I wonder how many psychological pathologies occur in the population at large. Could we benefit from some kind of psychological screening similar to how we screen for cancers after certain age? I assume that even sub-clinical syndromes cause quite high economic and/or utilitarian harm.
Can this kind of analysis be carried out for any major work of fiction? I enjoyed reading the analysis and would read a similar one for other works of fiction such as A Song of Ice and Fire.
Can we get any information about the state of mind the author is in or the reader is in from the way the characters are written and what characters are enjoyed?
Probably a lot—of people you know, how many are optimally pursuing their goals? Voluntary psychological screening would make many people happier. However, peoples’ right to be crazy is a civil liberties issue.
Yes—I did this one because it’s personally meaningful to me; I don’t have plans to do others now but I also would enjoy reading similar analysis of other works. You might also enjoy “Please Understand Me” by Kiersey and Bates, which provides insight into the motivations of different personality types but unfortunately does not explore how childhood experiences shape these types.
Yes—provided the author isn’t trying to deceive, the writing reveals how the author sees the world and so is predictive of the author’s thoughts and memories. I strongly suspect that most people who enjoyed HPMOR had parents who strongly encouraged them to learn as much as possible [to satisfy the ego-needs of the parents]. This matches what little data I have [edit: but anecdotes in the comments below suggest I’m wrong]. I would be very interested to see a poll to check this.
I strongly suspect that most people who enjoyed HPMOR had parents who strongly encouraged them to learn as much as possible.
There’s an important difference between “strongly encouraged to learn as much as possible because the parents believe knowledge is an important good” and “strongly encouraged to learn as much as possible in order for the child to become a machine that generates ego- and status-boosts for the parents”—the form arising from “having a narcissistic parent who seeks validation through the child’s academic achievements.”
I strongly suspect that most people who enjoyed HPMOR had parents who strongly encouraged them to learn as much as possible.
As anecdotal evidence: I was never strongly encouraged to learn (the best I can say is that I wasn’t hindered) and I enjoy HPMOR tremendously.
Also the base-rate of “encouraged to learn” amongst a mostly-educated audience, such as the readers of HPMOR would be quite high and one might see a similar rate in other fiction that attracts a similar, educated, audience.
Glad to hear it. I was worried that most of the LW/HPMOR community might have spent most of their childhood reading books to prove themselves, because most others couldn’t handle Harry’s narcissism. I agree that most educated people were “encouraged to learn” but probably did not have a narcissistic parent, because I’m assuming a low base rate for narcissism and no correlation between narcissism and learning, but I don’t have evidence to support this.
What would voluntary screening look like? Lengthy dialogue with a psychologist? Filling out standardised forms? A mixture of both? Do the necessary tools even exist?
I’ll look into it. Unfortunately many popular books on psychology are a waste of time.
One example: one college I know of had voluntary screening for depression and substance abuse. Students would have a short meeting (~10 minutes) with a counselor (someone who had a few hours’ training in giving this kind of test), and the students answered questions about how they feel most of the time and how much they drink. It helped a few people realize they had a problem with these issues, but I don’t know how effective it was overall. Some students had a problem but didn’t realize it or were not interested in changing.
This book helped me, for example by showing what kind of praise different personalities usually want to hear, and by helping me understand the thoughts/goals of someone with a very different personality. It might or might not be a waste of time for others.
Random thoughts while reading:
I wonder how many psychological pathologies occur in the population at large. Could we benefit from some kind of psychological screening similar to how we screen for cancers after certain age? I assume that even sub-clinical syndromes cause quite high economic and/or utilitarian harm.
Can this kind of analysis be carried out for any major work of fiction? I enjoyed reading the analysis and would read a similar one for other works of fiction such as A Song of Ice and Fire.
Can we get any information about the state of mind the author is in or the reader is in from the way the characters are written and what characters are enjoyed?
Thanks for reading! Random replies:
Probably a lot—of people you know, how many are optimally pursuing their goals? Voluntary psychological screening would make many people happier. However, peoples’ right to be crazy is a civil liberties issue.
Yes—I did this one because it’s personally meaningful to me; I don’t have plans to do others now but I also would enjoy reading similar analysis of other works. You might also enjoy “Please Understand Me” by Kiersey and Bates, which provides insight into the motivations of different personality types but unfortunately does not explore how childhood experiences shape these types.
Yes—provided the author isn’t trying to deceive, the writing reveals how the author sees the world and so is predictive of the author’s thoughts and memories. I strongly suspect that most people who enjoyed HPMOR had parents who strongly encouraged them to learn as much as possible [to satisfy the ego-needs of the parents]. This matches what little data I have [edit: but anecdotes in the comments below suggest I’m wrong]. I would be very interested to see a poll to check this.
There’s an important difference between “strongly encouraged to learn as much as possible because the parents believe knowledge is an important good” and “strongly encouraged to learn as much as possible in order for the child to become a machine that generates ego- and status-boosts for the parents”—the form arising from “having a narcissistic parent who seeks validation through the child’s academic achievements.”
Good point—that is an important difference, and I’m glad many readers were in the former group.
As anecdotal evidence: I was never strongly encouraged to learn (the best I can say is that I wasn’t hindered) and I enjoy HPMOR tremendously.
Also the base-rate of “encouraged to learn” amongst a mostly-educated audience, such as the readers of HPMOR would be quite high and one might see a similar rate in other fiction that attracts a similar, educated, audience.
Glad to hear it. I was worried that most of the LW/HPMOR community might have spent most of their childhood reading books to prove themselves, because most others couldn’t handle Harry’s narcissism. I agree that most educated people were “encouraged to learn” but probably did not have a narcissistic parent, because I’m assuming a low base rate for narcissism and no correlation between narcissism and learning, but I don’t have evidence to support this.
What would voluntary screening look like? Lengthy dialogue with a psychologist? Filling out standardised forms? A mixture of both? Do the necessary tools even exist?
I’ll look into it. Unfortunately many popular books on psychology are a waste of time.
One example: one college I know of had voluntary screening for depression and substance abuse. Students would have a short meeting (~10 minutes) with a counselor (someone who had a few hours’ training in giving this kind of test), and the students answered questions about how they feel most of the time and how much they drink. It helped a few people realize they had a problem with these issues, but I don’t know how effective it was overall. Some students had a problem but didn’t realize it or were not interested in changing.
This book helped me, for example by showing what kind of praise different personalities usually want to hear, and by helping me understand the thoughts/goals of someone with a very different personality. It might or might not be a waste of time for others.