How the fuck do you even understand Lacanians?

It's not my fault if you found some shitty blog which has 0 citations about psychoanalysis.
This may help: autismum.com/2012/01/18/le-packing-pack-it-in/
Also, packing is proper to France. Your first citation/argument (?) made zero sense.

Again, no where in this it says it was created by a psychoanalyst and in the video linked at the end it says "[it] is a medical procedure used everyday in psychiatric hospitals". So, yea, what is the link to this and psychoanalysis, that psychoanalyst used this? Well medics did do it seems.

did too*

>watch me cite unresearched bullshit to call a field of study pseudo-science

gg Pierre

Have you ever even done the slightest reading into psychoanalysis before acting like you have an opinion on it?
If you did you would know this "treatment" hasn't the slightest relationship to any of its ideas

I'd skip Lacan and go straight to Althusser. The Subject was Lacan's most useful idea and Althusser expands upon it into a broader/more applicable theory of subjectivity.

>The Subject was Lacan's most useful idea
You mean Freud's idea.

you understand that they're obscurantist hacks hungry for money and attention and promptly disregard them forever until you need to physically exterminate them

>Until recently, French psychoanalysts treated autistic children by wrapping them in cold, wet sheets, which even resulted in some deaths from hypothermia

appât

That makes no sense from a psychoanalytic point of view, psychoanalysis does its best to avoid the body (and by this I don't mean the body of language, imaginary body, etc., but the biological), for better or for worse. Unless they came up with some shitty reasoning like "the coldness towards the Other must be equalized on the real to balance Desire" or whatever, I really doubt psychoanalysts use such techniques. I'll actually attend a conference about the graph of desire soon. If I learn anything useful I'll post back here because right now it's kicking my ass.

>Lacan is a sort of thinker where you have to understand nearly everything before you understand anything
translation = if you spend at least 300 hours reading Lacan and Lacanians while ignoring that it absolutely makes no sense, a combination of emotional sunk cost fallacy and intellectual stockholm syndrom will make you feel like you understand it while you repeat certain phrases and words you remember.

>psychoanalysis does its best to avoid the body
That's just one of the many reasons why Gestalt Therapy is so superior.

Fuck gestalt, soviet reflexology is superior. It has variously been described as materially reductionist unlike behaviorism by its detractors; and not materially reductionist unlike behaviorism by others.

>they worship the idea of a totalitarian ideology like Christianity because we can't get our shit together, apparantly
I'm interested.

To understand Lacan, you need a pretty good grasp of Freud. You have to realize that Lacan was foremost a psychoanalyst writing for other practicing psychoanalysts, and even though his ideas have been applied to everything under the sun today, it might be easier to approach him as a psychiatrist producing scientific material and not some kind of Great Philosopher.

I would say the big take-aways are his idea of the Mirror Stage and the Three Orders (the Imaginary, Symbolic, and Real). If you can understand those concepts, you should be ready to apply his concepts to literary texts.

I'm not so caught up on secondary texts, but try checking out his 1949 text,"The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoalaytic Experience". It summarizes his work pretty well in 8 pages, although it might be kind of difficult to understand.

>Fuck gestalt, soviet reflexology is superior.
I don't really understand your anger, but thanks for the recommendation!

Or... There's a lot of interrelations between the concepts he developed and it's difficult to have a grasp on one without seeing it within the context of his framework. The mind is a complex mess, sorry if trying to account for it might take effort

Well it depends what you mean by scientific since psychoanalysis is not claiming to be a science, but just look at his title. "Revealed" in "experience". Psychoanalysts go on and on about how much the clinical experience is worth in understanding psychoanalysis, but never address the fact that experience already involves interpretation. That is to say: how do you use the clinic to show that a theory is correct when you're already anticipating such a result and risk confirmation bias?

Then maybe we should just try and subject psychology to the rigors of scientific inquiry and leave the psychoanalyticals to the sphere of philosophy?

Isn't that the shit they parodied in The Brood?

>Psychoanalysts go on and on about how much the clinical experience is worth in understanding psychoanalysis, but never address the fact that experience already involves interpretation. That is to say: how do you use the clinic to show that a theory is correct when you're already anticipating such a result and risk confirmation bias?

