City Tutoring Discussion Forum

Carl Jung is the co-father of modern psychology along with Freud. I much prefer Jung's work and think it is more relevant today. I think we all know Freud was overly fixated on human sexuality to explain psychological drives and behavior. I think psychology as therapeutic treatment has failed for both good and bad reasons as a way to treat modern problems of depression, anxiety and schizophrenia. But it is still worth studying to find answers to the problems of the human condition. So here is a video with a AI narrator explaining how Jung thought religion affected the human psyche:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8KHp-FAzOA
I personally dont have the time to explore Jung's work as much as I would like as I have more pressing tasks at hand I have to deal with.

AGAINST PSYCHOLOGY (part 1)

Psychology is not a true natural physical science, nor is it compatible with the teachings of the Christian faith.

The whole concept of IQ is intrinsically and inseparably contingent on the field of psychology. The status quo of psychology repeatedly and defensively promulgates the incessant and strident propaganda which firmly and peremptorily makes the incessant assertion that "psychology is a science is because it uses the same scientific method as does physics, chemistry, and biology". The reason why that objection cannot be accepted is because I have read an article written by Gregg Henriques, M.D., on "Psychology Today" entitled "The “Is Psychology a Science?” Debate", which answers precisely that objection. You can reach it by googling: "Gregg Henriques Ph.D" "The “Is Psychology a Science?” Debate". Dr. Henriques's answer is: "Although the scientific method is often touted as the [sole] sine qua non of science, it is not. Indeed, if science were solely a method, then it would not be all that valuable, a point that is sometimes lost on empiricists enamored with the scientific method". Psychology indeed has some of the characteristics essential in order to be a physical natural science: but there is another characteristic essential for a real physical natural science: "a key feature of real scientific knowledge is that there is a clear, consensual center that provides a foothold to describe how (portions of) the world actually work. And it is here that psychology falls down in ways that physics, chemistry and biology do not. And it is in that sense that psychology is not a real science." The objection that psychology is a true science simply because it uses the scientific method is rebuttable, and the hint, namely the question of what physics, chemistry, and biology have in common but is absent from psychology, points to the most critical difference: the nature of the phenomena being studied. Physics, chemistry, and biology investigate the natural, physical world, while psychology deals with the complexities of human consciousness, thought, and behavior. Here's a breakdown of what the physical and natural sciences have in common that psychology lacks, making the simple comparison to "true science" misleading. Physics, chemistry, and biology deal with fundamentally objective reality. The objects of study in physics, chemistry, and biology exist independently of the observer's mind. Physics studies universal laws that apply to all matter and energy, such as gravity or electromagnetism. These forces and principles operate regardless of who is observing them. Chemistry investigates the properties of molecules and chemical reactions. The behavior of a specific compound is consistent whether a scientist studies it in Atlanta or Tokyo. Biology examines living organisms through repeatable observation and experimentation. The anatomy of a frog is the same no matter which biologist is dissecting it. Psychology studies subjective experience In contrast, psychology must contend with phenomena that are subjective, internal, and not directly measurable.

Individual differences: Each person's mind and behavior are shaped by a unique combination of genetics, personal history, and environment. A psychologist cannot assume that one person's reaction to a stimulus will perfectly predict another's.

Ethical constraints: Ethical guidelines limit what kinds of experiments can be conducted on humans. Researchers cannot, for example, intentionally induce severe trauma to study its effects. This is a constraint that does not apply to inanimate objects in physics or chemicals in a lab.

The observer effect: The act of being studied can influence a person's behavior, a phenomenon known as the observer effect. The same does not happen when a chemist is studying a salt crystal. The consequences of studying a subjective reality This fundamental difference in the object of study leads to other important distinctions:

Statistical, not deterministic: Psychology discovers general trends and probabilities, not universal, deterministic laws. You cannot predict with absolute certainty that a person will react a certain way, only that they are statistically likely to. Although quantum mechanics employs statistics and is a statistical theory, quantum mechanics actually predicts its probability distributions a priori, without first needing to take a statistical sample: but psychology cannot. The day that the act of taking statistical samples ceases to be a constitutive part of psychology is the day that psychology virtually ceases to be a field of study at all.

Higher-level complexity: Human behavior is an "impossibly vast" and complex system, making it resistant to the kind of precise, predictive, mathematical models found in the hard sciences.

Interpretation is paramount: Because the data often come from self-reporting, interviews, and other subjective measures, interpretation plays a larger role in psychological findings than in the hard sciences. This has led to the "replication crisis" in psychology, where many famous findings have been difficult to reproduce.

