Can you psycho-analyze someone you hardly know?

[Deleted member 66627]

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that your question is more along the lines of whether we can get a decent idea of someone's personality/issues based on the behavior they show us in the short term (internet, brief meeting, etc.) Now, while I completely agree with those who say that you cannot analyze someone that way, you can most definitely get an idea and go with that gut instinct. That immediate vibe is rarely wrong, in my experience, and while getting to know someone better can indeed change your view, that initial 'read' based on what that person is showing the world can hardly be faulted and ignoring it can be a horrible mistake.

Yes. I worded everything in the OP thread title like shit.

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

Psycho-analyzing a person you've just met, though is possible. You've made it clear that it can be done.. the debate seems to lie within how effectively it can be done.

In short, Yes. I think it can be the more I think about it. Especially given your post.

Psycho-analyzing someone effectively and solving all their problems? No. That's when you begin to go into 'dropping balls into boxes'.

I tend to agree. I think that while you may not be able to Freud it up and diagnose someone with some obscure and serious illness upon meeting them, I think that given even a very few bits of information, you can begin to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

I also understand where Dave and Myr are coming from. To continue with the puzzle analogy, you can't know 100% what a puzzle is without all the pieces. Even if you have a barn and a farm and some horses, you could be missing one piece that is a honey bee. Without that piece you may not know that the bee stings the horse, who freaks out and scares all the other animals into a stampede, killing the poor farmer and his wife, leaving only their young adopted son David to walk barefoot down the old dirt road in search of a new family....*ahem* anyway...

Although you can't know the entire picture, you can get a pretty good idea of what's going on in the puzzle by getting a few choice pieces. And I think that's what Crystal's getting at. No, you won't know their entire life story and be able to fix all their issues, but you can get a good feel for someone by just a few pieces of information.

 

[Deleted member 66627]

Okay- now that I have a minute to make a modicum of sense. 😀

Can you fully and completely analyze someone enough down to the finest, minute detail?

No.

Can you even analyze someone even 90% effectively, with years of experience?

No.

Does this mean that you absolutely in no way or manner truly analyze someone?

No.

Yes, sure, there's speak of making guesses or assumptions. But all of that is pulled from watching a person's actions or mannerisms. This all is a form of anlyzation, it's just marked with a different word. Different word: Same meaning.

The reason it's so difficult to do such is because of masks that so many people wear. Like a pathological liar with zero sense of moral or ethical values, but holds a high school degree and can formulate simple sentences and opinions can easily fool a shitload of people into thinking that they are some trust worthy and honorable person, when in reality they are a general waste of space to society in a whole.

You can read what's on the surface and over even short periods of time, be able to pull away the veil and reveal what the personality for the most part is.

There are many aspects that can't be analyzed because they are either not as prominently shown as others, or they choose to keep them dormant. But, saying it's not possible to make correct conclusions of one's personality or actions is false. Sure, there could be alternatives or scenarios where pieces of information are missing, but that doesn't mean it's not effective.

Pinning a person's personality is not an overtly difficult feat, especially those that carry a rather transparent or open one.

You toss conclusions into a box of someone who's personality is of the aforementioned and you're bound to develop a clear read on them.

Layers are where it begins to get sketchy. A person's background or history that again, is not predominately available at first glance will make for a difficult and potentially harmful read if acted upon with no further line of questioning or observance.

It's not impossible. It's not effective to the complete whole-- but then again, what really is?

 

[Cy/MiG]

I got what you meant in the OP. And Dave and Myriads provide great perspectives indeed.

But in my experiences, first impressions/intuitions say alot about a person.

Like the saying goes 'its the little things that count'.

If you meet someone for a short amount of time you CAN pick up on a few little things that can help you base an analytical opinion on them, IMO.

Granted, there's always more than what we see (like Crystal says, everyone wears masks and has layers---especially Ogres, who are like Onions), but in general I believe you can get a pretty solid base of someone pretty quickly.

IMO, actions and words are the basis of the Psyche. What we say and do (or don't) is based on what we think, so it's possible to get a small glimpse into someone's head in a short period of time.

And again, many things could be nothing or clearly speculative and/or guesses, but in general there are certain traits and charaterisics that classify certain types of people.

