Psychologists of /lit/

[Anonymous No.13995823]

I'm going to be entering a graduate program in psychology in about a year. My majors in college were philosophy and psychology, and I consider myself moderately well read.

I am intending to go into a career in psychotherapy. What are the "must read"s I should study before going to graduate school?

[Anonymous No.13995842]

First two are optional:

>Modern Man in search of a Soul
>History of Modern Psychology: Lectures
>William James: Writings 1878 - 1899
>William James: Writings 1902 - 1910
>The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud
>Psychology of the Unconscious

From Psychology of the Unconscious continue to read Jung's works in chronological order, it's not difficult or too long.

[Anonymous No.13995863]

>>13995842
forgot to mention there are a lot of other post-Freud very important writers like Piaget or Skinner but mainly this lists suffices.

[Anonymous No.13996201]

>>13995823
there was a very good thread in February with a knowledgeable anon where a similar question was asked about psychoanalysis
here's the link: >>/lit/thread/12575416
but here's the major post if you can't be bothered:
>If you want to read it for the sake of theory, read a metric shit ton of Freud (5 lectures/introductory lectures -> dreams or metapsychology papers -> BPP -> Ego/Id should be enough). This isn't a "start with the greeks thing." You will not have an adequate grasp of Lacan, D/G, or anyone other French asshole if you don't read a shit ton of Freud.

From there, it would be sensible to move to Lacan if your goal is to gain a deep understanding of the tradition which includes D/G, Zizek etc.
I would recommend Fink's intro to Lacan first, as he's AIDS to read. Four fundamental concepts and the mirror stage essay are good places to go once you do that.

After Lacan you could feasibly move to pretty much any other theoretical daddy. You could also go to object relations instead of Lack lack, but you will not be able to get the good historical background for G, Zizek, and so on.


If you're into Jung, Jung-> Hillman makes sense. For that I'd start with man and his symbols. Don't know why some like him so much desu.


If, on the other hand, you're interested in psychoanalysis as a modern clinical practice, one that continues to exert a strong influence on actual therapy in the world outside of a part of academia, you should not do any of that.
Personally I find this kind of stuff to be far more interesting and fun to read, but I'm also working towards a PhD in clinical psychology, so I'm biased.
In this case, you should read a bit of Freud--probably the Introductory Lectures, in particular the third part (although p2 on dreams is great). From there I might read a little bit on object relations, in particular Klein's most famous paper on play therapy stands out.

The really good shit starts after that. Mitchell's intro to relational analysis or one of Kohut's easier books on self psychoanalysis are both interesting places to go if you want to invest a lot of time.

If this all doesn't really sound like your cup of tea, I would seriously encourage you to read one of Paul Wachtel's papers on cyclical psychoanalysis, his "from eclecticism to synthesis" and "from one person to two person conceptions of attachment" are FUCKING fantastic reads which may make you see psychoanalysis in a different light. He also is one of the founders of integration in psychological theoretical modalities, fusing behaviorally oriented therapies with psychoanalysis, instead of simply taking pieces from each (which is probably what most therapists do these days). You could reasonably go straight to these papers. A lot of shit will go over your head, especially if you read the second one I mentioned, but they're really good reads that I recommend to all of my friends studying humanities.

[Anonymous No.13996433]

>>13995823
Read Cacioppo

[Anonymous No.13996446]

>>13996201
Why are you this stupid anon? Freud yeah one should read a ton of his stuff for the history and a more in depth understanding of his theory. However just a few core books and essays/the essential Freud suffices. Lacan is interesting but his wrong on almost everything and I found nigh pointless to read even from the historical view. Kohut should only be read once one has actually established a core understanding of psychology, he isn't all that important desu and doesn't add almost anything. Wachtel pffffffffffff what a twat, entertaining to read but is a perfect example of what is wrong with modern psychology.

Jung though, the one best and most influential writer (second only to Freud) you just say is bad an advertise a crappy book to start for him. Man and his Symbols, the only good part of which is Jungs intro. The various other chapters are interesting but just cuts the corners of and bastardises Analytical Psychology. Archetypes sound like toys.

Your entire post is the product of what happens to an anon when they have a given interest and learn about it through the education system. Jung is by far the most originally interesting (with Freud an arguable contender) writer for history, philosophy, anthropology, religion, economics, linguistics, art, ethics, culture, sciences and of course psychology.

For Jung read(and I doubt you've read this):
>Modern Man in search of a Soul
>History of Modern Psychology: Lectures
>Psychology of the Unconscious
>Psychological Types
And so forth in at least chronological order but really you can pick a variety of his books out from here just not something like Aion or Liber Novus.

[Anonymous No.13996456]

>>13996201
>>13996446
Almost forgot read Memories, Dreams, Reflections after a History of Modern Psychology.

[Anonymous No.13996547]

>>13996446
>Lacan is interesting but his wrong on almost everything
Anything in specific?

[Anonymous No.13996809]

>>13996446
>>>/r/JordanPeterson

[Anonymous No.13997048]

>>13996547
As I said many problems, in some areas he meaninglessly extrapolates in others it's just unfounded statements. For example his belief on the formation of the ego with the whole 'mirror stage'. So much wrong. His understanding of the birth of ego consciousness is sudden with no considerable thought put into its formation, rather than its actual existence. Jung seeing as a continual early development of consciousness in itself driven by both inheritable factors as well as individual desire. Sorry for bad explanation need to hurry up and get food on time. I find much Lacans psychology seems more equated with personal psychological issues projected onto greatly minor and (because of this) morphed issues to meet Lacans own conceptions.

Anon I'm going to ask this as simply as possible: Can you really relate to Lacan's writings in any great or direct way?

[Anonymous No.13997065]

>>13995823
>>13996201
>>13996446

What the fuck is going on in this thread?

Read OP's question:

>What are the "must read"s I should study before going to graduate school?

You want him to read Lacan? Jesus.

OP, you said you're moderately well read. Philosophy helps a lot, study a bit of Seneca, Marcus Aurelius and Kant if you like philosophy. You can read Freud's basic works, sure, it helps.

Other than that I recommend Damasio's 'Descartes' Error' and, when you're about to start your course,Trull's 'Clinical Psychology'.

Have fun, and welcome to the crazy world of psychology.

[Anonymous No.13997330]

>>13996809
>imagine being such a pseud that he only knows about the pro-Hitler, Aryanist anti-semitic chad who talks on racial memory, the difference and inferiority of the Jewish psyche, the lack of genuine Jewish culture, collectively inherited systems and told by an insecure Jewish drug addicted supremacist virgin boi.

[Anonymous No.13997343]

>>13997065
The other anon was just stating what he liked pretty much.

Jung himself said that what gave him great uniqueness and advancement in psychology - even going as far to say as what eventually caused the split between him and Freud - was his great interest in philosophy; calling the reading of Kant "The Highlight of my youth" at 17 -- or something to the effect of that.

[Anonymous No.13997378]

>>13995823
Decent stipended clinical psychology programs are competitive in the US: if you've actually gotten in, then you don't need /lit/'s help with this question, because you already know enough to find good reading yourself. In fact, psychology is one of the subjects that /lit/ is most delusional in, because almost none of the anons here have studied it and instead pretend to know the field by slinging around unimportant psychoanalysts and Greek ethical schools and theological precepts.

[Anonymous No.13997701]

>>13997378
>he fell for the modern psychology school