Threesology Research Journal: Evolutionary Psychdynamics
Evolutionary Psychodynamics 7
(Dichtotomization versus Trichotomization)
→→→ Tripartite Collection 1 ←←←


EP 1 EP 2 EP 3 EP 4 EP 5 EP 6
EP 7 EP 8 EP 9 EP 10 EP 11 EP 12


Flag Counter
Trichotomizologists as of Nov. 22, 2024

Psychoanalysis involves a research into the history of an individual. Oftentimes however, the person may not be as forthcoming as a psychologist wants, and they must therefore rely on bits and pieces of information as clues. For example, if the individual has a criminal record, the record may be faulty and not provide an accurate picture of an individual, and simply point out negative aspects. Even then a given psychoanalyst or counselor or social worker may have some underlying bias which causes them to be less investigative then another professional might be, so they rely heavily on the judgment of others who may have been unduly harsh and critical in their assessments. Whereas a police officer or detective can view a person in a very superficial way and use the excuse that it is not their job to make judgments or the disposition of an ongoing criminal case, this is not the situation when a person confronts an attempt to "investigatively" psychoanalyze a subject such as Psychology, though any subject can similarly be scrutinized.

An attempt to Psychoanalyze Psychology means that you have to adopt the view that Psychology is a person, much in the manner that the U.S. Supreme court sided with the Business community's effort to protect individual leaderships in business from any wrong doing that they would collectively be involved with, by saying that their collective actions of wrong doing are not actually at fault, but it is the overall business that is guilty because it is a distinct individual. Yes, the legal mumbo-jumbo used to defend the Court's decision is expressed differently than I am expressing, but the bottom line is that the court allowed individuals in a business to shirk legal responsibility by allowing a business to be viewed as a person by claiming a "personhood". In actuality, it is little different than an act of childish anthropomorphism... where an inanimate object is attributed with human distinctions. The legal system is where basic, antiquated models of Anthropology takes place using a different vocabulary.

Anyway, the point is that Psychology (and every other subject for that matter) can be viewed as a "person", with a hood, cap, helmet, hat, scarf, raincoat, bandana, or their baby suit. By so doing, an investigation into Psychology should unveil the behavioral activity involving a Persistence of Dichotomies. Yep, those who study Psychology (and many students are forced to), might otherwise be noted as Dualists. And those who make a career of relying on some model of psychology, be it a counselor, teacher, police officer, doctor, etc., are forced to rely on a knowledge of dualities, though each of them in their own relative contests, may also harbor some fashionable middle ground alternative such as describing the sequence of black and white with a grey area. In the field of Psychology, we find that older practioners may well come to voice the opinion about the usage of dichotomies, saying that patients need to be directed along a path of recognizing an alternative, but never actually describe the path with some recognizable identity. In other words, while they recognize "Dichotomy" they don't equally recognize "Trichotomy". There is no professional recognition of Trichotomization by Psychology, nor any other subject.

Permit to recap the foregoing:

The Study of Psychology starts out as a History Course, as if it were a person:

  1. What its name implies/means/represents.
  2. Where it came from and when.
  3. Who are its ancestral and current parental figures.
  4. What kind of work it is involved in.
  5. How its efforts contribute to society.
  6. Why it comes across as being mysterious
    • and having some enigmatic power which makes many people feel uncomfortable.
    • and is used self-referentially to judge one's level of normalcy or saneness.
    • and is applied as a weapon or tool.

At school, the person named Psychology became quite popular and attracted the attention of another popular classmate called Behavior, whereby they very often are said to be inseparable, like siblings joined at the hip... and are spoken of in the same breath. However Behavior had attracted its own following of friends which called themselves Behaviorists, while Psychology's fame attracted different folks with different strokes who adopted the name Psychology as if it provided more prestige to themselves, much in the manner that many speak of Mathematics or some other profession to give the impression of greater importance. Colloquially, it is called name dropping. Whereby to speak of a famous name as if having familiarity with them, their esteem somehow transfers to them as well... yet so does the beliefs and eccentricities that Psychology exhibits.

