<p>I'm currently conversing in the context of <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/collective-unconscious" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Carl Jung's concept of collective unconscious</a> and Rollo May's concept of Dasein (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167815613880" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ratner, 2019</a>). I frequently notice that some social contexts are very interrelated.</p>
<p>For example, someone from a certain community (e.g. online gaming) would be talking to me about a specific topic that would usually be exclusive to a closed niche (e.g. the beauty in combining the color blue with the color orange). And then another person from a totally different community (e.g. a group of friends from the finance community) will be talking to me about the same.</p>
<p>I think one reason for this is that these two different persons have a common social context (e.g. the TV) apart from the community where I separately have common ground with them (e.g. online gaming and finance). Another possible explanation is that they keep noticing the blue and orange color combination in me and they're just obfuscating facts because it would be socially inappropriate to tell me directly. The latter could be true, but I wonder why it happens very commonly.</p>
<p>I've also had some readings regarding behavior that said that when such kind of random reinforcement interval happens, a <a href="https://psychology.uiowa.edu/comparative-cognition-laboratory/glossary/superstitious-behavior" rel="nofollow noreferrer">superstition</a> is usually formed. And I think this reinforcement-based superstition theory is true because I've started doing an investigation on conspiracy theories related to this as an effect of my &quot;blue and orange&quot; experiences.</p>
<p>I actually found related conspiracy theories like the <a href="https://blogs.adams.edu/thepawprint/disney-princesses-to-blame-for-lack-of-boyfriend/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">theory about Disney princesses</a> which says that the media is actually conditioning the mind of children to search for their &quot;prince charming&quot;. Another more credible concept is the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/invisible-hand" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Invisible Hand by Adam Smith</a>.</p>
<p>My question is, could it be possible that this archetype of the collective unconscious is actually &quot;alive&quot; in the sense that it is continuously evolving and directing us (e.g. through &quot;blue and orange&quot; hints)? What related questions would I need to ask in order to answer this inquiry?</p>
<h2>References</h2>
<p>Ratner, J. (2019). Rollo May and the Search for Being: Implications of May’s Thought for Contemporary Existential-Humanistic Psychotherapy. <em>Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 59</em>(2), 252-268. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167815613880" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167815613880</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-26T17:07:57.703Z
Welcome to Psychology.SE.  I have made a start for you to help reference what you are talking about but more is needed in my mind. You said *"I've also had some readings regarding behavior that said that when such kind of random reinforcement interval happens, a superstition is usually formed"* Can you please [edit] to add some examples of these texts so we can look at what you have read on this? Are there better examples of the other references I provided? If so, can you please [edit] your question to suit?
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-26T20:35:23.853Z
Thanks, Chris. I've edited the question and included literature links about superstition and the Disney princesses theory.
damat-perdigannat
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-27T06:38:18.033Z
Great @damat-perdigannat - I have now voted to re-open this question. Hopefully you will receive enough votes to get it re-opened. Whilst [I am a defender of Freudian and Neo-Freudian psychology](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2248), please be aware that this covers areas of psychology [considered by some here to be pseudoscientific](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2242)
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-29T09:42:55.717Z
The closure of this question and reopening vote is raised at https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2527/7604
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-29T11:32:38.643Z
_"they keep noticing the blue and orange color combination in me and they're just obfuscating facts because it would be socially inappropriate to tell me directly"_ What do you mean by them "noticing colors in you"? Also, aesthetics/color theory apply to many different domains, as you gave examples of. In what sense are those types of observations related "exclusive[ly] to a closed niche"?
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-01T08:03:51.787Z
@StevenJeuris "noticing" - coming to senses "exclusive to a closed niche" - a seemingly random discussion about the blue and orange color combination would not jump from the online gaming niche to the finance community, i suppose. and this is where my actual question is coming from
damat-perdigannat
<reference-request><unconscious><jung>
A Collective Unconscious That's Alive?
damat-perdigannat
# A Collective Unconscious That's Alive?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-08-25)

I'm currently conversing in the context of [Carl Jung's concept of collective unconscious](https://www.britannica.com/science/collective-unconscious) and Rollo May's concept of Dasein ([Ratner, 2019](https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167815613880)). I frequently notice that some social contexts are very interrelated.

For example, someone from a certain community (e.g. online gaming) would be talking to me about a specific topic that would usually be exclusive to a closed niche (e.g. the beauty in combining the color blue with the color orange). And then another person from a totally different community (e.g. a group of friends from the finance community) will be talking to me about the same.

I think one reason for this is that these two different persons have a common social context (e.g. the TV) apart from the community where I separately have common ground with them (e.g. online gaming and finance). Another possible explanation is that they keep noticing the blue and orange color combination in me and they're just obfuscating facts because it would be socially inappropriate to tell me directly. The latter could be true, but I wonder why it happens very commonly.

I've also had some readings regarding behavior that said that when such kind of random reinforcement interval happens, a [superstition](https://psychology.uiowa.edu/comparative-cognition-laboratory/glossary/superstitious-behavior) is usually formed. And I think this reinforcement-based superstition theory is true because I've started doing an investigation on conspiracy theories related to this as an effect of my "blue and orange" experiences.

I actually found related conspiracy theories like the [theory about Disney princesses](https://blogs.adams.edu/thepawprint/disney-princesses-to-blame-for-lack-of-boyfriend/) which says that the media is actually conditioning the mind of children to search for their "prince charming". Another more credible concept is the [Invisible Hand by Adam Smith](https://www.britannica.com/topic/invisible-hand).

My question is, could it be possible that this archetype of the collective unconscious is actually "alive" in the sense that it is continuously evolving and directing us (e.g. through "blue and orange" hints)? What related questions would I need to ask in order to answer this inquiry?

## References

Ratner, J. (2019). Rollo May and the Search for Being: Implications of May’s Thought for Contemporary Existential-Humanistic Psychotherapy. *Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 59*(2), 252-268. <https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167815613880>

**Tags:** reference-request, unconscious, jung

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Welcome to Psychology.SE.  I have made a start for you to help reference what you are talking about but more is needed in my mind. You said *"I've also had some readings regarding behavior that said that when such kind of random reinforcement interval happens, a superstition is usually formed"* Can you please [edit] to add some examples of these texts so we can look at what you have read on this? Are there better examples of the other references I provided? If so, can you please [edit] your question to suit?  
> **username_0**: Thanks, Chris. I've edited the question and included literature links about superstition and the Disney princesses theory.  
> **username_1**: Great @username_0 - I have now voted to re-open this question. Hopefully you will receive enough votes to get it re-opened. Whilst [I am a defender of Freudian and Neo-Freudian psychology](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2248), please be aware that this covers areas of psychology [considered by some here to be pseudoscientific](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2242)  
> **username_1**: The closure of this question and reopening vote is raised at https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2527/7604  
> **username_2**: _"they keep noticing the blue and orange color combination in me and they're just obfuscating facts because it would be socially inappropriate to tell me directly"_ What do you mean by them "noticing colors in you"? Also, aesthetics/color theory apply to many different domains, as you gave examples of. In what sense are those types of observations related "exclusive[ly] to a closed niche"?  
> **username_0**: @StevenJeuris "noticing" - coming to senses "exclusive to a closed niche" - a seemingly random discussion about the blue and orange color combination would not jump from the online gaming niche to the finance community, i suppose. and this is where my actual question is coming from  

---

## 0 answers