I think you're mistaking that assertion to mean the clinic is the epistomological basis from which the theory was developed rather than a far more humbler point that the clinic is a means of displaying the theory as it is developed.

The basis of psychoanalytic theory doesn't have a single source, its a refined amalgamation of various frameworks of understanding the mind that existed long before the modern tradition, and those came from a nexus of historical and individual experiences.

Psychoanalysis addresses subjectivity as such rather than as subject-object relation as science does. This does not mean that psychoanalysis does not care about objects, but rather that it cares more about the relationship between subjectivity and the subject-object relation. That is to say, psychoanalysis asks if the scientific interpretations can themselves, in their multitude addressing the same topic, can be themselves the result of subjective relations independent of contingent objective development (belonging to a certain school of thought, etc.)

Tl;dr interpreting data takes subjectivity, also psychoanalysis does not claim to be a science despite a few attempts at making it one at various times during Freud's career.

I agree about psychoanalysis not having a single source, but the clinic as displaying the theory doesn't seem to say much since the clinic can display several methods, all of them just as efficient. Unless I misunderstood again.

I read something about either Pavlov or Vygotsky I think being in direct opposition to gestalt. I forget what the deal with it was: it was inbedded in a load of stuff about why Lenin hated it and how they tried to make it fit more his soviet vision.

When I looked into it a while back everything seemed to be saying how it was philosophically or metaphysically superior to behaviorism (its poor western imitation). It has many of the assumptions/implications of cognitivism as well as being able to work similarly to behaviorism. And it avoids some of the anti consciousness type statements of both. But Lenin's problem with it was he viewed it as purely materialistic and denying consciousness.

It's a real pain to look up because of new age foot massage stuff.

>the clinic can display several methods, all of them just as efficient.

I don't believe this is the case however though, especially compared to standard Cognitive-Behaviourist practices the difference is clear, its a question on what we regard as "efficient" however.

Vygotsky would say the traditional scientific method is separated from the substance and results of the inquiry and such a dualistic conception of method is epistemologically overdetermined. Vygotsky’s method is dialectical rather than dualistic. It is activity-based rather than cognition-based. Method is practiced, not applied. Whatever is to be discovered is not separate from the activity of practicing method it is dialectically inseparable from the activity of discovery. Practice does not derive from theory but it is practice that restructures science and poses the task and is the supreme judge of theory. Practicing method simultaneously creates the object of knowledge and the tool by which that knowledge might be known. Tool and result come into existence together; their relationship is one of dialectical unit, not instrumental duality.

That's a very good explanation. My understanding was that much of this was already within reflexology from the start, so exactly why Lenin really had a problem with it beyond an out of hand dismissal eludes me.

Actually I just googled some magic combo of words and looking at Lenin's notes after his death he had a psychological pet theory of reflection, so probably was just planning to throw his hat in.

Do you happen to know the French (p sure French) dude who mixed in ideas about original sin and the fall into the mix on his ideas of reflexology. There were some interesting ideas but I've forgotten the name and I've lost my note for what book etc etc

>muh autism is just a way of being.

Behavioral/cognitivist detected.

go back to burgerland.

cognitive behaviourist practices aren't effective in the long term, phobias treated using these methods come back in another form, same for nightmares or hysteria.

cognitive behaviourist practices are great as an entry in psychotherapy, it's something that will help you get better in the short term and adopt better habits as well as improving your productivity and reducing stress.

however, they do not relieve the inner mental conflicts hence why a more costly and longer psychoanalysis based therapy is better in the long term.

however, they are a large variety of illness that are literally impossible to resolve for psycho-analitic therapists, such as psychosis and there force the cognitive/behavioral therapies are the only way to relieve the symptoms along with medication.

>and there force

*therefore

autocorrect

>But Lenin's problem with it was he viewed it as purely materialistic and denying consciousness.
Lenin thought it was too materialistic? That sounds interesting!
>It's a real pain to look up because of new age foot massage stuff.
hahahhah, sorry, that's sad.

>longer psychoanalysis based therapy is better in the long term

Bullshit. There is zero evidence of efficacy long or short term.

I find with my little foray into Jungian and some of Lang's stuff I find that when you make a breakthrough you pretty much forget what the fuck just happened. So you don't get as much of this sense of progress.

