[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 176 KB, 1280x1244, 1_bZaINjEIwP2Qhcf9JGImuQ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10975739 No.10975739 [Reply] [Original]

>> No.10975891

>>10975739
People reject his ideas today because they can't deal with their psyches being laid bare.

>> No.10975892

bait

>> No.10975898

brainlet

>> No.10975903

>>10975739
He is definitely not stupid.
Too bad he was wrong about pretty much everything.

>> No.10975904

>>10975739
kind of related

why is psychology seemingly a field where people's theories are regularly refuted, and once refuted, are cast into oblivion as "debunked"?

>> No.10975906

>>10975903
Fpbp

>> No.10975909

>>10975906
>fpbp
>f

>> No.10975916

>>10975909
fourth

>> No.10975920

>>10975916
you lucky sumbitch

>> No.10975921

>>10975903
>Too bad he was wrong about pretty much everything.

In what way?

>> No.10975943

>>10975921
Scientific

>> No.10975953

>>10975921
He had some important ideas that is still relevant today in broad strokes even if he was not the only one who formulated them. Particularly the concepts of unconsciousness and subconsciousness. He helped a lot in formulating them in a clear, accessible manner and popularizing them.
In many details however his work is pretty inaccurate.His ideas about instincts and the relationships between instincts, intellect and consciousness are very reductionist and primitive.
His most popular and controversial theories - about sexuality and about dream interpretation, are full of shit and the fact that they are still memed today really shows that his influence on the development of psychology might have been more detrimental than beneficial.
Overall he is a pretty intelligent and inquisitive person but he lacks intuitive understanding of human beings and his sensationalism has been pretty harmful in the long term. Psychology didn't need this kind of publicity.

>> No.10975999

>>10975943
>Scientific

>>10975953
>about sexuality and about dream interpretation, are full of shit

You do realise that the brain is not built on computer logic circuits but blind, primal drives which have ensured the survival of life for billions of years. It's structure and contents are highly subjective and mutable and not open to the kind of objective analysis applied to inanimate matter.

>> No.10976003

>>10975999
>You do realise that the brain is not built on computer logic circuits but blind, primal drives which have ensured the survival of life for billions of years. It's structure and contents are highly subjective and mutable and not open to the kind of objective analysis applied to inanimate matter.
That was precisely my point. Freud didn't understand it.

>> No.10976049

>>10976003
>That was precisely my point. Freud didn't understand it.

Freud did understand it which is why he developed a very successful method for interrogating the subconscious aspects of the mind.

Why someone would be hostile to this is interesting in itself.

>> No.10976051

>>10975999
>You do realise that the brain is not built on computer logic circuits but blind, primal drives which have ensured the survival of life for billions of years. It's structure and contents are highly subjective and mutable and not open to the kind of objective analysis applied to inanimate matter.
BECAUSE I SAID SO

>> No.10976052

>>10976049
There is zero evidence that psychoanalysis is more effective than the dozens of other types of therapy.

Go ahead and prove me wrong, I'll wait.

>> No.10976053

>>10975891
>>10976049
Karl Popper would like to have a talk with you for a moment. Just sit there.

>>10975999
>not open to the kind of objective analysis applied to inanimate matter.
Go away, Husserl, go away knowing your system was the last gasp of that stain known as rationalism on philosophy.

>> No.10976056

>>10976053
Karl Popper was also wrong about everything but that doesn't make Freud right. Read Grünbaum

>> No.10976058

>>10976051
>BECAUSE I SAID SO

>>10976052
>Go ahead and prove me wrong, I'll wait.

>looking for absolutes to shed some light on our nature
>never going to happen

>> No.10976060

>>10975739
Absolute unit

>> No.10976062

>>10976053
>Karl Popper
condensed Anglo ideology

>> No.10976064

>>10976058
>looking for absolutes to shed some light on our nature
>never going to happen

Still waiting on those medical articles.

>> No.10976073

>>10976052
>effective
It's not a psychological assembly line, it's an attempt to be anything BUT an assembly line, which is defined by such pathogenic notions as "effectivity" etc.

>> No.10976081

>>10976049
>Why someone would be hostile to this is interesting in itself.
You seem to be implying that I am hostile to something? Aren't you, ahem...projecting?

