New Dimensions of Psychology and the Media
Recent psychology has shied away from the once-popular Freud: according to How to Think Straight About Psychology (Stanovich), less than ten percent of the specializations in the American Psychological Society are currently devoted to Freud and Freudian analysis.
What's more, recent confirmation of parallels to consciousness in neurological studies of the brain are bringing a backswing against the once-popular Behaviorist views of the mind.
In fact, the major behaviorist B.
F.
Skinner died in 1990.
Perhaps it's the end of an age for materialists in psychology (if it seems that Freud was too materialistic by allying himself with determinism, as he often did).
But some aspects of psychology are only feeling the change now.
At first consciousness had a reputation for spiritualism, or was conversely marred by hard science, and the mentalities of formalized institutions.
Now psychology is looking more avant-garde, as researchers from major universities have confirming evidence of genetic origins for disease, and the tandem dynamic conditioning of the human brain, both genetically and developmentally.
Neurology is also destined to get a major boost (at some point) from the public spread of neuro-scanning techniques.
These offer the potential to publicly interact with aspects of the brain, including sharing and developing shared brain information.
Gradually, it may be that these 'mental data' are embraced as an exponent on the still newer theme of stimulating the brain, with implications for visual culture and mass market businesses.
Some people still don't know that electrodes (or more commonly, electrode caps worn on the head) are often non-invasive.
Electrode caps even go some distance towards explaining the popularity of women's short-cut hair.
This is an unconscious adaptation to the early, accurate assumption that electrodes will socially integrate neurological functions, and make our thoughts highly interactive.
The apogee of this trend in psychology, both for what might be called interface-materialism, and for integration of thoughts-once often called immaterial things-is a trend towards intangibles.
But it is also a trend towards new psychology.
I will avoid the belief that the reliance on fossilized examples of thoughts from the past itself constitutes a kind of historicism.
Instead, the reliance on fossilized examples is a hyper-dimensional new carving of reality, which looks to re-envision, re-aperturify, all pre-conditions of present belief, and especially, in the context of technology, re-assess the highly specialized applications which are functions of the same meta-data fossils.
We should not assume that the trend towards interface psychology, following from interface materialism, is insignificant.
The way behaviorists had doubt about the spirit, and psychology in general had doubt about the core of human nature, interface culture has a preferential pretext of assuming that context is everything.
And, like these pre-existing trends (Freud, behaviorism) that assumption has a certain utility.
While the new youth is busy envisioning (as the new generation often does) that the new trends are an embodiment of some diabolical nihilism which justifies self-love or radical feminism, the older youth (such as those in their 30s and 40s) have a more passive-consumer angle, which as Esther Dyson has said in her article on the "Attention Society," makes social-media oriented choices which affect consumerism in unpredictable ways.
The upshot of this trend in consumerism and what seems like the beginning of a society which is functionally pre-empted by interface, is that psychology is more often a function of interface than it is a function of our own minds.
But interestingly, this seems to be just the first step, towards realizing, just as functionalism is becoming applicationism, how interface culture is just a pre-requisite for highly thought-oriented interfaces.
Although these interfaces are still interfaces (and that must be considered), they are also brain-access devices which may implement the most radically functional concepts of meta-data, even before mental information comes to represent metaphysical differences en purum.
Clearly psychology at this point exists in three senses, none of which relate to Freud or behaviorism: [1] Mental information, [2] Effective technologies, and [3] Thought-implementation.
In these senses there is a new willingness, as a function of the dependence on computer interfaces, to express functionality explicitly by terms of words like 'enhancement', 'technicalism', and 'artificial'.
What's more, these words no longer connote some aspect that is amalgamated ad hoc, as an exterior meaning to personality, doctoral authority, or functional identity.
Indeed, more often than not it is seen as a skill or talent any time some aspect of identity DOES NOT depend on the technological.
This is a trend that began with the telephone.
People expected extra rewards when granting the privilege of speaking in person to someone.
The same is true of internet conversations.
People make a joke out of being very extraordinary gods (with no magic of course) any time something happens without an interface.
In this new system there are essentially two powers: [1] Nature and [2] Technology.
But more often than not technology takes up most of the pie.
People begin to interpret that nature is a form of magic.
It doesn't always function by electricity.
