andioop@programming.dev to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 1 year agowell that's rudeprogramming.devimagemessage-square30fedilinkarrow-up1950arrow-down13
arrow-up1947arrow-down1imagewell that's rudeprogramming.devandioop@programming.dev to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square30fedilink
minus-squaretechnocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up48arrow-down2·edit-21 year agoAt least it seems more “scientific” than anything that Jung ever did. https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/13027/is-there-a-reasonable-scientific-backing-for-carl-jungs-type-theories
minus-squaresaimen@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoYour source does not support your claim at all. Seems like you are projecting your scientific illiteracy onto Jung.
At least it seems more “scientific” than anything that Jung ever did.
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/13027/is-there-a-reasonable-scientific-backing-for-carl-jungs-type-theories
Your source does not support your claim at all. Seems like you are projecting your scientific illiteracy onto Jung.