Apple Backlash
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Dec 4, 2008, 7:56:48 AM12/4/08
to realpsychohistory
Psychofriends,
One of the more popular You Tube videos right now is this one of a
recent Simpsons episode (http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=WL2l_Q1AR_Q&feature=poptnjrf5). Concerns Lisa's needs for
substantive attention by Steve Jobs, and his abandonment of her.
Concerning Apple, I'm hearing that at the elite universities there is
something of a class backlash against Apple products. Children of the
extremely well to do are apparently beginning to eschew mac products
because they've become associated with students who in fact do not
have much money, but spend what they do have on macs. They're
ostensibly moving back to windows, to help draw a class line. Of
course, it should be obvious to us that something else is up, for it
is pretty much impossible for anyone of the healthiest psychoclass to
legitimize using windows, when the more cheerful apple operating
system is available for them for use. If this phenomena is for real,
it is really showing that many of the children of America's richest
are not in fact all that healthy, and never found enough of themselves
reflected in the apple aesthetic. (Again, for anyone interested in
knowing why the healthiest young Americans are unlikely to find
themselves at ivy league schools right now [because they don't always
do what they're told; because they're truly seeking intellectual,
emotional, spiritual insights as much as they are professional
training], please do check out the American Scholar article on the
subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL2l_Q1AR_Q&feature=poptnjrf5).
patrickmh
One of the more popular You Tube videos right now is this one of a
recent Simpsons episode (http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=WL2l_Q1AR_Q&feature=poptnjrf5). Concerns Lisa's needs for
substantive attention by Steve Jobs, and his abandonment of her.
Concerning Apple, I'm hearing that at the elite universities there is
something of a class backlash against Apple products. Children of the
extremely well to do are apparently beginning to eschew mac products
because they've become associated with students who in fact do not
have much money, but spend what they do have on macs. They're
ostensibly moving back to windows, to help draw a class line. Of
course, it should be obvious to us that something else is up, for it
is pretty much impossible for anyone of the healthiest psychoclass to
legitimize using windows, when the more cheerful apple operating
system is available for them for use. If this phenomena is for real,
it is really showing that many of the children of America's richest
are not in fact all that healthy, and never found enough of themselves
reflected in the apple aesthetic. (Again, for anyone interested in
knowing why the healthiest young Americans are unlikely to find
themselves at ivy league schools right now [because they don't always
do what they're told; because they're truly seeking intellectual,
emotional, spiritual insights as much as they are professional
training], please do check out the American Scholar article on the
subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL2l_Q1AR_Q&feature=poptnjrf5).
patrickmh
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Dec 4, 2008, 9:18:21 AM12/4/08
to realpsychohistory
This link should work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL2l_Q1AR_Q&feature=related
patrick
On Dec 4, 7:56 am, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoyhals...@gmail.com>
wrote:
patrick
On Dec 4, 7:56 am, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoyhals...@gmail.com>
wrote:
James Sturges
Dec 4, 2008, 11:58:01 AM12/4/08
to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com
Patrick, my friend, if you think that Apple v. Windows is a psychoclass issue (presumably you think Windows is somehow abusive?), then I think you need to take a step back and question whether you might be taking a certain theory a little too seriously -- almost, dare I say, with religious fervor.
Remember, Lloyd has taken pains over the years to discourage any resemblance of PH, of which he is the unquestioned leading light at this time, to a cult.
-------Jim |
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Dec 4, 2008, 8:20:23 PM12/4/08
to realpsychohistory
James, While it is true that I do one day hope to find myself sucking
on Lloyd's titties in an effort to secure for myself some delicious
DeMausian milk, I know for certain that I cannot have, as you suggest,
a cult-like interest in DeMause and his work. It's impossible. I
know because I've been a life long user of apple products, and no one
who uses macs regularly can be anything but a buoyantly happy and
healthy human being.
