>penis envy
>castration anxiety
>interpreted the subjective responses of patients as scientific evidence that they may or may not want to fuck their mother/father
The more I read about this fuck and psychoanalysts, the harder it is for me to see how they contributed to any field of science, let alone psychology.
Penis envy is most certainly real.
You need to bear in mind the era and environment Freud grew up in, which was relatively sexually repressed. This formed his means to unravel and model the psyche.
>penis envy
what the fuck is that? I have 6.5 inches of meat and I'd trade 2 inches just to touch a chicks boobs
I seriously hope modern psychologists don't actually take any of that Freud shit seriously.
He's not really understood as having contributed much to psychology. Psychology has independent roots.
Don't be fooled by his bizarre sounding theses though. The man was brilliant and if you read his work, he was quite adept at making absurd things sound convincing. I don't know that anyone has ever seriously argued for his being scientific in the experimental sense, but his notion of consciousness and the development of the human mind from lower species definitely clicks with the 19th century idea of science as pertains to biology and its philosophical extension, positivism.
It's emotional drive that stimulates your desire to procreate, etc.
One could say you're interested in the female sex because you're over-compensating for the denial of all things homosexual.
Something something something, childhood development, female realizes her lack of a penis. Something something, transference, something or other power structure.
Women come to envy the power of a male's penis. They desire to be the one doing the insertion and thrusting with the phallic structure, as it is a symbol of control.
Like I said, there is obvious evidence of this in your day to day life.
example...
Honestly all of psychology is a meme. It's not a real science, nobody considers it to be a real science.
It's actually a shame, it would make a pretty good field if not for it's inherent inability to produce accurate results.
Yeah, Psychology is a pretty big meme. That's not to say it isn't the best thing we've got until Neuroscience develops further.
Two things:
Psychology isn't a science, no social 'science' is.
Also, Freud is to psychology as Aristotle was to Astronomy (again, not a perfect example because astronomy is a science and psychology isn't, but it gets the point across).
wow cool opinions guys, very rare, well informed. what books have you guys read that gave you such insight, such shrewd analysis, such meme knowledge power?
>psychology majors are the most humble people I know!!
okay
Does anybody know what draws so many women to psychology. I would love to read Freud's perspective on that.
Talking about psychology as if you have insight into its essential qualities when you haven't read a single text on the subject, is exactly as stupid as talking about mathematics when you've never done a proof.
the conclusions of the majority of psychology papers either are not proven to be reproducible, or are proven to be irreproducible.
but of course, you don't think meta-analysis is required of a subject for it to be a science. you value psychology.
My interests are math and history of ideas. From this perspective I've become extremely suspicious of positivism, because I disagree with the idea that the history of ideas is a progression from non-science towards science.
Most people nowadays tend to hold this position, if implicitly. This causes them to evaluate the merits of various fields based on how scientific they are.
This leads a lot of people to dismiss anything psychology related as being nonsense which one need not bother oneself with studying.
I have two main points here:
1. The idea that various fields can be characterized by how scientific they are is an enormous oversimplification. The problem is greatly pronounced as concerns psychology since its object of study (consciousness) does not lend itself to scientific study. It depends, for example, on reports from individuals. This is not a methodology problem, it's a problem inherent to the subject matter.
2. The idea that subjects should be valued (or worse, that they should be studied) in as much as they are scientific cuts one off from a broader historical analysis about how science emerges, what non-scientific ideas and structures are involved in its development. Basically history is substantially more interesting and intricate (and complete) when we are allowed to investigate non-scientific ideas.
(cont.)
Take Freud for example, who is often dismissed immediately by individuals whose internal sense of self are actually heavily informed by Freudian ideas (ex: an id that conveys biological instincts in conflict with a superego that conveys social norms)
Of where it''s present in day to day life? Just talk to some women. With a sample size of 10, eventually, you'll probably pick out at least one that entertains such inclinations.
I have no friends or lasting social relationships, and even I've had the means to see this first hand. Try to pay more attention, now that you know to look.
That's why those people are called "fruedien patients" meaning they want to take their opposite gendered parent from their same gendered parent.
It's supposed to be people that are more inclined to follow old animal tendancies and not step up to the fancy human world of morals and religions that keep everyone in line
Look at the trends in sub-culture, which is composed mainly of fruedien patients. Strapons, shemales, and femboys are the bees knees right now. It's all spite from having abusive or negligent parents, which is just a result of having parents who were to stupid to raise a kid.
That's mainly what Sigmund was saying. Everyone's to stupid to raise their kids, and those kids are growing up to be selfish assholes.
>The more I read about this fuck and psychoanalysts, the harder it is for me to see how they contributed to any field of science, let alone psychology.
Compare:
>Atoms of the same element have the same mass
>Atoms cannot be divided, created or destroyed
>The more I read about this fuck and atomic theory, the harder it is for me to see how Dalton contributed to any field of science, let alone chemistry.
Consider how objectively terrible psychology was before Freud when he was considered a revolutionary breath of fresh air.
