 1910. Don't take a lot of it as truth but he supplies a heavy branch of psychology and is useful to read to get a good understanding of psychology of that time. As well as his beautiful writing (which still remains true in many cases). Then just buzz around with people like Pavlov. Come back to skim through Freud (buy a short book like the Basic writings of Sigmund Freud). Then start with Jung again by reading Psychology of the Unconscious and continue to read all of his works in chronological order. (except the Red Book/Liber Novus which is arguably his hardest) His will be a life long endeavour and love, reading philosophy(most important), religion, art and occult with Jung will be extremely helpful considering how Jung somewhat acts as the culmination of a tradition of humanity itself.
Don't even bother with Adler that roach. And after Jung it's just the slow progression of behavioural specialists and what not but they tend to just go over the things Jung already mentioned.
Thanks so much my friend. I really just don't want to be a shitty therapist.
I know I should of put more thought into this but my values completely shifted within a short time period. It's been an odd adjustment. I'm going later this week to see if I can switch to psychology but it might set me back a year and I've already taken long enough to get through school. I'm saving your comment in a word document, thanks again I really appreciate it.
>Thanks so much my friend. I really just don't want to be a shitty therapist.
You wont be if you follow your intuition and truly care. Again having a history in philosophy and general "culture" is extremely helpful. I have followed the aesthetic of classicism throughout my life and it has guided me well. I hope the same for you. Pic related.
> know I should of put more thought into this but my values completely shifted within a short time period
Dwanna talk about that? Sorta bored currently anyway.
Oh and by the way, when you read Jung's Modern Man in search of a Soul it would be best to read around on some of his general writings such as "Jung on Buddha, Jung on Evil, Jung on Jesus, Jung on Kant" etc. Because although Modern Man in search of a Soul is an introduction it does expect you to know basic things like unconscious/conscious, archetypes, symbols, etc.
Jung is hardly relevant in actual academic philosophy. This is why you shouldn't study by yourself, you'll end up reading speculative pseuds instead of modern scientific papers.
*psychology
>I really just don't want to be a shitty therapist.
Holy fuck anons recommendation will make you the shittiest therapist in your city. They are great and maybe required reads but remain widely outdated from a practical point of view. They're great for a understanding of history of psychology, which can in term help you in your practice, but even for that those recommendations are so incomplete. Skinner and Waston are necessary, so is Piaget, Bandura, Janet, and many more. As for modern efficient practice it's obviously best to read recent research and reviews.
>Jung is hardly relevant in actual academic philosophy. This is why you shouldn't study by yourself, you'll end up reading speculative pseuds instead of modern scientific papers.
Imagine calling Jung speculate, I got news for you moron the modern academics are morons who's only distinguishment of value is fame. So they can jerk each other off about how they've written a book just compact of some previous intellectual. Philosophy is dead.
Except... some harvard professor at least
I guess
>Dwanna talk about that? Sorta bored currently anyway.
I was a physical mess awhile back and my identity was tied in with that. I didn't care for almost anything and the only thing I did want was a comfortable life. I really disliked the world around me because of my location and politics at the time so I thought I'd major in English and that would get me out of my country and into a much better life. Later on I watched some Jordan Peterson videos, physically fix myself and now the world around me isn't so bad. Later on while working a awful job I realize what made the job awful wasn't how tedious it was or how little it paid, what made it awful was the lack of meaning I found in the job. That made me sit and think and I landed on the idea that helping people is fairly important. After being on Yea Forums and being around my peers and seeing the rise of suicide rates I also thought trying to help young men in the mental health field would be admirable.
I'm eating it all up user. I thought the mental health trend was heading away from some of the names I recognized but I still want to read them.
I also really appreciate your recommendations
>saying later on back to back
its late but fuck if I'm not going to be an awful English major
I see, well with all of Jordan Peterson's idiocy it seems he does some good. I think the correct way to look at life in regards to meaning is this - man so often acts as if "life" is something departed from perception, and with that meaning. Meaning is innate to our own existence. But that is not to say reality is without the meaningless. Rather the feeling of meaninglessness is when man becomes disjointed from his own sense of being. In past ages man had relied upon the Zeitgeist for meaning and purpose but now - where in the collective spirit of man has destroyed itself, by egoism, and frivolity - you have only yourself (self as immediate family do not forget). But can one man do? He must raise himself up as the Ubermensch, as history incarnate. What can one man do? Goethe, Bach, Schilling, Wagner, Napoleon, Shakespeare, Hitler - what can one man do?