Let me relate a story. A couple months ago I had a party where a
whole bunch of us were sitting in a circle talking about this and
that. Someone asked me about my interest in psychohistory, and, after
explaining why I don't actually like the term, and after emphatically
*dis*couraging them from studying history and after emphatically
*en*couraging them to read books by people who are alive now, I
explained the idea of psychoclasses and suggested that one would
probably find that those people who are of the helping (advanced)
psychoclass used macintosh computers, while those who were of the
socializing class (or worse) used windows machines. My friend
suddenly grabbed everyone's attention, and asked everyone to indicate
the kind of computer they used--Mac or Windows PC. Turned out that
all the people who used Mac were seated on one side, and all the
others that used PC, on the other. What had happened, of course, is
that without knowing it, members of the same psychoclass had sought
each other out. It was like Loyalist vs. Patriot, all over again
(Mac users being the Patriots, and PC users being the dumpy Loyalists,
of course.)
But while I don't want to dump on my PC using friends, it is true that
most of them wear more drab clothing, are more inclined to smoke, and
are more likely to be personality challenged than my mac using
friends. If you go into an Apple store, you'll get a good sense of
what we're like. We tend to wear bright, extravagent, "fun,"
clothing. We tend to smile a lot, and hang out with other people who
wear bright clothing and smile a lot. We're always the life of the
party--even when we're trying not to be. We like taking pictures of
one another smiling, and delight in sending these pictures of our
smiling selves to one other. One might make the mistake of thinking
we're narcissistic--like the barbaric greeks were, according to our
darling DeMause--but really we just like being in one another's
sunshine--it's such a great way to live!
You know if I was to have a party where I invited only my mac using
friends, I'd might think to invite over that James Dale Davidson of
yours. You know, he's no Paul Krugman, and he does seem to enjoy the
idea of being a survivor amidst financial societal ruin--which isn't
the best of fantasies--a little too much, but he is fun and
adventurous, and I bet some more time amongst those healthier than
himself might bring him a little further toward the sunnier side.
Oh!--that's another thing we mac people like to do!!!: We mac people
enjoy helping others!!!
Makes us smile : ) , in fact.
maccultenthusiastsincebirth,
psycholiteraturely,
patrickmh
On Dec 4, 11:58 am, James Sturges <jhstur...@att.net> wrote:
> Patrick, my friend, if you think that Apple v. Windows is a psychoclass issue (presumably you think Windows is somehow abusive?), then I think you need to take a step back and question whether you might be taking a certain theory a little too seriously -- almost, dare I say, with religious fervor.
>
> Remember, Lloyd has taken pains over the years to discourage any resemblance of PH, of which he is the unquestioned leading light at this time, to a cult.
>
> -------Jim
>
>
> --- On Thu, 12/4/08, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoyhals...@gmail.com> wrote:
on Lloyd's titties in an effort to secure for myself some delicious
DeMausian milk, I know for certain that I cannot have, as you suggest,
a cult-like interest in DeMause and his work. It's impossible. I
know because I've been a life long user of apple products, and no one
who uses macs regularly can be anything but a buoyantly happy and
healthy human being.
Let me relate a story. A couple months ago I had a party where a
whole bunch of us were sitting in a circle talking about this and
that. Someone asked me about my interest in psychohistory, and, after
explaining why I don't actually like the term, and after emphatically
*dis*couraging them from studying history and after emphatically
*en*couraging them to read books by people who are alive now, I
explained the idea of psychoclasses and suggested that one would
probably find that those people who are of the helping (advanced)
psychoclass used macintosh computers, while those who were of the
socializing class (or worse) used windows machines. My friend
suddenly grabbed everyone's attention, and asked everyone to indicate
the kind of computer they used--Mac or Windows PC. Turned out that
all the people who used Mac were seated on one side, and all the
others that used PC, on the other. What had happened, of course, is
that without knowing it, members of the same psychoclass had sought
each other out. It was like Loyalist vs. Patriot, all over again
(Mac users being the Patriots, and PC users being the dumpy Loyalists,
of course.)
