Thought I’d fill in the blank (between my last share and someone sharing the audio version of his 12 Rules book).
Rather just get it all out there within 24/ hours…
CamelCamelCamel.
Rather just get it all out there within 24/ hours…
you mean the screaming in the comments?
Yep haha
This is a troll post. "12 rules" is a best seller, while "maps of meaning" is a dense academic tome and unreadable.
Want meant to be a troll post.
Just so many people were so curious, interested in either defending or finding more out about the author, and I was myself looking into any other writings by him (so I could maybe gauge a better sense of ‘where he stands’ in regards to some of the issues that some people highlighted).
If I’m going to do my research, I would rather feel better knowing I paid 75% less than RRP, especially if my conclusion ended up being that he is ‘not who I thought he was’.
The timing was just funny in my head because I had to think twice before posting thanks to all the drama the last two posts caused - nevertheless, a deal is a deal and so the bargainer posts must go on
I meant "troll" in the sense of humour by getting a reaction.
So to be clear, not matter how much you like JP or "12 rules" I seriously do not recommend "Maps of Meaning". You'll be lucky to make it through the first chapter.
It was written for other psychology professors, never intended for the public.
I really have trouble understanding why JP is so polarising. The 12 rules book is mostly common-sense stuff, but it did help me think about some things in a new way.
JP is not going to convert me to Christianity, but he did help me understand my Christian friends a bit better. (And I'm fairly sure JP does not actually believe in God in the usual sense??)
I'd say it's probably ok if you're really really into psychology or maybe a psych student. I actually ended up trying to listen to the audiobook and found the same thing. It's really not something you can give even 80% of your concentration, you'd need to sit down, dedicate time to it and almost treat it like studying (looking through the references and diagrams).
Psychology is a pseudo science
At uni we used to joke that psychologists have physics-envy… (Freud joke…)
Nice assertion. But kind of pointless without a supporting argument, no?
Psychology gained credibility as a social science because of the practical success of IQ testing, particularly in education and the military.
The rest of it, such as personality testing, has never met the same scientific standards.
But is medicine a pseudo science? We don't know much about all sorts of diseases, but treat them anyway. Clinical psychology is not so different.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/201…
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/blo…
There are many more ..my personal view is that it's a bit like chiropractic treatment
Yes, the Replication crisis. Not just in psychology.
The replication crisis is an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce. The replication crisis most severely affects the social sciences and medicine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
my personal view is that it's a bit like chiropractic treatment
In some fields, perhaps. But not clinical psychology. They have come a long way from the days of Freud.
it's an ok deal i suppose looking at the graph - https://booko.com.au/9780415922227/Maps-of-Meaning