Read Freud's Introductory lectures

Yup, surprised at the knee-jerk reaction from my post.

>He's not here to discuss Freud.
Yes, I am. I've been reading his introductory lectures and Interpretation of Dreams and I was planning to move onto Lacan but I'm curious as to whether or not it's worth studying (maybe as just a political lens) considering how many times its been discredited. I've seen similar threads posted before but no-one ever gives any answers. I'm some /pol/ insurgent you paranoid fuck.

Veeky Forums has really gone to shit ever since they opened up the Veeky Forums board

Bumping. Veeky Forums made itself look pretty stupid. Please redeem yourselves

You haven't even finished the interpretation of dreams and you want to move on to Lacan?

Freud and psychoanalysis clearly isn't for you, and you seem to have already made up your mind

Seriously, go back to your anime and 'vidya'

>real psychologists
lol nice try

> If Freud is wrong does that de-legitimize all of the leftist thinkers who took up his torch? (Lacan, Foucault, Zizek and so on)

> Lacan
> Leftist

> Foucault
> Freudian

Also, be like Le Sniffing Slovanian and make it work for you. Freud and Lacan had plenty of interesting things to say, you don't have to reject everything just to get a sense of security. It's not the same as agreeing with everything they say.

Hurrrrr freud is dum dum meme

I'm looking for a reason to continue and apparently no-one here can provide me with one. I'd planned to move on to Lacan after Interpreting dreams but I don't like to waste my time reading quackery so I won't. Nice to know Veeky Forums no longer bothers to engage in critical discussion and just boos off anyone who disagrees.

I'll probably flip through some Lacan just for a laugh, but thanks - you've helped me make my mind up about where to stand on psychoanalysis. A reaction like this shows how insecure people who subscribe to this shit actually are about this material

Ooh, anime and vidya! Guess you figured me out!
I don't even watch anime. Can't even come up with a defense of Freud so you come up with blanket ad-hominems. You are a complete idiot

Yeah I'm ignorant of Lacan and Foucalt. Didn't think I would read them until I'd gotten through Freud.

Zizek's take is interesting and he seems to be able to rework Freud and Lacan into philosophically sound theory. I really am interested in using Freud's theories as a political lens (despite what most people responding to this thread think) as Zizek does but if the premise is faulty how can we justify using it or trust the conclusions?

Also I appreciate your genuine answer. Thank you. Can you tell me what has happened to Veeky Forums in the past 6 months? I haven't posted in a while and I don't remember everyone being this stupid and hostile.

>REAL psychologists
>it's all been discredited
>quackery
>Freud belongs in the trash
>not knowing what Foucault, lacan etc were about

Fuck off, moron

/r9k/, /pol/, and /mu/ took over

>If Freud is wrong does that de-legitimize all of the leftist thinkers who took up his torch? (Lacan, Foucault

You should have killed yourself at the moment of writing this. Why should anybody take you seriously if you have no clue what you are talking about?

>Have dumb questions
>Get dumb answers
>Get upset from said dumb answers

Nice quads though

>REAL psychologists
Modern medical practice makes a distinction between trained psychologists and psychoanalysts.
>it's all been discredited
>quackery
It has. Modern psychology finds almost nothing to salvage from Freud's work. He did not practice the scientific method as we know it today. You seem in denail, so here: One of hundreds of articles you can find if you just google "Freud discredited".
socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/freuddead.htm
>Freud belongs in the trash
No humour allowed on Veeky Forums anymore?
>not knowing what Foucault, lacan etc were about
Why would I read them before Freud? I'm an idiot because I haven't yet read these books? You're a pathetic child. No answers, just insults.

Also quit making multiple posts. I can see the number of posters. You seem pretty neurotic for someone so invested in Freud

>"Foucault adopted many of the theories of the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, undertaking psychoanalytical interpretation of his dreams and making friends undergo Rorschach tests."

>"Politically, Foucault remained a leftist throughout his life, but his particular stance within the left often changed."

I was right about Foucault at least. I know less about Lacan but that hardly makes my question less valid. How about answering intelligently instead of getting nasty?

There are multiple people who have called you out on your stupidity.

It's time you leave

>Modern medical practice
>the scientific method as we know it today.

zZzZzZz

Several approaches to psychology co-exist at the same time. One of those is psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis originated from an empirical approach towards the human psyche, which is much harder, much more founded on revision and reflection due to the nature of the matter, but to somehow try to establish wrongly that there is THE scientific method, and that Modern Psychology is a singular entity that does salvage almost nothing from Freud, shows: Ignorance, Bias and Stupidity.

>I was right about Foucault at least

You called Foucault a leftist, my man. No, you were not right about Foucualt. So can you please follow my suggestion and end your life ASAP?