Deep psycho-analysis no, but basic little things that can lead to bigger things, perhaps... I say anyways.

 

[venray]

Can you? why would you ant to? What's in it for you? Whole thing seems kinda silly to me.....

And we dont get graded for punctuation Red....NOT a prereq for posting.

just dont read the stuff if you cant wrap your mind around it, but there is no reason to attack someone who doesnt use perfect grammar or a lot of puctuation...

Seems like a petty beef to me...

 

[-Hari-]

I doubt anyone can truely analyze someone just like that, altho in talking to a well known chap from this forum one day i was stunned at the predictions that were thrown towards me,

During our first proper conversation and with one small peice of information he managed to pretty much sum up my ways and life so far. To the extent I actually learned things about myself that i didnt know, and since then ive actually changed direction for the better. Lucky guess or am I an easy read?

Either way these skills are a gift.


Hari

 

[Deleted member 66627]

Can you?

Some not all. 🙂

why would you ant to?

Why not?

What's in it for you?

Knowledge.

Whole thing seems kinda silly to me.....

You're entitled to your opinion. 🙂

Seems like a petty beef to me...

You're entitled to your opinion. 🙂

 

[Marquis De Sade]

I doubt anyone can truely analyze someone just like that, altho in talking to a well known chap from this forum one day i was stunned at the predictions that were thrown towards me,

During our first proper conversation and with one small peice of information he managed to pretty much sum up my ways and life so far. To the extent I actually learned things about myself that i didnt know, and since then ive actually changed direction for the better. Lucky guess or am I an easy read?

Either way these skills are a gift.


Hari

Wow. You just took me back to high school where this girl did the same thing to me. Read me like a book. Creeped me out completely. We'd known each other for five minutes.

She was really hot though. 😀

Ahem. Anyway, I do think it's possible, but only up to a point since most people can't even figure themselves out and everyone will have a different perspective on something or someone else depending on where they're coming from and have personally experienced or chosen to take in as fact.

It also depends, I think, on what you're looking for. It's easy to look for things that aren't or are there sometimes. It also depends on what you do for a living of course. For some people, like a writer, director, actor, shrink, a doctor, it's their job. I remember listening to a radio show called Love Line and a caller would call in, say one word and Dr. Drew and Adam Carolla would put her on hold and debate what age she was raped. They always either got very close or had it dead on. They did this by listening to voice tone, speech patterns, what was said, etc. And that's the radio.

But, I'm with Venray...why would you want to? It's much more interesting to ask questions and learn on your own. 🙂

 

[venray]

Some not all. 🙂



Why not?



Knowledge.



You're entitled to your opinion. 🙂



You're entitled to your opinion. 🙂

Perhaps we should analyze ourselves and our motives before attempting to "analyze" someone we dont know that well....

And I know I am entitled to my opinion hon...no need to remind me of that...

 

[Deleted member 66627]

Perhaps we should analyze ourselves and our motives before attempting to "analyze" someone we dont know that well....

I couldn't agree with you more! 😀

Excellent point, hon.

 

[venray]

There is a vast set of differences between spotting personality traits and patterns and truly psycho-analyzing a person. So, to jump into the debate... (And since there are many people involved at this point, let me state that this is an overall opinion on the topic, not directed at any particular poster.)

There is a reason that people who psychoanalyze for a living train and go to school longer than most of us own a car or live in the same place. It is one thing to read people's internet posts or interact with them online and notice patterns and quite another to fully understand the underlying reasons for those patterns and personality traits.

Mairead gave us a list of three things involving psychoanalysis. The third is treatment. You can't just do the first two without the third and consider it "psychoanalysis". You don't get to pick and choose which parts you want to perform.

Redmage stated that it doesn't take much to recognize a paranoid shizophrenic. Well....yes it does. Paranoid schizophrenia mimics many other disorders and is rarely diagnosed quickly, and never lightly, even by trained professionals. Can you tell by reading posts that a person is PS and not, say....dissociative? Or suffering from a state of regression? Considering the fact that the same "treatment" or even "personal dealing/interaction" will have vastly different effects for just those three possibilities would make me extremely hesitant to comfortably decide what someone I hardly know is apparently suffering from. The potential for damage is too great.

