>"There is literally nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire Freudian system or any of its component dogmas" -Psychological Science journal
If Freud's work was so utterly wrong about everything, how come people still tout psychoanalysis as something legit?
Other urls found in this thread:
tonyortega.org
twitter.com
It had immense influence and it sounds intellectual so it impresses plebs
Ignorance and conservatism, same reason with Saussurian linguistics.
>-Psychological Science journal
Because it has the "sicence" word in it, It should be true
>my daddy told me freud is not legit so instead of communicative anything productive or at least reading the material I talk about I will retranslate ideological doxa to my buddies who will support me in this quest
It wasn't "so utterly wrong about everything". It provided models for explaining certain things, and it did its job just well enough. Therapeutically it also worked because of the nature of therapy. Also, sometimes, solving a problem analogically can be just as good as solving it directly.
The problem psychologists have with it stems from there being lots of inferences in between to where you end up with a lot of clutter and filler bullshit, and from it not really being science. It's just too close to philosophy for a field that's pretty big on being taken seriously as a science.
Either way, there's some very neat things about Freud's work - his understanding of development is awesome and the Eros-Thanatos shit is pretty interesting. Freud also stated something along the lines of there being no difference in content between a healthy and an unhealthy mind, saying the difference instead is in the intensity of certain drives.Where it starts getting weird is the over-emphasis on sexualiziation and putting too much thought into things like lapsuses and missed acts.
Either way, whoever wrote the greentext just sounds salty.
communicating*
Why do people still believe in God?
I don't know about the psychology of others, but Freud's ideas perfectly address my pathology to a t.
>this butthurt
Nobody in academia takes Freud seriously. All the value left in his oeuvre is as a historical curiosity. His interpretations of dreams and the western canon still hold literary value. That's all.
For the same reason Scientology and Dianetic therapy still exist. People aren't interested in truth but whether or not it "works".
>Nobody in academia takes Freud seriously.
appeal to authority
>All the value left in his oeuvre is as a historical curiosity.
there are a lot of psychoanalytical schools who follow freud and literally heal people with mental problems.
DUDE SEX LMAO
he wasn't "wrong." all of psychology (and similar fields, philosophy and literature) is a way of conceptualization and putting the same phenomena into words. Freud's words and theories are still enjoyed and used by many people, both laymen and professionals. The only reason anyone would call him "wrong" is if they are heavy into modern neuroscience and reduce everything to brain circuitry, which leaves out the socio-political aspect of physchology, which Freud among others accounted for.
you should read some Freud and you'll know what I'm talking about.
this
studies have shown that the pysch school of thought belong to isn't as important as the quality of the therapist
More of a Grofian-Rankian myself. Sexuality begins in the womb.
ITT: freudian cooks
Because he's (((Jewish))).(((Jews))) are the masters of degenracy.And degeneracy has a way of seducing you.
>I will retranslate ideological doxa to my buddies who will support me in this quest
How ironic
Who dis nuqqa?
what is your way to "truth"?
>"There is literally nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire western cannon or any of its component dogmas" -Psychological Science journal
"There is literally everything to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire Freudian system or any of its component dogmas" -Psychological Science journal (later issue)
>Psychological Science journal (later issue)
It was later found out the 2 publishers of the article in that earlier issue both raped their mothers
Truth is a conformity with reality and an agreement with facts. There's a large variety of methods that can be employed to find truth like the Socratic or Scientific but I'm not quite sure what this has to do with what I said. I never proposed or endorsed any specific way to find truth, I merely said people aren't interested in it and that they're only interested in what they subjectively feel "works".
> they're only interested in what they subjectively feel "works".
How are you so sure you dont do the same?
did you scientifically verify that the OP quote is taken from an actual journal and that OP didnt just make it up for a bait thread?
Because I examine my beliefs and alter them accordingly. I don't accept things as true without a reason to believe it. What are you doing?
No because the truthness isn't relevant to the point I made.
I'm just trying to understand how you just don't the same thing Scientologists or dianeticfags do. Because "your beliefs" looks like something subjective aswell.
What are my beliefs?
