How is Psychoanalysis, is there actual employment in it?

How is Psychoanalysis, is there actual employment in it?

Other urls found in this thread:

psychoanalysis.columbia.edu/explore
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

You mean outdated Freudian shit, about 80% of which has been debunked? Why would you want to study a discipline like that?

I think there are still some therapists that use it, but I'd never go to one. Why wouldn't you study a therapeutic discipline that at least has some evidence-based practice involved, like CBT?

What if I just really like Jung and want a career in it?

The literal couch-thing with the associated different methodology (I guess) is the stuff of mid-20th century. People used to talk about it in the Saturday Evening Post, and movies of the period; along with nukes and the space race, it was the pop-sci of the day. IIRC Woody Allen went in for Freud-tier stuff regularly, and the culture has mostly moved on.

But not completely. Remember that Woody Allen is known for living in New York. In fact, since this form of "analysis" is old, IIRC there's an active couch-group of (old people? Old-money people?) people in and around NYC who have their heads shrunk the old-fashioned way, regularly. I heard about it on the radio once.

So move to New York, I guess, and compete with all the other Jew shrinks who have obtained what Mel Brooks in High Anxiety referred to as, "a nice living."

>really like Jung

Come on, man.

Anyway, if you really want a career in it, study Jung and teach classes on the history of psychology. Don't fuck people up by practicing that horseshit on them.

If you want to be a part of the cultural indoctrination machine, go be a social studies teacher. The pay is worse, but it's easier to pretend you're doing good.

The best analogy I've heard is that Freud is to psychology as Aristotle is the astronomy. Almost everything they said has been shown to be untrue, but both had pretty important roles in getting the ball rolling. The only downside is that this analogy gives credence to psychology by comparing it to an actual science.

>Almost everything they said has been shown to be untrue, but both had pretty important roles in getting the ball rolling.

This is a good analogy.

>only downside is that this analogy gives credence to psychology by comparing it to an actual science.

I get sick as fuck hearing this shit though. EVERYBODY knows psychology isn't a hard science - you're not telling anyone anything they don't know - fuck off. That doesn't make it a less important discipline.

What you you rather do? Pump people full of drugs which we have know idea what the effects really are? Psycholoigy/therapy is heavily evidence based and uses techniques backed up via the scientific method. It's the best thing we have in dealing with a huge number of aberrant behaviors and mental disorders.

Maybe if your precious scientists pull their heads out of their asses and completely map all of the neurons in the human brain, we may get somewhere. Until then, shut the fuck up about "hurr durr psychology isn't science." We know - but it's better than nothing.

Most Psychology undergrads will tear you a new asshole if you tell them that Psychology isn't a science. They are very defensive.

Well I'm not a psychology undergrad - and any student of psychology worth their salt should know better. The problem with the discipline is too many idiots go into it. The dumb one's you're talking about usually all wash out though - maybe ending up with a bachelors in psychology, which is good enough to wipe your ass with.

There's a difference between not being a hard science and being a science. Considering that psychology is based on using the scientific method with falsifiable predictions, I'd say it's a science.

This is true.
Big pharmacy has no interest in psych. It needs big and bigger drug markets.
If there WERE more classic trained psychologists they might have the time to get to the real root of people's problems and start to help them cope. We can't have that now can we, cuts into the profit margin.

psychoanalysis.columbia.edu/explore

I'm in the process of obtaining my MSW right now - focus on substance abuse therapy and trauma resolution.

I have a major problem with big pharma in general, not to mention psychiatrists. I think teaching people to solve their own problems rather than rely on medication produces much better results.

Maybe part of me is jealous that psychiatrists and drug reps will make tons more money than I ever will - but that's part of the problem. The FIRST think a psychiatrist will do is start throwing drugs at you - it's fucking ridiculous and nearing epidemic proportions in today's "quick fix" society. It's turning everyone into drug seekers with little to no tolerance for mental pain or anguish - which is actually essential for proper development. Fuck this society.