Or then again, maybe it is just another kind.
There is a parallel to psychology.
Much of the brain is now concerned with artificial functions.
This is a trend that began with aesthetics and continued into Tarski's Unsolvabilitiy Theorem, the theory that states that mathematics cannot prove something without referring to something else.
The natural continuation of these bodies of associations is the interface culture obsessed with contexts.
People have moved away from the resolution of big issues-or at least, they have moved away from the perspective that big issues are big, as shadowed by Atheism-and begun to focus on the solution of problems on a very local scale.
Although the converse is happening for businesses, not everyone believes in business psychology.
Where psychology happens, more often than not the only condition in which people will recognize a larger picture is by reference to some form of interface technology.
That means that effectively psychology itself has been eclipsed into [1] Definite concepts, however ersatz, (the winners often look like government, schizophrenia, beauty, and relativity) and [2] The extended body of deliberations about the meaning of information technology, often depending on some down-playing of a dogma borrowed from the ersatz-People will take sides, using string-ey arguments like 'Math: Relativity' or 'Philosophy: Schizophrenia' or 'Economy: Government'.
Where is the psychology? It's bound up in every concept that is being used, in every 'prior assumption' that contributes to the evidence, and conclusively, finally, it now relates half the time to information technology: all those unfinished science fiction movies.
Effectively, we're in debt to the media.
Short of thinking that the media is yet thinking for itself, we might gain an advantage by psychologizing the nature of interface design and consciousness, to realize that human thought is more of an artifice than previously.
It is becoming a commodity, but this provides an opportunity to develop standards of media which relate directly to the future experiences of those who will have largely media-defined perceptions.
The system of organization, maintenance, and supervision of the data-base of artificially produced media which interface with the mind is not yet generated.
Psychology must play a role which recognizes the substantiation of interface as a form of psychology.
Otherwise, there will be no sacred standard to mandate that future media-qua experience-is psychological.
Furthermore, if these prescriptions for organized media indicate that souls have been sold on design decisions, in some respects that may ultimately be a smaller significance than the significance of psychology itself.
Psychology, knowingly or not, has long gambled on the existence of the human soul.
Now it must present a superficial exterior to defend what remains of it.
The secret choice, however, simply involves the quality of media.
What's more, recent confirmation of parallels to consciousness in neurological studies of the brain are bringing a backswing against the once-popular Behaviorist views of the mind.
In fact, the major behaviorist B.
F.
Skinner died in 1990.
Perhaps it's the end of an age for materialists in psychology (if it seems that Freud was too materialistic by allying himself with determinism, as he often did).
But some aspects of psychology are only feeling the change now.
At first consciousness had a reputation for spiritualism, or was conversely marred by hard science, and the mentalities of formalized institutions.
Now psychology is looking more avant-garde, as researchers from major universities have confirming evidence of genetic origins for disease, and the tandem dynamic conditioning of the human brain, both genetically and developmentally.
Neurology is also destined to get a major boost (at some point) from the public spread of neuro-scanning techniques.
These offer the potential to publicly interact with aspects of the brain, including sharing and developing shared brain information.
Gradually, it may be that these 'mental data' are embraced as an exponent on the still newer theme of stimulating the brain, with implications for visual culture and mass market businesses.
Some people still don't know that electrodes (or more commonly, electrode caps worn on the head) are often non-invasive.
Electrode caps even go some distance towards explaining the popularity of women's short-cut hair.
This is an unconscious adaptation to the early, accurate assumption that electrodes will socially integrate neurological functions, and make our thoughts highly interactive.
The apogee of this trend in psychology, both for what might be called interface-materialism, and for integration of thoughts-once often called immaterial things-is a trend towards intangibles.
But it is also a trend towards new psychology.
I will avoid the belief that the reliance on fossilized examples of thoughts from the past itself constitutes a kind of historicism.
Instead, the reliance on fossilized examples is a hyper-dimensional new carving of reality, which looks to re-envision, re-aperturify, all pre-conditions of present belief, and especially, in the context of technology, re-assess the highly specialized applications which are functions of the same meta-data fossils.
We should not assume that the trend towards interface psychology, following from interface materialism, is insignificant.