Advanced courses in Psychology often digress into the minutia of different interests which may be used to influence someone along some career path where additional studies incorporate various psychological themes which lean heavily on Philosophy, such as Social Psychology whose parental figures are Sociology and Psychology. Analogously it is like children gathered around a non-biological parent close relative for a family photo, while a strict study of Psychology (as THE biological parent) involves other disciplines to be incorporated into its overall portrait, frequently exhibiting the name "psychology" as the last, or surname.

However, "Psyche-ology" (as a study of the mind according to its name tag) is the true parent where a few adherents to its name-sake gospel come to find out that it also has parents which have parents extending backwards into a time where the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) is to be encountered... thus revealing a much deeper history than any single subject can take stock of with their respective philosophy and symbology. In other words, pure psychology (as a study of the mind as the primary interest) is to be distinguished by its faithful children as opposed to those subjects which adopt the name "psychology" like those in the past who were given or took the name of a landowner, boss, hero, tribe, place, occupation or adopting parent.

In short, the foundations of basic Psychology did not just happen overnight. It has a history of origination that needs to be uncovered if we are to assist it in overcoming the rut it is in, and that others have come to mimic in some fashion.

A study of Psychology commonly referenced (at least it was a few decades ago) as a study of the mind, involves a study of multiple subjects which in-turn in the present era, reframes Psychology under some other heading for a particular application or dominant interest. Whereas Psyche-ology was initially proposed as a study of the mind, acquired the attribute of "behavior" (good or bad) which was seen as a product of the mind, or environment and Nature, eventually producing the dichotomous notion of blaming or giving credit to the effects of Nature or Nuturing. Hence, the Nature/Nurture controversy. from their the study of behavior in different contexts, with the former "study of the mind" as an initiated purity of research, was taken over as being less of a priority then the contextual setting in which a brand of psychology became a branch upon which different subjects carved their initials. A small sampling of these initialled branches makes this apparent:

  • Abnormal psychology
  • Adolescent psychology
  • Applied psychology
  • Biological psychology
  • Behavioral psychology
  • Clinical psychology
  • Comparative psychology
  • Consumer psychology
  • Developmental psychology
  • Educational psychology
  • Experimental psychology
  • Folk psychology
  • Forensic psychology
  • Gestalt psychology
  • Humanistic psychology
  • Marketplace psychology
  • Psychology of Crime and Criminals (Criminology)
  • Psychology of loss
  • Psycholog of love
  • Psychology of pain
  • Rational psychology
  • Sports psychology
  • etc...

Please note there is no explicitly named "Psychology of Psychology", perhaps because if Psychology psychoanalyzed itself, it would illustrate its own practiced neuroses... if not psychoses, except for the fact the whole world is mad as a hatter and therefore can not see its own insanity because everyone is looney tunes crazy (except for myself since I'm an alien, Ha!).

"Psyche- ology" as a study of the mind, with "behavior" portrayed as an appendage, though it presents us with a sticky egg/chicken or horse/wagon-cart consideration of which came first; needs to be differentiated from "Philosophy of mind", in which the modern formula of the "Mind/Body" dichotomy (attributed to Rene Descartes) takes center stage as the primary model of discussion. Unless we consider another dichotomy called the brain/mind scenario, such as whether the first brain also come with a remnant of a mind or that the mind was absent until the brain reached a certain level of activity; we may not find a way out of the constructed morass, without also encountering the tri-ality (three part reality) of brain/mind/consciousness.

In addition, we then run into considerations of memory, which are often described in terms which can be enumerated such as when describing types of memory or the quantity/quality of items which can be remembered, and whetter or not rudimentary memory involves a simplistic account of subtizing, as is described by the actions of animals exhibiting what some believe to be a type of memorization, though it is uncertain if what they (and humans) are engaged with, or is it simply a function of behaviorism involving rewards and punishments consistent with the type of brain matter a given species possesses. In other words, do humans actually remember, or is the mental function we call as memory, a practiced behavior involving a system of rewarded nemonics like getting bigger muscles from a routine of lifting weights?

