{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028481012658227847, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0015822784810126582, 'mean_word_length': 5.170731707317073, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Psychology as Religioethical Thinking

For centuries, as far back as Mesmer's theory of animal magnetism, modern psychology has influenced our cultural symbols-our images of the kinds of people we should become, our ideas about child rearing, our understandings of morality, and our ideas about religion. The New England mind cure movement and the cult of positive thinking were two movements influenced by early popular psychologies. More recently, there have been several scholarly attempts to characterize the impact of the modern psychologies on the emerging modern character. Riesman's concept of the other-directed person, Fromm's idea of the marketing personality, Rieffs theory of psychological man, Lifton's portrayal of protean man, Lasch's analysis of the culture of narcissism, and the writings of my colleague Peter Homans, myself, and many others have contributed to the effort to chart this startling power of the modern psychological disciplines to shape the cultural symbols of modern life.2 Theology itself has been influenced, in both form and content, by the modern psychologies, as can be witnessed in my work as well as that of Paul Tillich, Victor White, H. R. Niebuhr, Daniel Williams, Gregory Baum, and Thomas Oden, to mention only a few.3