Lazy Critique of Popular Psychology (Part 1)

Draft 4.0

1. Concerning Armchair Psychological Analysis:
Popular culture has produced many off-shoots and by-products. Popular psychology is no exception to the bland mediocrity produced by all such dull common denominational appeals. This pseudo-science abounds with fraudulent and shaky claims. Causal and effectual analysis has been confused to he point where legitimate scientific psychological investigation has had aspersions cast upon it. The masses cannot tell the actual item from its popular shadow. The underlying trendiness inevitable blinds those looking for easy answers. Much causality is inferred from little data. The underlying motivation of the advocates of popular psychology is pure profit. Loaded phrases and popular expressions combine to form the bulk of popular psychological notions concerning such things as empowerment, anger management and deviant behavior. A common mean standard is always implied for maximum effectiveness in reaching the largest possible audience. An entire industry is built accordingly, but not a science. Superficialities and surface traits merge. Shallowness appeals to the largest cross sections of society and culture. Commonality is a cheap coin.
All too often, lame explanatory attempts are rendered to analyze motivations and personality based solely upon written material. Although a professional sphere exists were such endeavors might be valid, most armchair analysts subscribe a popular psychological basis for their suppositions. These notions are mostly superficial. Product and producer are defined as synonymous. An intentional lie is different from a misconception or a shadow, but popular psychology would represent all as identical. Although actually different, a piece written for specific effect might be unrecognizable from a supposed spontaneous outpouring from the subconscious. The author knows the difference. However, the audience may only analyze based upon certain assumptions, which may be incorrect. Most written works are developed through a secession of drafts and notes. The initial conception might differ from the actual product. Be assured, especially in the age of word processors, most written material is different in conception from its final presentation. Each sentence might be carefully constructed for a specific purpose, which is not easily discerned by a casual perusal. Being written for the author's own reasons, the point might not always be obvious. Meaning is malleable. Motivations are not always an easy matter. Very little insight might exist without first hand information, but the popular psychological analyst will never admit it. Truth may be impossible, unless the actual author can verify the claims. Rote dogmatic acceptance does not make the work under scrutiny easily determined. No firm foundation may exist, sometimes purposely or even for the sake of twisted humor. The best jokes are not always shared. Symbolism may be taken at face value, or re-interpreted thus lacking important considerations. The worst impact may be the emergence of a tendency to accept and validate all written material. In actuality, very little warrants much consideration. A detective thriller may prove entertaining, but is usually not worth analyzing for deeper meaning other than its amusement value. The mediocre and formulaic is elevated to the same plane where only the greatest works were hitherto located. Mediocre authors write mediocre books, reviewed and analyzed by mediocre critics, which allows the formation of mediocre standards. Perhaps the tediousness spawned by this process is the real reason people do not wish to invest the effort to read. The television is an easier substitute, offering bells and whistles rather than the simple boredom affected by the printed page. The perception is supplied by the external production, rather than the internal creative mind. The mean stagnates, or rises according to the definitions supplied by the myth of progress. Potential is exhausted on tired formalism. The universal valuation of drivel is worse than nothing, or at least more annoying. Rapaciousness has little appeal. Writers and publishers have created apathetic readerships. Consumerism encourages unreadable quantity over quality, especially with the means of electronic propagation spreading boredom far and wide. Rather than the greatest works, only the best formulas receive consideration. Dullness pervades everything. A mountain of data buries everything thus making even censorship unnecessary. It only draws attention to undesirable material.
In analysis, emotion should be noted. The correct inquiry is the utmost priority, which differs for every piece. Unity exists only where perceived, except the most fundamental levels where most verbal worlds do not touch. All told is not truth. Propaganda is disguise.

2. The fallacy of the Constant State: A Digression Concerning Personal Growth
Stasis is an erroneous assumption. A consequence of living within the moment, the present is eternal. Only the quantifiable can be used for measuring progress. No other comparisons are valid, thus leading to a constant and therefore anti-natural verbal world. Growth or decay is simply not considered. Amounting to little more than crossed fingers, policy is often retarded by the resultant mindset. Naturally occurring cultural inertial forces are reinforced. An opportunist could exploit this situation to forestall change for maximum advantage. Abiding perceptions are less questioned. Eventually society and culture stagnate. Strong myths bind like concrete. Like any parasite, distorted verbal synthesis may endure where little else will survive. Often the individual will become infected through cultural disease vectors, thereby blunting their own personal growth by clutching and adopting static verbal components as their own. An example, without offering any solution, being the pop-psychological belief which advances victim mentalities. Many people would have discovered coping mechanisms without wallowing in their misfortune. The real picture is far more complex.