But while I don't want to dump on my PC using friends, it is true that
most of them wear more drab clothing, are more inclined to smoke, and
are more likely to be personality challenged than my mac using
friends. If you go into an Apple store, you'll get a good sense of
what we're like. We tend to wear bright, extravagent, "fun,"
clothing. We tend to smile a lot, and hang out with other people who
wear bright clothing and smile a lot. We're always the life of the
party--even when we're trying not to be. We like taking pictures of
one another smiling, and delight in sending these pictures of our
smiling selves to one other. One might make the mistake of thinking
we're narcissistic--like the barbaric greeks were, according to our
darling DeMause--but really we just like being in one another's
sunshine--it's such a great way to live!
You know if I was to have a party where I invited only my mac using
friends, I'd might think to invite over that James Dale Davidson of
yours. You know, he's no Paul Krugman, and he does seem to enjoy the
idea of being a survivor amidst financial societal ruin--which isn't
the best of fantasies--a little too much, but he is fun and
adventurous, and I bet some more time amongst those healthier than
himself might bring him a little further toward the sunnier side.
Oh!--that's another thing we mac people like to do!!!: We mac people
enjoy helping others!!!
Makes us smile : ) , in fact.
maccultenthusiastsincebirth,
psycholiteraturely,
patrickmh
On Dec 4, 11:58 am, James Sturges <jhstur...@att.net> wrote:
> Patrick, my friend, if you think that Apple v. Windows is a psychoclass issue (presumably you think Windows is somehow abusive?), then I think you need to take a step back and question whether you might be taking a certain theory a little too seriously -- almost, dare I say, with religious fervor.
>
> Remember, Lloyd has taken pains over the years to discourage any resemblance of PH, of which he is the unquestioned leading light at this time, to a cult.
>
> -------Jim
>
>
James Sturges
Dec 5, 2008, 1:47:50 PM12/5/08
to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com
Geez ... how can I argue against such objective research?  |
|
|
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Dec 5, 2008, 7:59:06 PM12/5/08
to realpsychohistory
James,
I gather you're being sarcastic. That's cool. I think your cool.
But I remember when you spoke these beautiful and memorable words
concerning evidence, personal experience, the medievalist, Jerrold
Atlas, and why maybe we shouldn't have to read everything written by
every psychohistorian ever before posting/publishing anything, and
want to encourage you to keep channeling *that* wonderful James
Sturges:
(Note: All that follows are records of James' response to Lloyd,
sometime October 2008)
"The "evidence" is all around us. We cannot escape it.
Maybe my disconnect is with the true definition of psychohistory as it
has evolved in JPH. I'm sorry, but reading endless articles about the
details of medieval childhoods gets old pretty fast, and maybe that's
why the readership is shrinking. If psychohistory is "the science of
historical motivations", it is only valuable (as a "science") in
dealing with the present and the future. The other stuff is more in
line with what I would call "the history of psychohistory." Kind of
like "history of science" --- a discipline of derivative interest from
the main purpose.
As for writing an article ... well, I came to PH as a culmination of
years of study in the psychodynamics of large groups via personal
observations, practical applications (in business and finance); and,
more importantly perhaps, immersion in the relevant literature of
psychoanalysis. (I am neither clinician nor academic.) But you often
admonished me: "Don't bring up Bion, Klein, Kernberg, Fairbairne
etc." Then, when you were moderator of the other list, you censored
my posts if I took issue with Jerry Atlas. That drove me away from the
whole field for a few years. (Obviously the approach has killed the
other list too, since I re-subscribed to it lately and there is no
activity). (quote from an earlier carnation of James, sometime
October 2008)
And when you said this:
"We both know that papers in psychoanalysis, including some of the
most influential, are often published on the basis of a single case.
Actual clinical experience with patients is considered the gold
standard of psychoanalytic literature -- and rightly so. Yet ... am I
the only one that oftens suspects these seminal "scientific" papers
are more properly understood as the subjective musings of geniuses?
On the other hand, those of us that are fascinated with the psychology
of large groups are expected to document interpretations with ...
what? Thousands of citations to some other literature? It scarcely
needs to be pointed out that we cannot get society at large to lay
down on our couch for seven years and free associate. Yet neither can
we ever escape involvement with these "patients."
Moreover, experiments in real-life, or applied, psychohistory are
carried out all the time. These are everything from elections to wars
to the stock market (or other markets) to movies, to advertising ...
etc. So, in reality, we do not have a shortage of available
"clinical" material, but an embarrasment of riches. It's all around
us.