Here's a real thing that happened in psychology: "My wife doesn't do what I want her to, must be problems with her genitals, let's cut out her womb."
Yeah no SHIT that works, I too would be fucking compelled to do what you want if I learned you had the power to just arbitrarily cut out parts of my body but it's not exactly science, you get me?
Compared to that, "Maybe you remind her of her father who used to hit her" is god damn magical.
so you think the garbage you pull out of your ass interest anyone ?
>Penis envy is most certainly real.
I also have a feeling this spurs violent racism. I'm sure people have no problem admitting there is a difference between the races when it comes to certain traits, but the cling to superiority is motivated by that envy.
Freud was really just projecting.
The problem with psychology is that you very much lack the power to properly observe the system in question (the mind) except by inference, you've no way of repeating an experiment, very poor ability to interact with the system being studied in a controlled and predictable fashion, very little ability to control variables, and worst of all the system being studied is also performing the experiment.
>and worst of all the system being studied is also performing the experiment.
It's also worth noting that psychology is the only 'science' in which the system being studied can understand it's being studied. We have no baseline for which to compare the effects such an arrangement would have on the data since there's only one thing currently available for which it's true.
Typical autist opinion.
It's more aptly called phallus envy. A penis is an anatomical object, but the phallus is what a penis represents (maleness, dominance, virility, etc.) Men have castration anxiety because they're taught from a young age that there's symbolic power vested in having a penis and thus (most generally) occupying the role of boy and eventually man. Women don't have that because their fathers (e.g. the person in the household most commonly at the top of the gender hierarchy) already instilled in them that they do not have a phallus and they cannot have a phallus - hence, penis envy, and envy for the rights and privileges gained by growing up with a penis.
Freud was a hilarious rambling cokehead but the sheer breadth of work he put out means a lot of his work is still good, and he made some surprisingly incisive social observations beyond what's most commonly attributed to him.
go fuck ur mom ;)
There is a fundamental misconception among psychologists about how science is conducted. We've taken on a statistical approach and turned it into the gold standard. There are multiple ways to game this standard. Increasing your sample size and running different statistical tests are two common methods. Focusing on a statistical finding that wasn't originally part of the main hypothesis is another. If you repeat the same experiment with the same sample size, there's a 50/50 chance you'll get the same finding since the original experimenter stopped after hitting the threshold, while you are not looking at a threshold.
A further problem is that the theories and principles are not vetted substantially before being introduced through publication. Self-control is a limited resource is one such theory. It doesn't have strong ties to animal research or basic principles of psychology. Instead, many such theories are woven out of whole cloth.
In physics, for example, you have fundamental concepts like inertia, friction, force, brittleness, etc. that you would have to take into consideration if you were to construct a theory of bridges. It's unthinkable that you would create a theory without reference to fundamental principles.
But in psychology, no such constraint is applied. In fact, you'll get more attention if your theory is intuitive and easy to understand.
If we fix these two problems we'll put psychology on a path towards being more scientific and effective. And greater replicability would follow suit as well.
Honestly if you think about it womb envy, sound more likely than penis envy. It explains a lot more shit
>Increasing your sample size and running different statistical tests are two common methods.
>Increasing
DEcreasing surely. The larger your sample size, the better your odds that your outlier is a signal instead of a noise.
>garbage you pull out of your ass
All of those ideas are taken from others.
Good thing all those early guys were medical doctors.am I right?
Hell no. It's all about significance, not magnitude, and with a large enough sample you can make any finding significant even if it's so weak it barely exists
Still doesn't change the fact that his theory on homosexuality was undoubtedly true.
Elaborate?
Curiosity arises.
He conducted an experiment on fifty gay men and women over a course of three years,during careful evaluation of each and every individual,he concluded that in 91% of all cases,the subjects were subjected to some traumatic experiences by a parent of the opposite sex,in their childhood and early teen years,that is.Allegedly,those acts have psychologically influenced the physiological alteration of their hormonal adjustments in the most sensitive periods of their growth. Something like an obscure defense mechanism against further mistreatment by the members of the opposite sex.
I believe it.
Unfortunately it is not socially supported to outwardly question the basis of human sexuality in a more nuanced way, so all gay people = born gay, for the time being.
History is,because it's claims can be substantiated with archaeological findings.
No, the biggest and most pervasive problem in psychology is that no one pays attention to/understands the power of the various statistical analysis methods. The data is often not terrible (once you get away from studies that use nothing but college students that is), it's the analysis and then interpretation of that data that's the problem. I've seen fuckers drawing causal conclusions from a goddamn chi square. Causality from an analysis that's only good for telling you if your labels are different...and I'm talking about published papers too.
Aside from that, the under grad is too easy and often caters to those with agendas. I'd like to see them make the first course just something like "here's a data set with 4000 examples, you have to run [insert omnibus analysis of your choice] by hand and show your work. Then make the second semester just writing out the limitations of statistical methods like 5k times each.
If you think psychology studies the mind, you're an idiot.
Nigger, that bullshit was medical doctors.
