Freud

[CesareBorgia]

I only know some of his ideas superficially. Do his theories
have a place in the modern world? What are your views of him?
How would you describe his method? Is it worth studying?

Thank you.

[Tommy4ever]

Although lots of people don't like to admit it he is usually rather accurate in his theories which so often ring true. But again, saying that isn't popular.

Yeah, he's worth studying.

[hatzel]

As long as you don't study him as fact, then it's okay. Plenty of his ideas have been debunked (which actually means developed further or refined in most cases), but the underlying ideas remain the basis for those in the field. I mean, it's pretty essential reading if you're into the field of psychoanalysis, even if just to then know what the later writers were talking about when they said he was wrong! :lol:

Penguin have published a reader, it's just called 'The Penguin Freud Reader' (how imaginative! :rolleyes:) which is well worth reading...from there, if your interest persists, you can read more 'directed' texts about specific topics...

[Fawkes]

It's definitely worth studying. Freud's influence is so immense it transcends far beyond the realm of psychology (you ever see any film noir movies?)

A lot of his theories have been developed upon heavily, that's what happens over the course of 100 years. Nonetheless, his work still serves largely as the foundational basis upon which psychoanalysis as a whole rests and upon which many other fields of psychology find varying degrees of support. He's basically a requirement for anyone that wants to be psych literate.

Check out Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality if you get a chance, I actually really enjoyed it and it's not too long. Freud gets a bad rep nowadays (which he does deserve to a degree) but there were certain aspects of his approach and his writings that were really progressive for their time, particularly in his work on sexuality. He was one of the first scientists to talk openly about sexual desires and how they are structured during development, and unlike most others in Europe at the time, he totally stripped sexuality of its moral attachments, something that was pretty radical. He also expressed no interest in "curing" whom he termed to be "sexual deviants", he was merely interested in learning what the formative processes were that happened to make certain individuals' desires drastically different from others'. He also stressed the importance of viewing sexuality as being of a composite nature and not stemming from one single element or event in ones development -- something that's still not even accepted by a lot of people today (think: gay gene).

Yeah there are a lot of issues I and many others have with Freud, but he is definitely worth checking out. At the very least you'll begin to recognize and understand all the Freudian references that occur in everyday life (you'll notice just how often after you read some of his stuff).

[Broletariat]

From what I understand, he fabricated a lot of his evidence/data for most of his central theories. From what I understand he also let his coke habit get in the way of his work sometimes.

[hatzel]

From what I understand, he fabricated a lot of his evidence/data for most of his central theories.

To be honest I think literally everybody who has ever said anything subjective has pretty much fabricated their findings, even if just in saying 'well, his is how I interpret what I see' to then pretend that's proof of their conclusion...in a field such as this, it largely comes down to whether or not what somebody says resonates / makes sense, rather than any strict adherence to verifiable study...


From what I understand he also let his coke habit get in the way of his work sometimes.So he's got the sex bit nailed down, and the drugs, but where's the rock & roll?

[Broletariat]

To be honest I think literally everybody who has ever said anything subjective has pretty much fabricated their findings, even if just in saying 'well, his is how I interpret what I see' to then pretend that's proof of their conclusion...in a field such as this, it largely comes down to whether or not what somebody says resonates / makes sense, rather than any strict adherence to verifiable study...

So he's got the sex bit nailed down, and the drugs, but where's the rock & roll?

The fact that he needed to fabricate his evidence to support his conclusions is pretty disgusting mate, there's not really anything subjective about that.

I think it's quite crass to say that if something makes sense it should be considered correct. Does that mean any difficult to understand concept should be ruled out? Those often times don't make much sense to me.

Here's a post Rosa made about Freud that is very enlightening

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1339862&postcount=55

[Fawkes]

From what I understand, he fabricated a lot of his evidence/data for most of his central theories.

Well one of the major criticisms of psychoanalytic theory is its reliance on observation and empirical evidence rather than objective proof and the scientific method. Combine that with the ambiguity of a lot of his research results and I can see where people would claim fabrication. A lot of Freud's theories were really just very thought out, debated, and planned conjectures.

[Broletariat]

Well one of the major criticisms of psychoanalytic theory is its reliance on observation and empirical evidence rather than objective proof and the scientific method. Combine that with the ambiguity of a lot of his research results and I can see where people would claim fabrication. A lot of Freud's theories were really just very thought out, debated, and planned conjectures.