The central complaint in my post was that his way of thinking was reductionist. You could have addressed my actual argument but instead you took offence at an offhand comment in which I dared to dismiss some theories that you have emotional investment it.

>Freud did understand it which is why he developed a very successful method for interrogating the subconscious aspects of the mind.
His way of mapping subconscious to conscious experience is completely mechanical. And no, it is not successful.

>> No.10976082

>>10976073
Are you on crack? What kind of cloudcuckooland do you live in where medical treatments shouldn't be judged on evidwnce of how well they work?

>> No.10976087

>>10976053
>Karl Popper
Kekking every kek

>> No.10976091

>>10975739
> (((intellect)))
No thanks. If I'm in the mood for some Jewish chochmes I'd rather watch a Mel Brooks movie. Shorter and more to the point.

>> No.10976102

>>10975916
Wp

>> No.10976105

>>10976056
What's it about Grünbaum that makes him worthwhile?

>>10976062
>>10976087
And nary a single argument was to be found. Popper was a shallow thinker but his clear-eyed view of esoteric thinking that brookers no criticism was exceptional.

>> No.10976107

>>10976082
Not in any eternal Anglo cuckooland for sure.

>> No.10976120

>>10976107
What should you judge medical treatments, then?

Aesthetics?

>> No.10976127
File: 39 KB, 388x400, simoneweil5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10976127

I am in awe of this man's intellect.

>> No.10976146

>>10975904
because it's a meme field with like a 10% of replication rate

at least it not as destructive as education or social science with their massive social engineering meme programs that always go horribly wrong and nobody takes responsibility for it

>> No.10976151

>>10976120
No, it can be found out by any psychologist.
>What should you judge
Learn what the subject of an analytic process is and what "the end of analysis" implies.

>> No.10976158

>>10976151
>No, it can be found out by any psychologist.
Really? ANY psychologist? Because I've met some pretty lazy psychologists. Anyone with an IQ above 80 can get a masters degree, but I really don't think they cam interpret someone as smart as Freud.

>> No.10976161

>>10976151
so you can only judge the game by its own rules, that's convenient

>> No.10976177

>>10976052
>Yes, good goy. Psychoanalysis is NOT GOOD! Make sure you take your daily dosage Zoloft and Prozac like Dr Goldberg told you! There's no other cure.

>> No.10976192

>>10976177
>freud
>not jewish conspirator
the only cure to psychoanalysis is schizoanalysis

>> No.10976193

>>10976177
not sure who's baiting who anymore

>> No.10976194

>>10976177
Obviously just prescribing people pills and not talking their problems out isn't very helpful, but I never said it was.

All I'm saying is that psychoanalysis doesn't work any better than Logotherapy or CBT or any other therapy.

>> No.10976195

>>10976177
>lol just fuck ur mom brah

>> No.10976197

More in awe of the chutzpah on him

>> No.10976200

>>10976053
>Karl Popper would like to have a talk with you for a moment. Just sit there.

I'll fall asleep before he has finished his third sentence

>> No.10976201

>>10976158
>but I really don't think they cam interpret someone as smart as Freud.
>psychologist
>can't interpret Freud
Uh.. Words fail me.

>> No.10976204

>>10976161
it's simply anti-totalist.

>> No.10976205

>>10975739
Perfect example of why you shouldn't use yourself as a basis for predicting the behaviour of others; there's a nonzero chance that you're just a fucking weirdo with mommy issues.

>> No.10976207

>>10976105
>What's it about Grünbaum that makes him worthwhile?
He's one of the most important figures on the debate on the legitimacy of psychoanalysis. He has a good critique of both Popper and the Hermeneutic approach. He says that psychoanalysis CAN be a legitimate form of knowledge, but it's not in its current state.

>> No.10976211

>>10976201
>>psychologist
>>can't interpret Freud
Maybe I should elaborate. I'm saying that most cow colleges don't have very rigorous requirements for getting a psychology degree.

>> No.10976213

>>10976205
>2018
>people still don't get The Interpretation of Dreams
It was released in 1899. Jeez-Louise..