Conclusion: The rebuttal to the objection lies in a more nuanced understanding of "science." While psychology adheres to the scientific method, the unique, complex, and subjective nature of its subject matter places it in a different category than the physical sciences. Calling psychology a "true science" based solely on methodology is an oversimplification that ignores the fundamental epistemological differences between studying objective, universal laws and studying the subjective, individual human mind.

In addition, the sample sizes accessible to psychologists and sociologists are much smaller in count, and yet take up more 3-dimensional physical space, than those available to physicists and chemists. The absolute maximum sample size for psychology/sociology is the total number of humans who have ever lived, which, according to the evolutionist, naturalistic, materialistic, uniformitarian presuppositions, has been currently estimated at 108–117 billion. If it be accepted that the Bible is the divinely revealed word of God, and that therefore the Bible's account of the Creation of the World is historically and scientifically true, well then, that limit on the sample size available must be set even lower. But 110 billion is approximately 1.1 × 10^11. It is known in probability theory that the standard deviation of a sample mean from its expected distribution mean is inversely proportional to the square root of the sample size, provided that the distribution standard deviation is held constant. Thus, with the sample sizes used in psychology/sociology, the standard deviation of a sample mean from its expected distribution should not be much less than 9.6 × 10^-6.

But the sample sizes available in physics and chemistry are mindboggling: The number of individuals contained in such samples available in physics and chemistry is on the same order of magnitude as:

~ The number of seconds it would take for light, in the total absence of the influence of the gravitational field, to travel a distance equal to the length of the known observable part of the Cosmos;
~ The number of stars in the observable part of the Cosmos;
~ The total number of grains of sand present in all of the whole Earth.

And yet those individuals in any one sample available in physics and chemistry can safely fit together in a much smaller amount of space than would be required for the number of people to occupy in a typical sample which is made in psychology or sociology.

In one mole of gas, N = approx. 6 × 10^23, which yields a standard deviancy of the sample mean from its distribution mean on the order of 10^-11. This is 10^5 times smaller than that which is available for psychology/sociology!! Therefore, in predictive capacity and ability to make precise and quasi-deterministic predictions, psychology and sociology simply cannot compete with physics and chemistry!

AGAINST PSYCHOLOGY (part 2)

But the disadvantages which I have mentioned for psychology/sociology in Part 1 are not the worst effects of psychology. The worst evils of psychology are moral and doctrinal. Psychology routinely teaches concepts which are contrary to the articles of the Christian faith !!

Psychology views humans as fundamentally good, with problems stemming from environment, trauma, or conditioning. Sin is reframed as “mental illness,” “disorder,” or “maladaptive behavior.” But Christianity teaches that human beings are totally depraved by original sin, dead in sin, incapable of good apart from regeneration (Eph 2:1–3; Rom 3:10–18). Psychology’s “good core” anthropology denies this.

Therapy often teaches self‑love, “you are enough,” boundary‑setting against “toxic” people, and actualizing your potential. Sinful desires are affirmed as “healthy expression.” Psychology routinely teaches the one of the greatest danger threatening the Western world today is a lack of self-esteem. Christianity teaches that no man ever hates his own body, but constantly cherishes it and feeds it and cares for it. Christianity teaches that all men instinctually love themselves without needing to be taught to love themselves. Christianity teaches us rather to love God and others; and it also demands repentance, mortification of the flesh, and faith in Christ’s atonement (Mk 1:15; Rom 6:6; Gal 2:20). Self‑esteem is carnal.

Carl Jung (foundational to modern therapy) blended psychology with Gnosticism, archetypes, and the collective unconscious, treating evil as something to integrate, not overcome. Satan as a “shadow archetype” to reconcile with. But Christianity teaches that the only kind of evil deeds that exist consists in personal sin, and therefore ought to be repented of; Satan is the adversary to resist (Jas 4:7; Eph 6:12). Jung’s system is demonic.

Psychology locates healing in self‑insight, techniques, and relationships; the therapist or inner self is the savior. God is optional or a projection. This is contrary to Christianity, which teaches Christ alone saves by granting gratuitous grace nobody deserves, nor is able to do anything to earn. Human wisdom in these matters so central to our salvation is preposterous folly (1 Cor 1:20).

In psychology, blame is externalized to “trauma,” “systems,” or “genetics”; accountability is minimized. Gender/sexuality “fluidity” is affirmed. But the Christian faith, teaches personal responsibility before God; sin is willful rebellion, not victimhood (Rom 3:23; Jas 1:14–15).

Also "self-actualization" is unphilosophical. scholastic philosophy teaches that nothing can go from potential to actuality unless its actualization is caused by something else which is already actual - QUOD MOVETUR, AB ALIO MOVETUR !!!