Basically what it seems like you're saying is, psychoanalysis is a pseudo-science akin to astrology.

Here's a nice article from the New Scientist Rosa posted here once.


WE SHOULD congratulate the Science Museum for setting up an exhibition on psychoanalysis. Exposure to pseudoscience greatly helps understand genuine science, just as learning about tyranny helps in understanding democracy.

Over the past 30 years, psychoanalysis has quietly been displaced in academia by scientific psychology. But it persists in popular culture as well as being a lucrative profession. It is the psychology of those who have not bothered to learn psychology, and the psychotherapy of choice for those who believe in the power of immaterial mind over body.

Psychoanalysis is a bogus science because its practitioners do not do scientific research. When the field turned 100, a group of psychoanalysts admitted this gap and endeavoured to fill it. They claimed to have performed the first experiment showing that patients benefited from their treatment. Regrettably, they did not include a control group and did not entertain the possibility of placebo effects. Hence, their claim remains untested (The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, vol 81, p 513).

More recently, a meta-analysis published in American Psychologist (vol 65, p 98) purported to support the claim that a form of psychoanalysis called psychodynamic therapy is effective. However, once again, the original studies did not involve control groups.

In 110 years, psychoanalysts have not set up a single lab. They do not participate in scientific congresses, do not submit their papers to scientific journals and are foreign to the scientific community - a marginality typical of pseudoscience.

This does not mean their hypotheses have never been put to the test. True, they are so vague that they are hard to test and some of them are, by Freud's own admission, irrefutable. Still, most of the testable ones have been soundly refuted.

For example, most dreams have no sexual content. The Oedipus complex is a myth; boys do not hate their fathers because they would like to have sex with their mothers. The list goes on.

As for therapeutic efficacy, little is known because psychoanalysts do not perform double-blind clinical trials or follow-up studies.

Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience. Its concepts are woolly and untestable yet are regarded as unassailable axioms. As a result of such dogmatism, psychoanalysis has remained basically stagnant for more than a century, in contrast with scientific psychology, which is thriving.

New Scientist 5th October, 2010.

[bezdomni]

Freud's theories (as virtually every theory in psychology/psychiatry) are pseudo-scientific and have no place in modern scientific theories (such as Marxism).

Although perhaps philosophers like Zizek would disagree with this.

Imre Lakatos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Pseudoscience) (Hungarian mathematician/philosopher) had some interesting ideas about science and pseudo-science (which were heavily influenced by Marxism), which you may find helpful.

[gorillafuck]

Freud had some dumb ideas (especially penis envy) but he is worth reading if you want to study psych.


Freud's theories (as virtually every theory in psychology/psychiatry) are pseudo-scientific and have no place in modern scientific theories (such as Marxism).Btw, some critics of psychology don't seem to be aware that psychology is a soft science, and shouldn't be treated as a hard science. People who deny the usefulness of psychology are being pretty ignorant.

[bezdomni]

Freud had some dumb ideas (especially penis envy) but he is worth reading if you want to study psych.


Disputed.


Btw, some critics of psychology don't seem to be aware that psychology is a soft science, and shouldn't be treated as a hard science. People who deny the usefulness of psychology are being pretty ignorant.

I refuse to acknowledge this false dichotomy of "hard vs soft" science.

An academic discipline either employs a scientific method or it does not. Where does this notion of "hard vs soft" science come from?

It is how pseudo-scientists justify their psychobabble, by proclaiming "it's a soft science" as if that somehow makes their theories valid.

If it is a "soft science", as you say, then it can offer only "soft truths" which are of little use to anyone. Philosophy is more scientific than psychology.

Although to be clear I deny the scientific validity of psychology, which implies a general uselessness -- although I suppose certain ideas that have developed due to psychology may be of some scientific use (although thinking for five minutes I am unable to think of even one single example).

[Alaz]

Freud's theories (as virtually every theory in psychology/psychiatry) are pseudo-scientific and have no place in modern scientific theories (such as Marxism).

Actually this is a quite bit of reductionist and an ignorant comment both on Freud and Marxism.

Freudian psychoanalysis model may have been evolved and differed in praxis and some of his theories may have been fizzled out, but still the methodological approach which Freud executed on his theories and reagent patients cannot be considered as "pseudo-scientific". This would just be wrong.

It is a quite controversial topic that psychoanalysis itself is a science or not and if it is; epistemologically where it stands. If theory could have managed to profile its object, it could be classified as scientific. As Lacan notionally theorized the object and identified it, according to same approach, this would be a scientific technique and some say it is now.

But I accept that Freudian psychoanalysis had not managed to identify and profile its object completely. This is where Lacan interferes with the "unconsciousness".

Reread of Freud is a must, but still with the same scientific methodology.

[Broletariat]

Actually this is a quite bit of reductionist and an ignorant comment both on Freud and Marxism.

Freudian psychoanalysis model may have been evolved and differed in praxis and some of his theories may have been fizzled out, but still the methodological approach which Freud executed on his theories and reagent patients cannot be considered as "pseudo-scientific". This would just be wrong.

It would probably be more accurate to call freud's idea, a non-science at all.


It is a quite controversial topic that psychoanalysis itself is a science or not and if it is; epistemologically where it stands. If theory could have managed to profile its object, it could be classified as scientific. As Lacan notionally theorized the object and identified it, according to same approach, this would be a scientific technique and some say it is now.

But I accept that Freudian psychoanalysis had not managed to identify and profile its object completely. This is where Lacan interferes with the "unconsciousness".

Reread of Freud is a must, but still with the same scientific methodology.

Here's a nice little article on Lacan

http://www.richardwebster.net/thecultoflacan.html

[Minima]

Detractors of Freud and Lacan and the like should not be so ready to embrace psychology.

There is a great piece by gegenstandpunkt on some of the shortcomings of psychology in an essay they wrote called the "psychology of the private individual critique of bourgeois conciousness" It's easily searchable on google. and contains a particulary pertinent criticism in part III "from failure to self-destruction - the realm of psychology," directed towards the tendancy off psychology to "help people cope with things the way they are," rather than seek any radical transformation.

I have a great interest in the works of Zizek who uses a lacanian/hegelian/marxian theoretical edifice in order to undermine, and redefine our basic assumptions about belief, ideology, and human nature. Regardless of what you think of his Lacanian and Hegelian background, you can still easily access much of what he says about ideology and such and it is very applicable to marxist/critical thought.

I am very much against how psychology is taught at my university and feel that it embodies much of the criticisms voiced by gegenstandpunkt, and has not much moved beyond it. If I have time someday I should hope to elaborate and discuss this in detail.

[gorillafuck]

It is how pseudo-scientists justify their psychobabble, by proclaiming "it's a soft science" as if that somehow makes their theories valid.Or it comes from people who aren't pseudo-intellectuals understanding that not everything is black and white, and that it cannot be a hard science simply because people have differing minds.


If it is a "soft science", as you say, then it can offer only "soft truths" which are of little use to anyone.It is a soft science because not all psychologies are the same, because people differ due to environments and biology. Anyone could come to that conclusion if they weren't dismissing what is obviously a useful field if you consider how disorders are figured out and treated nowadays. It's not perfect but I'd rather have psychologists studying depression and it's causes and symptoms than have people dismissing psychological disorders (after all, to dismiss the entire field of psychology is to dismiss the study of psychological disorders).

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

A few years back a friend and I decided to look up the Ecole Freudienne de Paris, the group founded by the great psychoanalytic thinker Jacques Lacan to carry on his work. We ended up as winter night fell on a silent, gray Parisian street with a series of unmarked doors stretching into the fog. At a corner café they told us no one knew anything, but somebody important lived next door. We found the building - it had one of those old horror movie buzzers where you ring and the huge oak door creaks open but there's nobody there. At the top of a wooden stairwell we rang at another blank door. A woman opened the door, a dyed blonde in a red housecoat with gold lamé slippers. When we explained our visit she let us into a dusty dining room with piles of tapes and papers everywhere. On a large oak table a bisexual African mask lay in a cut-glass compote.

Solange Faladé came in, a blind Yoruba woman, one of the three spiritual heirs designated by Lacan (the others were a Jew and a Muslim). My friend and Faladé began a spirited discussion of Psychoanalytic theory. After a few minutes Mme Faladé turned in my direction and asked why I was silent. I explained that I was all too aware of the foolish interpretations of Lacan that pass for holy writ among art critics in America and I didn't feel like adding any foolishness of my own. I added that I was particularly conscious of Lacan's theory of revolutions, long-winded theoretical chatter whose real purpose is to bring the speaker back to her original starting point. Madame beamed: "If Monsieur Lacan heard you he'd be very happy!" I suspect that if Lacan, Derrida, Barthes were to hear the intellectual crimes that are committed in their names every day in every art journal in America they'd lose their collective croissant.

Of course some of the finer points of that collective intellectual movement known as French post-structuralism were bound to erode. Intellectual life in Paris in the 60s and early 70s was an intimate, often incestuous affair and formalities like footnotes were as useless in a book as in a café table discussion. There were quotes and references you were just supposed to know, as has been true of French culture since the 17th century. Plus, figures like Barthes and Foucault were sexually closeted and in their mental hands the old problem of living one's own subjectivity became even more allusive. At one point Barthes compared his methodology to his favored secret recreation, gay street-hustling.

For Americans brought up on straight-talk empiricism the idea that an author quotes sous rature, that is, with the proviso that whatever he says is meant as a description of a subjective perception, not its confirmation, is an impossible nuance, tossed in translation. American epigones may quote the stuff; most in practice give themselves over to what the critic Stuart Hall calls "deconstructive ventriloquism." Many don't catch or don't care to catch the implications with the amazing result that often a statement used to describe a form of self-deception ends up translated into that self-deception proper.

etc.... (http://www.nyartsmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3165&Itemid=25)

[bezdomni]

Or it comes from people who aren't pseudo-intellectuals understanding that not everything is black and white, and that it cannot be a hard science simply because people have differing minds.


Why can't there be a scientific theory of the mind? There is a scientific theory of the universe, there is a scientific theory of life. Is the mind so much more complex than the universe and all life on Earth that we can't develop a scientific theory?

Psychology is not a science because its theories aren't probative and its results are not falsifiable.


It is a soft science because not all psychologies are the same, because people differ due to environments and biology.
So the mind is a non-linear dynamical system which is sensitive to initial conditions, big deal! It isn't easy to study scientifically, but it can be done.

I care enough about a theory of cognition that I'm not willing to settle for some fluffy "soft science" bullshit explanation for how the mind works.


Anyone could come to that conclusion if they weren't dismissing what is obviously a useful field if you consider how disorders are figured out and treated nowadays.
You mean how people are grouped into poorly defined categories based on a handful of observed behaviors and reported thoughts or feelings, and then medicated or locked up in an institution?

How is it not the most obvious thing in the world that psychology/psychiatry are not remotely scientific or medical fields, but are rather institutions of social control, plain and simple?

You realize that (a) most of those drugs, especially anti-depressants, don't actually work and (b) psychiatrists admittedly do not understand how most of those drugs work.


It's not perfect but I'd rather have psychologists studying depression and it's causes and symptoms than have people dismissing psychological disorders (after all, to dismiss the entire field of psychology is to dismiss the study of psychological disorders).

I am not saying that therapists and/or medication are useless, nor am I saying people don't suffer from insanity.

The problem is that the theories of psychology are unsatisfactory in even beginning to explain these very complex human behaviors, and that the treatments in general do not work.

Being a therapist is not a scientific profession, and I don't think anybody would claim that it is. A therapist is somebody you can talk to in confidence, who will listen to your problems and give good advice. They can be helpful, but their job is not scientific nor is there reason to expect it to be.

Psychiatrists are quacks who help the pharmaceutical companies first and their patients last. They make the drug first and invent the disorder second.

Look at the history of psychology being put into practice. Electro-shock therapy, lobotomies, mental hospitals (which run like prisons), and the most sexist/racist theories about human behavior (e.g. "homosexuality is a mental illness") imaginable were all inflicted on humanity by psychologists. Does this not tell you anything?

[JustMovement]

There is a qualitative difference between the physical universe and the human mind (that for now at least) requires a different methodology. Human cognition is a subjective experiece, that cannot readily be understood in terms of the scientific categories used in other sciences. The physical basis of our conciousness is poorly understood, most neuroscientists will readily admit how little they understand of the brain. Even with the advances of neuroscience, I am sceptical that an understanding of the physical mechanism of the brain will adequately explain the subjective experience of thinking, feeling, etc.

Psychology then can only be based on a) our personal experience of living, and the assumption that what we experience is not so radically different to what other people experience (we can put ourselves in someone elses shoes), and b) observation of other people, after all Freud did not just sit down somewhere and invent his theories, but based them, admittedly sometimes very tenuously, on the observations made of his patients.