And that's the real meat of the issue here. Not only is the unqualified psychoanalysis of someone over the internet, someone you don't know, irresponsible...it's potentially extremely dangerous. It's one thing to gather information and collate it into a perceived summation, to "get a rough idea of what the person is about"....and quite another to understand what's NOT being said. The reasons behind things. People will foten say certain things, act certain ways, but hold the motivations for that close to the chest. Let's say a person says "Thing X"....but you don't know why. You think you do. You've put a few things together and pretty assured that you know why. But without it being said, you really don't. Now, let's say Thing X was said because a person is momentarily angry. Or, let's say that Thing X was said because of a deep-seated issue regarding abuse. Or possibly that it's physical and due to a chemical imbalance. Now, you respond with Thing Y, nopt knowing that underlying reason. In the first instance, it will do little more than agitate. Not helpful, but not anything we don't see every single day online. In the second or possibly third cases, you could inadvertantly trigger that person into something you didn't expect. Something potentially dangerous.

Because you were not qualified to see the larger picture. I'll share a little something here. Past couple weeks, I've been dealing with some things, and talking with someone online who has training. It helped a bit, getting an outside perspective. However, at a certain point, this person told me that there was only so much that could be done this way, that he was not qualified to go any further, from a distance and without knowing me better and knowing more of the underlying causes. And I've known said individual for some time.

So, I'd have to say that, no....I don't believe that we can psychoanalyze someone we don't know, or even someone we do if we're not qualified. We can help, we can offer support....but to attempt to psychoanalyze a person without the proper training and qualifications is not only irresponsible, but potentially very dangerous to that individual and to yourself. It's like a car...let's say you don't know a hell of a lot about cars, but you can "figure things out" pretty well. Your friend comes to you and says his brakes aren't working, and there's a puddle of fluid under one of the wheels. So, you hop online and tell him to replace the brake line for that wheel and bleed the brakes. What you didn't know was that the bleeder itself was broken. He does what you tell him, drives his car and gets into an accident. Because you weren't qualified and trained to look for the other possible reasons. A rough analogy, yes...but valid.

Bottom line is, we're all capable of reading into one another to some extent, some more than others. But true psychoanalysis needs to be left to the professionals. It's easier than you'd ever imagine to be wrong and cause more damage than you're fixing. And if you're going to decide to take someone's analysis upon your shoulders, you better damn well be prepared to put responsibility for the possible consequences on those same shoulders when and if you're wrong or misinformed.

Sorry for the long post, but I feel very strongly about this topic.

Once again you have managed to put into words what I would have stumbled over....

Thanks for that...

If we are not trained or qualified we can form opinions and maybe even figure out some things about a personality, but there is no way to "analyze" someone in any great detail when we have no basis for doing so...

 

[BrightEyes1082]

Can you? why would you ant to? What's in it for you? Whole thing seems kinda silly to me.....

It isn't silly at all. It's good to know what kind
of person you're about to get involved with, no
matter how trivial the interaction might be. If
I had spent more time psychoanalyzing, I would
not have married a man with Narcissistic
Personality Disorder. There's nothing wrong with
trying to figure people out.

 

[venray]

It isn't silly at all. It's good to know what kind
of person you're about to get involved with, no
matter how trivial the interaction might be. If
I had spent more time psychoanalyzing, I would
not have married a man with Narcissistic
Personality Disorder. There's nothing wrong with
trying to figure people out.

i only say it is silly as we do not have the qualifications to do the process justice and are more likely to make a mistake in our findings...

I have a reasonably good insight when it comes to people and even I would not attempt to judge whether or not to attempt making contact with someone until i "analyzed" them...

Best way to get to know what someone is llike is to actually talk, chat or interact with them....

again just my opinion, but I still think is is silly to ttempt to do something that one has no practical ability to do...

 

[-Hari-]

Wow. You just took me back to high school where this girl did the same thing to me. Read me like a book. Creeped me out completely. We'd known each other for five minutes.

She was really hot though. 😀

yeah it was abit freaky, but very enlightening 🙂


Hari

 

[Adam]

I'll put it this way. Say you run into somebody and they happen to be having a bad day. Say that person is rude to you. Does that mean said person's personality is always that of a rude, abrasive individual? Of course not. But your initial perception is that they're a jackass. To judge them as such is based off of one experience. Very easy to make that assumption, thought it may very well not be the right one.