/rant

Psychiatrists are MDs, they aren't really trained as psychologists, and they are pretty expensive to see anyway, even though they are over prescribing its an issue for the middle-upper class, not so much for the lower class.

Substance abusers are just self-medicating, you can try to teach them new ways of dealing with their abuse, but if they are in the same environment and around the same people they will continue abusing no matter what techniques you teach them.

>and completely map all of the neurons in the human brain, we may get somewhere
It exactly what I was thinking! Now we dont know anything about psychology

I like you. You're right, and your goals and intentions are admirable.

Question though:
How do you differentiate between use and abuse?

>Substance abusers are just self-medicating, you can try to teach them new ways of dealing with their abuse, but if they are in the same environment and around the same people they will continue abusing no matter what techniques you teach them.

Yeah I got that - perhaps I should have mentioned I was an alcoholic/drug addict for 13 years before I got sober and made it to the MSW program - I'm well aware of how to effectively treat addicts ;)

>How do you differentiate between use and abuse?

That's actually extremely difficult and varies from person to person. There are "tools" designed to differentiate based on scoring methods/answers to questions, but it's still very subjective.

Technically, abuse begins when you're misusing the substance to produce an intoxicating effect - but then again, that's the point with drugs like marijuana, cocaine, etc. - simply using them is technically "abusing" them. But that doesn't necessarily mean you have a problem.

For me, the problem (abuse) begins when the user begins to suffer adverse effects in their social, occupational, familial, or other areas of functioning. A friend of mine, for example, was unemployed for a long period of time because he couldn't pass a drug test to get a job. Rather than quitting smoking, he had to wait to get some clean piss shit sent to him. The pot also makes him lazy in general and unable to meet certain obligations- I would qualify him as a drug abuser.

The next level is full-blown addiction, or chemical dependency - which is usually qualified by a genuine desire to stop but an inability to do so. Also the presence of withdrawal symptoms.

I like that, I think you'll make a good MSW.

My personal definition of abuse is a little stricter. People have different priorities so social aspects to me only extend so far as attending to their nuclear obligations (if they have them). Immediate family is only considered assuming the subject is dependent on them for any meaningful assets. Insofar as occupational hazards of use are concerned as long as the subject maintains their income enough to support themselves and uphold contractual agreements like leases, car payments, or verbal agreements of any gravity I see no problem with persistent dead-end occupation. Hypothetically because they are self-sustenant most other fundamental behavior falls in place. The only concern left to address is to me, taking the responsibility to ensure the use doesn't affect people proximate to you. No stealing, no DUIs, no suicide attempts or drug related violence, no hospitalization for ODs or drug-induced psychosis.

Does that strike you as unreasonable?

>Does that strike you as unreasonable?
No, it's reasonable. I purposefully left the idea of "problems in work/social/family life" broad and subjective.

I'm not a teetotaler. Personally, as a recovering addict myself, I DO believe that anyone would benefit from complete abstinence - but my job isn't to enforce that on anyone. In fact, trying to get a substance abuser to adhere to complete abstinence may be more harmful in some cases than simply getting them to slow down (if the are able to slow down).

I'm for personal autonomy above anything else - the individual is is the expert in their life - not me. If they can safely and responsibly use drugs without negative effects on them or anyone around them, go for it. My ultimate goal is to assist an individual in obtaining a happy life - however they define that.

From a moral perspective, I believe complete decriminalization of all drugs is probably the best way to go, honestly. I didn't believe that at first, but quite a bit of research convinced me that it's probably the best option despite flaws.

One of my friends is a retired physiologist. She fucking loves it. Thinks its the best thing ever. She's constantly helping random people she meets, but on a normal social level, not medical of course.

Me, I think it is boring and tedious, then again I could care less about most people.

So, I think that if you find the field enjoyable already, you will find it enjoyable to do as a vocation in life.

>The best analogy I've heard is that Freud is to psychology as Aristotle is the astronomy.