However, no matter which photo-shoot setting is used, they are all Black and White, no matter how colorful they may be dressed up as. My use of "black and white" is a metaphor for the use of dichotomies. The basic mental content used by Psychology, and adopted by multiple disciplines, is the representation of dichotomous thinking in different ways, no matter how often you may here someone describe themselves as including a 3rd item "grey" area. Psychology, viewed as an individual, has its own neuroses, its own type of insanity which has been leached out into the public and shared by multiple disciplines. Yet because there are older disciplines of thought processing which proceeded it in time, a researcher needs to look at those fields of study to uncover the premiere influence of dichotomous thinking. However, for the moment, let me briefly mention them as commerce/bartering, mathematics, and philosophy, one of which is the old duality system of the Chinese known widely as the Yin/Yang collection.

I chanced upon the forth-coming list as I was rummaging about the internet in search of "two-patterned" examples featured as dualities or dichotomies to be used as part of a discussion on one of the pages for the Old Novum Organum Threesiarum preface page A section. And even though I am familiar with many of those selectively listed, it has been more years than I can remember when I last took a psychology course in the stone ages when I walked with Lucy (of Anthropology fame) to school. Even more humorously, it was during an age when Freud was still in diapers (though he had a beard even then) and babbling about some comedian troupe he had seen on TV called the Id- Ego- Superego, long before the 3 stooges made their debut. Yet I don't in any particular way remember being introduced to the idea concerning the persistence of dichotomies even when there was a resounding prominence not only in Psychology, but Philosophy, Mathematics, Sociology, and Biology. (This is long before computers where used to take notes in class.) In retrospect, a profile of dichotomous thinking does in fact persist as highlighted by Dr. Street. I'm sorry to say I never had the opportunity to speak with him about it.

Each of us uses our own variations of a dichotomous perspective from time to time. Then again, as I had already been collecting examples of threes long before I entered college, there was no reference to Trichotomization, though a visiting Anthropologist from Mexico briefly mentioned "threes", after which he mention Dr. Allen Dundez's book "Every Man his way" in which is described a chapter entitled "The Number Three in American Culture". While he gave several examples, it paled in comparison to the one I was working on and I was taken aback by his end-of-the page comment that threes were not a part of Nature but a part of the Nature of Culture.

Stated as such, it is necessary to point out the need for a distinction with respect to dichotomies (or if you prefer, dualities). The realization which should more rightly be proffered is that there is a Persistence of Dichotomization. At least in some respects, and obviously used quite often when philosophically discussing aspects of psychology. While some may want to argue that such a persistence in thinking is due to the actual presence of dichotomies (such as two eyes, two ears, etc...), it should be noted that an alternative array of dichotomies (or dualities) does not typically accompany nor become accumulated in a similar manner as does a listing of various trichotomies.

While three-part ideas have been created:...

... Their creators and the whole of Psychology have overlooked the prevailing cognitive contrast, despite the embedded usage of dichotomization, because they all failed to establish a professional description of Trichotomization occurring with the human mind. (Yes it is granted that the development of the human mind has multiple variables of influence such as diet, culture, global weathering, etc..)

Many a professional will speak of dualities and may or may not use the term "dichotomization", but you will not routinely (if ever) encounter a frequent usage of words such as trialities or "Trichotomization". While it is a given for a psychiatrist to look at the whole of an individual such as their physiology and biochemistry as well as a full medical workup to detect if any physical abnormalities may be contributing to a presumed mental illness as a link to describing why a person is acting in a presumed non-normal or abnormal way, the fact that human anatomy is replete with patterns-of-three is not viewed in terms of its relationship to human cognition... and in particular whether or not a person is undergoing a developmental evolutionary transition from perceiving the world mostly in dichotomies to viewing more trichotomies.

