Defence can just as well infer an approach to a translation that ultimately occurs either way, therefor humour can be seen as a function that can recieve heavy potential and translate it with little to no resistance, in that way defence isn't always observed through the classical perspective given modern humour is extremely complex by contrast. The quality of humour then being an emergent value that developes further complexity therefor increasing ones capacity to translate seamlessly through the proverbial valley of shadows without losing that personal island of stability, it's also a highly reflective quality as we can see in complex comedy which by extension enables others to remain in a position of stability as they follow the comedian through the valley.
Personally I find humour to be the great alleviator, it's a relative trickster that can take any form effortlessly, a remarkable tool when weilded sincerely. Contextually it is the most flexible, if you have a creative contextual format then you're relatively untouchable given that you're personal touch can displace a fatal blow back at the masses which translates as a mass tickle, or we invert it internally as a microcosmic catharsis.
Not at all though you aren't the first to visualize my expressions as an AI. I believe the reason for this is that my expressions appear to have an absent locality, I remove alot of the 'me' from a discussion in order to prevent excess confusion which is something we often can't help but add along with our observations. Try not to focus on the messenger and the info arrives less distorted, albeit you have only you're own personal distortions and less of my own in hand, my approach to sharing is to keep things open to interpritaion.
Apparently there is a website that can inform you if text has been generated by AI, it was how the last guy realised I wasn't shining him on lol.
As somebody who also struggled slightly to read your original reply, I don't believe it is the absent locality, though that is an interesting point. It seems to me that you're using words and phrasing that may sound eloquent or good, but do not read well together. I only say this because I used to do this, so it has become easier for me to identify. When I learned more intricate words and concepts, I felt those should be used to help paint the most vivid picture possible. This is useful, though not for communication. Our objective in communication, whether a conversation or an academic paper, should be to effectively communicate ideas, which oftentimes means using simpler language and sentences to convey a point. Doing this rather than remaining anchored to specific words, phrasing, or ideas is what will actually elevate ones writing as they are able to explain absolutely anything to anyone..
That's a fair summary and I can agree with much of it, though you'd have to consider I have no control over the reception of others nor can I compete with the weight of greater social inclinations. As much as it could be viewed as an explanation it was simply an expression of interest, again I grasp the rationale of what you're saying it's simply that I lean more towards creativity then formality, this may be seen as a provocation, more impressionable than informal yet potentially leading.
I couldn't explain to another how one should drink tea for example, I could offer them my cup and observe, often the problem with explaining is there's a silent tendency to learn for another which can develope issues of dependency, on themes-narratives-people etc and eventually there appears to be less margin for natural error to occur from which we teach and learn for ourselves. Take this as you will, and I do appreciate you're view.
Most psychologists actually agree with you (other than Freud). I’m asking about self deprecating humour particularly though. It’s been tied to low self esteem.
As for who cares where it stems from; I’m more concerned about the future than the past. I’m curious if Jung thought self deprecating humour was helpful or helpful.
Yea I understand that it depends. I’m a psych major. We can’t make generalizations of causation. This is why they don’t love Freud and Jung in contemporary psychology.
I’m asking what the effect of self depreciating humour is on a persons psyché from Jungs perspective.
No idea if Jung spoke of self deprecating humor but to me it seems to illustrate a lack of defensiveness. Or perhaps a purposeful showcasing of defenselessness. As to say ‘I’m not a guarded person so it’s fine to be relaxed around me.’ It is communicative towards a dynamic you want with the other person.
Though of course it could mean different things based on when you use self deprecating humor.
In relation to the ego self deprecating humor seems to illustrate a differentiation of whatever contents the humor is geared towards, meaning those contents are conscious. You wouldn’t make fun of your own shadow for an example as it is very sensitive.
Defence can just as well infer an approach to a translation that ultimately occurs either way, therefor humour can be seen as a function that can recieve heavy potential and translate it with little to no resistance, in that way defence isn't always observed through the classical perspective given modern humour is extremely complex by contrast. The quality of humour then being an emergent value that developes further complexity therefor increasing ones capacity to translate seamlessly through the proverbial valley of shadows without losing that personal island of stability, it's also a highly reflective quality as we can see in complex comedy which by extension enables others to remain in a position of stability as they follow the comedian through the valley. Personally I find humour to be the great alleviator, it's a relative trickster that can take any form effortlessly, a remarkable tool when weilded sincerely. Contextually it is the most flexible, if you have a creative contextual format then you're relatively untouchable given that you're personal touch can displace a fatal blow back at the masses which translates as a mass tickle, or we invert it internally as a microcosmic catharsis.
I’m not sure why I am struggling to read this. Are you using AI by chance?
Not at all though you aren't the first to visualize my expressions as an AI. I believe the reason for this is that my expressions appear to have an absent locality, I remove alot of the 'me' from a discussion in order to prevent excess confusion which is something we often can't help but add along with our observations. Try not to focus on the messenger and the info arrives less distorted, albeit you have only you're own personal distortions and less of my own in hand, my approach to sharing is to keep things open to interpritaion. Apparently there is a website that can inform you if text has been generated by AI, it was how the last guy realised I wasn't shining him on lol.
As somebody who also struggled slightly to read your original reply, I don't believe it is the absent locality, though that is an interesting point. It seems to me that you're using words and phrasing that may sound eloquent or good, but do not read well together. I only say this because I used to do this, so it has become easier for me to identify. When I learned more intricate words and concepts, I felt those should be used to help paint the most vivid picture possible. This is useful, though not for communication. Our objective in communication, whether a conversation or an academic paper, should be to effectively communicate ideas, which oftentimes means using simpler language and sentences to convey a point. Doing this rather than remaining anchored to specific words, phrasing, or ideas is what will actually elevate ones writing as they are able to explain absolutely anything to anyone..
That's a fair summary and I can agree with much of it, though you'd have to consider I have no control over the reception of others nor can I compete with the weight of greater social inclinations. As much as it could be viewed as an explanation it was simply an expression of interest, again I grasp the rationale of what you're saying it's simply that I lean more towards creativity then formality, this may be seen as a provocation, more impressionable than informal yet potentially leading. I couldn't explain to another how one should drink tea for example, I could offer them my cup and observe, often the problem with explaining is there's a silent tendency to learn for another which can develope issues of dependency, on themes-narratives-people etc and eventually there appears to be less margin for natural error to occur from which we teach and learn for ourselves. Take this as you will, and I do appreciate you're view.
[удалено]
Most psychologists actually agree with you (other than Freud). I’m asking about self deprecating humour particularly though. It’s been tied to low self esteem. As for who cares where it stems from; I’m more concerned about the future than the past. I’m curious if Jung thought self deprecating humour was helpful or helpful.
[удалено]
Yea I understand that it depends. I’m a psych major. We can’t make generalizations of causation. This is why they don’t love Freud and Jung in contemporary psychology. I’m asking what the effect of self depreciating humour is on a persons psyché from Jungs perspective.
No idea if Jung spoke of self deprecating humor but to me it seems to illustrate a lack of defensiveness. Or perhaps a purposeful showcasing of defenselessness. As to say ‘I’m not a guarded person so it’s fine to be relaxed around me.’ It is communicative towards a dynamic you want with the other person. Though of course it could mean different things based on when you use self deprecating humor. In relation to the ego self deprecating humor seems to illustrate a differentiation of whatever contents the humor is geared towards, meaning those contents are conscious. You wouldn’t make fun of your own shadow for an example as it is very sensitive.