You have contributed a broad theoretical framework for psychohistory--
primarily grounded in the role of large groups in channeling the
individual psychology of dissociation. You have courageously pushed
the epoch of developmental psychology back to the birth trauma and
even the late experiences in the womb. (This is a particularly
fabulous area of your work, IMO.) Others, including Freud and Bion
have also made huge, albeit sporadic, contributions. Your framework,
and that of others, can be referenced by those wishing to make
interpretations. Over time, if the interpretations are deemed strong
enough, the frameworks will gain credibility. Doubtless there will
also be further theoretical innovations.
I guess what I am asking is whether your "rules of evidence" might
be overly restrictive, especially for the still nascent stage of
development of PH compared to what we all believe (I suspect) to be
its potential. Maybe you are making it too difficult for would-be
authors because of an inappropriate application of academic style to
what should still be a more free-wheeling, frontier exploration."
And especially when you said this:
"You are the one who brought up the shrinking membership and the
difficulty in attracting papers. If you insist on any potential
writer studying the last 36 years of JPH before they submit an
article, then I am afraid your pool of authors will continue to
shrink. I am not suggesting that you accept something of poor quality,
but I think you realize that I am conversant with the field, and
especially your work. That should be enough for a paper "from an
outsider's point of view." Otherwise, if you exert prior editorial
restraint, then it violates the spirit of the avowed theme. (BTW, my
offer is only good if Patrick will join in.)"
Freewheeling?! Frontier exploration?! Thanks for inviting me in, you
son of a gun!!!
respectfully, playfully, psycholiteraturely,
patrickmh
P.S. Oh, by the way, you might want to keep an eye on this J C Hewitt
dude, and make sure he doesn't go all cult-like on us. He talks about
Lloyd's courage; and he most certainly is courageous--yet somehow,
though he seems quite willing to scold you and I, I doubt Lloyd has
ever questioned Atlas about his unfortunate desire to spend so much
time reading/experiencing barbaric medievals.
I gather you're being sarcastic. That's cool. I think your cool.
But I remember when you spoke these beautiful and memorable words
concerning evidence, personal experience, the medievalist, Jerrold
Atlas, and why maybe we shouldn't have to read everything written by
every psychohistorian ever before posting/publishing anything, and
want to encourage you to keep channeling *that* wonderful James
Sturges:
(Note: All that follows are records of James' response to Lloyd,
sometime October 2008)
"The "evidence" is all around us. We cannot escape it.
Maybe my disconnect is with the true definition of psychohistory as it
has evolved in JPH. I'm sorry, but reading endless articles about the
details of medieval childhoods gets old pretty fast, and maybe that's
why the readership is shrinking. If psychohistory is "the science of
historical motivations", it is only valuable (as a "science") in
dealing with the present and the future. The other stuff is more in
line with what I would call "the history of psychohistory." Kind of
like "history of science" --- a discipline of derivative interest from
the main purpose.
As for writing an article ... well, I came to PH as a culmination of
years of study in the psychodynamics of large groups via personal
observations, practical applications (in business and finance); and,
more importantly perhaps, immersion in the relevant literature of
psychoanalysis. (I am neither clinician nor academic.) But you often
admonished me: "Don't bring up Bion, Klein, Kernberg, Fairbairne
etc." Then, when you were moderator of the other list, you censored
my posts if I took issue with Jerry Atlas. That drove me away from the
whole field for a few years. (Obviously the approach has killed the
other list too, since I re-subscribed to it lately and there is no
activity). (quote from an earlier carnation of James, sometime
October 2008)
And when you said this:
"We both know that papers in psychoanalysis, including some of the
most influential, are often published on the basis of a single case.
Actual clinical experience with patients is considered the gold
standard of psychoanalytic literature -- and rightly so. Yet ... am I
the only one that oftens suspects these seminal "scientific" papers
are more properly understood as the subjective musings of geniuses?
