[ 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: 39 KB, 479x424, Oh_617350_2830517.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4177566 No.4177566[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why is Freud considered a laughing stock among psychologists and psych students today?

Is pic related?

>> No.4177574

>>4177566
In America? The rise of behaviorism, Gestalt theory, chemical therapy, etc.

>> No.4177583

Because Freud's theories weren't empirical. And so is modern Psychology, a bullshit discipline without any hard empirical basis.

Try Neuroscience for your hardware and Philosophy of Mind for your software, instead.

>> No.4177591

>>4177574
except all three of those, especially behaviorism, and ESPECIALLY Skinner, are massively out of favor again
>>4177566
because he got so many things so comically wrong and people forget what a revolution he and his contemporaries committed

>> No.4177592

Why will 3/4 of the idiots who reply accept the premise of your question and start their answer with "because..."?

>> No.4177593

>>4177583
*tips fedora*

I see you have taken undergraduate psychology courses as part of your STEM degree, good sir gentleman scholar :^)

>> No.4177594

too bad no modern psychologist writes as good as him

>> No.4177595

>>4177591
>I define myself in opposition to things according to conventional wisdom all while never providing examples

omg ur like so smart

>> No.4177599
File: 10 KB, 375x375, 1361203238824.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4177599

>>4177593
No need to get so asshurt over studying a pseudoscience.

>> No.4177600

>>4177592
you can't deny that he's massively unhip, though

the word I hear used would be "problematic"

>> No.4177602

>>4177566
because the only psych that matters anymore is psychoanalysis, thank god

empiricists always make me laugh

>we'll find a physical basis for consciousness once our microscopes get better but until then let's just pretend that isn't really an issue

>> No.4177603

>>4177566
If Freud is a laughing stock anywhere, it's probably because he's been taken too literally. I've read Freud myself, and I can already see where that picture goes wrong.

Freud thought that the body has a store of energy which is sexual in nature called the 'libido', and in society this libido becomes repressed and we then sublimate this repression of it's sexual nature onto other things, whilst simultaneously forgetting that it is sexual in nature.

So, say a hunter goes out and hunts for deer. Freud may well have said that this hunter is likely to be sublimating his sexual desire onto the hobby of hunting. Is that really wanting to have sex with the deer. No.

See how critics of Freud can twist his ideas?

>> No.4177606

>>4177594
Amen. Aside from being a master of German prose he wrote some great stuff on Shakespeare.

>> No.4177608

>>4177592
>Why will 3/4 [...] accept the premise
Because some of us aren't living under a fucking rock and have a sense of what's actually happening in academia.

>and start their answer with "because..."?
How much of a malfunctioning idiot do you have to be to not realize that there are many words that start a sentence? 'Because' just happens to be one of them.

>> No.4177609

>>4177595
what is this post even supposed to mean

>> No.4177611

>>4177592
because nobody knows/cares what psychologists are doing anymore so we'll just take the press releases on faith

>> No.4177612

>>4177602
The Spirit is a bone.

>> No.4177613

>>4177583
Yeah, because it's the behavioral sciences, not the hard sciences. There are degrees of empiricism, and I agree with you in a sense, but look at how far the discipline has come in the past hundred years. It's only gonna get better, yo.

>> No.4177615

>>4177566
1. Nobody reads non-fiction that came out before WWII.
2. People are perfectly willing to accept that somebody who didn't use the scientific method was defeated by the scientific method without reading what his actual theories were and comparing them to modern research.
3. Nobody wants to be considered dumb or irrelevant, despite what may actually be the case with Freud.

It's funny how many bullshit artists come out of the woodwork in order to assert that somebody else is a bullshit artist.

>> No.4177620

>>4177600
yeah Jung is really trending right now but Freud's pageviews have been doing well in the 18-24 so maybe we'll see a rise

#kidsthesedays

>> No.4177625

>>4177615

>Nobody reads non-fiction that came out before WWII

that's just clearly wrong

>> No.4177626

>>4177609
It means what it says. That you're hereby full of shit until you can prove any one of your assertions using something other than an appeal to relevancy (aka "you'd have to be an IDIOT to think otherwise these days!").

>> No.4177627

>>4177615
>1. Nobody reads non-fiction that came out before WWII.
>1. Nobody reads non-fiction that came out before WWII.
>1. Nobody reads non-fiction that came out before WWII.
>1. Nobody reads non-fiction that came out before WWII.
>1. Nobody reads non-fiction that came out before WWII.

haha what

>> No.4177628

>>4177625
If you take it as anything other than a generalization, no shit.