You must understand your existence as an eternal current, an ever repeating tragedy of the perseverance of man! And yet also with a set beginning and end, of self contemplating/and revealing consciousness which Hegel spoke of. Both life as innate, and time.
>Skinner and Waston
Skinner just because of his influence, otherwise both of them are fundamentally wrong.
>are necessary, so is Piaget, Bandura, Janet
Piaget yea (though he gets given far too much credit in the study of children than he deserves) Janet for a history of psychology, Bandura not necessary in the slightest.
Jung still remains the absolute peak of psychology as of yet, and already talked on most of the "new" psychology espoused in the 50's and 60's. I suppose we can both agree on how useless Adler is.
How do you guys know so much about this field?
just read Deleuze and Foucault lol
Just general reading (Jung's a history of modern psychology), internet searches, library sessions, etc. Just search up founders of modern psychology and it will comes up with three or four people like Wundt and James. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Why does psychotherapy feel so flimsy? Every now and then when I look up a therapist or psychologist online I see a guy whose into crystals or some other extremely odd method.
Kek it's probably just because you'r cheap and psychotherapy has been degrading pretty badly. Honestly don't even trust any therapist, often they still project their own states, throw a bunch of random theories at you (without basis) and intentionally prolong your hiring of his services.
If you can be a good therapist than you'd likely find your way to the top quite quickly - it's just most aren't good therapists.
I'm in it
Why do you think psychotherapy is degrading so much? Also what do you think makes someone a great therapist?
Psychologist?
Fuck all of you. Fuck you all. Just get a decent textbook.
>Why do you think psychotherapy is degrading so much?
The desire for money, the various corruptions of psychology by people like Adler (and partially Freud). Also just how the modern world degrades everything.
>Also what do you think makes someone a great therapist?
Basic virtues with an actually advanced and good understanding of the mind. Not just like most "I went to psych classes". All the greatest psychologists have liked psychology as abstract prior to them taking joy or participating in any practical use of that theory. Partially why Jung is so great.
>sending a textbook to do a Jung's job
Both English and Psychology are meme degrees that don't require professors
Student for now
You're right, therapists are the absolute worst, and that's part of why I wanted to go in the field. I'm in Europe though so I guess our local therapists might be a bit different, here it's mostly old psychoanalysts and lately some "sophrologists" indeed. I guess the good ones stay in specialized structures likes hospitals, asylums and the like. The ones who have been to school can still be useful to diagnose and treat easy/common problems, as the most significant factor in a therapy's success seems to be your relationship with the therapist.
I'd say the field is degrading because the hole left by psychoanalysis hasnt been replaced yet, and instead a plethora of minor borderline charlatan movements are thriving. Although cognitive therapies have been proven effective in the last 20 years or so it's not widely spread enough yet and they often are coupled with the trendy charlatan movement du jour.
A good therapists is mainly someone who will listen without judging, and most importantly understands deeply his clients instead of hearing them for 30 minutes and say "depression lol", and propose both practical solutions based on research and a better state of mind inspired by the theories of the greats. And I agree with the other user, Jung has that deep and unique understanding of the human mind, and he's truly a great read. Limiting yourself to him only might make you a good man but it's far from enough to make you a good therapist who can efficiently treat any kind of people with ant kind of problems.
Also yeah textbooks can are useful to get a decent basic understanding of any field really.
>cognitive therapies
Extrapolate.
>And I agree with the other user, Jung has that deep and unique understanding of the human mind, and he's truly a great read. Limiting yourself to him only might make you a good man but it's far from enough to make you a good therapist who can efficiently treat any kind of people with ant kind of problems.
I agree with you as well user, however at the end of the day these smaller others are just miscellaneous reading, still important to have a correct overview but Jung still acting as the heart of the operation itself. Even then you'd be surprised how many particular cases Jung did talk of in lectures or letters.
Sapolsky's Behave and get a textbook
>cognitive therapies
I meant CBT and the likes, they've had great results for the treatment of addictions, phobies, anxiety, obsessive disorders, and just messed up living styles. It's complicated for more serious stuff like bipolar or schizophrenia, but it's not worse than any other approach on the subject these are just complicated illnesses, plus it does work for some people.
And also, psychology isn't limited to abnormal psychology and therapy. If you take classes, you'll study social psychology, developmental psychology, cognitive psychology etc... And it will be taught in a completely scientific manner, not in a theoretical speculative one. You will have experiment reports to write, group projects to lead, scientific papers to read. At least that's how it was where I was.
