Now we come to Carl Jung,
another psychoanalytic theorist,
not really somebody who engaged in research, and I'll emphasize Freud did not do research Freud just
theorized. Other people
did research as a result of Freud. He had a profound impact on society.
You're familiar with some of his terminology,
and you're familiar with some of his concepts just by being a member of our society.
And, if you go to the magazine rack at any
checkout counter, and you'll see things
like sex surveys and how to be better in
bed and all kinds of things that are just
kind of old hat. And, nobody, you know, bats an eye at.
But, those things didn't happen when he
first brought up
 these concepts, and in someways he
freed us up to talk about sexuality in
ways that
we now take to be commonplace but weren't. So he shook up society 
and shook up science.
Carl Jung is another theorists and used
to be a partner of
Freud early on. So, Freud actually named
him his crown prince successor if that gives
you an indication of Freud's own
narcissism and ego, right, that he could name a crown prince successor clearly he became
famous in his own time as did Jung.
And, Carl Jung would would agree with Freud on a number of things but eventually he
deviated from Freud
in a way that Freud couldn't tolerate and
Freud apparently did not play well with
others.
And, if you didn't go along with his
theories as he thought they should be
advanced then he didn't work with you
anymore. So he went from
a colleague he thought was going to be his
Crown Prince successor
to rejecting Carl Jung out right and
never having any associations with him
further after
Carl deviated too far from him and his
theory. And, Carl 
thought he put too much emphasis on
sexuality and not enough
emphasis on spirituality which is an
interesting take on it
so his ideas were that yeah we have a
personal unconscious he agreed with Freud, you know, there's this massive
force within us that drives our behavior
that we're unaware of and unable to
appreciate
examine and probably alter because we're
unable to be conscious of it.
But, then he said further we have a
collective unconscious
that we all share and of course these
are constructs within your personality.
And, then we share this collective unconscious because we're all human beings.
As human beings we are going to be
influenced by our own genetic history
in the sense that we have come down through the ages with certain concepts that no
matter where you're born
as a human being you will share those
concepts
so that we don't get away from being
human no matter what our cultural
influences are.
And, one thing that Jung had done that
Freud had not done is that he had traveled and he had
examined other cultures and he had noticed that there's commonalities
no matter how disparate these cultures
were in terms of
societal practices or beliefs he noticed that they all had
theories of good and evil that they all had
creation stories how we came to be.
That they all had hierarchies and
organizations.
They all shared certain characteristics
but expressed them differently
and that those expressions could be
traced back to
some very common archetypes. The
archetypes
are symbols thoughts with universal
meaning to all human beings
so we have our wise old man archetype. We have our
motherly old woman nurturing woman
archetype.
Those things have been played out
since Greek dramas. If you look at all
the
dramas and the tragedies and the comedies going all the way back
to the pre-Socratic philosophers you'll
find that the themes that we see in
television and movies today
are the same themes we're just rewriting the characters in the details but the themes
remain the same
you look at Star Wars and you've got Yoda the wise old man
you got evil incarnate in Darth Vader but a
conflicted evil because he's also
Luke Skywalker's dad well Luke Skywalker's the the young hero
who has to save the damsel in distress
and that no matter
how you express it whether it's CSI or
whether it's Shakespeare
then you're seeing the same theme being
repeated over and over and over because
it's
who we are why do people want to see
the same story
again and again and again week after
week all we're doing is changing a little
plot changing a little character but the
core symbols the core universal
archetypes
the good versus the evil the overcoming
obstacles these stories that we find so
inspiring
are us they're who we are
such that from the point of view of
archetypal
human if you could theoretically take a
group of babys
and somehow magically transport them
over to a new planet
and they had zero influence from adults
and they could be raised of course that's
impossible but
assuming that you could do that for
hypothetical purposes what you would
find from
Jung's point of view is they would tap
into the collective unconscious
and they would develop a story about how
they were created and came to be in that
space
they would develop concepts of good and
evil they would develop
organizational hierarchies for society
and they would
ascribe to the archetypes they would have
very similar themes regardless because
they're humans and we share that and then that influences us each
individually as people what we identify
with what we don't identify with what we
are drawn to or repulsed by et cetera and
the unconscious that we all have
individually he acknowledged but he went
beyond that again
this into a more spiritual realm of
human existence
not supported necessarily in any way
by science
and keep in mind science is what we are in psychology we're talking about
historical perspectives here
philosophically these are pretty
fascinating concepts very hard to
operationalize and test scientifically so
in that sense
we just look at this as one of the big
launching points of personality research
and then we have finally for Carl Jung
introvert and extrovert now this concept
goes all the way back to Aristotle and probably beyond that the idea that they're people
who are more individually shy
and reticent to gauge in lots of social
interaction and other people who just can't
seem to get enough social interaction
they crave it they seek it they want it.
Right?  So the introvert then
from this point of view being developed further by Carl Jung
is a person who's just preoccupied with the
inner world inside
their unconscious or their conscious selves
they are experiencing thoughts feelings
emotions that they are fascinated by.
The concepts that they are interested in, they might find
it very fulfilling to read books or to watch movies alone
or to you know engage in solitary
activities like puzzles or hobbies or
music or things like that
where they just find great gratification
in that
there's nothing wrong with it's just a way of
being that
Jung thought was attributable to being
preoccupied with an inner world where the
extroverted person would be more
preoccupied with the external world the
people the experiences that one could have in the world
and that they would seek that out because that's stimulating and gratifying to them
not wrong not bad just that's the
predominant
drive is to go out and to interact with
the world.