>> No.4177630

Reply to this post if you're pro-Freud.

>> No.4177633

>>4177630
Adsum!

>> No.4177632

>>4177627
Sorry, what are some common non fiction books that the average person has on their bookshelf?

>> No.4177635

>>4177626
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19711230.htm

>> No.4177637

>>4177630
I think that Freud's approach to the mind is on point, although I wouldn't consider myself a Freudian, and I don't really accept this theory of the unconscious. So I am partially pro-Freud but mostly pro-Psychoanalytic theory.

>> No.4177643

>>4177630
I'm not sure about the sexual nature of libido, but there is some repression that feeds an obsession, I think he's on to something there.

But I don't think the sexual liberation of society has made us lazy without passion or obsession.

>> No.4177648

>>4177632
The Republic, The Prince, The Wealth of Nations, The US Constitution, Concerning Civil Government, Principa Mathematica, Das Kapital, Walden/Resistance to Civil Government, The Bible

>> No.4177649

>>4177635
>"In his speculations on human behavior, which are to be clearly distinguished from his experimental investigations of conditioning behavior, B. F. Skinner offers a particular version of the theory of human malleability. "

Clearly distinguished from his experimental work in conditioning aka operant conditioning aka behaviorism. This essay has to do with Skinner's ideas in Beyond Freedom and Dignity.

>> No.4177650

>>4177630
I've only read what Marcuses says about Culture and its discontents on Eros and civilization. I like (Marcuse's interpretation of) what Freud says. He obviously kinda ripped-off Schopenhauer, though.

>> No.4177653

>>4177649
good job reading up to the second paragraph tho

>> No.4177655

>>4177630
his vocabulary was essential, his framework illuminating, but taken as an ideology I can understand why people see him as fraught

>> No.4177661

Guess it's sort of relevant:

I'm uneasy with psych going into my second semester of second year. Leaning towards economics. What do?

>>4177566

Personally, I had no issue with Freud. I liked behaviorism better though.

>> No.4177662

>>4177648
>The Bible

*tips Kippah*

>> No.4177666

because he was smart and imaginative with an astonishing career history while modern psych students probably served your coffee this morning

>> No.4177689

because he wasn't doing psychology, but he's hardly a laughing stock. he's more or less found a new life in literary/film criticism.

>> No.4177697

>>4177650
Schopenhauer's Will is very similar to Freud's Libido. But Schopenhauer's Will is more of an Energy that we have our consciousness on top of. Freud's Libido is actually something we're experiencing all day long, in our activities and relationships. For example, when you eat food and you feel good, Freud would say that is a manifestation of the libidinal energy, i.e. "Cathexis" (eng translation), in the act of eating.

>> No.4177862

>>4177603
Exactly. People take things too literally these days. And I think Jung would be more likely to connect hunting deer and sexual conquest.

>> No.4177867

>>4177600
>problematic
God I fucking hate this word. It's so fucking cryptofascist. Tumblr users are the biggest hypocrites in the world, demanding freedom for all people with an end to free speech, so nobody gets their feelings hurt.

>> No.4178006

A better question: Why did his superior contemporary Jung never receive nearly the praise Freud did? Oh right, because Freud is a comically narrow-minded version of Jung.

>> No.4178035

>>4177867
I hate it too, in the context I used it. Though it has its uses if you're concise and referencing the thing it is problem for.

Your post is ridiculously reactionary and hyperbolic though.

>> No.4178042

Because most people don't really understand Freud, so they make their own weird interpretations.

Also I have a Masters (or however you call it on English speaking countries) in psychoanalysis, and I specialize on Freud and Lacan, you can ask me anything if you want

>> No.4178046

>>4177867
>wahhhh muh free speech
god shut up you dumbass

>> No.4178067

>>4177599
you say that like its a bad thing

science aint so great, pally boy jimbo bob

>> No.4178085

Cause he tried to pass non-science as science and they think they actually have a science going on with their cognitive shit.

The mind is not something to be treated with science.

>> No.4178088

>>4178085

>The mind is not something to be treated with science.

This, so much.

I would change "mind" for "psyche", though

>> No.4178099

>>4177867
>cryptofascist
well i hate THAT word

>> No.4178107

>>4178042
why'd waste your time with a master's in poopology?

