Are there similarly good reasons for conceiving of spirituality this way? If so, please elaborate. — Reformed Nihilist

I need to take a couple of steps back. Excuse the laziness of quoting myself at length.

So, a bit of meta- psychological pontification.
Folks have always had, and continue to have, a folk psychology, otherwise known as a 'theory of mind'. Such theories are culturally informed by religion, philosophy romantic tradition, notions of gender identity and so on. My psychological theory affects how I experience others and how I behave with them. I treat you all so badly because my theory of mind tells me you are are all as horrible and pathetic as I am, however well you hide it.

Now even without the benefit of a university course, everyone here has a notion of what Freudian is what behaviourism is and so on. It may be vague, but it enters the psyche along with all that advertising and propaganda some to be dismissed, and some absorbed. So it is not to be wondered at that the techniques of the shrinks not only enter into the schemes of advertisers and politicians but also into the interactions of philosophers in discussion forums. I started with an advert, because it is paradigmatic, but it is only a simplistic and transparent example of what has become a way of life, a pervasive form of our culture.

There is a knot here; put very simply the theory of psyche is part of the psyche. It is as if the fundamental particles of physics changed their properties according to which laws of physics they decided to adopt. Psychologists have changed the way we think, the way we see, our whole culture, and in doing so, they give rise to a new psyche which needs a new theory. Fashion in psychology mirrors the fashion of youth that always has to be different to that of the previous generation. Today one talks of neural plasticity, and it is neural plasticity that makes this talk possible. — unenlightened

There's a bit more elaboration further on in the thread, too, but the gist of it is here; that the scientific, analytical, cumulative theorising that works so spectacularly well when it comes to understanding and manipulating the physical world is useless and destructive when applied to the inner world.

I also develop the theme in a follow-up thread about education if you're interested.

All of which is by way of clearing a space for another way of understanding what you seem to want me to call 'subjectivity'. Now it occurs to me that subjectivity, consciousness, personal identity, psyche, all these terms seem to point to something that is not material, and whether or not one wants to claim that it must reduce to, arise from, or supervene over, the material, there is nothing linguistically objectionable about calling it 'spiritual' by way of distinguishing it from 'material'.

So to put it in one rather opaque sentence. Spirituality is un-analysable because the analysis is part of the analyser and the analyser is what is to be analysed; the whole thing is an attempt to lift oneself up by the bootstraps.

Even if I accepted that theories of truth are un-analyzable, (which I don't, because, among other things, you clearly are offering an analysis of theories of truth in your first paragraph), then how do you then get from there to "the understanding of the psyche must proceed otherwise than the understanding of the world at large". — Reformed Nihilist

The contention is that truth is unanalysable, not that theories of truth are unanalysable, which I am glad you reject, as I have indeed just presented an analysis of theories of truth that I claim shows that they cannot be valid analyses.

The truth isn't un-analysable. If we say that the truth is the condition of a statement, then there's nothing wrong with that statement also being true. — Reformed Nihilist

That is not an analysis. Here's where I scratch my head in wonder a bit. This is not some crap I made up off the top of my head to bamboozle you. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WqROAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA254&ots=dDDWIDeVMK&dq=truth%20unanalysable%20Davidson&pg=PA254#v=onepage&q=truth%20unanalysable%20Davidson&f=false

I really feel that these describe pretty much all of the outcomes of these types of discussions. Is that your experience too? — Reformed Nihilist

Hmm. I don't really think of outcomes as having much importance. Or if I do, I am far more self-centered about them. So my outcomes, taken to mean points of departure, end of posting, or end of responding to a particular poster, are more like this:

A. I get bored, because I'm not learning anything any more.
B. I get lost, probably because I haven't worked out my ideas well enough.
C. I've said everything I have to say, as clearly as I can.

What the other chap does with his thoughts is not a great concern, though there is I suppose an ideal scenario where there is a coming together - a meeting of minds.

But variations on a theme of your 2. feed my A. And also yes to the rarity of 1. I think I have changed my mind a couple of times, and folks have let me know they have changed theirs maybe 3 times ... in God knows, about twelve years of posting?

