With psychology being so interpretative and self contrasting when you don't understand the mechanisms you are thinking about, your explanations really help me.
How can holism reject the notion of viewing experience as at least in part comprised by separate parts without contradicting the very idea that it's considering our experience as a whole? The definition seems internally inconsistent. There are many ways of conceptualising the cube/fractured circle image (for example as a white framed cube on black circles, or as painted/broken circles, or as maybe these circles only look circular from this perspective, where walking around would betray that it's an illusion, maybe we're looking at a sheet of white paper in the foreground with cutouts revealing a black background, where there evidently is no paper structure remotely resembling a cube, hell even the notion that a 2d representation of a cube is called a cube is frankly silly). Fundamentally the image is none of these, it is an experience unique to itself, but we can observe the patterns our mind conjures from our knowledge of other experiences that relate to what we see, but these patterns are always referencing *other* experiences. The idea that these patterns are somehow substitutable for the current experience is to my mind the basis for neuroticism, and more evidently the definition of close-mindedness.
I love how he just breaks down everything piece by piece.
Very reductionist don't you think 😂
With psychology being so interpretative and self contrasting when you don't understand the mechanisms you are thinking about, your explanations really help me.
I did not see the cube until it was pointed out. I guess I am not very holistic :( haha. Thanks for this video it is really good!!
hv my psych finals tmrw so this is really helpful tysmm
Okay
Thankyou im doing a psychology degree this has helped so much
I love your way of exp but I need more details video about this subject
Take a shot every time he says “okay?”
I won’t survive the night
i was about to say the same thing, I love how the comment section never disappoints
i had a teacher who said okay, 300 times in a 1 hour 40 minute lesson LOL we counted out loud and started laughing at 300, before losing count...
great explanation thankyou so much :)
Very useful, thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
it’s okay mate
really cool video! simple explanation with examples!!
Dimitra Papa what is up, still doing psychology?
@@Flex_Singh u got aired broski just came here to remind you of your sorrow
How can holism reject the notion of viewing experience as at least in part comprised by separate parts without contradicting the very idea that it's considering our experience as a whole? The definition seems internally inconsistent.
There are many ways of conceptualising the cube/fractured circle image (for example as a white framed cube on black circles, or as painted/broken circles, or as maybe these circles only look circular from this perspective, where walking around would betray that it's an illusion, maybe we're looking at a sheet of white paper in the foreground with cutouts revealing a black background, where there evidently is no paper structure remotely resembling a cube, hell even the notion that a 2d representation of a cube is called a cube is frankly silly).
Fundamentally the image is none of these, it is an experience unique to itself, but we can observe the patterns our mind conjures from our knowledge of other experiences that relate to what we see, but these patterns are always referencing *other* experiences. The idea that these patterns are somehow substitutable for the current experience is to my mind the basis for neuroticism, and more evidently the definition of close-mindedness.
write that in ur exam
Where's the evaluation
The cognitive model, especially REBT always came across as very reductionist to me.