I have been reading a bit about Freud (on the internet only) and a lot of his concepts seem interesting. But, as I understand, a lot of them have either come under criticism or have been flat out proven wrong.
Could somebody who’s knowledgable about this, please, write about which of his theories have been written off and which if any are still considered to have merit.
Why does everybody seem to be saying psychiatry is BS? Is it because that in order to treat you a psychiatrist needs to assume that a “normal” state exists and than try to revert you to this “normal” state you’ve deviated from? And, since the normal state doesn’t exist it would be BS?
The pivotal reason his theories are regarded as bunk are that they aren’t scientifically falsifiable. You can’t scientifically test whether one is repressing unconscious trauma or even that there is an unconscious. That there is an unconscious and that we engage in defense mechanisms to deal with uncomfortable issues is something I personally believe in, but the extremes Freud took this to are, also in my opinion, completely ludicrous.
I sometimes feel Freud has a bum rap. Some try to rescue his tarnished image by appealing to his creative genius as opposed to his scientific genius. He was a great artist, one of my psyc professors once said. I don’t think he was either a great scientist or a great artist. I think the best label to pin on him is a ‘great discoverer’. He literally “stumbled onto” the unconscious and the ways we defend our egos against trauma (read the case of Anna O.). Having made this discovery, he was suddenly thrust into the position to account for his findings, and being the poor theorist he was, he crafted a half-assed psychology and christened it “psychoanalysis”. But I believe this was done under the pressure that the medical community pressed upon him to account for his findings - that’s why he came up with something so shoddy. He discovered something great, but he lacked the skills for accounting for it.
The whole sexuality thing is what most people scoff at today. As for the existence of an unconscious and dream interpretations, well that’s a little more debatable, but the hardnosed scientific types will certainly brush those off as well.
That’s probably it. Not that I think psychiatry is BS, not fully anyway, but I’d agree with those who reject the notion that “normalcy=health”. Normalcy is just an average, and the standard deviation is likely to be damn wide!
Not exactly, but it does make up a big part of it. Psychiatry is to psychology as medicine is to science. Freud was a physician, and he more or less introduced the field of mental health to western medicine. It’s their “cornerstone” so to speak, but they’ve definitely branched off over the century. Over on the side of psychology, however, psychanalysis plays a very small roll, but it has a niche there nonetheless. The minimal roll it plays is presumably due to the fact that psychology is a science (or it approximates one) and psychoanalysis, as I’ve said, is not scientific.
Freud deserves credit, not for his theories, which have largely been debunked, but for opening up the area to discussion. In that sense and that sense alone he deserves credit. In those historically close, but intellecutally distant times, he had the courage to bring all these issues into the open.
That his actual theories have been proven wrong, do not detract from his opening all these questions up to research.
PRetty much everything freud said was wrong, but he turned or popularized the notion of an ‘unconscious mind’ he helped change the direction/pushforward ideas that eventually lead to research that has uncovered some of our real nature. So much of freud is wrong, you’d have to ask which you think is right.
Most people think Psychology/psyhiatry BS is because its not based on a real science. The foundations of the scientific model which it rests on are bullshit, also, there are double blind tests that show laypeople (off the street) have the same success rates as people with years of training/experience.
Their not taught how to critically evaluate more than one or two notions at a time (or to question the faulty science which their taught)
a huge meta-analysis howed that no matter what therapy people got for no matter what length the result was always the same.
Etc, theres no real reason to believe it works.
THeres a conversation with robyn dawes, he explains the situation quite fully, i could link you if you’re interested.
The source is a conversation with robyn dawes and subsequently the book he wrote, House of Cards. I think it may have been part of the meta-analysis, but anyway, the tests can and are run.
But yes, exactly what you said, in a psychotherapeutic setting.
So what could this mean? That successful psychotherapy is just a huge placebo effect on the part of the client? (actually, this isn’t that surprising).
But then, this illusion would somehow have to be kept up, otherwise the client would have no reason to believe in it, and thus it wouldn’t work. Would therapists be justified in pursuing formal training on these grounds alone?
Also, it must still depend, to some extent, on the personality of the therapist. Training may be a waste, but to treat the client with unconditional positive regard should be key. no? I mean, can you imagine someone like O.J. Simpson or Judge Judy conducting psychotherapy? Ha! No thanks.
You essentially call it, whether or not their justified in lying to patients about the science of therapy they do it, a lot of the time out of ignorance and surprisingly somtimes willingly and knowingly, a lot of therapists, psychologists/psychiatrists seem to think if you can’t help yourself its justifiable to lie to you, if it helps most people.
The problem with it is they refuse to let go of the ‘science’ title and indeed insist that what they’re doing is based in real science, its a huge problem.
Yeah, well, I guess it’s just another one of those ethical issues - pros and cons on either side. I’m sure there’s some who feel they’re doing the right thing even if that means lying to the client. The thing that really irks me is when they keep insisting you need more therapy - like the end is never in sight - then you know you there’s nothing but $$$ going through their mind.
That’s why I have trouble believing psychotherapy can really work in a capitalistic system (where the primary motive is (ideally) $$$). It ironically works much better when it’s just one fellow human being willingly trying to help another out of shear heartfelt affection - not because it’s his/her job.
Cyrene is more or less right. Patients of Fruerdians do not do appraciable better than a random sample. Personally I think, that being able to talk to someone about your problems can’t help but do some good.
But Freuds theories are not scientifically falsifiable. His version of psychiatry is simply not science. And that is the most damning criticism of all.
I couldn’t agree more. In fact, it’s uncanny how closely Freudian psychotherapy resembles the forced confessions during the witch trials. I don’t remember the exact quote, but in Freud’s own writings, he says something along the lines of “No matter how strong their resistence, no matter how much they deny, the therapist must not relenent. He must insist on the interpretations his methods have drawn forth.” That sounds more like brainwashing to me.
I have found several hypotheses of Freud’s to still hold water today. Obviously the Oedipus complex is very questionable, but his ideas on the causes of mourning, melancholia, and neurosis are brilliant.
So how do you regard psychoanalysis? Do they still use Freud’s unscientific theories, or did somebody take his general ideas and come up with something worthwhile?
I’m not sure what they think of Freud’s theories today. I know a lot of psychiatrists still believe in psychoanalysis, but more importantly, you have to realize that psychoanalysis is also a practice. And if it is proven to work, that takes precedence over whether you agree with the theory behind it or not (whether it really does work is another question - one I don’t have the answer to).
You also have to narrow down your question. What aspect of psychoanalysis do professionals commonly use/believe in? Dream interpretation? Appeal to sexual interpretations? Full insistence on the part of the therapist that his/her interpretation is correct, and the patient’s say isn’t worth a damn?
One thing I think psychoanalysts are realizing today is that the symbols the subject uses in the defense of their ego is very idiosyncratic. Whereas a tall slender object would have been an obvious phalic symbol for Freud, today’s psychoanalysts understand that it really depends on the subject’s unique history, personality, and inherent dispositions.
Look, if you sit down for six months with someone who is concerned with offering help, you are going to benefit to some degree. This is opinion on my part - nonetheless it makes sense.
You have problems which you feel come from stress, your parents, etc, etc, and you find someone reasonably knowledgible about life, see them once a week for a year - You WILL benefit.
Oh, yeah, Chato, you’re absolutely right. But, what I’m wondering about is, there are people who’ve taken his theories and expanded upon them, like Lacan. Is their work considered unscientific like Freuds, or did they legitimize it?
I would love to give you an answer, but although I doubt it, you never know.
But for something to be science it has to be “falsifiable,” meaning that if I make the claim that at sea level, on earth, water will freeze at 0 degree’s celsius. Is this true? Well, I CLAIM it’s true, and you can duplicate the experiment. In other words, my claim can be proved true or false.