IDK, irrelevant to the point.
Of course they're relevant if you're going to accuse me of being like Scientologists who aren't interested in the truth. If you don't know what my beliefs are then how can you make the comparison?
>Scientologists who aren't interested in the truth
would a scientologist agree about this?.
When cornered and forced to answer they would recognize that they're actually interested in the truth but what they feel works. I use this testimony from a former Scientologist as evidence.
tonyortega.org
>But Vance, we have to ask, do Scientologists today understand that L. Ron Hubbard based the ideas in this book on the barest understanding of computing as it existed in 1950? And that his simplified calculation — that the unaberrated human mind is “error-free” and works perfectly until those darn aberrations mess things up, is once again a supposition that he provides no evidence to back up and no way for an independent researcher to double check?
>VANCE: It’s tough to say what Scientologists think because discussion and speculation are prohibited in Scientology. Any discussion of Scientology risks polluting a Scientologist’s mind with “false data” and “out-tech.” And so discussions of what people think about “the tech” are nonexistent. As a Scientologist, the information comes from LRH’s lips and fingers to your ears and eyeballs. To know what Scientologists think, you have to pick up clues from periodic oblique comments. The impression I always got is that most Scientologists think that the particulars are unimportant. In other words, Scientologists are perfectly willing to accept that the material is made from 100 percent (error-free) brain farts. The only question that matters is, Does it work? Just don’t answer that question negatively, not if you want to stay out of Ethics trouble.
>Now, if you actually managed to verbally corner a Scientologist, I think the average one would concede that the error-free-computer analogy is a slight exaggeration because, after all, LRH says that “absolutes are unobtainable.” (And as with any cult ideology, there’s always an out, many outs.) Scientologists don’t give a hoot whether any establishment-qualified clinical trials had ever been done. Even to ask about something like that would be a near blasphemy insofar as it would reflect some skepticism about the Man’s claims. In one of his early lectures, LRH claims that he cleared an unspecified number of people. Unfortunately, their case histories got lost (no explanation is given). Oopsy-daisy. And so, those original Clears all got lost from the scientific record. Bummer. But it proves that LRH did clear people. Right?
>So far as Scientologists are concerned, if LRH says that it works, then it works. Period. So what if he didn’t write down any research notes? The stuff works. That’s what’s important. Oh? It doesn’t work? Who says? Who got to you? Who’s been talking to you? Where’d you get that false data from? You better keep you eye on that guy. He’s not looking out for your best interests. Scientology WORKS!
>that they're actually interested in the truth
I mean not actually interested in the truth, of course.
Lol Freud would have a word about that slip.
Anyway. as Nietzche says there are no facts only interpretations.
Maybe your interpretation is better. I'll give you that.
>Lol Freud would have a word about that slip.
Does it involve sex with my mother?
most likely no.
try The Psychopathology of Everyday Life. There are no references to incests and is a good way to get an idea about the unconscious mind.
dismissing freud is one of the most reddit things you can do
this.
Freud was only wrong if you judge by certain parameters, ie the metrics used in contemporary neuroscience and evolutionary psychology.
His insights into the way people think and behave are just as worthwhile as ever, but they aren't quantifiable or measurable in any way that scientists would be happy with. But considering most of psychology is just trendiness and barely science, it shouldn't really matter. The fact that many people seem to think psychological states should be easily reducible to quantifiable data is concerning, and should cause doubt about the field of psychology.
The difference between Freud and contemporary neuroscience is the difference between an artist and someone who analyses the pigment of paints. It is the difference between an old fashioned ethicist and Sam Harris. It is the difference between a racing car driver and an auto-engineer.
Most psychology is the same. Don't approach it for its scientific and therapeutic value, approach it for free-form introspection value. I personally wouldn't bother putting weight into any of his work but some may find it useful anyway.
there is nothing fraued could possibly do better for a patient a cocktail of drugs couldnt do better
As the saying goes, there's a different between good, sound arguments and arguments that sound good. A lot of humanitiesfags can't accept that in practice. If a theory sounds good to them, they'll defend it to the death.