The way behaviorists had doubt about the spirit, and psychology in general had doubt about the core of human nature, interface culture has a preferential pretext of assuming that context is everything.
And, like these pre-existing trends (Freud, behaviorism) that assumption has a certain utility.
While the new youth is busy envisioning (as the new generation often does) that the new trends are an embodiment of some diabolical nihilism which justifies self-love or radical feminism, the older youth (such as those in their 30s and 40s) have a more passive-consumer angle, which as Esther Dyson has said in her article on the "Attention Society," makes social-media oriented choices which affect consumerism in unpredictable ways.
The upshot of this trend in consumerism and what seems like the beginning of a society which is functionally pre-empted by interface, is that psychology is more often a function of interface than it is a function of our own minds.
But interestingly, this seems to be just the first step, towards realizing, just as functionalism is becoming applicationism, how interface culture is just a pre-requisite for highly thought-oriented interfaces.
Although these interfaces are still interfaces (and that must be considered), they are also brain-access devices which may implement the most radically functional concepts of meta-data, even before mental information comes to represent metaphysical differences en purum.
Clearly psychology at this point exists in three senses, none of which relate to Freud or behaviorism: [1] Mental information, [2] Effective technologies, and [3] Thought-implementation.
In these senses there is a new willingness, as a function of the dependence on computer interfaces, to express functionality explicitly by terms of words like 'enhancement', 'technicalism', and 'artificial'.
What's more, these words no longer connote some aspect that is amalgamated ad hoc, as an exterior meaning to personality, doctoral authority, or functional identity.
Indeed, more often than not it is seen as a skill or talent any time some aspect of identity DOES NOT depend on the technological.
This is a trend that began with the telephone.
People expected extra rewards when granting the privilege of speaking in person to someone.
The same is true of internet conversations.
People make a joke out of being very extraordinary gods (with no magic of course) any time something happens without an interface.
In this new system there are essentially two powers: [1] Nature and [2] Technology.
But more often than not technology takes up most of the pie.
People begin to interpret that nature is a form of magic.
It doesn't always function by electricity.
Or then again, maybe it is just another kind.
There is a parallel to psychology.
Much of the brain is now concerned with artificial functions.
This is a trend that began with aesthetics and continued into Tarski's Unsolvabilitiy Theorem, the theory that states that mathematics cannot prove something without referring to something else.
The natural continuation of these bodies of associations is the interface culture obsessed with contexts.
People have moved away from the resolution of big issues-or at least, they have moved away from the perspective that big issues are big, as shadowed by Atheism-and begun to focus on the solution of problems on a very local scale.
Although the converse is happening for businesses, not everyone believes in business psychology.
Where psychology happens, more often than not the only condition in which people will recognize a larger picture is by reference to some form of interface technology.
That means that effectively psychology itself has been eclipsed into [1] Definite concepts, however ersatz, (the winners often look like government, schizophrenia, beauty, and relativity) and [2] The extended body of deliberations about the meaning of information technology, often depending on some down-playing of a dogma borrowed from the ersatz-People will take sides, using string-ey arguments like 'Math: Relativity' or 'Philosophy: Schizophrenia' or 'Economy: Government'.
Where is the psychology? It's bound up in every concept that is being used, in every 'prior assumption' that contributes to the evidence, and conclusively, finally, it now relates half the time to information technology: all those unfinished science fiction movies.
Effectively, we're in debt to the media.
Short of thinking that the media is yet thinking for itself, we might gain an advantage by psychologizing the nature of interface design and consciousness, to realize that human thought is more of an artifice than previously.
It is becoming a commodity, but this provides an opportunity to develop standards of media which relate directly to the future experiences of those who will have largely media-defined perceptions.
The system of organization, maintenance, and supervision of the data-base of artificially produced media which interface with the mind is not yet generated.
Psychology must play a role which recognizes the substantiation of interface as a form of psychology.
Otherwise, there will be no sacred standard to mandate that future media-qua experience-is psychological.
Furthermore, if these prescriptions for organized media indicate that souls have been sold on design decisions, in some respects that may ultimately be a smaller significance than the significance of psychology itself.
Psychology, knowingly or not, has long gambled on the existence of the human soul.
Now it must present a superficial exterior to defend what remains of it.
The secret choice, however, simply involves the quality of media.
Source...