The biofeedback and eye stuff in CBT is good but very different too.

Oh well if you say so it must be true

>Jungian
There's your problem

?

you know i'm not going to bother with you so why do you keep trying to sound as retarded as possible.

do you study psychiatry?
psychology?

some kind of paramedical studies maybe?
no?

then shut the fuck up.

If you try to repress the greatness of June it'll only come back to haunt your dreams, probably as your shadow.

In other words, you got nothing.

If it makes you feel better to interpret that as "winning" or something so be it.

jung is more on the philosophy/existentialism.

if you really want to understand psychiatry, you have to resort to good old freud at some point, even if he was total hack, that doesn't make his developmental theories any less correct.

you start with the cognitive/emotional development and then you move on to lang and lacan.

+developmental shit will help you if you ever have a kid(which is unlikely considering your presence on this meme site)

I have already been through some Freud, an awful lot of Lang and Jung talks about Freud so it'd be p hard to get anything decent out of either without it.

And pls no joke about maybe having kids.

i'm a para-med student and have had a total of 30 psychology hours
20 psychoanalysis hours
40 in psychiatry.

i've read 4 books yet and in each of these books where 4 to 15 cases studies.

psychoanalysis isn't that complicated user, you have a traumatic memory that you can't deal with logically and you resort to illogical fallacies to avoid their affect or deny their existence.

psychoanalysis is finding a way to bring these issues back to your consciousness, it doesn't nullify the trauma hence why it's not a magic cure with 100% perfect rates but at least it give you a way to find why little timmy cannot withstand the sight of snakes.

on another notes,most of my psycho classes are in second year not i haven't had the occasion to do a trainee ship in a psychiatric institution as my first year focus on anatomy and neurology

>i'm a para-med student
Woah man, you like an expert or something

and you?

how related is your field to psychiatry?

I've worked in one of the largest (it's actually pretty famous) psych hospitals in Europe. And even now I liaise regularly with psychiatrists and generally do things you might do in half a decade or more if you're lucky.

Not that that really matters to anyone saying you're naive and under qualified because you just are.

Sounds a lot like Scientology.

Scientology pretty much does the same shit they do in CBT, including biofeedback. They do sessions where they measure your stress level by your skin's conductivity, and that's p core to the thing as a whole

There is no empirical evidence that psychoanalysis has any efficacy in treating any mental disorder. It's a pseudo-scientific con game.

then why do you shit on psychoanalysis?

like i'm legit curious?

you liaise regularly with psychiatrists and you don't believe in the least bit in psychoanalysis?

like, did you suddenly decide during your formation: "nope, i'm going to resort solely on behaviorism from now on"

earlier you said:
>Bullshit. There is zero evidence of efficacy long or short term.

Then why do you prefer behaviorism?

in my country, both theories are used simultaneously in centers dealing with anorexia and so far, there haven't been statistic differences between institutes who favor one side over another.

also, what is your field? med/para med/psychiatrist/psycho therapist?

i'm an ergothérapist for all that matter.

>Scientology pretty much does the same shit they do in CBT
No.

>no empirical evidence

i want to live in your imaginary world, it sound fun.

You're the only one mentioning "behaviorism" - you epic fucking dumbshit.

Notice the one thing you're *not* doing: citing evidence of efficacy.

Because deep down you know it is bullshit.

then what the fuck are you using?

and what do you suggest as an alternative bright man?

>earlier you said:
>>Bullshit. There is zero evidence of efficacy long or short term.
Oh I jumped in, I thought that was you. And I thought you'd misspelled pre med.

I'm on doing a third year of general rounds. Times are hard in the UK. I know someone who has started GP training to switch over to surgery later.

Afaik everyone accepts it's useful but there's definitely a focus on medication and CBT type strategies. And a lot of counsellors and therapists etc are not good at what they do, at least where I've been.

Are you protecting your secret club or something?

Seriously guys don't give all your money to scientology, get CBT instead, it's the same kind of thing and scientologists aren't great at doing it. Plus they encourage you to behave like an asshole

oh i never said anything about medication.

medication is pretty much obligatory a lot of the time.

Psychiatry and counseling psychology are largely scam professions in general.