>letting big pharma to play with the chemistry of your brain.
good luck.
1. That's not true. Drugs aren't usually the best solution to most people's problems 2. Freud's applications extend philosophically, not just for psychotherapy.
>t. haven't read Freud.
H
I have tho
>arguments that sound good
The arguments speak to peoples experience. And Freudian analysis is very apt for analyzing a lot of cultural thought. Just because it isn't quantifiable in any empirical way doesn't discount the validity of his ideas philosophically. After all, we are talking about something immeasurable, the psyche.
>being this brainwashed by big pharma
hope you took your ADHD medication today
Freud is the poster boy of jewish pseudoscience, the prototype of the perverted kike running Hollywood and the porn industry today. Real mentally fucked people these jews are.
>reading the material I talk about I will retranslate ideological doxa to my b
I'm not even a Freud/Jung supporter but that is just retarded
sorry I wanted to quote this post
Freud is a complete retard.His ideas are criminally wrong and harmful.
SSRIs are toxic jewish poison designed to maintain you as a consumer zombie
Just like Freud then?
this
Big pharma is possible due to biology students, the really really smart kids in class, who becomes psychologists, and you want to go talk to those people and think that will sometimes make you feel better? No, words cannot make your inner head feel and work better, I mean people try but words can never be as powerful as pills, powerful in the healing and feeling good way
The weird thing is that, even though this is simply not true, as there's persistent academic interest in psychoanalysis throughout the world and several different scientific studies proving the efficacy of the treatment, even the defenders of Freud still only reply to it with ''oh yeah, well science doesn't know shit!'', when in fact good science has always been on the side of psychoanalysis. It's actually CBT that's being proven more and more to be shallow and inconsequential, when even apps can replicate the effects of behavioral therapy. I mean, even if you read early critiques of psychoanalysis: Wittgenstein, Popper, etc, they'll admit the effectiveness of the practice, even though its methods are ''unscientific''.
So what's the deal? Are all these posters just Americans who think the whole world subscribe to their bullshit ideals?
Because people acknowledge that the reason why a lot of his shit was fucked was because he went farther out than most people were willing to. He stuck his neck out and you need to do that. Everything you can gain from Freud you gain from critiquing him, but in that sense he did make a seriously meaningful contribution. The conclusions of Freud's psychoanalysis are typically laughed at nowadays but he began something that ultimately became helpful.
this
>all of these "well Freud was only wrong if-" posts
Holy fuck you all gotta stop. It isn't a matter of him just doing things differently, it's a matter of Freudian circles and the epistemic danger they carry.
Retard. He is wrong. It is not a matter of being measurable or not. This is simply not how the "psyche" works. That is not something "relative". That is not something "subjective".
> all those burgers ITT
>This is simply not how the "psyche" works
What is one or two things Freud was wrong about?
>epistemic danger
No such thing
Why do I find this so hard to believe?
People who read Freud instead of behaviorist works and rationalize it not being a waste of time ITT.
>words can never be as profitable as pills
>words can never be as profitable as pills
for healing the brain, mind and soul of 'demented, disturbed,impaired, delusional, faulty functioning, clinically depressed, psychotic, etc.' children, adolescents, and adults?
pills don't heal the brain tho.
>t. opioid addict
There are literally no pills that can adequately cure depression. And therapy often leads to people coming to terms with issues in their lives that they wouldn't have been able to address alone. Pills can sometimes alleviate symptoms, but they rarely address underlying problems of behavior, self esteem, personality, bad upbringing, bad socialization etc etc.
Try getting someone whose parents didn't socialize them properly, who can't even look anyone in the eye, who never learnt how to introduce themselves, who never had a friend, trying helping them with pills. You can only help them with therapy. Same goes with PTSD sufferers etc.
It's the ramblings of bitter psychobabblists.
Ideologue spotted
>Retard. He is wrong.
[citation needed]
> This is simply not how the "psyche" works
Because you're an expert on the psyche. Freud's theory was a model, much like the atomic model.
>It's actually CBT that's being proven more and more to be shallow and inconsequential
But the results show something different.