>search up Sapolsky
>find this ted.com
>"SEVERE HIS SPINE, RIP OUT HIS SPLEEN, PUT HIM IN A RESPIRATORY SYSTEM"
>wtf it's just him talking about how much he hates Hitler
>I meant CBT and the likes, they've had great results for the treatment of addictions, phobies, anxiety, obsessive disorders, and just messed up living styles. It's complicated for more serious stuff like bipolar or schizophrenia, but it's not worse than any other approach on the subject these are just complicated illnesses, plus it does work for some people.
Fair enough, I haven't looked into that enough myself so I'd leave it to you.
Could you give me any examples? Any specific "doctrines" of such treatment? I could be getting mixed up with what you mean but you'r being a bit vague.
Well if you're a stranger to the subject I couldn't introduce you better than a Wikipedia page could. But basically CBT aims to free the therapy process of the long and tedious process of establishing the patient's precise anamnesis to see from what the problems could stem, and rather aims for rapid changes in the patient's behaviour patterns, with the premise that behaviour can influence thoughts and feelings. Hence the great results for addictions and phobies and the mixed ones for depression and schizophrenia. CBTs tend to ignore "deep unconscious meaning" of the symptom and focus and a cat to either make it disappear or compensate it.
Of course this is far from perfect and one might say that it overlooks the heart of the problem, one of my biggest concerns with CBT is that in the hands of people who do not understand how the human mind works it can turn into "just be happy bro". There's a lot of other criticism and praise to read about it. What I like is that it doesn't uselessly dwells on the patient's relationship with his mother when he wants to stop smoking, and comes up with simple strategies to improve the lives of the patiens quickly. But of course symptoms often carry meaning and CBT doesn't care about that, and could be seen as oversimplifying.
But it seems to work sometimes, which is already great for psychotherapy. Another practical problem is the vey high drop rate though, as there is actual work to be done by the patient, but I'd say that might be a token of its effectiveness, people are forced out of their comfort zones. I'm not saying it should be the only therapeutic solution for all problems though, that would be disastrous. But it certainly could do a lot of good if incorporated into a well balanced practice by a competent specialist.
Now I'm gonna stop writing cause I'm sure I forgot half of what I wanted to say and I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot.
I agree with simple answers to simple problems. As you said when a man wishes to quit smoking a nagging psychologist talking on the relationship he had with his mother doesn't help. However with that said sometimes these "simple" problems such as a phobia do stem from certain unconscious complexes far deeper than being scared of a cat. Which would in turn lead to further repression and intervention from this repressed psychic content onto the unwitting conscious mind. This being said - one must treat a simple problem as such and if there were a deeper complex it would be discovered by the patient-Psychologist relationship or later expressions of this same problem. This is pretty much what Jung did, it's just that it isn't particularly complex knowledge as you said yourself. Seems similar to the people that claim "before Piaget everyone just thought children were small adults" where in actually he more so created a formulated psychological system. And I mean this to say that this isn't new knowledge it's they are being more heavily studied than past generations. Hell even Freud once said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".
>Now I'm gonna stop writing cause I'm sure I forgot half of what I wanted to say and I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot.
Not at all, it's been entertaining.
Don't get a master's in counseling. You will be dooming yourself to a life of stress and shit pay in the name of a potentially totally ineffectual cause. Effectively marketing a private practice (because the clients have to come from somewhere) is spectacularly difficult, and if you're unable to swing that you're mostly likely to end up doing soul-draining crisis work in which you will daily question whethero are making any difference at all. If you insist on psychology, get at least a doctorate; even a PsyD rather than a PhD would better equip you to live a functional life (and be a good therapist). I've known too many trapped psychology and social work MA's. Working in behavioral health for just a year has led me to doubt pursuing psychology at all, but especially master's programs: they're useless, especially accounting for the cost of schooling.
Thanks user, you've been insightful too.
I'm not going into counseling. I wish to do a PhD in cognitive sciences as a whole, not just psychology. And a master's would just cost me about 500€ anyway. But thanks for that, I was actually hesitating, because I thought counseling seemed more practical. I guess I still have to get more points of view though, but I know that research is at least as much of a hellhole if not more.
If it's any consolation, I'm only a couple years out from my psychology degree and although my jobs have been academically interesting I've grown to hate all of them within a couple months. So my warning may partly just be that I have a bleak attitude, and/or that living under capitalism is bleak no matter where you work. Lately I've begun fantasizing about going back to school and acing premed and enrolling in medical school to try to become a neurologist. Psychotherapy pays poorly and is likely largely invalid; neuroscience and academic psychology pay poorly and focus on minutiae and are out of touch with the suffering of the world; maybe neurology will do, even if it often means having little power other than to improve standard of living in persons irrecoverably lost to Alzheimer's or brain injury. Neurology seems like the most substantial way of confronting both the mysteries of mind and the human condition, while also making a decent living.