 

[venray]

I'll put it this way. Say you run into somebody and they happen to be having a bad day. Say that person is rude to you. Does that mean said person's personality is always that of a rude, abrasive individual? Of course not. But your initial perception is that they're a jackass. To judge them as such is based off of one experience. Very easy to make that assumption, thought it may very well not be the right one.

Well said...you need a lot of interaction before relly knowing someone well enough to make those judgements...

 

[MySoCalledLaugh]

I could be wrong, but I get the impression that your question is more along the lines of whether we can get a decent idea of someone's personality/issues based on the behavior they show us in the short term (internet, brief meeting, etc.) Now, while I completely agree with those who say that you cannot analyze someone that way, you can most definitely get an idea and go with that gut instinct. That immediate vibe is rarely wrong, in my experience, and while getting to know someone better can indeed change your view, that initial 'read' based on what that person is showing the world can hardly be faulted and ignoring it can be a horrible mistake.

I have to respectfully disagree -- to a point, anyway. While science has proven that properly cultivated instinct/intuition can indeed be a very useful tool, not everyone possesses the level of insight, empathy, and/or wisdom derived from experience and self-examination really required to hone that tool into a fine art. A lot of people *think* they have a remarkably accurate gut instinct, but those immediate perceptions can be, and often are, heavily skewed by countless factors such as bias, need, bigotry and projection, to name just a few. And I think that goes to the heart of what Dave and Myriads and others are trying to say, really.

In that spirit, I want to quote Dave's second post here, as I think the point is pertinent.

Even a "read" can be misleading. Sure, it can give one insight and a basis to relate to another, but in the end it really doesn't matter what terminology we use. Psychoanalysis, a "read", insight.....it's still the same thing. Assuming one knows more about a person than they actually do. We can connect all the dots we want from posts and such, but the inherant dangers are still the same, no matter what we choose to call it. It's still assumption. It's still putting a puzzle together without all the pieces. And it still carries great risk when we decide to act a certain way based on faulty "knowledge".

We often base what we think we know about someone on our own experiences as well. We see what we wish to see when confronted with similar patterns. There is no way to "unbias" oneself when the observer may share similar problems, deficiencies, traumas...whatever...with the observed.

Simply put, it's just not possible to do anything more than get a rough idea about anyone's complexities through these means. You never get it all. And we ALL wind up missing key components, because so few of us actually put EVERYTHING out there. Just changing the terminology doesn't change the arguement...everything remains the same. Convincing ourselves that we "know" someone and that we've "figured them out" still runs great risk of possibly damaging or hurting that person if we're reacting based on faulty or incomplete information, regardless of the label we put on it.

I think that trying to "pin" someone's personality in even a general sense is, in other words, a much more difficult feat than some seem to think. And one of the pitfalls of doing so is a potentially dangerous disregard for human complexity.

But that's just my opinion. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

 

[BellaRisa]

I have to respectfully disagree -- to a point, anyway. While science has proven that properly cultivated instinct/intuition can indeed be a very useful tool, not everyone possesses the level of insight, empathy, and/or wisdom derived from experience and self-examination really required to hone that tool into a fine art. A lot of people *think* they have a remarkably accurate gut instinct, but those immediate perceptions can be, and often are, heavily skewed by countless factors such as bias, need, bigotry and projection, to name just a few. And I think that goes to the heart of what Dave and Myriads and others are trying to say, really.

I see what your point of view and I do agree . Having said that, I'm a firm fan of Gavin DeBecker and his books, especially "The Gift of Fear", which I believe everyone, especially women, should read. He discusses in depth how humans very often know that our perceptions can be heavily skewed by the factors you mention, and so we may feel guilty about following those immediate instincts when they could in fact save us from a lot of heartbreak and even save our lives. We're the only species that shuffles our feet and hesitates in the face of fear, other life forms get the hell AWAY from dangerous situations; deer don't worry about whether they're going to hurt a bear's feelings by misjudging him 😛 But seriously, while I most definitely agree that you can't pin a person's true personality immediately and with our layperson's knowledge of the human mind, I am very much a believer in first impressions and gut reactions. Are those subject to change? Absolutely. Can they be dead-on and vital? Again, absolutely.

