@andioop@programming.dev to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish • 2 months agowell that's rudeprogramming.devimagemessage-square34fedilinkarrow-up11.21Karrow-down10
arrow-up11.21Karrow-down1imagewell that's rudeprogramming.dev@andioop@programming.dev to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish • 2 months agomessage-square34fedilink
minus-square@technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilink56•edit-22 months 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-square@saimen@feddit.orglinkfedilink2•2 months 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.