Now, there is evidence that "talk therapy" in the broadest sense is helpful - but only in the sense that regularly talking to a caring, sympathetic person who is trying to help you is generally going to be helpful.

All the "theoretical" nonsense taught in departments of psychiatry and psychology - psychoanalysis, gestalt therapy, cognitive therapy, etc - is a complete waste of time.

I never claimed CBT is effective or worth pursuing. Only that it does not involve exorcising demons (thetans, whatever) as in Scientology, psychoanalysis, etc.

To me it's one of the most interesting parts. There are strategies you can put in place that minimise reliance on medication. And some stuff you can't medicate very well.

I've had a fair mount of exposure to people with temporal lobe damage and that's new stuff happening there meds wise a fair amount.

I don't know that much about scientology, but I gather the whole thetan thing is almost incidental to a lot of the shit they get you to spend money on. I think you're right in that Dianetics is meant to ultimately do that but it also mimics that sort of therapy.

It's only bullshit in the neoliberalist LMAO EPIC GAINZ XD!1!11!!1 mindset of behaviorists. Of course one cannot fucking erase the adverse effects of traumatic experience on oneself. The behaviorist approach just tricks them and the health provider into thinking that they have.

The only real way for a person to cope with emotional trauma is for them to have their life redefined through massive amounts of positive life-changing experiences, so that the negative ones seem pale in comparison, both in intensity and in quantity. But that takes a lot of fucking work.
One good such experience is when you become 100% clear on what the negative experiences have actually changed in you, hence psychoanalysis -- but that's just one experience. And usually a far less impactful one than the negative experiences themselves.

Once you figure it out it's really easy to write a lot about and generate all these schemas.

Not unlike the other posturing pseudophilosophy De(con)struktion.

>exorcising démons

???

Reminder that psychoanalysis is literally satanic. Who psychoanalyzes the first psychoanalysts?

Initiate yourself in a real tradition not modernist pseudo-anti-nihilism.

CBT and psycho-analysis both win!

They realise friendship is more important.

Now that's done let's move on to the Israel Palestine conflict

Uh, pretty sure wallowing in misery is not gonna help. Next.

>It's only bullshit in the neoliberalist LMAO EPIC GAINZ XD!1!11!!1 mindset of behaviorists.

Is this a joke? You go to the doctor to treat illness. If the illness isn't treated, cured, or measurably mitigated in some way, what's the fucking point?

Nice pile of meaningless buzzwords and perjoratives

moderacy is key when it comes to wallowing, I would say. The point is more in rationally understanding what the fuck had happened, and I would say that the catharsis provided by that should only lead to a person having less need for any emotional wallowing. If we're to decide that a particular course of psychoanalytic therapy has been completed and has provided the intended effects, that is.

>doctor
>for the brain
>practices medicine with simply another brain
>to cure "illnesses"
>or else measurably mitigate them in some way
I don't mean to get all anti-psychiatry on you, but that is some spooky stuff right there

moderacy is key when it comes to wallowing, I would say. The point is more in rationally understanding what the fuck had happened, and I would say that the catharsis provided by that should only lead to a person having less need for any emotional wallowing. If we're to decide that a particular course of psychoanalytic therapy has been completed and has provided the intended effects, that is.

>doctor
>for the brain
>practices medicine by using a brain
>to cure "illnesses"
>or else measurably mitigate them in some way
I don't mean to get all anti-psychiatry on you, but that is some spooky stuff right there

>I don't mean to get all anti-psychiatry on you, but that is some spooky stuff right there

Literally, what? I'm the one calling psychiatry a pseudo-scientific scam, dumbass. Did you forget which side you are trolling on?

Another user here, you are so ignorant on the subject it's hard to believe you can hope to discuss it.

I'm not on either side then if both are spooked to the max. Why are you making this into a false dilemma?

My opinion is that psychoanalysis is useful, it just isn't a magical solution for all your sometimes even several-years-worth of problems to vanish in an instant. i.e. what CBT meme is advertising as.

>My opinion is that psychoanalysis is useful

Useful for WHAT? There's no evidence it's useful for ANYTHING. That's the whole fucking point, jackass. It is an utterly useless scam designed to separate vulnerable people from their money.

And where's the evidence that your moms needs to buy you tendies?