>> No.10976217

>>10975739
If freud was alive today he would be an animeposter

>> No.10976221

>>10976207
An addendum: anyone who thinks that Freud's PA is valid is a clueless retard

>> No.10976222

>>10976211
>Maybe I should elaborate. I'm saying that most cow colleges don't have very rigorous requirements for getting a psychology degree.
a century ago it would have been called "A nursing school".

>> No.10976230

>>10976105
>brookers
What? I'll assume you meant to say brings*
>Karl Popper would like to have a talk with you for a moment
>Popper was a shallow thinker but his clear-eyed view of esoteric thinking that brookers no criticism was exceptional
Not really arguments. Why do I have to have an argument while you don't?

Oh well, I have free time... Psychoanalysis was never meant to be a science. Freud says this in the in The Psychopathology of Everyday Life and/or Introduction to Psychoanalysis. Only thing that can be really falsified are effects on patients and that's what Freud focused on. The unfalsifiable stuff are basically metaphors and I'd compare it to what math does with physics. You can use X instead of Father if it makes you feel better, but the function of it in the patients mind stays the same. And even stuff like id, ego, and superego are there just to represent certain parts of the human experience. I just realised that explaining how it works would just lead to a strawman, so let's keep it at not being a science. Freud tried to incorporate as much science as he could, but going as far as making it a full blown science... Nah.

>> No.10976233

>>10976217
if he were a poster he would be an imposter

>> No.10976237

>>10976230
>Oh well, I have free time... Psychoanalysis was never meant to be a science.
And yet it WAS meant to be a medical treatment.
The efficacy of medical treatments should be empirically verifiable.

>> No.10976242

>>10976237
Didn't you notice
>Only thing that can be really falsified are effects on patients and that's what Freud focused on

>> No.10976249

>>10976242
did he cure anybody?

>> No.10976252

>>10976249
As much as placebo ever cured anybody.

>> No.10976258

>>10976249
Yeah man, of course. He said in his book that he is like, very smart and a great doctor so he cured everyone who wanted to be cured. If someone wasn't cured it was their fault for not recognizing Freud's genius. I know this because o read it in Freud's books.

>> No.10976273

>>10976252
Placebo is about substances doing nothing and the improvement being just from a psychological point of view of the patient receiving a treatment.

If psychoanalysis were a "placebo" it would be doing exactly what it says it does. My question is if it's even that.

>> No.10976277

>>10976249
Unironically, if I remember correctly, he told a girl for her abdominal symptoms she had hysteria because some sexual childhood shit and months later she died because she actually had digestive cancer. If I remember this thread when I arrive home I'll look for the reference.

>> No.10976285
File: 563 KB, 1452x2020, 7ae2b124ad8f27a6f35b656929ba72dc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10976285

was guenon right about psychoanalysis being a form of pseudo-initiation and confusing the lowest for the highest?

>> No.10976293

>>10976285
acc to Guénon everything western, his very own mindset set aside, was pseudo-inititation "confusing the lowest for the highest" and forgetting its own principles.
From modern science to theosophy, from literature to german idealism - from actual peoples to orientalists

>> No.10976309

>>10976249
Freud laid the groundwork for CBT

>> No.10976311

>>10976249
I don't get what you want me to say here. Do you want a list of names or examples? I mean, I've never seen a gun kill someone. Did a gun ever kill anyone?
>>10976258
>If someone wasn't cured it was their fault for not recognizing Freud's genius
Not so black and white, but there's a valid point there... If someone says they want to quit smoking to a therapist and then they don't, is it really a therapists fault? A therapist would then try to make the patient understand why they don't want to quit smoking, but if there's something that keeps them coming back and they can't resolve that, there's not much words can do. You can only ask yourself why they wanted to quit at all. This is where you can turn to other methods that will literally force a patient to quit.

My time's up. Gotta go to uni.

>> No.10976333

>>10976273
No. I don't think psychology, even psychoanalysis, is about being a placebo.
It is supposed to help the patient address actual issues.
If it just happened to work accidentally it didn't actually work.
Some issues are trivial enough that just someone telling you that you should be healed now is enough to help you ignore them long enough for them to just disappear.
And then some are not and someone telling you that you should be healed now when you are really not can only make things worse.

>> No.10976342

>>10976311
>If someone says they want to quit smoking to a therapist and then they don't
Most people who want to quit smoking don't actually WANT to quit smoking which is precisely the psychological problem that needs to be addressed.
Otherwise they would, you know, just quit smoking.

>> No.10976358

>>10976342
Except it doesn't work like that you know shit about behavior desu senpai

>> No.10976365

>>10976358
Wow, you sure convinced me with your arguments, m8.

>> No.10976383

>>10976342
And that's what they try to address. There are people who don't want to quit just because of physical addiction and those who don't want to quit because they want to punish themselves for something. >>10976277
I'd brush it off as a misdiagnosis which still happens today

>> No.10976391

>>10976365
No need to bring arguments since you're so ill informed. You're a moron mate, don't talk about a subject you don't know anything about.

>> No.10976406

>>10976383
I am not sure what your point is.
A physical addiction is not a psychological problem. A psychological addiction is. But according to that anon it is not the responsibility of a psychologist to treat psychological addiction.

>>10976391
Yeah, keep on being convincing.

>> No.10976441

>>10975739
Means you want to suck you moms cock.

>> No.10976444

>>10976293
Where does Guenon talk about German idealism

>> No.10976464

Does the unconscious use words or pictures?

>> No.10976475

>>10976127
based Simone

>> No.10976602

>>10976464
Only brainlets think in words.

>> No.10976611

>>10976052
>https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/07/therapy-wars-revenge-of-freud-cognitive-behavioural-therapy

are you really that lazy in confirming your own biases? go ahead, i'll wait for you to refute every study cited in the linked article

>> No.10976622

>>10975916
kek

>> No.10976627

>>10976194
>All I'm saying is that psychoanalysis doesn't work any better than Logotherapy or CBT or any other therapy.

No, you were implying that it doesn't work, or in any case works worse than the other two. Or were you also implying that CBT and the other therapy forms are just as shallow and vacuous as you seem to think psychoanalysis is?

>> No.10976628

>>10976602
the unconscious is structured like a language

>> No.10976635

>>10976611
that just proves that having somebody to talk it good, not that psychoanalysis is good

>> No.10976647

>>10976628
Eh, not necessarily. But even the part of it that is logically structured doesn't use words.

>> No.10976668

>>10976628
I think Lacan meant the unconscious is structured as a function of the symbolic.

>> No.10976672

>>10976668
then why didn't he say that?

>> No.10976697

>>10976672
anon..
"The unconscious is structured as a function of the symbolic." "This exteriority of the symbolic in relation to man is the very notion of the unconscious."
- J. Lacan. The Seminar. Book VII; J. Lacan. Écrits

>> No.10976739

>>10976697
good

>> No.10976922

>>10976406
>A physical addiction is not a psychological problem.
Holy shit you're retarded

>> No.10976944

>>10976922
I see you continue with the good arguments.

>> No.10976952

K done with uni
>>10976922
This tbqh

>> No.10976954

>>10975739
>I am in awe of this man's intellect
You want to suck his dick?

>> No.10976960

>>10976944
Body and mind are connected. That's why you sweat and shake when you're anxious and why you're easily irritated when you're very hungry. It's also a reason why psychiatrists are usually coming from medicine .

>> No.10976980

>>10976960
Fair enough but physical addiction is still a medical condition before all. A psychoanalyst can do absolutely nothing about it.
Additionally claiming that a psychoanalyst has no responsibility treating psychological addiction defeats the purpose of psychoanalysis.

>> No.10977015

>>10976960
Mind=body, the mind is an expression of your body it doesn't exist separated from it.

>> No.10977019

>>10976980
No one claimed that. The point is that a psychoanalyst can't change your brain receptors. But he can find out why you don't want to quit if you're smoking for some other reason. For example, my friend started smoking when his mom died. 3 years later, he can't quit smoking and talking about his mother is still too extreme for him. To make things even better, she was a smoker and died from cancer. You might say that that's a stretch, but a psychoanalyst will see that as the root of the problem, he'll try to resolve it by making my friend deal with the loss, and then the only problem will be physical addiction to nicotine. (Which is fairly easy to get rid of. I've done it myself.) We can extend this to anorexia. He won't magically give you appetite. He'll try to resolve the narcissism and insecurity which drove the person to that state and only then can they really change. If the root of the problem isn't resolved, they'll most likely come back to their previous state since traumas were not properly resolved.

>> No.10977023

>>10976627
Read my words very carefully, idiot:

>>10976052

>There is zero evidence that psychoanalysis is more effective than the dozens of other types of therapy.


I said it was not more effective than any forms of therapy. I never said it was less effective, just that it's no better.

>> No.10977034

>>10977015
You're completely right. But keep in mind that some parts of our psyche are more influenced by words than our bowel movements.

>> No.10977081

>>10977019
I don't see how what you say contradicts with what I said.
Physical addiction is relatively easy to get rid of and it is not really a psychological problem. Brain receptors are only relevant on the level medication treatment. They are the easiest part.
The purpose of therapy is to treat subjective addiction. Finding out the subjective reason why the person abuses substances doesn't mean that this person if magically going to have a revelation about it and stop doing it.
Of course, a person who has psychological addiction will have the subjective belief that they need to continue their substance abuse.That's why it's called psychological addiction.The task of the psychoanalyst is to find a way to work around that subjective belief. Figuring out the reason why it exists is only the first step. I don't even believe it's a necessary first step.

>> No.10977143

>>10977015
There is a logical separation between mind and body. From physical perspective mind and body are the same thing but from psychological they are not.

>> No.10977163

>>10977143
And that's why psychology is a protoscience at best, because science only studies the material world. I'm not being ironic.

>> No.10977234

>>10977081
You're incredibly stupid.

>> No.10977238

>>10977163
Well, I agree. It's like alchemy. It needs to die.

>> No.10977244

>>10977234
Thank you very much for your incredibly insightful input.

>> No.10977245

>>10977244
Moron.

>> No.10977258

>>10977019
what if... solving the trauma does change the brail receptors...

>> No.10977307

>>10977238
Not to die but it can't be separated from biology and neuroscience (which is still in its infancy).

>> No.10977393

I have been watching a documentary called "Century of the Self" and it is very interesting. I have always agreed with Sigmund philosophy as to the way we think, but I have always questioned why psychologist would disregard, so the documentary sort of answered that for me; it heavily suggests that psychoanalysis does't work and that humans are much more complex than that, and the evidence they provide comes from the fact that many of the experiments conducted by the CIA failed and how the kids that his daughter was experimenting on in his home overall failed in there later years because one became an alcoholic and the daughter ended up committing suicide. Even after watching the first two episodes so far I strongly still agree that Sigmund is the most right, but I think I have a grasp, but what I really want to know as to why he highly disregarded for his studies and is only really remembered now for founding the first form of psychological diagnosing people?

>> No.10977415

>>10977393
A lot of his ideas have been preserved in some form but most of his theories have been disproved or developed beyond recognition. This happens in many other fields as well.
His studies are well regarded in as far as they actually have merit. He has a bad reputation in many circles because he was a charlatan with a cult following.

>> No.10977424

>>10977415
>disproved

You are the charlatan, without a cult. You are the follower.

>> No.10977429

>>10977424
k

>> No.10977434

>>10977163
>science only studies the material world.
So science doesn't study ideas like time and space? Your description of "science" is not accurate.

>> No.10977437

>>10976285
that's a bitchin cloak

>> No.10977448

>>10977434
Is that a catch question?

>> No.10977454

>>10977448
Answer it and find out.

It's more of a rhetorical question.

>> No.10977461

>>10977434
What if they had said science only studies the physicalist world.

>> No.10977468

>>10977461
But that still does not include time and space, which are obviously studied in science.

>> No.10977483

>>10977468
>physicalist world does include time and space.
brainlet detected

>> No.10977489

>>10975739
obvious bait

>> No.10977491

>>10977483
Explain?

>> No.10977500

>>10977454
No, I'm pretty sure that there is a catch in that.
In the first place science doesn't "study ideas".
Also, in the Theory of relativity space-time is equated with matter.