>English to psychology
Out of the frying pan...
>effect
>English major
Nice bait user
I want to become a clinical psychologist. This is an interesting thread. Thank you for posting it.
I think I've seen you post in a similar thread on /sci once.
Were you that user?
What I wanted to add is that I would probably kill myself if I fail to be a psychologist. If I end up as a wagie I will either leave the country or kill myself. I think psychology is the only thing I see myself doing without going completely mad.
Would like to hear your thoughts on what you'd do if psychology doesn't work for you, OP.
I sympathize, but being a psychologist is another form of wagiehood. Cf. my neurology post.
Not OP I'm this guy: , but that was a good post.
Really if you think about it that's all that we as the inheritors of a dead world can do. Raise ourselves up as the Übermensch because the mensch is dead.
I'm not even sure if psychology is the right "thing" for me because I seem to be fascinated by more non-science related things, for example, archetypes and things like that.
I think my interest may lie more within the field of religion and philosophy, but as there is almost no practical use (almost no way to have a steady income) in these fields I decided on psychology.
I'm planning on living a solitary life nowhere near civilization so having a decent understanding of how humans behave may help me more with that than being an engineer or a similar job.
If you think that you're cut out to be an engineer seriously consider that. Rural areas need engineers too, and it pays well for just a bachelor's.
Like I said the thought of being an engineer or a similar job fills me with enough dread to consider suicide.
Maybe a psychology education will help you better understand why that sort of depressive lability is silly and unnecessary, then.
I will not now to the system and your characterization of my desire to do not implies a cowardly attitude that I regard as embarrassing.
Now = bow
Will you train your clients to be insurrectionists?
I meant psychology. It's a science these days, not just archetype play time like when Jung was writing. If you had a conversation with an actual psychologist and you kept referencing Jung they would accurately determine you're a brainlet.
Not me user
>What I wanted to add is that I would probably kill myself if I fail to be a psychologist
I certainly don't feel as strongly about psychology as you do. I remember another user in another thread who was talking about how over specialization isn't a great idea in general when it comes to life and that stuck with me.
I'm not sure what I would do and I'm still trying to think of other careers that could satiate my ego while also allowing a healthy family life. I'd like teaching if it wasn't state funded.
Sometimes I do get the thought of trying to get a phd in psychology and going down the rabbit hole completely with education but then I stop and think about all the other aspects of life I would miss out on and I thought the MA would be a decent compromise. Although as other anons have brought up in this thread, the MA route feels very flimsy.
Maybe I'd look into being a firefighter but I don't think they can smoke weed.
Implying Peterson isn't the biggest pseud of our generation. You should watch the first Peterson Pinker dialogue on YouTube. The gulf between Peterson and Pinker in terms of intellect is palpable.
maybe the user wasn't talking about how bad over specialization was but thats how I took it*
He may be a giant pseud, but you can't deny he has helped millions or tapped into a phenomena with young, listless males, and that's a good psychologist in my book.
You need to clear all of your own complexes before you can truly be a great psychologist, or at least become aware of them and in doing so neutralise them.
I'd like to.
>Imagine not hypnotising and training your patients to be MK ultra drones in your beyond science research of the human mind - and/or assassins hunting the Satanic elite
I am aware that this sort of view on life isn't considered healthy. But let me ask you this: Would you want to be healthy in a clearly sick society?
I will not act as a pawn to the powers that be and if I can help as many people as possible to do the same I can say I have done something worth my time.
Building a motor or designing a car is not worth my time.
>I am aware that this sort of view on life isn't considered healthy. But let me ask you this: Would you want to be healthy in a clearly sick society?
Yes, as I said before: In such times where man is disjointed from his own being, and all value is gone - you must raise yourself up, above all others, to rebirth, recreate the Zeitgeist.
>I will not act as a pawn to the powers that be and if I can help as many people as possible to do the same I can say I have done something worth my time.
Why not travel? See the world, lay with beautiful women, teach them, teach friends the truth. Formulate your own ideas on philosophy and the likes. Get a job as a bar man, or a barista? Become a (true) mystic even. I know that I myself have had many spiritual experiences - as did Jung. You could become a writer, whatever.