>Psychoanalysis originated from an empirical approach towards the human psyche
Wrong. Freud's theory is lacking in empirical evidence and is reliant on therapeutic achievements, which are poor in relation to other forms of treatment. Talk to a psychologist about Freud and they will laugh at you. It is almost universally excepted (with the sole exception of cultists like yourself) that Freud's theories (apart of the unconscious) are not empirically backed. You will find this point reiterated time and time again wherever you find critical discussion of Freud. It is irrefutable. You are deluded if you do not accept it.

>No, you were not right about Foucualt
Just because he doesn't fit your special definition of a leftist doesn't mean he wasn't one.

No-one has "called me out". They've just thrown insults because they thought they smelled a /pol/ rat and went into full damage-control mode.

>you need to read freud to read lacan

>Wrong. Freud's theory is lacking in empirical evidence and is reliant on therapeutic achievements

Oh? I thought you had read Freuds works.

>which are poor in relation to other forms of treatment

Says who?

>Talk to a psychologist about Freud and they will laugh at you

hasn't happened to me. Maybe they were laughing just at you, individually, not because you talked about freud.

> It is almost universally excepted (with the sole exception of cultists like yourself) that Freud's theories (apart of the unconscious) are not empirically backed.

Again drawing back on some universal entity? Let me try to be helpful to you: What about, before you proceed of reading another work of freud, you read a historical piece that examines what made the emergence of Psychoanalysis, not only in a theoretical perspective but also in a methodical way, so groundbreaking. You may be surprised. And again there are many different methods existing at the same time. The two most important ones are qualitative and quantitative psychology. The approach has changed from qualitative towards quantitative, to the point where the qualitative forms are barely teached. Yes, i have talked to psychologists a couple of times, it is an area of extreme interest to myself, and many of them knew less about Freud than i did. Make of that what you will. Personally i find this lack of knowledge a bit disconcerting. How can a psychologists barely know anything about the man who did not only create a revolution psychologically but in a way culturally?

>Just because he doesn't fit your special definition of a leftist doesn't mean he wasn't one.

Just because you cite Wikipedia you don't have a decent understanding of a person, especially Foucaults, political views.

>You will find this point reiterated time and time again wherever you find critical discussion of Freud.

Except i don't. Freud's theories have been critisized, called dead, revived, reformed and so on. If only i would be able to filter things that don't fit my agenda out as well as you.

Just a quick reminder that you have discredited yourself in which you denied Freud the status of a real psychologist. It's not even a matter of affinity here, of believing in this or that method or feeling assured that Freud was wrong. What you write is filled with embarrassing stupidity and ignorance. That you constantly draw back on others and unironically use this as an argument:
>Talk to a psychologist about Freud and they will laugh at you.
tells everyone who reads this thread enough about both your motivation, your education and your interest in serious discussion of the topic.

kys

>Yes, i have talked to psychologists a couple of times, it is an area of extreme interest to myself, and many of them knew less about Freud than i did. Make of that what you will. Personally i find this lack of knowledge a bit disconcerting. How can a psychologists barely know anything about the man who did not only create a revolution psychologically but in a way culturally?

This line is so telling. Thanks, I'll just leave it here :)

That's all you can say? Telling of what, except that i wonder how it isn't mandatory to be taught extensive knowledge of "The father of modern psychology" while studying psychology?

>If only i would be able to filter things that don't fit my agenda out as well as you.

The irony of this post is astounding. The intellectual somersaults you have performed to convince yourself that those hours you invested in Freud were worthwhile, even in the face of near-universal rejection of his theories. Amazing

Why would I want to filter out Freud's theories? After spending so many hours reading Freud and Zizek I was looking for evidence that he is worth studying. This thread has had the opposite effect, largely thanks to yourself.

Foucault is WIDELY considered a leftist so I can call him one for the sake of argument. He also used psychoanalytic methods.

In addition the responses to the first three quotes are just dismissive. Who? What? Prove it!
There are a plethora of essays which will tell you that there is a lack of empirical evidence supporting Freud's theories; that the evidence he supplied himself was untrustworthy at best and embellished at worst; that other forms of therapy, for example CBT, have proven to be more effective. It's one google search away

>universal entity
You mean the medical community?

>your motivation
You have forged a motivation and applied it to me because you have sensed an opposition to your beliefs. You seem quite invested in psychology (or its counterfeit forms at least) Did you, like so many troubled students, turn to Freud because you thought you could "figure yourself out"? Try a trusted form of therapy instead and see if you do not achieve better results.

This.
>if you're not a normie you're sick
What a great science.