On the other hand, those of us that are fascinated with the psychology
of large groups are expected to document interpretations with ...
what? Thousands of citations to some other literature? It scarcely
needs to be pointed out that we cannot get society at large to lay
down on our couch for seven years and free associate. Yet neither can
we ever escape involvement with these "patients."
Moreover, experiments in real-life, or applied, psychohistory are
carried out all the time. These are everything from elections to wars
to the stock market (or other markets) to movies, to advertising ...
etc. So, in reality, we do not have a shortage of available
"clinical" material, but an embarrasment of riches. It's all around
us.
You have contributed a broad theoretical framework for psychohistory--
primarily grounded in the role of large groups in channeling the
individual psychology of dissociation. You have courageously pushed
the epoch of developmental psychology back to the birth trauma and
even the late experiences in the womb. (This is a particularly
fabulous area of your work, IMO.) Others, including Freud and Bion
have also made huge, albeit sporadic, contributions. Your framework,
and that of others, can be referenced by those wishing to make
interpretations. Over time, if the interpretations are deemed strong
enough, the frameworks will gain credibility. Doubtless there will
also be further theoretical innovations.
I guess what I am asking is whether your "rules of evidence" might
be overly restrictive, especially for the still nascent stage of
development of PH compared to what we all believe (I suspect) to be
its potential. Maybe you are making it too difficult for would-be
authors because of an inappropriate application of academic style to
what should still be a more free-wheeling, frontier exploration."
And especially when you said this:
"You are the one who brought up the shrinking membership and the
difficulty in attracting papers. If you insist on any potential
writer studying the last 36 years of JPH before they submit an
article, then I am afraid your pool of authors will continue to
shrink. I am not suggesting that you accept something of poor quality,
but I think you realize that I am conversant with the field, and
especially your work. That should be enough for a paper "from an
outsider's point of view." Otherwise, if you exert prior editorial
restraint, then it violates the spirit of the avowed theme. (BTW, my
offer is only good if Patrick will join in.)"
Freewheeling?! Frontier exploration?! Thanks for inviting me in, you
son of a gun!!!
respectfully, playfully, psycholiteraturely,
patrickmh
P.S. Oh, by the way, you might want to keep an eye on this J C Hewitt
dude, and make sure he doesn't go all cult-like on us. He talks about
Lloyd's courage; and he most certainly is courageous--yet somehow,
though he seems quite willing to scold you and I, I doubt Lloyd has
ever questioned Atlas about his unfortunate desire to spend so much
time reading/experiencing barbaric medievals.
James Sturges
Dec 5, 2008, 9:05:40 PM12/5/08
to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com
Patrick,
Oops ... I'm busted. You're absolutely right that my sarcastic comment was not a valid argument. Actually, it wasn't intended to be ... I can in fact rationalize that it was intended to convey tacit acceptance (by its very flimsiness) ... as I do believe that macropsychologists (psychohistorians) work largely by empathic connection with the world, informed by a theoretical framework concerning group (fantasy) motivations and their connection to micropsychology (individual psychology).
In the realm of psychodynamic micropsychology, the empathic connection, i.e., transference and countertransference, is explicitly central to the methodology. In this way, the underlying fantasy, including its inevitable infantile elements, can be manifested, possibly interpreted by the specialist, and thereby sometimes treated (or at least the patient's negative impact on hirself and hir surroundings may be mitigated). I think the analogy to the methodology of the macropsychologist is strong.
Incidentally, transference is clearly, IMO, a form of "ESP". In the macro world, the equivalent would be the "gut feeling" that accompanies active, albeit informed, participation in a large Group Fantasy. There is no doubt in my mind that a near instantaneous meta-communications signal sweeps a large group--even as large as a nation--when one GF (or Basic Assumption in Bionian terms) displaces another.
And I hasten to add that no one is exempt from participation in the GFs -- even the psychohistorian. To be exempt would be to be blinded in the most crucial medium of human perception. Bion described the role of persons who seemed to eschew the group as "schizmatics" -- just another role in the GF.
BTW, I can't believe I mentioned Atlas, and if you hadn't unearthed the post, I would have said you probably confused me with someone else. Well, fugue me.
--------Jim |
From: Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoy...@gmail.com> |
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages