Oh for fucks sake

...

The definition of thought-provoking. Based Scaruffi.

i.e. woke

This is the least retarded scruf ive ever read.

I'm worried that he might be right. Especially about the last point.

absolute fucking mental case

>People actually take his review work seriously.

He's right.

Made me think.

He's not wrong. But there's different facets to that, it isn't a black and white spectrum. White people lack emotions, individuality, and basic empathy. Black people lack logic and emotional stability. Those are just two extremes, though.

i think you mean asians for the first one

t."I took psych 101 guys!!!11!!!"

Does he mean consciousness as in having a soul, for lack of a better word, like someone who actually looks through those eyes?
I had that thought too. Technically, I'm the only one I can be certain about to have a consciousness, everyone else might only behave like they have one. But that's a stupid thing to assume because there's nothing special about me.

music

The human brain is like an antenna picking up different signals that are emitted from everything in the universe. Some people have better hardware, some people are better at blocking out the garbage signals, and some people are just a clusterfuck of people who allow nothing but noise in like memes and social media, so their input is all garbage. This is what being on a "lower consciousness" is. Politics, shitty food, social media, negative emotions, and consumer culture are the most common causes.

Taking certain substances temporarily enhances this signal, but this can be dangerous in young people. They have not yet learned how to defend their brains/operating systems against things that are clearly garbage or dangerous ideas, so they are prone to amplifying all sorts of negative things that have terrible consequences later on in life.

Don't let your kids do this shit until they're at least 21ish.

*tips*

this is just getting ridiculous now

here's his poem about the moon

I can't take him seriously anymore

It's like he wrote them for a long lost King Crimson song

and not a good one

Not really, there are obviously a ton of human NPCs.

t. genius non-NPC

Change all of the lacking properties to black people and you're right.

I bet you think the Earth is flat, too.

>t. genius non-NPC
good for you

>White people lack emotions, individuality, and basic empathy. Black people lack logic and emotional stability
source or bullshit

t. knigs proving his point

to all the people saying this crazy, think for a second. all of modern psychology is based around the idea that the majority of our cognitive processes happen subconsciously. he is absolutely right in saying that some people are more capable of bringing cognitive function from our subconscious mind into our conscious mind.

for example, acknowledging that you are using a freudian defense mechanism. If i'm convinced that someone doesn't like me, but then i realize that it's actually me who doesn't like them, and i was projecting my feelings onto them, then i have consciously recognized that my mind was using a subconscious defense mechanism. thus i have expanded my conscious mind into the territory of my subconscious. this would make me more conscious than those who don't realize they are using projection, or denial, or repression or any other subconscious mental process

tldr: if you don't believe him, then you're probably one of the brainlett NPC's he was talking about.

did you know cocaine temporarily impairs your ability to detect negative emotions in others?
and during withdrawal and to an extent subsequently it amplifies your perception of negative emotions
and freud did a lot of coke

but hey, whatever works for you

what are you trying to prove with this post?

i think you may be projecting your need for validation, sorry
just something to consider when reading his thoughts

>i think you may be projecting your need for validation
i definitely seek validation, most people do. but that has nothing to do with projection, and it also has nothing to do with freud doing coke.

/thread

quite, it was a reference to you thinking i was trying to 'prove' something

i mean i was just curious why his coke habits were relevant to what i said. but if there was no real intention there then forget it

had the same thought desu

well when you read his stuff knowing he was a cokehead and knowing how coke affects cognition it takes on a different sheen
but if you study psych then you know this already and probably think it's moot

to me he reads like a cokehead on a 5 week bender but i think he was creative af, and also spot on about child development

like i wonder if it applies to cokeheads more than normal people

oh okay yeah that's an interesting point. i'm sure the drugs affected a lot of his academic work, and a lot of his stuff has been disproved or at least fallen out of fashion lately, but it's still generally agreed upon that he was right about the subconscious and the mind's basic defense mechanisms.

here's a theory

scruffy is just barely conscious and therefore unable to connect with normal people so he made up this bullshit to try and compensate for his complete lack of mental capacity

he sort of had the gist of it down but he didn't really explore it as theory-of-mind thing, to him it was all about competition

>it isnt a black and white spectrum

um

I have an actual degree in Psych and have no clue what these guys are on about other than baiting

underrated

What about

Scaruffi must be a parody critic/writer. This is hilarious.

He's right in that the majority of our cognitive processes are currently thought to be subconscious - I'd also add processes like memory are largely subjective and based off of our own perceptions and can easily be distorted due to this, and that some psychologists view consciousness as a constant "process" with the illusion of a self being integral to this.

The second part about all the Freudian stuff & defense mechanisms is a bit more difficult, it's not explicitly unverifiable but modern psychology takes a much less positive view of both psychoanalysis and Freud's ideas as a whole. Freud's stuff fin general is very hard to either prove or disprove, so a lot of modern cognitive psychologists test things like what areas of the brain react to which stimuli, what processes are affected by certain stimuli, what drugs etc do to processes and our behaviour and a whole looooad of other stuff. In other words, still hard to prove hypotheses but a good bit more scientific than Freud's dream/unconscious analysis.

The idea of some people operating on a consciousness scale simply can't be properly scientifically tested at the minute, so anons post and Scarfy's views can't explicitly be disproven but they fly in the face of a lot of modern thinking of how the brain and cognition works

I think the fact that you actually got a degree in psych invalidates your opinion on anything

rude