>halfway through
>remember that Freud was a
I think you should read the psychopathology of everyday life to understand how you managed to forget this for so long

WHY DO PEOPLE CASUALLY ASSERT THAT FREUD'S THEORIES HAVE BEEN "DISCREDITED" ??? AHHHH

WHICH THEORIES DISCREDITED BY WHOM AND IN WHAT CAPACITY YOU BRAINLESS WHITE MANLET

>INB4 YOU CAN'T EVEN ANSWER YOU JUST HATE HIM BECAUSE YOU ASSOCIATE FREUD WITH LIBERALS FOR NO REASON

NO YOU WEREN'T HOLY SHIT

DISCIPLINE AND PUNISH IS ONE BIG FUCK YOU TO PSYCHOANALYSIS BECAUSE HE THINKS IT'S A TOOL OF POWER AKIN TO CATHOLIC CONFESSION YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WE ALL KNOW IT

DIEEEEE

...

I find it very telling that self proclaimed "critics" of Freud always seem to claim there is UNIVERSAL dismissial of ALL his ideas by EVERY psychologist.
The lack of any sort of moderation or clarity makes me wonder if they have read into the basics of modern psychology much less Freud

>real psychologists
going to have to qualify that statement there

hating on freud is hacky

and psychoanalysis is dead at least in the US (still popular in some places in Europe?)
but that has as much to do with insurance not covering mental health, but anyway Freud didn't say psychoanalysis was for curing mental illness for the most part, or for curing anything at all, it was for helping people realize and then try to rearrange neurotic/destructive patterns in their life

>Freud was a hack
>le trash
I sincerely believe you're not trolling here, but I've heard this exact smug regurgitation from more than one pompous ass. It's so enjoyable to watch legitimately read people shine right through this bullshit as through a window.

Ty for taking ur time to slay this nigga.

I blame woody allen

>>remember that Freud was a hack whose theories were rooted in Jewish mysticism and have been disproved by real psychologists time and time again
(this is incorrect btw)

The cult of Fraud is alive and well I see

Blame Arno Schmidt and the hordes that will descend when ZT drops

I'm a long way from being an expert, but I do have an MSc in Psychology and can say that most modern psychologists tend to dismiss psychoanalysis because it tends to be unscientific and psychoanalytic therapy tends to be less effective than more modern therapeutic techniques (most of which come from the cognitive-behavioural school). In my degree there were maybe 1-2 lectures devoted to Freud and a few slides within a lecture devoted to Jung, but that was it really in terms of psychoanalysis. We never had to read any of their books/lectures, or really engage with their arguments beyond a very basic level. It's an important chapter in the history of the development of psychology, but almost completely irrelevant for modern psychology in practice. In my own opinion, psychoanalysis is attractive because it's almost like detective work - going deep into someone's mind and accessing their previously repressed memories and dreams, ascribing various meanings to and interpretations of these memories and dreams, and tying it all together to create a diagnosis and option for therapy that the individual would never have been able to arrive at themselves. It seems like a real "Eureka" moment. But there's also no evidence to suggest that these interpretations have any real validity.

When it comes to the post-Freud thinkers like Lacan, Foucalt, Zizek, etc, we didn't learn about them at all - as far as I'm aware, they're far more relevant in the humanities and sociological degrees. In qualitative research I've sometimes read studies like "The researcher adopted an ethnographic Lacanian framework...", but I've always chosen quantitative research so I can't really say about whether these methods are valid. To be honest, it's always seemed like completed bullshit to me. The jargon they use seems deliberately overcomplicated but, when broken down and simplified, is actually logically incoherent. It's in this type of research where you'll find the real pseudointellectuals. Maybe there are some genuinely good researchers who use these methods accurately, but I've wasted time on too many bullshit papers to try and find the good ones. I believe that scientific research should be communicated in the clearest possible way (without losing any of its value, of course) so as to have the greatest possible benefit for the greatest number of people, but all these guys seem interested in is using long words and trying to convince the world how clever they are, when half the time they've simply interviewed five people and have come up with pretty unoriginal data.

>>>>>>>''''''real'''''' psychologists

Might aswell disregard "real" psychology, psychoanalisis and the entirety of surrealism

Freud was proto-science. What mean by real psychology is methods that seek to disprove (or test) their own theories instead of looking backwards for evidence to support their theories as distinguished by Karl Popper and universally accepted today as a scientific method.

Psychoanalytic theory is so malleable that you can manipulate practically any data to support your theory.

Surrealism does not pretend to be scientific.

> it tends to be unscientific
"Scientific" things are just a part of specific discourse. Not a surefire path to knowledge of Truth(the same with p-a's discourse)
> psychoanalytic therapy tends to be less effective than more modern therapeutic techniques
than more medicine by psychiatrist too. What do you need "solve the problem" or "choose fastest way back to work"

>WHITE MANLET
>WHITE

Why add the racism? It doesn't actually add anything to your criticism of his position.