So my first impulse in this thread was rather close to yours, that there is not much to spirituality of the non-religious sort, other than a self-indulgent sentimentality with a bit of unacknowledged magical thinking thrown in. But then I wondered whether there was at least a possible sense in which one could be seriously spiritual without having to join a club of believers. So I've been exploring, and trying to make room for something and so arrived at 'the un-analysable'. You should have picked me up on mentioning psycho-analysis as a spiritual practice, but I guess you don't give it enough credence in the first place. So here we are, and I'm not yet bored, not completely lost, and haven't said everything I can think of. So lay on, MacDuff...

You could explain what it would mean for something to be non-analysable, and how that would be distinct from it being poorly analysed or nonsensical. — Reformed Nihilist

I'll try that. Typically, some philosophers say that truth is un-analysable. The way I understand this is that of any theory of truth that one might come up with, it can be questioned whether or not it is true. And for it to be true according to itself as a criterion of truth is circular and so inadequate. And this is the case for any conceivable theory of truth, so there is no question of replacing a poor analysis with a better one in this regard, and we hope at least, that there is no question that truth is nonsensical.

So whether you agree with this or not, it indicates a general form of radical necessary circularity that frustrates the attempt at analysis. This is what my needlessly complex framing was intended to demonstrate about your

Wouldn't you want to change it to whatever you preferred, and then leave it that way

where the circularity is hidden by referring to 'you' and 'it' as though they are different, while at the same time demanding that they not be different.

My position is that this radical circularity applies to any analysis of the analyser, that is to say to all psychology, and to all analysis of interiority and consciousness. This is not an appeal to irrationality, to nonsense, or to despair. It is simply to say that the understanding of the psyche must proceed otherwise than the understanding of the world at large.

I don't know what it would mean to be non-analysable. Analysis is something that we do, not a property of something. I could imagine that an analysis could feel unsatisfactory or inconclusive, but I'm not convinced that wouldn't say more about the failings of the analysis than about the subject of the analysis. Saying that you can't analyse something is like saying you can't look for something.

Regarding the XYZ stuff, and the "analysing the analyser" stuff, I don't think I see the point you're making. It just seems like a needlessly complex framing of something that maybe isn't that complex. — Reformed Nihilist

Then I don't know how to go on, I'm afraid.

Sorry, I think I misread you previously. I think that rational analysis and realness are 100% unrelated. You can do rational analysis on the effectiveness of Frodo's route to Mordor, and you can babble nonsensicaly about main street. I can't imagine what non-rational analysis would look like excepting irrational analysis, which I imagine we both think would be a bad idea. If you think there's something beyond or outside of that, you'll need to clarify. — Reformed Nihilist

Yeah, we seem to be totally at cross purposes here, and it is crucial, on my side. Let's leave unreality out for now. I said nothing about non-rational analysis. Can the rational analyser rationally analyse a change in the rational analyser? Consider this in relation to my previous post, and then consider if there might be something that is not analysable. My suggestion is that analysis has a limit, but understanding can exceed this limit, by means that are not analytical. That is not to say that they are irrational, necessarily.

In the terms of the previous post, perhaps X,Y, Z, in some combination might understand that something
else is possible, because it is necessary. And from that understanding something else comes.

You just made a jump that I'm not sire I'm following. What's a spiritual practice? — Reformed Nihilist

Prayer, meditation, self-flaggelation, peyote consumption, self-hypnosis, psychoanalysis, I don't want to draw an exact boundary, but people talk about spiritual practices, like retreats. It may all be nonsense in the sense of being ineffective, it may all not suit you or me, but it is a meaningful term for some effort to change oneself that has a long history and a current popularity.

Wouldn't you want to change it to whatever you preferred, and then leave it that way (practice often implies long term change from repeated iterations)? I know I'm generally good with my sense of self, so gradual, incremental change works for me. — Reformed Nihilist

I don't understand this. X would prefer to be Y. So perhaps X becomes Y by some gradual or sudden transformation. What does Y prefer? Not obviously what X preferred. This might even be a roundabout, where Y would prefer to be X. Is there then a possibility that X and Y can agree to get off the roundabout? Or would Y prefer to be Z? Then what would Z prefer? But if you say that Y prefers to be Y just as X preferred to be Y, then I might wonder if X has changed at all.

So a spiritual experience is one that is life changing about one's sense of self? Doesn't that make it basically the same as "transformative", which wouldn't normally refer to incidental out exterior changes? If not, in what way is it distinct? — Reformed Nihilist

Yes, in that context, 'transformative' works fine. But if one were to talk of 'transformative practice' rather than 'spiritual practice', then it would be a strain; seeking is not always finding, though one seeks to find.