So you see, there are so many possibility's in your life and I hope you do not see psychology as the one lasting hope for your life. Freud himself was a normal doctor before he became a psychologist. And Jung was doing philosophy studies. Hitler was a street artist, Napoleon just a soldier at one point. Every man has his own idea of what "self actualisation" is, with that said you must find the right balance between the innate and the necessary actualisation.
>Would you want to be healthy in a clearly sick society?
Firstly: sickness is relative, and all eras of men have had their troubles, and part of health is learning to thrive despite noxious factors.
Secondly: you are best equipped to fight the sickness of society, and foster health in your eventual clients or patients, if you yourself are healthful.
Thirdly: you are morally obligated to help others and because your capacity to help expands alongside the bloom of your health you are also morally obligated to be healthful
QED
>Can I get a better education in psychology by reading on my own then I could getting a 4 year degree at a state school?
Yes, but you probably won't. I double majored in philosophy and psychology, minored in Asian studies, at a state research university. It would be possible to read the same materials in the same amount of time doing it on your own, the problem is the amount of media that you could potentially consume. Most psych departments won't have you read Freud, for example, but will have textbooks covering aspects of his theories which are relevant to the class -- if you read all of Freud, you would know more about Freud than the average psychology major. However, that doesn't mean you'd know more about psychology. In the classes I took we covered a broad range of articles, essays, books, and studies written by tons of different psychologists. One class had us go over 60+ studies alongside the textbook, so I ran into all kinds of authors and topics I never would have investigated on my own. Many of these things I've read never appear in any "top 10" lists on Yea Forums or anything like that. Another aspect of majoring in psychology which is preferable over engaging in self-study is the opportunity to do lab work and write papers in the APA format. One class I took on cognition involved lots of mental rotation tasks and reaction time research, I never would've been able to find the correct software for that on my own, nor find the participants necessary to do useful statistical analysis in order to test hypotheses. One thing you should remember is that being tested on information you've read increases the likelihood that it will remain in long-term memory; if your primary interest is psychology, put yourself in a situation where you will take many tests on it (which probably means majoring in psych).
As for reading all of Freud and Jung and Skinner and so on, you can do that too. Hell, I'm trying to read the writings of Freud and the writings of Jung in completion over the next year while I wait to hear about my grad school applications in order to supplement the stuff I learned as a psychology major.
I think going from an English major to Psych is a fair deal. I would suggest doing a double major if you can. For me, learning Western philosophy alongside the science of psychology and the religions, histories, philosophies, and cultures of Asia was an incredible experience and highly rewarding.
With that being said, I get paid $12/hour to do ABA, so I haven't exactly "made it" in the field yet.
What is your long term career goal user? I want to be the best therapist I can be and I thought switching to psychology would help me. Although I'm not thrilled about it probably setting me back a year and roughly 8k (even though I think I could still get into a mental health counseling MA with an English degree)
I'm waiting to hear from a few Psy.D. and Ph.D. programs. My career goal is to own a private practice psychotherapy/counseling clinic working exclusively with adults. I want to help guide people towards self-actualization -- though I also wish to help those in need of existential psychotherapy, that being a good use of my philosophical education. A few friends of mine are in medical and pharmaceutical fields and we are considering renting a strip mall in a suburban area together to offer a range of health services.
Skip the MA IMO. Try to get into a combined masters/doctorate program. If you have the money go for a Psy.D. instead of a Ph.D., you will have more opportunities in therapy. There is no reason to pursue it IMO unless your state licensure requirements allow for therapy with an MA.
Don't all states allow for psychotherapy with just a MA user?
Is the Ph.D route mostly for testing and research or is it for psychotherapy? I'm confused about this.
My state requires a doctorate and 10,000 hours of supervised practice before one can be considered a "Licensed Psychologist". Family counseling and other options are out there for MA's but it's less economically desirable. Unfortunately psychology is a low-paying field, and counseling therapy is even less. Average private practice nets $80,000. Average hospital psychologist nets even less. Income goes down if you go the MA route.
What state are you in friend if you don't mind me asking?
Thanks.
But Pinker is an idiot.
Do you like it user? I like art somewhat but I always thought this looked great
>Do you like it user? I like art somewhat but I always thought this looked great
Yes it's quite nice, I consider myself an "art" person - someone who enjoys and understands it - and as simple as this is, it does have charm.
>Can I get a better education in psychology by reading on my own then I could getting a 4 year degree at a state school?
I'm a psychology graduate and I can ensure you 95% I've learned was just me satisfying my curiosity.