Since there is evidence that the human body does in fact incorporate fundamental biological parts which have a history of developing along a 1- 2- 3 sequence, it is quite rational to think that maybe, under the correct circumstances, an individual's mind may be experiencing the travails (growing pains) of transitioning into the reality of a "three-scape" visage, though most everyone around them are remain embedded in a world of dichotomies. Perhaps the use of an analogy may be of help to some readers:

Like a person finding themselves on a third floor where the view enables them to see further than those on the second floor, even if they do not have a vocabulary or ability to understand what they are seeing, because their former life was based on a vocabulary and understanding developed by a culture of those who exist solely at the 2nd and perhaps 1st levels... how are they to react if no one believes them because in order to see what has been experience, a type of developmental form of evolutionary cognition must take place? If they speak of their experience(s), and the so-called leaders and professionals of the "two" world are not cognizant of such, and can not even be led by the hand to the 3rd floor, what are they to make of the person who may become distraught over the differences being developed... because no one (at least in their immediate social environment) knows what they are talking about... and instead thinks they are on drugs or have some mental illness?

When thousands of people gravitate towards Psychology where the dominant landscape is to have a type of thinking immersed in dualities, and they may not even be aware of this, and the subject is taught with a recurring list of dualities from which an expansive form of philosophy is born, what does a person experiencing a developmental evolutionary change in thinking in terms of trichotomization do? Thousands of fledgling trichotomists are faced with few options to become normalized, and are thus forced towards adopting behaviors which conceal, delude, obfuscate, deny, and otherwise reject their developing cognition.

If Trichotomization is a portrait of an Evolutionary based developmental trend of human cognition, a person experiencing such a situation may have no one on a professional level of understanding and insight to share their experiences with, except for those charlatans seeking to advantage themselves by way of adopting some role of acceptance but no real aptitude for preparing or encouraging the person for further development.

When the playgrounds of High schools and Universities that teach psychology courses do so with a necessity of immersing students into a world of dichotomization that other subjects reflect as well (including mathematics and law: legal doublets), how can we prepare future generations when the idea of trichotomization is confronted by an environment where negative labels (such as numerology and obsessive/compulsive) are used by dichotomists as a defense mechanism against the new kid on the block where being a "dualist" is akin to being a fencing duelist, which at one time was an event sanctified by both Religion and law.

Let us look at the "concept of threes" from a very simple and colloquial perspective of examination:

Do we say the following list of "threes" and 3-to-1 ratios is a coincidence? How about if we ask whether the presumed god of Nature is a Numerologist? If not a Numerologist, then is this god an Intelligent being who utilizes simple patterns to convey knowledge and wisdom, and one of these patterns just happens to be a pattern-of-three? Then why aren't theologians the world over paying reference to such a pattern outside of internal hierarchical structuring and promoting a series of practices involving a pattern-of-three? Why are they stuck on patterns such as 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 40, 748 and others, which are few in both quantity and quality? When we find that the life of Jesus is filled with multiple expressions of the "three", why aren't all the supposed Christian religious leaders making a reference thereto... if not because they are either ignorant, or because god can only speak to those who are truly open to the message being broadcast in multiple domains from Art to Zoology?

When the word of god is not limited to the bindings of religious texts, why do so many religions attempt to convey that their god restricts messages to their particular medium and only they and their followers are properly suited —by way of fidelity to their faith— to direct all others to a supposed truth they do not themselves know... though it stares them in the face, like the recurring list of threes in Anatomy? Since when do religions tell god what to do and not do? Since when do religions own god? Says who... who is to say that god can not use Evolution or any other method of design? How dare theologians pretend to know god and place god into the jail cell of their religious text, and bind god with superstitions akin to the stupid decisions once practiced by the Chinese such as by forcing many women to bind their feet which caused a needless torturous life based on a mental state of "stupidstition" for some laughable measure of beauty.

Page Initiated: Saturday, 14th December, 2024... 7:22 AM
Initial Posting: Tuesday, 17th December, 2024... 2:13 PM