Well, 98% of the atoms in our body are exchanged every year, yet we still consider it the same body. For some practical reasons, we seem to have to apply a sense continuity to objects and ideas that change slowly. We often feel that implies that there is a sort of "essential" "necessary" or "defining" quality, but that's just an assumption, and it doesn't add any explanatory power to things, so I didn't bring it into the discussion. — Reformed Nihilist

Same thing happens to rivers, I don't think it's a problem; there is great explanatory power in noticing that there is a river in a certain place, the flow is rapid and yet one knows where to put a bridge. The river rises and falls with the seasons, and the water is ever-changing. But for a river to change its course is another kind of change that deserves its own language and understanding.

I don't know where you get that sense. I'm often accused of being too introspective and self-contemplative, so that's an odd thing for people to think about me. I don't think it's true. — Reformed Nihilist

Ok, my mistake.

Something that changes the rational analyst does exactly defy rational analysis.

If we can agree that there is the possibility of something real that defies analysis, then there is room in our discussion for terms that refer to it. There might be a possibility of some understanding that does not derive from analysis, but from analogy, or imagery, or whatever.

So spiritual is synonymous with "life changing" then? — Reformed Nihilist

No. A spiritual experience is a life changing experience. If you are happy to talk about interior, and exterior, as experience of the world and experience of oneself, then I can be a bit more specific, that a spiritual experience is one that changes interior experience. But still you need to be a little charitable in understanding that I am not talking about the change from an empty to a full stomach. Thus losing a limb is no doubt a life-changing experience of the exterior life; it may or may not be also life changing in one's relation to oneself, and in such case it is also a spiritual experience. But one also talks about a 'spiritual person', or the spirit of the times, or as I mentioned before, of a group.

So spiritual is synonymous with "life changing" then? Why not say that? Or "transformative"? Why cop-opt terms of religion, with all the baggage and possibility of misunderstanding that it entails? I guess if the context makes it clear that there is no implied metaphysical baggage, then communicating however you want is fair game. I'm just saying that it often isn't clear. Not to the listener, and (more controversially) to the speaker. Let me give you a few quotes from this thread to highlight this: — Reformed Nihilist

You bring your own metaphysical baggage with you, and on that basis complain about another's.

To be devoid of spirituality is to be homeless. At least that's what it seems to me.

Compare:

The unexamined life is not worth living.

Surely the notion that something is life changing doesn't defy rational analysis? — Reformed Nihilist

Something that changes the rational analyst does exactly defy rational analysis.

We are destroyed and reformed all the time. Mostly it happens so gradually, little piece by little piece, that we don't notice, but sometimes we mark a specific event on the road if our reinvention as being epiphanous, because it is great enough in it's effect to move above the background noise of the constant change. How is that not a matter of intensity? If it isn't a matter of intensity, what is it a matter of? — Reformed Nihilist

Are you unaware of the religious metaphysical baggage of "epiphanous"? ;) But there is some confusion here. How are you aware of being destroyed and reformed all the time? Surely there needs to be a thread of constancy on which change hangs, and against which it can be compared. Or is this just a theoretical, metaphysical claim? I'm not even disagreeing with you here, except to clarify that an experience can be intense without changing the direction of one's life.

But I have the sense that you are just refusing to engage in an exploration of inner life, and in such case you can have no 'home' in which you can entertain such ideas.

Spiritual: pertaining to the general condition of the experiencer.
— unenlightened

Would that make it synonymous with "subjective"? If so, why not just use that word, which is laden with much less metaphysical baggage? Also, what would make a spiritual experience distinct from a garden variety experience?

Edit: That definition also doesn't account for the way the word gets used. By this formulation, "I listened to a Beethoven sonata, and it was a spiritual experience" is roughly equivalent to "I had a piece of cold left-over pizza, and it was a spiritual experience", and there's not much meaningful difference between just saying you listened to the sonata or ate the pizza. — Reformed Nihilist

It would make sense to talk about subjective experience, if there was objective experience. But there isn't. So it is not at all synonymous. Garden variety experiences do not affect the experiencer; if you have a piece of cold left-over pizza, and it is a life-changing experience, then I would call it spiritual. Obviously, there is no absolute delineation that separates ordinary experience from spiritual, but one can say, perhaps that everyday experience accumulates as habit whereas spiritual experience disrupts.

I think this fits with the way people use the term, though it is over-used by some. A piece of music can be experienced with a depth that changes one's life, both in terms of one's understanding of one's past and in the direction of one's future. It is more than mere intensity. If one has a spiritual experience, one is not the same person after it as one was before; it is traumatic, though as I said it gets mis-used for the merely dramatic. If you are indeed re-formed, then I would think you have had a spiritual experience.

I consider the word "spiritual" to be best translated as "psuedo-religious" in most uses. You mean something else I assume? — Reformed Nihilist

As distinct from non pseudo religious? It does not seem like a good place to start; it looks as though you want to translate spiritual into material, which is why I suspect, @Mariner wants to look at the distinction rather than try and 'correct' your translation.

Espirit de corps: a feeling of pride and mutual loyalty shared by the members of a group. We know that there is a real thing, because armies concern themselves with it, and they are eminently practical. So we might say, as materialists, that it is located in the brains of group members. Because we don't believe in psychic woo, we deny that feelings are literally shared, but allow that they can be 'aligned'. And because the group is always interacting, this general alignment influences each member towards the general alignment, even as their various individual experiences influence them away from it.

Spirit: anything over 40% proof. Providing proverbial courage to the Dutch. ;)

Spiritual: pertaining to the general condition of the experiencer. One might want to say that this is understood to be the condition of the brain, but as long as there is no way to read the condition of a brain in the relevant aspects, and even thereafter, it seems perfectly meaningful to talk about spiritual practices, designed to lift the spirits, for example. Perhaps you want to claim that everything spiritual arises from the material as emergent or epiphenomenal, and perhaps you find that a lot of psychic woo (mis)uses the term (these are not the same). Still it is possible to make some sense of another who might think otherwise, that spirit as the condition of the experiencer has an immaterial aspect that might outlast the material being, even if you think them mistaken.

Life.

Sometimes, these are live questions that you ask, that prospective parents have to agonise over, because there is a known genetic risk. Sometimes doctors have to ask if a child should be treated to prolong a life of pain, or allowed to die. You demean and trivialise these decisions by philosophising them in the abstract and trying to universalise.

How can we justify continuance of our species in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings, — Number02

Life is worth the pain and suffering. In extremis, we might sometimes decide that life is not worth the pain and suffering in a particular case. But to generalise from the extreme is invalid and odious.

I don't have to. The facts are that other people are concerned, and sex workers are not. The facts are that builders don't like the safety rules that apply to them either. But rule-makers do like them. It's the same with drivers and speed limits, and all sorts of things.

All sorts of reasons, probably, some of which I have mentioned. But it is so, is it not?

Huh? Yes, in the land of 'I don't care about anyone but me' it would have to be framed as, 'I don't want to pay for your corpse to be swept off the street because you died of some infection, and I'm sure as hell not going to pay for your life to be saved either.'

But in the land of 'every futile death offends me, even that of a sex worker', we put laws in place to protect people from their own folly, and the pressure that ensues when there is someone more foolish or more desperate that is willing or can be coerced into cutting corners, because that's the kind of society we like.

Because when bad shit happens, other people have to clean it up.

No. Health and safety is generally a pain that folks have to be coerced into; motorcycle helmets, seat-belts, chainsaw protection, keeping fire exits clear, nothing but hassle - until...

Free speech? Where do they have to wear them? Sounds more like a health and safety at work issue to me.

by "fixing identity in thought" does it construct identity independent of social influence? — Galuchat

So I am English, male, middle class, and white. These are historical and biological facts, but they also have a social meaning. It would be silly for me to deny either the facts or their social meaning. Other people tend to treat me in certain ways and make certain assumptions about me based on the social meaning, and this is again a fact of life.

Psychologically, since these meanings are congenial, by and large, I am inclined to adopt them; where they are uncongenial, I am inclined to deny them, which is to adopt their negation. So I imagine myself as civilised, intelligent, competent, tolerant, restrained, strong, etc etc. I emphasise 'imagine' because this image is not created by me right now, by looking at myself as I am, rather it is already there in my thoughts as an image built out of my responses to those social influences that come from the social meaning ascribed to historical and biological facts. In short, I develop an image of myself as a jolly fine fellow.

This leads inevitably to an inverse not-identity that I project onto 'them'. Where 'they' are females, foreigners, toffs or peasants.

Is mindfulness then self consciousness (meta self awareness)? — Galuchat

Mindfulness, then is looking at all this that is going on in my mind all the time, looking at what is happening, at the operation of these images, but without operating on them or judging them, and without making a separation of the mindful self looking at the unmindful self, but rather of the unmindful self being mindful for a moment of its own unmindfulness.

I don't know if this is at all answering your questions, and it is said without authority, as my own best understanding. Most of it is stolen from here.

What effect does denying social identity in this manner have on society? — Galuchat

If it became at all widespread, it would have a transformative effect, ending division between 'us' and 'them'. I can't begin to imagine how pleasant that would be for everyone.

Self Identity is composed of Personal Identity and Social Identity.
1) Personal (i.e., Relational) Identity: the set of heritable attributes which remain essentially unchanged throughout the course of a person's life.
2) Social (i.e., Contextual) Identity: the set of social attributes which have their basis in social learning and change throughout the course of a person's life. — Galuchat

It seems fairly obvious that it is neither possible or desirable to discard one's genetic and experiential history. I think it likely that this is not the ego that folks are talking about discarding. Rather, it must be something that is ubiquitous, but superfluous to a functioning human. One might suggest that it is not the facts of what or who one is, but the image.

Thus identification is a thought process that fixes an image of self that one then conforms to, protects, and makes the centre of one's reality. Thus one's religion, one's nationality, one's politics, are part of this structure, not just as neutral facts, but as allegiances. It is unsurprising, then, that established religions are a bit ambivalent about discarding such identifications.

with this in mind, I think it is clear that while there is no great difficulty in conceiving the possibility of discarding such identifications, the identity of 'one who has discarded all identifications' is a performative contradiction. Thus one arrives quite naturally at mindfulness as the practice of observing oneself without the separation of the observer and the observed, which is the process of accumulation of self-knowledge, and the fixing of identity in thought.

Notice the same paradox surrounds the handle of the previous poster.

The opposite of enlightened is something like deluded — Mongrel

You have the paradox backwards; there is no contradiction in knowing of oneself that one is burdened with self, but only a contradiction in knowing of oneself that one is not so burdened. The opposite of enlightened is not deluded, but burdened.

Doubt is knowledge the way atheism is a religion.

It's a big topic, and it's called "epistemology".

Plato: anamnesis.
Descartes: Doubt.
Wittgenstein: certainty.
Gettier: rational true belief.
This is a brief and incomplete selection of backgrounds to the problem of knowledge in general. The specific problem of the relation of direct v second hand knowledge it is generally beneath the dignity of philosophers to consider - we are all doubting Thomases in that regard. We still haven't established the security of first hand knowledge, without considering what anyone else has to say.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've seen you write. — Harry Hindu

You haven't been paying attention, then.

↪unenlightened You may be interested in this. — Agustino

Yes, I was.

It's really simply, unenlightened. If meaning is use, then telling me why you made and submitted that post (your intent) won't tell me the meaning of the words. — Harry Hindu

It's really simple, Harry, I already told you, I meant exactly what I said. I intended to say what I said, and that is what I meant.

I'll also add that that is why you won't tell me your intent in making that post because you know it will expose the meaning of the words (is why you keep saying "I meant what I said", which doesn't help those who don't understand what you said, which it should if meaning were use). — Harry Hindu

No, Harry. the meaning, according to you, is my intention, and my intention in this post is to say what I am saying, and my intention in that post was to say what I was saying. I might make a mistake, and in that case my intention would be other than my actual post, but in these instances that is not the case.

Suppose my intention was to make your head explode. Then, if the meaning of words was the intention of the speaker, I would have to say " This sentence makes Harry's head explode.", or something similar. If the meaning of my words is my intention, I have already told you my intention by saying the words, and there is no sense asking me to say other words to express the same intention, because other words would express another intention. You are asking me to do the impossible, and then thinking you have won the argument when I can't do it, and inventing an intention for my non-expression of intention when I have already reiterated that my intention was to say what I said. My intention in not doing the impossible is nothing at all.

There is much equivocation as to what belief consists of. Part of my creed is that I believe in a hearty breakfast, and I don't lose my faith whenever the bacon runs short. The existence to whatever extent of a hearty breakfast is a consequence of folks believing in the benign hearty breakfast rather than a precondition.

Even less can I take credit for that. Have you tried Chinese?

But you did confuse someone - me. — Harry Hindu

I hardly think I can take the credit for that. Your confusion is internal to you.

