>>13866362Psychology is not an exact science. Its job is trying to describe something which has its own free will and ability to reshape itself, and to do so it needs structuralize something that by its nature is not reliably structural. That's why its primary approach in all cases is semantic, trying to figure out what things mean to particular people before saying how it might dictate the rest of their being.
The only 'redpill' you can get about psychology is that every approach is fundamentally putting people into boxes. A bad psychologist encounters a person whose bits stick out, and keeps smashing the door until they fit, even if they're less than what they were when they came. A good psychologist will admit the person doesn't entirely fit into their favourite kind of box and seek another psychological doctrine which describes a better fitting box for this specimen. Inevitably you will get freaks who don't fit into any kind of a box.
I think as long as you don't think yourself to be above the patients because you 'understand' them, you'll be fine. Distortions and true nutcases are born from an arrogant and presumptious handling of another person's consciousness.
At the end of the day, the study of psychology consists of sorting through thousands upon thousands of specific cases with anecdotal evidence, and trying to figure out how patterns develop while never submitting yourself to the idea that the way the patterns develop in human minds is actually ever meant to be understood by human minds.
It's a very tough job. Or, you can be a piece of shit.