Psychology once taught that "There is an epidemic of low self-esteem in the western world, and it is doomed to result in great harm to our schools and our society". But such a doctrine as taught by psychology is heretical. Again it is written, NO MAN EVER HATED HIS FLESH but on the contrary cherishes and feeds it! Psychology and humanism both concur in teaching incessantly and stridently that the greatest love of all consists in LEARNING TO LOVE YOURSELF !! The bible instead teaches in John 3.16 what the greatest love of all has ever been: FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD, THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, ... !!! It also teaches that the greatest love that any human being can show to other human beings consists in LAYING DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS BRETHREN.

Thus on these points, psychology is not a science - it is a PERNICIOUS HERESY against the Christian faith.

Thank you Casus for your very detailed thoughts on Jung. While I agree with a lot your points about how Jung was very much into gnosticism and there is danger in that, I think that a lot of christians miss out on the simplicity of Christ's message about how to live by love and not live by the law. I personally went through a very fanatical christian phase in my life and was justly exposed and humbled for it. So I know from experience that it is wrong to approach sinners by following rules. Not to say rules are wrong or obsolete, the bible says clearly that theyre not. But the entire new testament teaches that our intentions are more important. Im not college educated or even well read. I havent read any of Jungs works, just watched a lot of youtube videos about him. This video in particular I found very good for people like myself who are empaths and so get hurt emotionally by others:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJbXOpdK6s0
This video basically shows how an empath needs to reach a state where they stop trying to fix problems with people who are bad and stop trying to fix others who have been hurt. The video explains it much more clearly than I could. But basically everyone needs to learn by living through experience and trying to teach them to live by rules never works.

That channel looks like AI slop, as in a content creator used AI/LLMs to generate the 5-10 second video clips, create the script for the video, and narrate the video. I would avoid this kind of stuff, not necessarily because all Jungian ideas are wrong (some maybe right), but because it's rewarding the theft of artistic talent and intellectual property.

mwtichen wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2026 12:13 pm That channel looks like AI slop, as in a content creator used AI/LLMs to generate the 5-10 second video clips, create the script for the video, and narrate the video. I would avoid this kind of stuff

I spent many years of my life teaching myself 3D graphics only to find out that the industry is closed to very sub par artists by gatekeepers who run the major studios. So I am overjoyed by the fact that AI is putting 'artists' out of business and giving the power of artistic creativity to anyone who wants to type suggestions into an AI prompt. Anyone who is currently being put out of a job by AI deserves their burger flipping jobs.

maxirater wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2026 3:24 pm I spent many years of my life teaching myself 3D graphics only to find out that the industry is closed to very sub par artists by gatekeepers who run the major studios.

So how far did you get into this? Were you trying to get into 3D animation? Was the gatekeeping an instance of DEI/affirmative action? I'm in tech and there's a metric shit ton of gatekeeping, lying, discrimination and nepotism; also, I like art and my goal is to draw portraits or caricatures at the local farmer's market soon (maybe spring or fall next year).

maxirater wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2026 3:24 pm So I am overjoyed by the fact that AI is putting 'artists' out of business and giving the power of artistic creativity to anyone who wants to type suggestions into an AI prompt. Anyone who is currently being put out of a job by AI deserves their burger flipping jobs.

Can't say I share that sentiment. I would think there are some legitimately hardworking Americans that don't deserve to lose their jobs. Even if every "artist" at a studio is subpar and deserves it, this is also affecting the latest CS graduates, who are obviously not at fault for doing exactly what everyone told them to do, i.e. to go to college and major in STEM.

So how far did you get into this? Were you trying to get into 3D animation? Was the gatekeeping an instance of DEI/affirmative action? I'm in tech and there's a metric shit ton of gatekeeping, lying, discrimination and nepotism; also, I like art and my goal is to draw portraits or caricatures at the local farmer's market soon (maybe spring or fall next year).

I got into 3D in 2004 right when video game design started to become really popular. I cant say there was much gatekeeping in video game modeling because it was so easy to join a game modding team back then. But it was my observation that it was very hard to get into computer graphics for advertising and movies because these studios get paid so much money and the salaries were so high to be a 3D modeler that it was clear to me that it was impossible to get into that industry without knowing someone.

Funny you would mentioning drawing by hand because I used to be a good artist as a kid and Im old enough to have grown up before computer graphics became available to the public. I took an online course by Jason Seiler which I found helpful on making professional quality charactures, you should check it out:
https://schoolism.com/courses/drawing/t ... son-seiler

maxirater wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2026 4:57 am I took an online course by Jason Seiler which I found helpful on making professional quality charactures, you should check it out:
https://schoolism.com/courses/drawing/t ... son-seiler

Thanks for the link.