ITT post pseudes

ITT: We judge people for not knowing what we know now by using frameworks they developed.

As cringy as a chemist making fun of an alchemist.

YES YES YES THIS IS EXACTLY THAT TYPE OF SHIT THAT I MEAN HOW CAN ANYONE TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY

>As cringy as a chemist making fun of an alchemist
No, it's not. Chemistry is a real, respectable science now, whereas psychology is still as retarded and pseudoscientific as it was 100 years ago.

Just study neurobiology

Why should I respect freuds ideas when they are obviously incorrect? I have to believe him just because he came before me? Most chemists do laugh at alchemists and psychologists laugh at Freud because they had such stupid ideas back then.

>implying you can know something with absolute certainty

>psychology is still as retarded and pseudoscientific as it was 100 years ago
>Most chemists do laugh at alchemists and psychologists laugh at Freud because they had such stupid ideas back then.

Not even wrong, not even wrong.

Not that user but chemistry is an adjunct of alchemy. Not the other way round.

You have no sense of history and have been fooled by modernity into delimiting your purview.

>666

Get thee behind me, Satan.

>whereas psychology is still as retarded and pseudoscientific as it was 100 years ago

You don't know anything about psychology. If you did, you'd know neurobiology doesn't give the whole picture.

He had ideas that were incorrect, all his ideas weren't incorrect. Calling him pseudoscientific when he is known for being the first person to apply experiment and observation to the human mind thus creating psychology is laughable in itself.

You can however know something without absolute certainty. Which is good enough.

The other guy is right, Freud revolutionized the very idea of the unconscious mind and childhood events heavily influencing our psyche.

even if you don't believe everything he said (last time I checked, no one really does), it's only based on the framework he created that we learned so much more about human psychology.

Also, protip: alchemists were mystics putting in Hermetic wisdom in the form of alchemy to hide it from the Church.

...

>Also, protip: alchemists were mystics putting in Hermetic wisdom in the form of alchemy to hide it from the Church.

This is partially true. They could be killed for it, yes. But they were also doing it to weed out the rabble who weren't deserving of the Knowledge. You needed to be an initiate (or on the path, at least) in some way to be able to read into it -- it was a giant litmus test of sorts.

>tfw constantly horny, overly sexual person
>freud's theories make too much sense to you

HALP

>You don't know anything about psychology. If you did, you'd know neurobiology doesn't give the whole picture.

No but its the only part that can claim any scientific picture. The rest of psychology is schizophrenic pile of horseshit based on poor inductive reasoning through ill defined axioms and philosophically naive conceptions that in the end just boils down to the pathetic agony aunt tier colloqial truisms of CBT

Really. All of psychology, a field with institutions all over the world, with thousands of liscensed practitioners and a heavily regulated peer-review process is "schizophrenic horseshit". If that's true, then why aren't neurobiologists providing psychological assessment and treatment?

Do you actually believe this?

But you ARE, obsessed with your semen and penis, right? How recently did you masturbate? Was it today?

Because neuroscience is still a bumbling retarded baby. It is a field of contradictions based on already unsupported models of brain localisation and activation. Even more inexact, fumbling, guesswork than psychoanalysis.

>psychology, a field with institutions all over the world, with thousands of liscensed practitioners and a heavily regulated peer-review process
So is sociology. What's your point?

Have you considered that its not "fumbling guesswork", but that psychology and neurobiology are hard subjects to scientifically examine?

Ah. We're going to bash sociology now I persume?

Sociology is pretty awful yeah, and I say that as a Leftist.
The Catholic Church dominated Europe for millennia, I don't know how you think intellectually bankrupt fields is that hard to fathom

Yeah, for sure. I'm just equalling the playing field - neurobiology is not an "answer" to psychoanalysis.

Humans are literally the most complex organisms we have ever encountered in the universe. Studying their biology and the structures of their mind is going to take some time. Bashing the thinkers who pushed the boundaries of these studies is ridiculous. Freud is based.

>Sociology is pretty awful yeah

Sociology is not awful, it just has some awful people practising it. And I have first hand experience, my sociology teacher in high school was a bonified communist and is my local Green Party MP. But here's the thing: he teaches sociology, but he isn't a sociologist. The only papers have ever published are population survays, none of his theories are taken seriously, only factual statistics are. And you'll find that with a lot of fields that can be capitalized on for profit or social control.

Did you actually read Interpretation of Dreams or are you just trying to remember what your high school psych teacher told you?

I see neurology as complimentary to Psychoanalysis more than the Cognitives, its been absolutely bulldozing their flimsy assumptions already leaving the Subconscious model of thought intact

You sure?
I thought it was the other way round.
I'd love singe links to look into this

scientificamerican.com/article/neuroscience-meets-psychoanalysis/

discovermagazine.com/2014/april/14-the-second-coming-of-sigmund-freud

>neurobiology doesn't give the whole picture.
t.psychologist

You have to remember Cognitive Psychology has actually fuck all to do with Cognitive Science outside superficial terminology, this result is not at all surprising to me

Thanks

t. wants to fuck his mother

His mom wasn't even that hot

Id fuck her

My psych teacher never spoke about it, except for in that one dream I had, but in that dream my psych teacher was actually my older brother, and he was going to tell in me on my dad for breaking this red vase my mum had. Anyway, it was really weird because he said that I wouldn't learn anything about dreams from a book, and then I kept getting the feeling he wanted to kiss me so I made some weird excuse and then left, and then when I woke up my parents told me that the world trade centres had been attacked and I was like, "those towers had it cumming."

>Calling him pseudoscientific when he is known for being the first person to apply experiment and observation to the human mind thus creating psychology is laughable in itself.

Not a Freud hater or anti-psychoanalysis by any means, but this is just wrong. Experimental psychology began in 1879 with the creation of Wilhelm Wundt's lab at the University of Leipzig (and perhaps even earlier), a full 20 years before Freud published the Interpretation of Dreams and more than 15 years before he began laying out the beginnings of psychoanalysis as part of his case studies as a neurologist. The construction of empirical methods, some right and some wrong, for the study of mind was well underway throughout the 1880s. Freud did pioneer talk therapy and consideration of the unconscious, but he did not lead the way in applying "experiment and observation to the human mind" or in establishing psychology.

Good post. I didn't want to get that deep into it bc obviously it's very off-topic though. I wonder why we don't have more esotericism threads on Veeky Forums besides the rare one you see every one or two months.