Alyrium Denryle wrote:madd0ct0r wrote:Query conceded
It is worth noting that... actual brains are Much Much Much more complicated than the typical Triune brain theory you find in any kind of pop psychology.
Yes, but it is an
extremely useful metaphor for comprehending psychology on the pop level. And the pop level is just about all most people can afford, since we can't spend years picking up a psych degree, let alone a graduate education in neurobiology.
It's sort of like the "id, ego, superego" triad. Gross oversimplification, but
useful. Because it conveys the important concept that the brain is not a single united whole in which all the parts work together rationally to achieve a shared goal. It's a collection of parts that work together, yes. Works surprisingly well, even, for a watch built by a blind deaf-mute watchmaker. But since it's an evolved mechanism and not a
planned mechanism, the parts can easily work at cross purposes.
And that's not something that aligns with our
intuitive understanding of the brain, because we intuit ourselves as being unified, singular wholes. So it is urgently needed, when trying to get a bit of enlightenment into people's minds, to have ready, straightforward 'toy models' that portray the brain as a collection of interlocking parts that can work at cross purposes. Even if the parts of the model don't correspond perfectly to the parts of the real brain.
This is arguably why Freud counts as a great psychologist despite most of his theories being garbage- because he popularized the idea of a
subconscious, distinct from the conscious mind. Which incidentally opens the door to the entire concept of even having mental health care. If you don't believe in a subconscious, you believe that everything a person does, they
decided to do. In which case the correct response is to be judgmental and push them away from you if they do things that are noxious. Only when you can accept that a person can have subconscious motives and assumptions, things that can be 'worked on' but which do not necessarily reflect on a person's moral worth as such, does it start making sense to have psychiatric care.
jwl wrote:I think more of a lesson here is to not jump to conclusions until things are clear. Cosmicalstorm said it was an Islamic attack and subsequently looked like an idiot. But other people (not here) were automatically jumping to the conclusion that it was an alt-right guy inspired by trump. It's looking he is indeed is an alt-right guy, although the jury is out whether he was inspired by trump. However, this easily could not have been the case, and in that case they would have been the ones that look like idiots.
If it turns out to be a right wing nut not directly inspired by Trump, the leftists who said "right wing nut inspired by Trump" come out looking
a little stupid.
If it turns out to
not even be a Muslim guy, let alone a refugee, the rightists who said "Muslim refugee" should come out looking
very, very stupid.
Being wrong about details of a person's motives is much different from being actively delusional about their identity.
"
- PeZook
) are some of the first to talk about how that never happens there. I guess this is the exception that proves the rule, at least I hope so. Weighing the possibility of getting shot like a fish in a barrel when deciding whether or not to go to the movies isn't exactly fun.