Eh - there was a lot more to Freud's work than penis envy and castration memes that get brought up in popular science (>Veeky Forums). He was a neurologist first and contributed a lot to that field, and laid the groundwork for the introduction of at least some degree of science into psychology.
I agree with both versions.
Though you wouldn't necessarily change people by force. You'd just have different cultural structures and social feedback loops, so everyone could get over this and move on. I don't care if men are marrying men, or women are fucking women, or the inverse of each. I'm just sick of hearing unsubstantiated nonsense pushed as truth.
A shame,we've could've acquired a significantly greater understanding of the correlation between the mind and body,especially on how the state of mind can affect the flow of our hormones.
>laid the groundwork for the introduction of at least some degree of science into psychology.
Nope, not one bit. He did reintroduce the fuck out of subjectivity being a huge thing.
Goddamn you faggots don't know the first thing about psychology, do you?
For -> >
>8198924
Body is a machine, etc.
Oh for fucking fuck's sake.
A year or so ago I would have agreed with you, but then this little doozy came out:
nature.com
You do realize that's proof psychology is a science, right?
It's also proof most psychologists are shit at it.
Why so angry, friend? He was a neurologist, and along with people like von Economo and Georg Koskinas began to try and synthesise new findings in neuroanatomy and clinical neurology with psychology. I'm not suggesting they were succesful, but these are facts.
Because you are factually wrong about him "introducing science". Fuck, you don't even seem to know that he didn't even consider his psychoanalysis to be scientific because it wasn't. It was straight observation from which he made up his own explanations. Psychoanalysis did more lasting harm to the field of psychology than it ever helped. Look, I don't care if you like the field or not, but get your facts straight.
I'll do lasting harm to your psychology if you keep it up.
A bit of gymnastics,mate.
You obviously have trouble conducting yourself civilly - do you have a personal grievance with psychologists? All I ever said was that Freud's work is not limited to penis envy and castration anxiety (which is mostly what this thread has been about), and that he and his circle made legitimate contributions to neurology which were part of the earliest synthesis of clinical observation and neuroanatomical and physiological findings.
You're on Veeky Forums, this is being civil.
And that isn't "all you ever said". You're just another who while being completely and entirely ignorant of psychology thinks gee he knows what the problems are.
>Does anybody know what draws so many women to psychology.
Women are inherently cunning. They are naturally drawn to psychology because they think they will be taught how to be more cunning, persuasive, manipulative, etc. Fortunately, they don't teach them that.
Mate I'm a neurology trainee physician - I don't know much about psychology and don't claim to, only pointing out that Freud made a lot of contributions apart from those that people are talking about here, which were important in the development of both neurology and psychology/psychiatry.
Most of his stuff if not all is discredited within psychology. Maybe he popularized psychology, but he hardly contributed in any other way.
This is a myth. I'm not sure where it started or why people came to parrot it. Maybe because Freud's ideas were no longer socially accepted, regardless of any validity.
No, Freudian ideas have not been deeply "discredited" or "debunked", or anything like that. Dig into modern ideas and you'll tend to find at least a piece of something from Freud or Jung along the way.
Give examples. I do not think for example the fundamental attribution error, or cognitive biases to have anything to do with Freud.
>and laid the groundwork for the introduction of at least some degree of science into psychology.
Faggot, this is you doing exactly what you keep claiming you didn't do.
His psychoanalysis shafted psychology for decades and it's inclusion in the whole of psychology assfucked the field's respectability in many ways.
Going forward, do us all a favor sniff just keep your dick beaters out of things you don't know shit about.
> hurr durr much of what aristotle said about astronomy is discredited. Therefore he made no contribution to astronomy.
I say Freud popularized and additionally sparked research into psychology, but very few if anything stood the test of time.
Eh, kinda, but not the way you think. Most all of his ideas have been fully discredited, and those that haven't have undergone such a massive transformation...in a way it's like talking about the bohr's model of an atom. Mostly wrong, but effective in certain, limited situations, so no point in throwing it out entirety.
Keep this up and I'm going to give you a good helping of castration anxiety.
are you an arab?
Psychologist reporting in.
Very few ideas that Freud created/discussed had any validity. I don't remember exact specifics as it has been around two years since he's been related to a class I've had but defensive mechanisms were about the only thing he ever got right. Also, as stated, the era Freud was around during had a significant impact upon his beliefs and thoughts. Psychoanalysts are considered an entirely separate thing from psychologists and even have their own 'Psy.D' degree (which is basically bullshit, don't fall for it.)
On another note, something I've noticed on Veeky Forums which is mildly amusing and equally disappointing at the same time, is that randoms will namedrop Freud out of nowhere in a conversation as if it lends some credence to show that they know what they're talking about. It's confusing behavior that makes little sense.'
>is that randoms will namedrop Freud out of nowhere in a conversation
I've done this. Only in the context of his statements about very early childhood development, and the maternal figure often being the first other person the child recognizes. As well as a more literal statement.
"Mother is the first other."