>> No.10977522

>>10977491
reddit

>> No.10977548

>>10977500
>In the first place science doesn't "study ideas".
Yes, I copied the vocabulary of the anon I replied to.
>Also, in the Theory of relativity space-time is equated with matter.
Wrong. In general relativity, spacetime is a mathematical construct used to build mathematical models. In physical reality, there is no ‘substance’ called spacetime. The spacetime concept merely defines a spatial coordinate and event system, projections of the mind; meaning if "science" is interested in these concepts, then "science" is not only about the material (or physical) world. Spacetime is not physical.

>> No.10977558

@10977522
>I can't explain
Okay then.

>> No.10977632

>>10977548
I am not really an expert in this but the whole point is that the geometry of space time is dependent on matter. It is not just a neutral matrix in which you can place material objects as you wish.

>> No.10977644

>>10977558
newfag detected

>> No.10977696

>>10977632
>geometry of space time is dependent on matter
Almost. The mind's projection of spacetime is measured in relation to matter. If you strip away the entirety of empirically perceived material (key word is perceived, it still exists), then this spacetime intuition can still exist (independent of that matter) as a product of the mind.

>> No.10977701

@10977644
:^)

>> No.10978152

>>10977081
You might know it, but you don't tell them because they might have a violent reaction against it. You ask subtle questions that might lead the patient there. They're the ones who have to realise and accept what's bothering them. A psychoanalyst might immediately know that "oh that girl has daddy issues", but you can't just tell her that. There are a few cases where a newbie psych told his patient after hearing her dream: "damn, for how long do you plan on being in love with your father?". She had a violent reaction to it, a breakdown, and was hospitalised.

Well, you can always take the nicotine chewing gum or such while in treatment. Same goes for antidepressants in therapy. If a persons symptoms are really bad, there's no need to make them suffer without meds.

>> No.10978167
File: 123 KB, 500x514, 076 - mTormOq.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10978167

>>10975739
You shouldn't be.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/

>> No.10978241

>>10978167
you dont know anything about Freud, if you think that has to do with him.

>> No.10978336

>>10975953
>He had some important ideas that is still relevant today in broad strokes even if he was not the only one who formulated them. Particularly the concepts of unconsciousness and subconsciousness. He helped a lot in formulating them in a clear, accessible manner and popularizing them

And that, In my opinion is enough already. You´ll have a hard time finding a serious scholar agreeing with every one of freuds postulate. Even within psychoanalysys that is. There where at least 3 big changes of focus within that very field (Ego-Psychology, Object-Theory and Self-Psychology) since he died. It has been more than 100 years, of course our understanding of the psyche has evolved, but he has layed the groundwork for a new way of undrstanding it.

>> No.10978362

>>10978336
>our understanding of the psyche has evolved

not much really.

>> No.10978366

>>10975739
>Find Freud thread
>Ctrl F cathexis
>Ctrl F transference
>Ctrl F identification

Sigh, why do you guys never talk about the interesting stuff?

>> No.10978386

>>10978366
you miss sublimation.

and is because people here dont actually read Freud.

>> No.10978396

>>10976081
>you took offence

I see that you feel the need to exaggerate and feign innocence after your 'argument' exposed your repressed anger towards Freud which is undoubtedly a sublimation of some hidden psychological issue you have.

>> No.10978557

>>10978362
>not much really.
I don´t know how to express this in an not condescending way, but what you write is only true for laymen.
There was post-freundian psychoanalytic theories, behaviorism, attachment theory (which is about the only thing the previous two two really agree on) and, last but not least cognitive sciences (specially situated cognition, even though it is surprisingly similar to psychoanalysis)

>> No.10978636

>>10977245
I don't know what side you're taking, but I want you to know you definitely come across as irritating and you probably have no friends.

>> No.10979079

>>10976293
he's right

>> No.10979170

>>10978366
Then start one yourself

>> No.10979588

>>10975739
THE PHENOTYPE ASHKENAZI WOMEN CRAVE

>> No.10980290

>>10978636
I might be a loser but at least I'm not an idiot.

>> No.10980919

Gentiles hate him.

>> No.10980938
File: 8 KB, 442x500, 1508578810973.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10980938

>>10977015
It's the other way around dumb brainlet.

>> No.10980946

>>10975916
GG