...indeed thousands of years. — mcdoodle

As far as I'm concerned, that answers the question quite definitively. Only two thousand years ago, Jesus was preaching. So global warming will perhaps cause a catastrophe whereby we lose most of the major cities and a lot of the arable land - that's serious, but in 500 years we will have adapted. Find another solution to the problems of the moment. Don't shit on the next few millennia.

Well, yes, you can intentionally use words to confuse, and that is to say that you intentionally used words in a way that doesn't reference anything but your intent to confuse. — Harry Hindu

I haven't said I intended to confuse anyone, and I deny that I intended to confuse anyone. In fact I specified when there had been some discussion of what I said, that I meant exactly what I said. It was you that declared an intention to confuse.

I'd use them to cause confusion. — Harry Hindu

I don't doubt that you do intend to confuse people with your words, but I do not.

What about an "inside" joke? Isn't a joke only an "inside" joke if a certain number of people understand it's meaning? So, there are obviously instances where words can be used that aren't part of the consensus of word-use and a limited number of people can understand the use of those words. — Harry Hindu

An 'inside' seems to imply a boundary and an 'outside'. But this is normal; most people don't speak any given language, and many languages, such as Cockney rhyming slang, French Argot, and so on, are deliberately designed to exclude, and confuse 'outsiders'. So an inside joke is understood by the community it is directed at, and the consensus of people who are excluded from that community has no bearing. But how is all this relevant to our discussion?

I don't know, what is the bottom limit? Did those words cause any confusion? If so, why? Was there some problem with their reference? Are you following this discussion ok?

Yes, I thought it was that. But you're not very good at it; mainly you succeed only in frustrating, not confusing.

Then you did use words to mean something? — Harry Hindu

Yes, what do you use them for?

When a Harry spurge psychic dilemma because five sideways, misusing symptom communicates upside. But all that's by the bye; The point is can you understand? I you can't then call it misuse or call it ad hom, or call it a fuckwit playing games. Whatever you call it will be a misuse of words.
— unenlightened
Then a "transgender" is misusing words when a male calls themselves a "female"?

Well, you did use those words for a reason - no? If not, then why did you post it? What was your intent in using those words? What did you mean by using those words? It must have been to make some point, or simply to confuse. Whatever you call it will be a use of words because you had a goal-in-mind when using them. — Harry Hindu

I meant exactly what I said.

Does anybody get depressed or anxious about believing that" their mind is a computer", in some sense? — Jake Tarragon

It's a shorthand, don't take it literally. But what I am saying is that the methodological turn of scientific psychology is a turn to treat humans as objects rather than as persons. Thus it tends to dehumanise, and that leads to increasing mental illness. Nobody gets depressed by one sentence, but the dominant psychological theory at any period is a powerful cultural influence on individuals. The advertising industry is a powerful and inescapable influence designed by psychologists to manipulate through raising anxiety.

I'm sure this issue is a known problem to psychologists. — TheMadFool

I'm not sure it's known at all. I fear it may be a bee confined entirely to my own bonnet.

From another angle, psychology reveals harmful behavior e.g. biases, prejudices, fallacious thinking, etc. Knowledge of such aspects of the psyche and behavior modifications arising therefrom, seem to me, a positive thing. The study itself may become outmoded the moment it becomes public knowledge BUT its effects have been therapeutic. — TheMadFool

I don't think it is a positive thing at all. If you treat people as complex objects - objectively - then you learn how to manipulate them. So marketing and personnel management are where psychologists find a use.

But the real question is what such treatment teaches people, not just the subjects/objects of experiments, but the victims of the everyday work of psychologists in marketing etc - that they are malfunctioning computers. It's not just that the theory becomes outmoded, but that it negatively impacts the way people relate to each other, and the way they see themselves.

The problem is made more difficult by the complexity of the subject; the prime difficulty being emotions and thoughts can't be quantified and thus the exactitude of mathematics can't be applied. — TheMadFool

The data has been around for a long time - as long as we've been around to collect it. The prime difficulty is that our psychology is radically altered by our psychological theories. If this happened in biology, it would be as though as soon as we discover that rabbits breed like rabbits, the all turn celibate.

So above, for example linked to some evidence that suggests to me the hypothesis that the scientific study of the psyche changes the psyche in particular ways; that it leads to objectification of the self and of others, and this tends to produce isolation, dissociation, anxiety, and depression.