Worth reading? Why or why not?

Seconding CaID. In fact, I would start with it to get a sense of his basic drive in developing his work (even though it was not chronologically first). It paints a picture of his work within its cultural context.

more like fraud LOLE

I came to this thread just to confirm my suspicions that within the first 10 posts somehow would blurt out boring ZOG conspiracy theories.

never let me down Veeky Forums.

It really is sad. Imagine having a face-to-face literature discussion group. Imagine how literally retarded and annoying it would be to have someone in the group link EVERY literature/philosophical/political discussion back to this one conspiracy theory.

You're jewish, aren't you? It's natural for you to want to deflect attention and blame away from your people, but pretending that jews don't act with antipathy toward Europeans and that Freud isn't a primo example of how they engage in that type of antagonistic behavior, is only going to fool a handful of 15 year olds around here. People know about the jewish problem now, the information is all out there so no "conspirusuh" necessary, chap.

What conspiracy? Jews are tribal, you don't think they conspire or are you just bad with the actual definitions of words?

I'm not talking about the truth or non truth of the theory at all. I'm talking about the experience of trying to have a discussion with someone who cannot seem to shut the fuck up about it ever.

Why are you under the mistaken impression that Freud's jewishness is not central to any potential discussion of his ideas?

It's entertaining literature and nothing more. It is not scientific, and no one takes him seriously within the field.

I don't think it's mistaken. I am familiar with the ideas about Jews and also with Freud's theories. I flat our disagree with you that it is ALWAYS relevant. In fact I think to THINK it is always relevant (as evidenced in every. Fucking. Thread lately), come pretty close to insanity in that it demonstrates lazy, simplistic, tunnel-vision obsessiveness.

youre wasting your time
I have a feeling they also find it funny to, like, trigger people, so don't give in

the worst thing you can do is make them feel like what they're saying is subversive or surprising or interesting in any way

>I am familiar with the ideas about Jews and also with Freud's theories
No, you clearly aren't. And you should expect every thread about Marx, Freud, and whatever jew is being nepotistically promoted by the jewish literary establishment to be a dumping ground of information exposing jews and jewish behavior. Understanding jewish behavior is fundamental to understanding these individuals' ideas and the reasons why their ideas have been promoted. They cannot be separated, so get used to it and up your discourse game if you ever want to present a counter argument instead of whine.

It's becoming like trying to have a conversation before putting the kids to bed. Boring and distracting.
Yeah yeah, all of which rests on a premise that every jew has the same mind and motives, or that you attribute their behavior to an organised plan that goes beyond the in-group out-group dynamics of all races. I don't accept that premise 24/7 and I also do not think it's interesting or useful to reduce all sociological observations to global tribal warfare games. You like to think I'm ignorant, but I just don't think it's as convincing or important as you do, and EVEN if I did, I think the obsessive and reductive approach does a disservice to your ideas.

>rests on a premise that every jew has the same mind and motives, or that you attribute their behavior to an organised plan

I mean, I already understand that you don't understand, so you don't have to repeat to me why it is you don't understand. This is about an intellectual void you have that you can't get past because you think certain information is off-limits or frightening. You can get over that personal hurdle and become a more well-rounded individual in terms of your own education, or you can keep going on the path you're on. That's your choice, but you're going to continue to look foolish trying to argue about things you don't understand until you make the decision to become better informed. I do wish you the best of luck, though. I know it's not easy.

The fact that you need to make ambiguous, non-specific, unsubstantiated statements about what I don't know to move your end of the discussion really highlights how blind your intellectual vision is. You have no clue what I have or have not faced or given consideration of, but you must continually pretend like you do to keep your narrow perspective intact.

Weighing up the options, I think it's much more interesting that your theory is a side note on the grand evolution of medical inquiry, which has eventuated into models of psycho logy. I honestly think those developments are interesting in their own right, and though the do have a cultural context (as does everything), to just say we should ignore a whole field of human inquiry because it's proponent was of a certain cultural background is to me a huge fucking waste. But go on and assume I'm Jewish or indoctrinated or ignorant. It's really the only three options you have seeing as you are unwilling to seriously consider that your perspective might need updating.

shitty read, interesting perspective

>to just say we should ignore a whole field of human inquiry because it's proponent was of a certain cultural background is to me a huge fucking waste
Huh? I never said or to my knowledge implied such a thing. And I didn't call you jewish, either. Did you see what words of yours I highlighted in my previous post? That was an interpretation of yours that I was emphasizing to show that you don't understand what I'm talking about, but are nevertheless assuming you already know. I was simply telling you that those words signaled a void in your intellectual understanding. If you want to get an entry-level understanding of how Freud's jewishness was very much related to his ideas, since this is a subject you seem passionate about, I would be happy to point you in the right direction. The Culture of Critique has a good deal of information on the topic, have you heard of that book? You should read it, it's a good first step toward deepening your intellectual education.

Thanks for the book recommendation, I will check it out. It seems the goalposts have shifted somewhat or at least are less intense from the first post I responded to, to this latest one. I stand by my arguing against dismissing all of Freud's contributions to philosophy of mind and psychology as merely being
>this perverted jews' attempt to deconstruct white people and their society, and project jewish perversions onto the goyim
That is the attitude I have been arguing against, and that is why I advised against ignoring a whole field of human inquiry (namely psychoanalysis) because it's proponent was of a certain cultural background.

Yes, well, while I stand by that summary of Freud as a pervert, it's more important to me to help other whites understand that jews are more than people of a "certain cultural background," but are rather middle eastern semites that are extremely antagonistic toward whites. Jews like Freud (and Marx especially) are held up by jewish academia not necessarily because they were right, but because they promoted jewish interests. Sexuality is a major form of control, and Freud advanced the notion that the goyim could be controlled through the loosening of sexual morality within the west, and the consequences of this exist as strong as ever today, to wit: the jewish-run porn industry which gets sicker and sicker each day. Read about them bragging about it in jewish publications, these people hate us:

jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/articled325.html?articleid=38

Whites need to understand the difference between themselves and jews, and understand that there is a deeper level to jewish thinkers like Freud and Marx than what is presented at the surface level. The Culture of Critique is a good starting point for figuring these things out so I hope you do take a look. Pdf here:

archive.org/details/CultureOfCritique

Thanks for the link, I will attempt to download.

I find it interesting that you would call Freud a pervert, and accuse him of arguing for LESS sexual boundaries, as it was his opinion that loose sexual boundaries in the family was the cause of many neuroses. I have read a lot of his work and while he does put forward that knowledge of the id is valuable, I have not seen him outwardly suggest degeneracy at all. He was more ready to argue that those impulses should be sublimated towards work and other productive outlets, similar to current "nofap" arguments.

I don't think many people on the field of psychology or psychiatry take Freud too seriously nowadays, he has a bad reputation of being very unscientific (not that people on Veeky Forums would care, but psychologist certainly do) on some of experiments, either that or arriving to wrong conclusions that other people could explain better. His writings do have value as a stepping stone for the study of the mind, but pretty much everyone I know of tries to distance themselves from the guy, or at most they make their own psychoanalytical theories based on the general notions he provided.

If you want to study psychology as your degree, I think you should 100% read him since it might be mandatory in some course that teaches the history of the discipline. You can't evade the guy and reading him with time might give you good ideas to examine and discuss.
That too applies if you want to get into the crazy French guys like Lacan or Deleuze, although I don't know how much academic value they have within psychology.
If you just want to learn about psychology because you are curious or as a hobby, I think there might be better and more modern books out there, there's a whole load of information about Freud out there that can simplify what he wanted to explain, so you don't feel forced to read him.

I want to use this thread to ask something:
I read someone that Deleuze is the missing link between Freud and Jung, can someone explain why this is?

I disagree, most of Freuds theories have become the presuppositions for psychology, they are taken for granted and the only ones we pay attention to are the weird rejection ones. For the most part every subdiscipline of psychology rests on his work and has not abandoned it.

I wouldn't say that Deleuze "bridges" Freud and Jung per se, but offers a counterpoint for understanding madness. Whereas Freud emphasised the sex and death instincts as core, Jung emphasised spiritual meaning needs, and Deleuze emphasised personal belonging/place in capitalism. However, in my opinion Adler does it better by generalising as a will to power that transcends capitalism and speaks to individual place in social hierarchy more broadly.

i always wonder how many of these people are joking or not

this. Einstein was a jewish plant to make us believe everything is relative

Nothing is more advantageous to the new world order than the wedding of space and time.

not only worth reading, essential reading. you have to read him

>I disagree, most of Freuds theories have become the presuppositions for psychology, they are taken for granted and the only ones we pay attention to are the weird rejection ones.
The only concepts of Freud that still exist, but he made popular, are:
>there are unconcious portions of the mind
>biography is extremely meaningful to the psyche, especially childhood
and
>you are not in full control of your actions/thoughts

He was in no way the first to come up with these ideas. He was, however, the first to convince people of it and make a connection to "abnormal psychology".

Apart from that, most of his theories are pretty much ignored. Even among analysts, his theories are mostly just used as framework to make a distinction between psychoanalysis and psychology.

There are still Freudian analysts out there. But they are either just purists who like the name, but mostly apply other peoples works or they are total fucking weirdos, who aren't actually interested in exploring the mind and just like to sound clever by making unfalsifiable assertions all day.

t. psych student in a city that also has a private Sigmund Freud uni

Even jews hated the bastard

that's the million dollar question

lmao

Worth reading to understand how the European Jewish mind works. Freud tried to show us how our minds worked but he ended up projecting his Jewish attitudes on everything we do. His work is more reflective of him than anything else.

no
Freud was wrong about almost everything. Just read any psychology/neurology book/paper from the past 20 years.
But if OP stills wants to read it follow recommendation.

Absolutely not. He makes the classic issue of regressing (reduction) on his own ideas to make a conclusion, which, besides being logically false, ends up just being an embarrassing display of his own twisted projections of his own depraved world, which I guess could be found humorous if nothing else.

This is an important point. Freud was projecting the twisted jewish mind, including the jewish penchant for perversion, onto non-jewish Europeans. But this is typical jewish behavior. Adorno did the same thing wrt the authoritarian personality.

What of his ideas exactly are you claiming is not true of most people?

The Jewish ideas

Sad!

So by that definition anyone who popularised any clear and useful models of mind or for that matter politics or philosophy (and Freud was basically a philosopher as much a scientist, which is fine with me) should get zero credit because the Greeks did it first. Just give credit where credit is due, user. Also, no, you're wrong, cognitive and personality psych are two examples of disciplines riddles from head to foot with his ideas. Many of his ideas are now also basic in therapy, for example neuroses being recognisable through a catalogued set of psychological coping mechanisms.

It's easy to dismiss someone AFTER their ideas have become common parlance, because it seems like they only contributed common sense, but the changes he made in the way we think about psychology was radical, and if he was mainly incorporating old ideas into modern models, fine. It's still more than most men have done, and it is unquestionably valuable.

>He makes the classic issue of regressing (reduction) on his own ideas to make a conclusion, which, besides being logically false, ends up just being an embarrassing display of his own twisted projections of his own depraved world, which I guess could be found humorous if nothing else.
Funny, I would say the same of most race-based conspiracy theories.

>race-based conspiracy theories.
Like the one about how all races are the same and if you disagree you're a horrible racist?

This is how brainwashed and gaslighted people have become, they can't comprehend that the mainstream position is the actual conspiracy theory and that those opposing it with statistical evidence and gigs of historical data are the ones telling the truth.

No, not like that one. Is it really those two extremes with you? Either races are equal or there is a giant ZOG conspiracy and every single Jewish person who has contributed to philosophy or medicine is in on it and furthering that agenda primarily.

>Freud was basically a philosopher as much a scientist,
A scientist who turned philosopher, but okay.
>Just give credit where credit is due, user.
Wut? I gave him credit for popularizing the ideas.
I'm merely pointing out that the only ideas which turned out to be actually true, were already worked on by contemporary psychologists. All he did was speed up research, if anything.
>cognitive and personality psych are two examples of disciplines riddles from head to foot with his ideas.
No, they're not. At best some of the terminology. His theories are all outdated.
>Many of his ideas are now also basic in therapy
They are "basic" in psychoanalytic psychotherapy. A dying breed. Rightfully so.
>for example neuroses being recognisable through a catalogued set of psychological coping mechanisms.
...Have you not actually read Freud?
The neuroses/psychoses thing is one of those where he was absolutely wrong.
What he called NEUROses and attributed to physical disorders turned out to be mostly psychological, while PSYCHOses (which he attributed to the psyche/trauma) turned out to have mainly neurological origins.
The terminology is the only thing that survived through common usage.

Also "coping" was more or less his daughters ideas (Abwehrmechanismen). Most of which turned out to also be wrong.
>It's still more than most men have done, and it is unquestionably valuable.
Again, I literally gave him the credit of changing public opinion of how the mind works.
Doesn't change the fact that he was otherwise a hack.

I'm fine with people reading him as conti philosopher and for historical reference.
But the implication or sometimes outright assertion that he is "the father of modern psychology" is outright wrong.
There is a reason psychoanalysis was never part of the psychological faculty in Vienna and still isn't to this day. He understood the difference.

I bet it feels really good to put yourself up against the mainstream culture and pretend like you have value merely because your belief system is in the minority... Now where have I heard of people doing that before I wonder!!??

Hmmmmmmmmmm...

There are two possibilities here: 1) you're jewish and naturally coming to the defense of your group, or 2) you're a shabbos goy who isn't informed on the subject you're trying to speak about. I'm well aware that it's convenient to block out and attack ideas that make you uncomfortable, but if you refuse to look into the irrefutable evidence that exists documenting the jewish problem, how can you blame anyone else but yourself? This is about you not knowing something other people know. You can you change that through learning or you can continue to ignore it. Your choice.

You must be non-white. Your post gives off a very 85 IQ feel. This is about the facts of race, not being the underdog for the sake of it.

>it's fucking 2017 and I have to swoop in to tell someone to stop feeding the troll
Come on, guys.

>repressed right wing waspy Christians and moral alarmists
sounds totally like deleuze and guattari to be honest

>Your post gives off a very 85 IQ feel.
>literally muh feels
Truly an intellectual giant.

Two possibilities huh? Pretty reductionist if you ask me. Classic conspiracy brainwashed tunnel vision. One of many other possibilitiee is that I've seen the presentation of "facts" and am not convinced in the same way you are. Like, for example, maybe I think McDonald is as biased as you think Freud is. Maybe I want no part of race politics and think people who DO are literally creating the problem they want to fight.

>you must be jewish
>indoctrinated
>ignorant
>there is not a 1% chance I could be even partially wrong
Every time.

No, I think I nailed it. Don't pretend like you've read the Culture of Critique or understand the other side, though, it's not convincing. You are afraid, it's obvious in a statement like this:

>Maybe I want no part of race politics and think people who DO are literally creating the problem they want to fight.

But the error in your judgment stems from the fact that all politics in a multicultural society will be race politics. There's nothing more fundamental than race. You are running, pretending you're above something, refusing to accept the truth. Which leads back to my initial point: this is about you, your avoidance of particular subject matter, and the choice you don't want to make because it's scary.

I'm telling you the sky is blue, it's no one else's fault if you don't want to look up and see for yourself.

Please demonstrate how the variance between "races" is greater than within "races".
Also demonstrate the clear geographical lines, between which (for no fucking reason) your "races" don't blend, making the taxonomy meaningless.
And also demonstrate that your use of the term "race" is in any way near as distinctive as the use on common biology.

But you won't because you are a troll. And all these fuckers have taken your bait.

If no one trolled or fed the trolls this board would get like 3 posts a day (except for 1000 posts of "these are the last books I read" that nobody responds to).

>MUST BE JEWISH, IGNORANT, OR INDOCTRINATED
>THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION REEEEEEEEE
It is really pathetic at this point, but by all means keep digging your heels in like a toddler in the supermarket.

You say that as if it was a bad thing.

You couldn't make it any more obvious that you wouldn't know what a bell curve was if I put one in front of you.

>demonstrate how the variance between "races" is greater than within "races".

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Group means are all that matters, not variance within groups.

Your post is gibberish. I'm familiar with all kinds of data about racial differences, but you clearly are not so try to brush up on the basics if you want a real response.

When I greentext my incorrect interpretation of your argument in all caps, that's when you *might* be able to get away with pretending I'm the one acting like a toddler.

>
>You couldn't make it any more obvious that you wouldn't know what a bell curve was if I put one in front of you.
>>demonstrate how the variance between "races" is greater than within "races".
>You really have no idea what you're talking about. Group means are all that matters, not variance within groups.
Why? This is your own biased starting point that will desperately seek to confirm itself.

How was it incorrect? You are literally unable to concede that someone disagrees with you unless you say they are either Jewish, indoctrinated, or ignorant to the "facts" (i.e., your favourite interpretation of bits of information).

>Why?
Do you really expect to understand this stuff if you don't get entry-level statistics? This is a bell curve, the mean, or average, is all that matters. That has nothing to do with me trying to fix the data, that's just how it works.

You are behind, and don't understand the basic concepts here. And now I'm just repeating myself about how this is about a gap in your knowledge and nothing else, and how only you can fix that. Maybe you're just not capable.

No, you misunderstand. Why are you only interested in the differences in group means rather than the distribution between groups? Why compare groups based on race as opposed to any of the other important variables (e.g. Socio-economic) or a combination of them? Can you pull your head out of your ass for one second and not assume the people you speak to are uninformed? The mean is the most basic of all statistical concepts, it is FAR from being the only thing that matters.

Dude, the mean determines socio-economic status, et al. Avg IQ, avg crime rate, etc. Nothing else matters. Are you going to quantify human difference based on outliers? You are wasting my time and forcing me to repeat myself over and over: you are uninformed and speaking about subject matter you don't understand.

Psychoanalysis is just another poor attempt at mapping the individual, which by definition, is something that can't be defined by another. That's what makes it an individualistic thing. Oddly enough, reading Freud will eventually make you start to reflect the problematic assumptions he makes about you in his texts, so by all means, if you want to believe in it, strike forth and go read what amounts to mountains of texts reiterating the same personal accounts of a flawed life (that is, Freud's).

>the mean determines socio-economic status, et al. Avg IQ, avg crime rate, etc.
>Nothing else matters.
>you are uninformed
>you don't understand.
Holy shit.

So any philosopher who tries to identify helpful principles about people in general is a waste of time? What idea is it of Freud's that you think is so flawed?
>modern disciplines of psych do not include Freudian ideas
Bullshit. The structural model has informed nearly every humanist perspective of therapy, as have his notions of different types of anxiety - you can see echoes of this in the differentiation of types of anxiety in existential therapy. Defence mechanisms are still widely used and common parlance, as they should be. For example, intellectualisation and PROJECTION (jesus christ you are using it against him in this fucking thread) are big ones to look out for in psychological work. In contemporary abnormal psych, defence mechanisms have even played a role in the DSM. You think social learning models, the weight of biological drives on motivation, you think Freud did not being all these type of modern ideas into focus? I could go on, but fuck man, it just seems so obvious to me that dismissing Freuds presence in current psychology outright is nothing more than a "fashionable" move.

So you're saying that there are mean differences across some variables when comparing Jewish people to non Jewish people therefore there is a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world and Freud is a part of it?

People with pattern recognition this (intentionally or unintentionally) defective are definitely at the wrong end of some bell curve.

>idiot
Nice argument.

Try to be more honest in your own argumentation in the future if you want others to engage with you and take what you have to say seriously.

The funny thing is, this legitimately is my interpretation of your argument. If I'm wrong, tell me how the whole
>means are the only thing that matters
Supports the notion that
>there's nothing more fundamental than race
They are circular, they are both presuppositions. There is literally no argument there, it is arbitrary. I might as well say "there is nothing more fundamental than intelligence". You haven't even explained WHAT variable race has an impact on. You're either a troll or a pseud.

>Bullshit.
Nope. Fact.
>The structural model has informed nearly every humanist perspective of therapy,
Lemme just check on how many humanist therapists are around oh wait they've all died out in the 80's and have been acknowledged as thinly veiled analysts from the get go.
Apart from making psychology care about peoples well-being and being interested in motivation again, they didn't really impact the field. And Freud doesn't have a patent of hierarchical taxonomies as models. (None of which are up to date by the by.)
>as have his notions of different types of anxiety - you can see echoes of this in the differentiation of types of anxiety in existential therapy.
Well done on coming up with one outdated and philosophy based psychotherapy method after another. When are we gonna come to actual psychology?
>Defence mechanisms are still widely used and common parlance, as they should be.
No, they are only used by analysts and really shouldn't be used at all, as they confound what is happening. Forcing coping strategies into arbitrary (yes, arbitrary, as they are completely based on outdated Freudian ideas, outdated even in psychoanalysis) is asinine.
>For example, intellectualisation and PROJECTION (jesus christ you are using it against him in this fucking thread) are big ones to look out for in psychological work.
1) Where exactly have I used projection? I think you are confusing me with the antisemite or something.
2) Neither intellectualisation nor projection have part in any modern psychological theory. The closest thing to projection would be basic learning theory. Which has nothing to do with PA.
>In contemporary abnormal psych, defence mechanisms have even played a role in the DSM.
The shittier of the two standard manuals...
But please. Name some parts in the DSM, where defense mechanisms are explicitely a thing. No, it doesn't count if they use similar words for vaguely similar things. As demonstrated with the neurosis/psychosis thing before, and because when you create 30+ terms for psychological behavior, some of them are bound to have something to correspond in reality. (Keep in mind that almost all defense mechanisms in their actual meaning are entirely based on Freudian PA and can't be divorced from it.)

cont.

>You haven't even explained WHAT variable race has an impact on.
It has an impact on everything. Are you trying to sound stupid? No one is trolling you, you are merely failing to pick up on simple concepts like the above.

The old lich Sigmund

cont.

>You think social learning models, the weight of biological drives on motivation, you think Freud did not being all these type of modern ideas into focus?
>what is behaviorism

>I could go on, but fuck man, it just seems so obvious to me that dismissing Freuds presence in current psychology outright is nothing more than a "fashionable" move.
The only thing that comes close is your last point. And I have already acknowledged that Freud made the concept of biographical influences (especially in childhood) fashionable.
But even here you will find that the psychological research in the field is very distinct from the psychoanalytical research, which are going on parallel.
And whenever psychoanalysts try to adopt good theories from psychology (like that one group that tried to use Mentalization) they tend to get ostracized.

If anything, I feel that the relationship between psychoanalysis and psychology has been romanticized. I see the intellectual connection and I think it can be useful for psychologists to read some psychoanalysis for inspiration. (Especially smart ones, like Miller.)
Look, I'll even give you one for free. Bowlby and his attachment theory are pretty cool, meng. (Tho even he was ostracized by many analysts for them.) Psychologists took that shit and refined it. Prof Ahnert in Vienna is a rockstar in that category.
Generally one might even argue that developmental psychology was dominated by analysts. I'll give you that. But still? And was any of the actually useful and important stuff Freudian? Beyond it just being about kids? Nah, not really. And of those, the pioneers were both psychologists and analysts.

Freud is dead and he died pretty quickly. If he isn't to you, my guess is either that you've been exclusively looking at flashy (semi-)analytic literature, or you just studied psych101 at some random college, where they also teach Maslow as """relevant""". OR you actually study this shit and have gotten yourself into one of those weird covert psychoanalytic unis. I know France has a shitton of those and apparently even in Scandinavia. And I hear some colleges in the US never got the memo that the two are quite distinct fields.

Okay, enough wall of text. I'm just honestly urging you to maybe take a step back and reevaluate your feelings on this. You are honestly giving the cigar-gobbler too much credit.
(Unless we are talking Freud memes, which psych students like to throw at each other for bants. That's genuinely an improvement on university life.)

Look, you have encouraged me to take a closer look at the relationship between analysis and other developments in psych at the same time historically, and I appreciate that. But I can't accept most of your argument essentially taking the form of
>not actually psychology
Because this seems to have WAY too narrow a definition of psychology, especially when you have to pretend that most psychologists these days are not eclectic and not heavily using principles and techniques of humanist and existential psychology, or are not paying attention to projection, transference and countertranference, etc. This to me makes you seem like someone who has no appreciation of the gap between theoretical and practical psychology, or one of those types that only concedes psychological territory if it can be linked to biological markers. It's too reductionist and not at all descriptive of what is going on out in the larger field. Also, if you seriously have to point fingers at entire university curriculums and say "that's not relevant to my definition of modern psychology" then maybe there's chance that your definition is not broad enough to capture what a majority of leaders in the field recognise as still important, and maybe it's not them that have a problem.

>So you're saying that race has an impact on every variable and therefore there is a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world and Freud is a part of it?

Sorry, meant for your royal highness
I'm just trying to get you to explain how racial differences mean that Freud is part of a Jewish conspiracy to something something degeneracy pervert undermine western gentiles etc.

>Because this seems to have WAY too narrow a definition of psychology,
It really isn't. Psychology has a very clear definition (The scientific research of perception, behavior, emotion and cognition.) and is wide as fuck. The operational term here being "scientific". Freud "got the drop" on psychologists of his time (who were pretty much all still just researching perception and trying to deduce some cognition from it) by, well, skipping the research part. His assertions are entirely based on experiences, which he himself admitted were "biased" (Gegen-Projektion), but deluded himself he could overcome by "lol just analyzing myself, it's fine bro". And many of his students did the same.
But in reality, he isn't more a part of psychology than Locke or Descartes are. He just happened to live at the same time as Wundt.
>not heavily using principles and techniques of humanist and existential psychology
Name some, because I genuinely don't see them.
>not paying attention to projection, transference and countertranference, etc.
Dude, that just isn't a thing in psychology, I'm sorry. It's barely a thing in most modern psychoanalytical research anymore.
>no appreciation of the gap between theoretical and practical psychology
I'm gonna be a clinical psychologist, so I do. But utility a) doesn't exclusively make good psychology and b) Freudian psychoanalysis has outlived its utility decades ago. And it had none in the kind of research psychologists were doing. At best, it was once used as working hypothesis. But that died quickly.
>only concedes psychological territory if it can be linked to biological markers
No, I'm one of those types that understands that while psychology of man is very complex, making shit up without ANY reference to empirical data is dumb and sometimes dangerous. Look into the false rape memory hysteria in the 80s and 70s that were caused by psychoanalysts. And it still happens to this day.
If I'm gonna deal with real people with real problems, I'm certainly not gonna apply shit because it "feels right" or "seems right".
>then maybe there's chance that your definition is not broad enough to capture what a majority of leaders in the field recognise as still important, and maybe it's not them that have a problem.
No, because I've also studies philosophy and know loads of students and know that universities tend to overemphasize both historical fields and their research fields. When I studied philosophy, it was all Kant or French contis. At my uni now, the main focus is on methodology of research, testing and awareness research.
I have no issue with universities having PA as part of psychology curriculum. I actually did some voluntary classes in PA. But randomly mixing it and overemphasizing historical figures is just retarded and misleading.
And straight up ignoring the fact that even analytically inspired schools of psychology don't have a tendency to die off quickly as soon as people want to do actual research is also wrong.

*have a tendency, sorry, tired af
Going to bed now.

Just, you know. Don't romanticize psychoanalysis too much.
And maybe look into current research they are doing, like Fonagy and colleagues. That's interesting. I think you'll find that, if anything, psychology is influencing psychoanalysis now. And more importantly: Arguably not a shred of Freud left.

Jewish behavior is well-documented and all out in the open, so there's no "conspiracy," though jews obviously do conspire since they are a small group of tribal outsiders who wield disproportionate power. To deny that would be silly.

But the matter of Freud and his jewishness in relation to his work is covered best in chapter 4 of the Culture of Critique. If someone wishes to get a better understanding of that, which you of course do not, they should read that chapter in the pdf provided earlier, here:

You want me to personally name psychologists who are informed by humanist and existential ideas in their practice? No. Or are you talking about showing you how books like Existential Psychotherapy are of major clinical and research importance currently in many areas (especially with terminally ill or PTSD clients). I seriously don't know how you can be arguing against the presence of something like humanistic person-centered approaches in psychological practice while studying to be a clinical psych. At the very least you should have some notion about the difficulty of running clinical trials with unmanualised styles, and why there is therefore such a public push for stuff like CBT, when in practice this is rarely done without a humanistic person-centered foundation.
>transference and countertranference isn't a thing in psychology
OK, if you are serious about being a clinical psych, you should probably read up on interpersonal process therapy (look for Teyber and McClure), which will show you how wrong you are about that.

Stop spamming this shit

How has that got anything to do with mean scores? The reason you feel like you are repeating yourself is because that is all you are doing, you're not actually responding to points in the discussion.

Those were two different discussions. You are really not bright at all, are you?

>hey im interested in reading

>DON'T READ YOU PSEUD STOP MAKING THREADS ABOUT BOOKS

Veeky Forums

Good, so we can agree that your unsupported hypothesis that race is the most important statistical predictor of all other variables has nothing at all to do with Freud's ideas.

So why don't you fuck off out of this thread about Freud?

You have been about 3 steps behind this whole time and have embarrassed yourself greatly, while I have actually been providing useful information. Fuck off first.

I guess we were talking past each other. I was talking about psychology as a research field.
>You want me to personally name psychologists who are informed by humanist and existential ideas in their practice?
No, I want you to tell me what in their concepts specifically is Freudian.

That existential psychotherapy is a thing, is obvious. (Tho I'm not convinced it has much to do with PA.) And obviously it is being researched. But everything is being researched in clinical psychology. It's a cross-section of different fields.
And in case you have forgotten: This was all about how Freudian theories (apart from some core assumptions) are obsolete. You are making huge leaps here, by somehow connecting Freudian PA with general PA with humanist psychology (which was more of a paradigm thing than actual theories) and existential therapy. It genuinely feels like you are trying to force the notion that Freud personally is the godfather of all that is good in therapy and psychology generally.
>I seriously don't know how you can be arguing against the presence of something like humanistic person-centered approaches in psychological practice while studying to be a clinical psych.
I haven't. I thought you were referring tho the humanist movement generally.
I just seriously don't see a hue connection to the original point here.
>At the very least you should have some notion about the difficulty of running clinical trials with unmanualised styles, and why there is therefore such a public push for stuff like CBT, when in practice this is rarely done without a humanistic person-centered foundation.
Yes, therapists mix schools. That's a thing. Didn't say otherwise. Still doesn't imply the kind of direct connection you have been talking about.
You realize that none of the schools you have been talking about until the next one are psychoanalysis, right?
>OK, if you are serious about being a clinical psych, you should probably read up on interpersonal process therapy (look for Teyber and McClure), which will show you how wrong you are about that.
Literally who?
Sorry dude, never heard of them, never heard of their theories.
And by doing quick research here, it seems like your usual run of the mill attempt at a therapy hybrid.

Nowhere in cognitive psychology, social psychology or cognitive-behavioral therapy (or clinical psychology at large, barring psychoanalysis) will you find projection or transference. Which is what you kind of implied.
All you have demonstrated is that analysts use psychoanalysis, some of them are therapists and some of therapists are also psychologists.

Generally I feel like you exaggerate the influence of PA and Freud specifically on a bunch of stuff.

OR we have been talking past each other and when you say "psychology", you genuinely mean "anything and everything that was ever called psychotherapy". Then yeah. Sure.
What I am talking about is the actual field psychology and the theories it has generated.
Going to bed now.

>enter thread to read people discussing writers ideas
>the thread is people going back and forth about whether or not they're part of a jewish conspiracy to undermine the west
every time

Does it get any more unoriginal than this? Your own intellectual shortcomings are not boast-worthy.

>This was all about how Freudian theories (apart from some core assumptions) are obsolete. I want you to tell me what in their concepts specifically is Freudian.
>I thought you were referring tho the humanist movement generally. I just seriously don't see a hue connection to the original point here.
And my point was that if they are obsolete, it's because they have been incorporated at such a foundational level that they do not even need to be explicitly referred to as Freudian. For example, notions of two types of anxiety, one being related less to stimuli and more to dissonance between behaviour and moral/existential ideas. Or the direct influence of Freud on thinkers like Otto Rank and Rogers, who then influenced nearly every practicing psychologist today with principles of humanist psychology, or client-centered practice.

>Yes, therapists mix schools. That's a thing. Didn't say otherwise.
That's not the point. You literally claimed that existential therapy is not ACTUAL psychology. This is not even true in a research sense. Sure, go ahead and say it's not especially relevant to the initial point, it was still a weird thing to say, as were a lot of your points dismissing various aspects of psychology. I mean, what's stranger, me claiming that Freud's ideas are very influential in the various subdisciplines of psychology that evolved from that era, or you somehow wanting to claim that Freud's ideas did not have enormous impact on general PA? It's like saying, well now that we know about epigenetics, Darwin is irrelevant and can be dismissed.

>Nowhere in cognitive psychology, social psychology or cognitive-behavioral therapy (or clinical psychology at large, barring psychoanalysis) will you find projection or transference. Which is what you kind of implied.
No, I implied that projection and transference (Freudian concepts) are still very relevant to practicing psychologists, regardless of whether they do PA or not. A cursery glance at the many articles and books on actually conducting any kind of psychotherapy will show you that, as will any look into interpersonal psychotherapy or any other attachment-based psychotherapies.

My point in all of this is that Freud is definitely relevant and worth reading.

>You have been about 3 steps behind this whole time and have embarrassed yourself greatly, while I have actually been providing useful information.
I think you should make a pasta that just says
>READ CULTURE OF CRITICISM JEW JEW JEW
Because that's really the only useful thing you have to say on the topic.