>People aren't interested in truth but whether or not it "works"
That's the same thing in modern science.
>cooks
like, as in chefs?
a freudian slip guys
...
please give me the rundown on what's wrong with Saussurian linguistics
what did he mean by this?
Psychotherapy isn't a hard science, nothing is categorically "wrong" or "right" in that regard.
yeah, it's just innefective, unfalsifiable and retarded :)
>lapsuses
lel
doctors/scientists don't even really know how SSRIs work or even if they do work and have no clue about long term effects of these drugs or most other psychiatric drugs
pill pushing doctors literally say 'we can throw some shit at the wall and see what sticks'
the pharmacological side of mental health is as fucking retarded as the psychological side
not what I meant in the slightest
why are you circumscribing the conversation of pharmacology and mental health to SSRIs?
my aunt has schizophrenia and she was completely unable to function before finding the right antipsychotic. some meds just work
just like DFW and his depression right? those meds sure helped him!
HOW IS FREUD SCIENTIFIC? HOW ARE HIS THEORIES REPEATABLE? THEY AREN'T? YOU WILL FIND YOURSELF SHIFTING THROUGH THEORIES LEFT AND RIGHT IF YOU APPLY FREUD TO A PATIENT, LET ALONE A GROUP OF PATIENTS. THE SHIT ISN'T SCIENTIFIC. THE SHIT IS FALSE VOID FEW PARTICULAR CASES. OMFG.
hehe! and with this one anecdote, which surely couldn't be fixed with a prescription to a different medicine, one without poor side effects (relative to the user), I have proved, without doubt, modern medicine does not work! back to freud! back to lacan! DFW, if only you read antiquated unscientific bullshit... maybe... just maybe you would be alive today!! RIP!
yes, but there's still a difference between science and those things. Einstein's theory of relativity predicted things which, prior to observation, may have and were expected to have come out false. Freud's theory doesn't predict anything in the future, it just explains what's already there in the most flexible fashion possible. It's all hindsight. If you try and predict behavior with it, what happens is it generates a possible explanation for every potential instead of ruling out all but one. There's a difference between avoiding falsehood and pursuing truth, even if it's just science "truth".
Freud had some important insights that pretty radically changed our conceptions of ourselves (e.g. our minds aren't transparent to us. A lot of the important stuff that's going on with us mentally occurs at a sub-conscious level). Still, he was wrong about a lot of stuff, and as with most large systems, when one piece comes undone, then the whole thing tends to unravel. As for why psychoanalysis continues to be so influential, part of it might be related to admiration for Freud's genuine insights, and a desire to preserve his system as much as possible. Part of it might be a result of reactionary tendencies among his disciples/followers (think of how long it took for Lamarckism to go out of style), and a desire to preserve their status as experts in a legitimate discipline. Finally, it might be the case that some schools of contemporary psychoanalysis have actually altered their views significantly in response to the insights of cognitive science and psychology, but its not readily apparent because they continue to use the terminology and language of classical psychoanalysis.
Nice post. Christ be with you.
>there are big pharma shills itt right now
>one without poor side effects (relative to the user)
does not exist
every single depression med lists SUICIDE as a potential side effect
>>one without poor side effects (relative to the user)
>does not exist
>every single depression med lists SUICIDE as a potential side effect
>Relative to the patient
>Potential
Woah
That linguists aren't Saussurians anymore, it's like being a Newtonian physicists in the current year. Saussurian linguistics looks only at langue and refuses to investigate parole, for example syntax, and to explain data.
Linguists have moved on, literary theorists didn't. I mean, even European structural linguistics itself did move on, with Jakobson, Trubetzkoy, Martinet, Hjelmslev...
>psychoanalysis
>not analytical psychology
it appears that my superiority has led to some controversy. troubled, friend?
>yeah, it's just innefective, unfalsifiable and retarded :)
t. wants to fuck his mother while sucking a 'cigar'
My friend had hardcore depression, not enough dopamine left in his tank, started taking these marijuana pills to give him dopamine sparks to clear up his depression, is this ok?
>was wrong about a lot of stuff,
what is a thing or two he was wrong about?