Why does Veeky Forums mock psychology?

Prostitutes

It's an interesting area desu. Never thought I'd pursue it because it doesn't lead to any good jobs and because I didn't want to do a PhD, but somehow stumbled into a job that pays me a better wage than any of the other jobs I was applying for, and lets me to do a full-time PhD at the same time for free

For the same reason internet atheists mock religion, most of it is bad so all of it must be bad.

Literally incorrect

What is your job?

No he's correct, Freudians, Jungians and Lacanians are all from the psychoanalytic trend and most academic psychologists don't even bother reading them unless they have a personal interest.

guys is behaviorism a meme?

>psychoanalysis isn't psychology

Interesting. What can you tell us about brian chemicals

Yes absolutely

If we follow Heidegger in believing that things have their destiny embedded in their beginning, then I dislike psychology because Freud is paradigmatic to psychology in the same way that Plato is paradigmatic to philosophy, and by examining who they really were and what they accomplished by the end of their lives, you can get a rough sketch of what their discipline ultimately is and what it will always be destined to become.

From Plato we can see that, more or less, Philosophy is the honest pursuit of wisdom with the purpose of a preparation for death (that is to say, a preparation for the hereafter).

From Freud we can see that, more or less, Psychology is a utterly secular, virulently atheistic form of shamanism that refuses to acknowledge the spiritual while at the same time being suffused with a negative spirituality, a spirituality of pure perversion. Who can imagine a more perverse concept than the idea that the deepest desire of every organism is to die and to return to nothing? But this is the end of Freud's thought, and the ultimate end of all psychology. It wasn't enough to drag everything in the world through the mud, it wasn't enough to destroy all the purest forms of the purest thing (love--between parents and children, between mothers and infants, between man and God, etc.), Freud ultimately wanted to pervert and distort man's idea of life itself.

It should be abundantly clear to everyone that, in all but a few cases, life wants nothing more than to live, to enjoy life and to multiply itself to superabundance.

But no, Freud insists that what life truly wants is to die. No one has ever had a more "pathological" idea than this one!

And he did all this, not for those disgusting sexual motives that he was always impressing onto everybody, but because he wanted to destroy (and those sexual motives were the best method of poisoning, as nothing crushes and shames a person like sexual indiscretion). You can see this drive to destroy in his rare moments of emotion, in the instants where his scientific reserve shatters and he confesses: "I feel like a midas, but instead of gold everything I touch turns to shit..." (uttered not with shame, but with pleasure) and when he recounts, in the interpretation of dreams, a joyful childhood memory in which his father gave him a book of pretty pictures to tear to pieces...

In the way that the supernal dignity of Plato and Socrates ennobles all of their followers, the rank perversions of Freud fester like an original sin in all psychology. Not even an ocean of the well-intentioned science that followed him will ever suffice to wash that wound clean. Coming at the beginning, the infection can't help but have spread to the blood.

Pure ideology.

Beyond Freedom and Dignity is a serious book. Its pretty much the most extreme version of Positivism/Determinism/Materialism you can imagine. The opening chapters are at least worth a read if you want to understand that extreme end of the psychology/philosophy spectrum.

Now Walden 2 is a fucking joke. BF Skinner is not a good prose writer and his attempt at writing a utopian novel is hilariously bad.

I'm doing a research project looking at how different aspects of the indoor environment (in offices) affect work performance. It's pretty much exactly the same as a PhD, except I'm working with a company who will want to commercialise my research findings. It's not exactly the topic I'd have chose to study, but like I say, it pays better than the other graduate jobs I was applying for after my MSc.

It's not a complete meme, but has been pushed way too hard for political reasons ("nothing is ever anyone's fault, it's all the fault of society!"). Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate is a good book on this topic.

Psychoanalysis is seen as pseudoscience by lots of psychologists, although the psychoanalysts still fight their corner. Psychoanalysis is just attractive, especially for Veeky Forums types, because of the intrigue of acting like a detective and searching deep inside the unconscious for a cause to the psychological problem. Other treatment is more boring, but more effective.

I can't remember a huge amount about brain chemicals, only that their role in depression (the serotonin hypothesis) is a bit overstated. It's more to do with the fact that different parts of the brain literally change in size and function due to depression - depression isn't just a case of chemical imbalance.

>Theist retard believing once again the world should revolve around religion

Fuck off

>Other treatment is more boring, but more effective.

It's more effective per volume.
Psychoanalysis is far more effective for the individual, but its weakness is that it requires a practitioner of very high caliber and a relatively non-economical treatment plan. In its purest form it would forego the limitations and superficiality of professionalism entirely.

It's all economics lad. Psychoanalysis is a superior form of treatment but it's a bad business model.

*sniffs*

In the socratic mode, I'd be happy to take everything back and to reverse my course if I've make a dumb error (or am so wrong that I'm no longer even wrong, just nuts and off-base).

And its not that I don't think Freud is an incredible writer, or that he doesn't have many deeply insightful and interesting ideas. What galls me is that the whole was spoiled by a bad heart, a vicious heart that loved nothing more than to corrupt what was sacred and beloved. Like an expensive ship that was steered into the rocks by a drunk captain.

In the end, that is the fate of every slanderer. The greatest injustice they commit is against their own heart, which by their baroque falsehoods they show was once capable of great goodness and beauty.