Where the other person's predominate drive is to withdraw and to
expand on what they can do by
themselves. And, so you look at this
and we'll see that when we get to trait
theory there's a thread gets continued
all the way through until we get up to
the Big Five personality factors.
Thank you have a good day. It looks
like everybody's arguing.
You got all these competing theories if you take the personality class
in other words an actual upper level Psych class on personality you can take
a semester's long course and find out
nobody's got it nailed down.
You look at all those theorist we saw with intelligence, and
people like to think well I know what intelligence is, but from a lay person's perspective you may
know what you think intelligence is
but when you get into the scientific side of
things it's debatable
and empirically debatable. And, of course
that's the kind of debate we want to be having is
what holds up to scrutiny. And, Freud had a wealth of information.
We take it with a big grain of salt because
a lot of it was not operationalizable.
 
You couldn't actually put into terms or
variables
that could be measured such that it could
be refuted or supported.
Some of the stuff that he contributed
still is with us today because it does
have empirical support
and it stood the test the time. But, back
in his day
he was one of the first people to even start
to posit a full comprehensive theory
of how people come to be an identity.
Who are you? How do other people know you? How do they describe you?
What happens inside of yourself as you go
the development process
that you come to a point where you have
a self image a self view
a concept of you as a discrete and unique
person
compared to all the other discrete and
unique persons in our
race the human race right. There's so many of us
and, we share so much genetically in
terms of how we live as biological
entities; but on the other side
everyone of us is really unique in
some way. And, so that
being possibly who you are as a
personality,
he started to theorize but not everybody
agreed with him.
He was relatively controversial. I
wouldn't even say relatively he was extremely
controversial.
And, people started to do research to either refute him
or support him, and you see that certain
people
who aligned with him modified his views. He didn't care for that he didn't like Carl Jung
modifying his views.
He stopped all professional interaction
with Carl Jung.
Called him his crown prince successor if that gives you any hint as to Freud's view of
himself.
Who names their own crown prince
successor, right?
But after he kinda deviated on some key
concepts
wouldn't have anything to do with him. But you look at his
theory and you say well gosh that's really
misogynistic it's very
unfavorable to women and it's patriarchal
and it's
a little oppressive at the very least and
very oppressive at the very most.
It certainly
was geared to find what he assumed was
the case
that men had superiority and women were
inferior to men
and that was just the way it was and
that was about penis envy that
women saw that men had this appendage
that they lacked and they wished they had it. And, you go through the
Oedipus complex and the Elector complex and you resolve all these things.
And, then you find yourself socializing
into roles through sublimation.
And, other people came along and challenged those notions. And, one
being a psychoanalytic female and what is 
probably the most ironic of all
pronunciations
Karen Horney I is how I'm told it's
pronounced. It looks like "Horny" to me
and a lot of his stuff was based on
sexuality
not the kind of sexuality that most people
think about when they're thinking tabloid
magazines
talking about reproduction of the species
and drives internal to ourselves
that are so primitive and base and animalistic that we don't even like to acknowledge
that they exist.
And, so we deny that they exist we
repress them and we we push them down into
the unconscious,
but he says they're still there they
still move us every day and everything we
do. We're just not aware of it; so for him,
it's a deterministic world. You go through your childhood.
You get your experiences which load you
up on various kind the fixations and
compulsions and issues and neuroses,
and then your fixed that way. If you
remember we talked about
Adler looking at the... excuse me, Erikson, Erik Erikson stages of
development
where he took the first five and they
mapped onto the ones Kyle told you about
the other day
Freud's five psychosexual stages of
development. But he said you don't stop
developing
in your late teens. You keep developing
throughout life that were Ericsson
modified Freud.
Anna Freud his daughter modified Freud and came out with child psychoanalysis.
And, Karen Horney was a psychoanalytic
therapist and researcher and theorist.
And, she didn't throw all of Freud out she
in fact thought Freud was on to something
and wanted to amend it. And, one of the, I
guess most classic things that she did
was when she was looking at Freudian
psychoanalysis and this thing of penis
envy
and this idea male dominance being kinda
culturally ordained because it was somehow the natural order of things she fliped it
on it's head.
She said women don't want penises. They
don't
have an issue where they think that
they're missing and they got gypped on
the appendage
right. What happens with male dominance and male
patriarchy is that women have power.
They have the power of life. They have the
womb.
You don't need a man but for a second to
create a life, but you need a woman to
bring it to term
and raise it up. And she said that's the
real power.
What's the ultimate power in this world
creation of another life.
And women had the primary ability and
responsibility to do it.
And, men being jealous of their power
then subjugated them physically and
socially
and politically and emotionally. And she said yeah,
penis envy, ha, you all got womb envy and you're just
rationalizing. If you remember that
defense mechanism of rationalization.
You're taking the way it is and
rationalizing it so that women
are subservient to men. But what in fact
is the case here
is you all are jealous of women, so you use your power
to then control them indirectly. So you
control the womb indirectly
Interestingly enough, not coming down
one way or the other for you, you pick
where you want to on anything;
but when you look at reproductive
laws and reproductive
women's health issues who's usually
talking the loudest about them?
Men. They don't have a womb,
but they got a lot to say about it; and they
used to control every aspect
of females in society. That's breaking
down
as would be predicted by Karen Horney's idea that one you start
realizing that it's not all about guys
it's about people and understanding how
she
functioned to stay a psychoanalytic theorist but yet
revised pretty profoundly Freud's views
you see they're amenable to change. They're other words open to question.
Any if question them, and you start looking at some of the other researchers,
many of whom were women psychologists and psychologist of color,
who started challenging all these
dominant stereotypes with
data, the stereotypes don't hold up.
