While it's interesting to read about these concepts in the context of the time they were established (even if they do come off as hopelessly classist) I have always despised how they become conventional wisdom far beyond their shelf life. It compels people to ignore their unique life circumstances in favor of a shortcut explanation that may not apply to them at all. I've always been similarly wary of concepts like "r…
Very well put. I feel most popular content about {categorized mental dynamic} has gone through a sort of natural selection of ideas, where they evolve to appear as very sound explanations to a general, population-scale public forum. But they equivalently become pointlessly broad brushes when applied to problems whose natures arise from nuanced and unique individual lives.
And just because an idea has alluring memetic “aha! that explains it!” power, it doesn’t mean it’s true, particularly regarding mental states. I do believe there will someday be a generalizable-yet-customizable framework for understanding, but at the moment, there's definitely a systemic correlation between the distribution of an idea and its vagueness (like medium articles about productivity)
So I find it’s most helpful to have an in-depth discussion with another human (familiar with the situation if possible). As a bonus, you can then incorporate knowledge from your own relationship with that person, perhaps an understanding of how they think too, and thus get a more complete picture.
After such discussions, I inevitably think, “Wow, no way that nuance could have been pinpointed in society’s general discussion of this topic.”
Some of the (IMO) most productive conversations I’ve had with friends re: our psychology and life reflections, I feel would be torn to smithereens or ridiculed by “modern” popular understandings.