The seminars were attended mainly by priests. Also Zizek literally thinks an orthodox reading of Lacan is right-wing.

Useful for funlly uncovering the causes and effects of your emotional distress, what else dummy?

What evidence would you like and why?
Is it because you get off on having "medical" authority over other people's emotions (and therefore, you would argue in your defense, the ability to "treat" the painful ones)?

>Useful for funlly uncovering the causes and effects of your emotional distress

There is zero evidence psychoanalysis does anything of the sort. It's a pseudoscience.

>Is it because you get off on having "medical" authority over other people's emotions (and therefore, you would argue in your defense, the ability to "treat" the painful ones)?

What on EARTH are you blathering about? Have you actually gotten to the point of arguing against your own position in the very same post? Holy fuck.

Stop responding toHe is either retarded or trolling.

>>Is it because you get off on having "medical" authority
>What on EARTH are you blathering about?

>There is zero evidence psychoanalysis does anything of the sort. It's a pseudoscience.
This is exactly what I'm blathering about. You demanding exact scientific evidence (I assume medical studies) that something so abstract as a form of therapy for emotional distress is somehow unmistakably ""working"" and can (and therefore incidentally will, if deemed necessary according to the standards established by the same circles) be applied to everyone on a dehumanizing one-size-fits-all physical health services basis.

dubs speak the truth, this is my last reply to him

If it's not "working" then what's the point of doing it?

You're just supposed to have "faith" in a procedure that demonstrates zero evidence of efficacy?

Sure sounds like we are dealing with a religious cult a la Scientology.

^ Samefagger

>tfw buzzword has become a buzzword

>Implying

Nah sorry user, we both think you are retarded.

I am breaking my word here, albeit one last time unless some actually new counter-arguments pop up, and not the old ones rehashed.

But it does _work_ on what it has set out to do -- on a personal, emotional level. It does uncover the causes and effects of your emotional distress. Or, to put it differently, it is very liberally decided when a psychoanalytic therapy course should actually end, by both therapist and patient, and that is usually only when you do feel like it has uncovered those causes and effects. So, not very exact-scientific at all, never even tried to be.

Of course, all of that stuff isn't very interesting from a public health perspective, i.e. it's not going to make you into a more productive "cog in the machine" on its own. Whereas behaviorists just might find a way to do exactly that, but arguably they do it by effectively brainwashing you into a lesserly-free-willish form of a human being. Surely I don't have to point to literary works that have dealt with exactly this theme? And in the end, I'm not fully against CBT and such, I just think that having it as an end goal is terribly reductionist and ultimately damaging to the actual individual person.

What possible cause would I have to try and samefag myself out of an anonymous discussion here, Booboo? Why not just drop out if it bores me? Or if I don't have a counter-argument?
(Please don't reply if it doesn't make too much sense)

Except you never actually cite EVIDENCE that your scam pseudoscience (psychoanalysis) has any efficacy. You are either a troll or an epic retard.

>But it does _work_ on what it has set out to do -- on a personal, emotional level.

Except there is ZERO evidence of that.

> It does uncover the causes and effects of your emotional distress.

Except there is ZERO evidence of that.

>Or, to put it differently, it is very liberally decided when a psychoanalytic therapy course should actually end, by both therapist and patient, and that is usually only when you do feel like it has uncovered those causes and effects. So, not very exact-scientific at all, never even tried to be.

In other words, it's a load of horseshit.

>Of course, all of that stuff isn't very interesting from a public health perspective, i.e. it's not going to make you into a more productive "cog in the machine" on its own. Whereas behaviorists

Hate to break it to you, but behaviorism went out of fashion in the 1950s.

>just might find a way to do exactly that, but arguably they do it by effectively brainwashing you into a lesserly-free-willish form of a human being. Surely I don't have to point to literary works that have dealt with exactly this theme? And in the end, I'm not fully against CBT and such, I just think that having it as an end goal is terribly reductionist and ultimately damaging to the actual individual person.

You're the dipshit who keeps bringing up "CBT" - as if that has any relevance. Your strawmaning has grown tiresome.

>What possible cause would I have to try and samefag myself out of an anonymous discussion here, Booboo?

Because you are a batshit-insane moron who buys into a Scientology-tier pseudoscientific scam. Anything is possible.