I'm not a theist

>Other treatment is more boring, but more effective

Yeah according to arbitrary metrics that presuppose what it means to be effective.
Your field is full of shit and will be viewed akin to alchemy by the end of the century

Getting into difficult territory there - how can you prove that it's more effective per volume? How can you prove that failures are the result of bad practitioners, and that's not the case for the treatments you're comparing it with? One of the criticisms that often gets thrown at psychoanalysis is that it's non-falsifiable, and therefore non-scientific.

No, according to a scientific method called the randomised controlled trial, which is seen as the gold standard for comparing different types of treatments or interventions. It's widely used not just in psychology but also medicine, pharmaceuticals, etc. The metrics used are probably patients' responses to a questionnaire assessing different aspects of their mental health on quantifiable scales. It's not a perfect technique admittedly, but it's pretty good.

I would say that you were not being Socratic at all when you wrote that previous post.
You apparently have a major aversion to Freud, that's fine as your personal inclination, but to fairly evaluate his system of thought you must take it on its own terms instead of constantly comparing it to whatever values you think are important. All your talk about perversity, purity, dragging through the mud, is again, pure ideology.

I mean, seriously

>Freud ultimately wanted to pervert and distort man's idea of life itself.

This is shit ideologues say. It's histrionic and its an immediate sign to educated folk that they should go into skim-reading mode.

>non-falsifiable, and therefore non-scientific

Implying this is a bad thing when dealing with the largely irrational human mind.

This is nothing to do with the scientific method dipshit, it's how we define what is the desired goal of treatment and how we measure what are complicated and nebulous concepts such as happiness rationality and wellbeing that require an extremely sophisticated philosophic consideration in which psychology is laughable inadequate.
You don't just perform poorer than psychoanalysis you're not even in the same epoch. Psychology still operates on what are values and assumptions that were abandoned in philosophy in the Victorian era.

There is no field that has been more misunderstood, twisted, beaten, lied about, used for activism, contorted, shat on, or misrepresented than Psychology.

t. Psychology undergrad who is dropping psych and transferring next semester.

>he thinks alchemy was nothing but primitive chemistry

whew lad

Maybe that's right, but you could use exactly the same argument to defend any theory to explain the human mind. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it wrong - that's why it's important to look at outcomes too.

How would you define happiness, rationality, and wellbeing then, seeing as you are clearly far more sophisticated than all psychologists?

There are literally hundreds of psychologists who spend their whole careers researching this and answering exactly those questions, drawing widely upon philosophy from both the western and eastern traditions. Any method that reduces a score for depression, or similar, to a score on a 7-point scale is obviously very reductionist (necessarily so, for statistical analysis), but that's why you'd never use a quantitative study in isolation - qualitative studies are also widely used and provide much richer data, even if it can't be used for statistical analysis. You've clearly never studied psychology as you have a very poor understanding of what psychological research actually entails.

T H I S

dam you're right. that's why I can never really think properly, I always get up caught up in emotions and stories lol. what do you mean to take up a system of thought in its own terms though?

Which is why psychology is ultimately necessarily an inductive practice and can never be truly scientific which blurs any question of illegitimacy between psychoanalysis as a discipline based on discourse between orthodox psychology which is behind its thin veneer of Baconian rigidity just as much discourse based, except unlike in psychoanalysis its very pretense against such a nature means that these assumptions do indeed get taken for granted and why you have such a transcendental joke as CBT predominating in the English world as the whole field spirals into spasmatic overdose from its own hubris.
As the nuclear heatwave of neuroscience strips away the unfounded pseudo-analytic framework of cognitivism on one side meanwhile the public on the other has already lost any faith in the field it'll be rendered into the ground soon enough.

You take a thinker at his word and don't assign motivations to them.

If it's important to you to tear down Freud then you can try, but realize at that point that you're writing invective and you're no longer in the realm of enlightened analysis.

melbournelacanian.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/a-critique-of-cbt-as-ideology-part-1/

should I read this?

>which is why psychology is ultimately necessarily an inductive practice and can never be truly scientific

Not really, the scientific method is applied where possible, but the discipline has never claimed to be a hard or physical science. Mistakes are made, bad research takes place frequently (check out the 'replicability crisis', for example), and therefore it takes a long time to arrive at a conclusion which we might confidently call 'truth'.

Psychology is a field dedicated to treating white middle class women, Its basically useless outside of that criteria.

WE

Ironically enough, Veeky Forums is pretty retarded. The hypocrisy of making fun of peoplr like Science Nigger yet commenting on things they have absolutely fuck all for knowledge in is clearly lost on those information and formula repeating brainlets.

>Haha I am an engineer I am the smartest STEMtard

Build a bridge and jump off it.

Still waiting to hear your ideas for a better way to assess the effectiveness of different types of therapy and a more accurate way of operationalising happiness, rationality, and wellbeing in this assessment.

not him but
>assessing effectiveness
>operationalising happiness and rationality
>begging the question this hard

Not an argument

>check out the 'replicability crisis', for example

That's specifically social psychology though, not clinical psychology. Clinical psychology actually uses scientific evidence, social psychology is just a left-wing propaganda discipline.

the replication crisis is all of STEM except things like pure math.
clinical psych in general has a lot of problems beyond the replication crisis, but thinking it only refers to social psych makes me think you don't know what these words mean.

Wow! You really got me there.

I mean, you since you believe that I don't know what I am talking about, it must be true!

You're such a genius man. I wonder, how did you get so educated?

Fucking kill yourself you pathetic excuse for life.

Is Jung worth reading?