Can we just stop with all these extremist replies already?

So he doesn't know. Isn't that why he's asking a question in the first place? If we would educate one another rather than shaming people for asking questions or being ignorant, the world would be a better place.

If we're going to shame anyone, it should be the ignorant who are disinterested in learning.

This is Veeky Forums, cuck.

Scientific things are those things which apply the scientific method. Not a guaranteed path to 'truth' granted, but still the best method for conducting psychological research. The non-scientific nature of psychoanalysis isn't so much a criticism as a fact, given that much of psychoanalytic theory isn't falsifiable. Psychology in practice will choose those methods that can be constantly refined and improved, and psychoanalysis doesn't really fit into that, hence why it is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

>scientific method
Repeat your Stanford/Milgram/and so on and so on. "Modern psychology" achievements are random(then let's take some from linguistics, ethnology, philosophy, philology, psychoanalysis etc) and the method is blind. Be brave with lot of unstructured recommendations and poor Enlightenment thought.

It's because he can't handle criticism of Freud so he immediately strawmanned me as a /pol/ user.

/pol/ and people like him are just two sides of the same, ugly coin.

"Cuck" isn't an all-versatile insult which can be thrown into any context and still be relevant.

Is this you first day here?

The thing is that aside from my results i add a couple of arguments to my post that you again ignored.

>There are a plethora of essays which will tell you that there is a lack of empirical evidence supporting Freud's theories; that the evidence he supplied himself was untrustworthy at best and embellished at worst; that other forms of therapy, for example CBT, have proven to be more effective

This is your only argument, and it's funny because in recent years psychoanalysis is experiencing a widespread revival and CBT is critiszed in many ways (while still being the prominent form of therapy). CBT hasn't been proven to be anything, and one thing that i have mentioned before: Of course, Freudian psychoanalysis in it's original form is outdated. But if you've actually read Freud you will see that he has always seen himself as a pioneer, who points out various times that more research is needed, that his theories are not final, who has revised himself various times and has been revised for many decades, most notably by Lacan, who during his own time revived Freuds theories.

maybe you can help me and provide a link where it's definitely proven that CBT is more effective than say Lacanian Psychoanalysis?

>If I said someone was completely off-base because they were guided by the Scholastics not modern science, in a field that I believe falls into the realm of empirical science, am I anti-Christian?

No, just an idiot.

Which is exactly the point. Saying "so-and-so was wrong because he was a Scholastic/Jewish mystic" isn't bad because it's anti-Catholic/anti-Semitic, it's bad because it's stupid. So Freud was a Jew and Garrigou-Lagrange was a Scholastic. That might give us some insight into what they meant, but it doesn't answer the relevant question, which is whether or not they were correct or at least worth reading.

Here's a little game you can play: First take the argument, "Garrigou-Lagrange was wrong because he was a Scholastic."

Now say, "Garrigou-Lagrange was wrong. Garrigou-Lagrange was a Scholastic."

Notice how in the first argument, it is claimed that the first clause follows from the second. But when we actually separate the two statements into different sentences it becomes obvious that the one does not follow from the other. If it was a syllogism then you'd be missing an entire premise (which you would have seen if you'd studied the Scholastics).

>CALLING SOMEONE WHITE
>RACISM

AHAHAHAHA

YOU JUST DID EXACTLY WHAT I SAID YOU WOULD DO IN MY INB4 YOU FROGPOSTING ZITBESPECKLED FATBOY

YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT FREUD OR WHICH OF HIS THEORIES HAVE BEEN DISPROVEN OR WHO THEY WERE ALLEGEDLY DISPROVEN BY

YOU WILL NEVER BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY OUTSIDE OF YOUR PLEB CIRCLE OF ONLINE FRIENDS HAHAHAHAHA

>but all these guys seem interested in is using long words and trying to convince the world how clever they are

I wonder how a guy who writes something like this can take himself seriously.

I'm a Jung man, myself.
>"Now, while my brother Frasier is a Freudian, I am a Jungian, so there will be no blaming Mother today!"

Freud was very effective in helping creative the field of group psychology (public relations, marketing, etc.) because his nephew Edward Bernays exported his ideas to America and expounded on them. All companies employ aspects of Freud's group psychology today. Freud's forays into individual psychology was less successful obviously.

You are literally too stupid to understand nuances born of context.

What makes it racist is that you include "white" in the middle of an insult, implying that being white is something intrinsically worthy of criticism.

I guess you are just too moronic to even realize you were being racist.