/lit/ - Literature

>another thread where clueles /lit/izens treat economics like a qualitative subject and reccomend the same few pop econ books and 19th century texts as last time
If your economics doesn't involve pages of calculations you're doing womans econ.

>this entire thread
It's fucking tense in here

>>13398790
¡Claro que si, campeon!

>>13367631
>Stalinground

>>13299864
I moved to a suburb after living in NYC.
Never wanted to kill myself as much as I do now.

Sage goes in all fields, and I believe the suburbs must be destroyed.

>>13281014
>I'm too lazy to do something on my own so can someone else do the job for me
>for free

Yes man
Fuck rulers, Warlordism only

>>10185125
>When a book writen by woman changed anon's life

>>8828050
>37 posters, 239 replies

You're all fucking retarded for getting memed on this hard.

There are automatic (i.e. unconscious) processes/recognitions of stimuli in the brain, they teach this in psych programs, and the Freudian concept of the unconscious is taught as a historical anecdote and a basic metaphor for those processes, not as a wacky drive theory dreamscape that exists in the way Freud suggested.

Jung and Freud's theories are probably best left to the realm of philosophy, they don't have much of a place in modern clinical practice aside from a handful of (mostly older) clinical psychologists who still practice classical psychoanalysis or psychodynamic psychoanalysis. That being said, some things, like Freud's work on defenses, do hold up to some extent as examples of common patterns of thought, but not as a methodology for therapy.

If you want to see where psychologists have taken Jung's theories, you should look into the field of personality psychology. I never read Jung in school because I thought he was a wackier Freud, so I can't recommend any specific works by him.