Reviews for Educational Psychology (Student Handbook)

The average rating for Educational Psychology (Student Handbook) based on 2 reviews is 4.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2017-01-03 00:00:00 Stephanie Knott Through a little research I became aware of and interested in Jung's idea of "The Shadow," so I started getting my hands on some of his stuff. "The Shadow" is a part of every human beings personality. It is the other side of us that we shove way deep down inside and hope no one else sees. This concept is related to the idea of "projection." We project onto other people the parts of us that we do not like, or would rather not look at. So when we say, "O my gosh doesn't she look fat in that," we are really saying something like, "I couldn't wear that. I'd probably look fat in that," or, "Wow. She looks good in that, but I would probably look fat wearing that outfit." This is a tough idea to swallow, but I think it is legit. There is a quote in the book that will probably stay with me for life about how much courage it takes a person to look their shadow in the face and deal with it and try to understand it. The whole of your shadow side and the side you show to the world (your unconscious and conscious sides) should ideally be united and equally accepted. Unfortunately, most of us end up walking around like half-people alienating ourselves from the people that remind us of the things we don't like about ourselves. If someone can walk through and accept their own shadows they are on the beginning of an interesting journey of possibly being a full person with more of a full true picture of themselves.

Review # 2 was written on 2020-05-26 00:00:00 Clinton Smith This is a brilliant book on so many levels that I am struggling with how to express my reaction to it. I look forward to reading it again because the ideas within it are dense and nuanced and evocative and will change as my understanding and self-awareness change. And of course, this simple encomium is a poor excuse of a review. So how to review Psychology and Religion? It is a collection of three lectures he gave to the religious studies group at Yale University. In this very short book Jung provides a clear and concise argument why his approach to the psychic reality of the human animal is empirical and not irrational. He makes clear that that criticism of his work, that it is irrational, is a common but a mistaken one because, to paraphrase his argument, the human creative energy creates ideas that have common themes throughout history and across all continents. These creations are often, even normally, recreated by people in dreams or through neurotic behaviours without any conscious knowledge of such common themes, as they struggle with meaning and purpose in being alive. And these creations will, when the time is right in the collective consciousness of society's members, become a religion, even the religion that defines an era. That era will remain extant until such time as the development of human consciousness requires the next religion. He argues that 'religion' is a natural empirical manifestation of the human animal and worthy of study no less than migratory patterns of birds or the behaviour of sub-atomic particles. I enjoyed the simple and powerful argument about the existence of an unconscious that exists beyond our personal experience. His argument, which is similar to that above, rests on the rational acceptance that all creations of the psyche are like the natural creatures and phenomena nature. Dreams exist, and so they are 'real' and not something to be dismissed because they are 'irrational' or difficult or easily ignored. And now I'll include a rather long quotation. Likely such a thing is inappropriate in a review. However I'll rationalize my action, likely based on my irrationally liking this passage because of its humour, with the argument that it gives the reader a good taste of the humour, intelligence and nuanced argument Jung provides in this book: that religion is a natural phenomena of the human experience worthy of empirical rational investigation, with the caveat that we humans will be examining ourselves, making the investigation far more difficult than observing even the most obscure non-human phenomena. ... The well meaning rationalist will point out that I'm driving out the devil by Baalzebub and that I replace an honest neurosis by the cheat of religious belief. Concerning the former I have nothing to reply, being no metaphysical expert, but concerning the latter, I must point out that there is no question of belief, but of experience. Religious experience is absolute. It is indisputable. You can only say that you never had such an experience, and your opponent will say: "Sorry, I have." And there your discussion will end. No matter what the world thinks about religious experience, the one who has it possesses the great treasure of a thing that has provided him with a source of life, meaning and beauty and that has given a new splendour to the world and to mankind. He has pistis and peace. Where is the criterium by which you could say that such a life is not valid and that such pistis is mere illusion? Is there, as a matter of fact, any better truth about ultimate things than the one that helps you live? This is the reason why I take carefully into account the symbols produced by the unconscious mind. They are the only things able to convince the critical mind of modern people. They are convincing for very old fashioned reasons. They are simply overwhelming, which is an English rendering of the Latin word "convincere." The thing that cures a neurosis must be as convincing as the neurosis; and since the latter is only too real, the helpful experience must be of equal reality. It must be a very real illusion, if you want to put it pessimistically. But what is the difference between a real illusion and a healing religious experience? It is merely a difference in words. You can say, for instance, that life is a disease with a very bad prognosis, it lingers on for years and to end in death; or that normality is a generally prevailing constitutional defect; or that man is an animal with a fatally overgrown brain. This kind of thinking is the prerogative of habitual grumblers with bad digestions. Nobody can know what the ultimate things are. We must, therefore, take them as we experience them. And if such experience helps to make your life healthier, more beautiful, more complete and more satisfactory to yourself and to those you love, you may safely say: "This was the grace of God" (p113).