 

[Marquis De Sade]

I'm a firm fan of Gavin DeBecker and his books, especially "The Gift of Fear", which I believe everyone, especially women, should read.

$1.67 on Amazon? Might as well get it. Thanks.

 

[xionking]

Unless you're a doctor, leaning more towards a psychologist or psychiatrist, then it's not your job to 'psychoanalyze'. If you are knowledgable in the field, then perhaps 'psychoanalyzing' can be used as a tool to figuring another person out.

'Psychoanalyzing' is very different to 'sussing' another person out, which is what I'm kind of getting out of this whole discussion. Yeah, you can suss another person out, investigate the personality of the subject. However, "psychoanalyzing" without educational knowledge can be harmful. Trying to understand the "patterns" that may help explain another person's personality traits without expert knowledge in the field is outright dangerous.

My advice for the person who is trying to "psychoanalyze"...get off your pedistool, and enroll in a 6 year university course.

Perhaps then you can figure me out.

That's my opinion.

-Xionking

 

[BellaRisa]

$1.67 on Amazon? Might as well get it. Thanks.

Amazon has amazing prices on used books and DVDs; between that site and Ebay I never leave the house to shop anymore

 

[TklDuo-Ann]

People trying to psychoanalyze someone they don't really know is one of my pet peeves. But, I'll try to keep this from becoming a rant.

I've always been into psych. It was my major in college. I've always tried to make myself available to people to be an ear and perhaps echo some things back depending on the situation. But, I've never tried to assume that I know exactly where someone else is coming from or what they're feeling at any particular time. And I sure as hell don't try to tell them what they're feeling...though I may ask.

Why? Because it drives me up the damned wall when people are arrogant/ignorant enough to try to do so with me. I had this one friend (notice the past tense) who would do this all the time. Just because she would feel a certain way in a given situation doesn't mean that I would necessarily feel the same. Frankly, I view people who do this kind of thing as being very self centered. Why else would what I feel or don't feel have to be colored by what THEY feel? It's ludicrous!

That having been said, I do believe that people can make some general observations about what they see...especially if patterns develop over time. The danger comes in starting with an assumption and allowing that to color everything we see no matter what may challenge it. There is no way of knowing for sure what a person is feeling, what their background is or what personality issues they may have unless you go well beyond being a casual observer. In fact, I consider it to be potentially dangerous and irresponsible to attempt to do so.

When I share back and forth with people, I tend to avoid making assumptions. (We all know what they say about assumptions.) I'll hear them out, share a bit of my own experience, if any, in the topic at hand to allow them to see if there are similarities that can help me better understand where they are coming from and simply be supportive. While I've had some folks tell me that I should have been a counsellor, I know that I'm not qualified to do so well at this point. So, I don't try to present myself as having that ability.

I may add more later. But, I'm still waking up after my first decent night of sleep in a month. So, I'll close for now and spare everyone the rambling that would otherwise ensue.

 

[ViperGTS]

Some of us believe that we may have a higher sensitivity to the mental wavelengths of others. Therefore, we may not be able to control some of the instincts that we feel about certain people. More often than not, when I meet someone for the first time, I get a general feeling about them, either positive or negative, to varying degrees. After having a conversation with them, that feeling is given more detail as I learn about the person.

That doesn't mean I am making a judgement - but I trust my instincts.

 

[dvnc]

Can you? Some can. Not many. Hell, there's psych trained folks who don't do so well, and some who naturally read folks well, sans training.

If you're not naturally proven to do this with great acuity, then it's usually best to actually get to know 'em.

Instinct, though, is good when proven accurate. Even then, we get fooled. Most of humanity reads people well enough for safety's sake, until that someone is a desired intimate. Then a read can get REALLY wrong. Even when ya learn to handle that, you read what's shown.

People are almost always deeper than what's shown. For this I'm thankful.

You're gonna do it anyway, though. Readin' people's actions and reactions, their responses and behaviors, begins in infancy.

I'm more curious as to why you'd ask. Then again, it's none o' my damned biz, so there ya go. 😉

 

[Deleted member 66627]

Oh bloody hell.

http://www.ticklingforum.com/showpost.php?p=1827281&postcount=26

^-- Inspiration for the thread.

🙂