>> No.4178108

>>4178088
yeah is like anything that cant be proven with the sci method have to be dissmised. So freud and marx have been put a "debunked " label, just because of that.

>> No.4178114

>>4178042
can you summary what new things did Otto Rank, Lacan and Jung did add to Psy theory? and what of those worth my time?

>> No.4178116

>>4177566

Simply because his theories were a scam and the "primordial horde" was complete nonsense based on no serious study.

There are enough studies nowadays that show how much of a scam psychoanalysis was and is. It's to psychology what homeopathy is to medecine.

>> No.4178124

>>4177662
>*tips Kippah*

*erects penis*

>> No.4178543

>>4177566


freud is worse than a laughing stock, he was an actively deleterious influence.

his notion that platonic love is simply a guise for sexual desire has almost irrevocably banalized social dynamics between members of the same sex (men especially), hamstringing meaningful relationship possibilities and confusing those who need and want that sort of connection.

to say nothing of his notion that moral sentiments are neurosis.


the charitable interpretation would be that he was critically lacking in self-awareness by projecting his khazar mindset onto western european society, the alternative is that he was fully conscious of the implications his theories carried and intentionally promulgated them as such.

>> No.4178576

>>4177630
Aside from the Wolf Man absolutely

>> No.4178583

>>4178006
Oh christ, Jung fans are the psychoanalytic equivalent of those interminable Tesla people

>> No.4179316

>>4178583
I mean to say that when read in succession, as I have done when reading books on psychoanalysis, Jung really comes off as way more clear-headed. Albeit, it is the world of psychoanalysis, so clear-headed may not be the best adjective to use.

>> No.4179446

>>4179316

I don't think he was. Freud was significantly more succeeding at helping people's diseases. As a doctor, he was incredibly ingenious and resourceful, and his theory has more validation to this day than Jung's poor attempt at anthropology.

>> No.4179457

Do we like Spinoza here? Freud was a great intellect. Sometimes great intellects get things wrong, dead wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Would you deny yourself some knowledge because someone else was wrong? Are you aware that you're wrong; you woke up wrong, you go about your whole day being wrong and when you fall asleep at night, you're still wrong? Too much importance was made over just the fuss this man caused. Of course he is important. Like another anon said, his vocabulary was essential at the time. We will learn more as time goes on. Do not stop yourself from a great learning opportunity jsyt because what other's think. Fuck them! What we think matters not one lick. What if you were to draw something from his studies that changed the world?

>> No.4179480

>>4178099
You were meant to explain why, in the process using another unusual word for someone else to take offence with. You are bad a this game.

>> No.4179486

>>4177566
Historically, he came at the uneasy crossing point whereafter psychology tried to act like a serious science and jettisoned its past.

He is still as important a thinker as ever, just in different fields.

>> No.4179489
File: 1.95 MB, 320x231, F9L8lRz.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4179489

You'd be messed up to if you grew up sharing a bedroom with your parents.

>> No.4179507

>>4179457
>I'm dumb.

>> No.4179530
File: 19 KB, 275x275, Colstanza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4179530

What I want to know is why all my literature teachers kept using Freudian theory to analyse literature when apparently most of his work has been discredited or vastly improved upon by modern psychology. Why not use the currently accepted theories that actually are consistent with observation?

>> No.4179546

Obviously you want to kill the deer to impress the women back in your village for some cheap pussy.

Freud: 1
/lit/: 0

>> No.4179726

>>4179530

Bump for answer.

>> No.4179741

>>4177648
>The Bible
>non-fiction
Holy Sagan, are you actually retarded?

>> No.4179790

O you cheated on your significant other? ILL PRESCRIBE COCAINE!

>> No.4179803

>>4179530
Because Freud was actually right but the later generations need to seem relevant so they shit on pappy Freud

>> No.4179821

>>4177662
>>4179741
*tips fedora*
All religious texts are classified as non-fiction.

>> No.4179834

because psychoanalysts aren't the same thing as psychologists. one's a science, the other is mumbo jumbo.

>> No.4179836

>>4179507
>I'm projecting

>> No.4179854

>>4179821
>All religious texts are classified as non-fiction.

Wut. This is like the absurdest thing, ever.

>> No.4179855

>>4179854
Jeez, you guys are on /lit/ and you don't know this? It's the same reason philosophy is non-fiction. You can't prove or disprove what they're sayin

>> No.4179879

>>4179855
You can totally disprove* things in the bible, when they're outright contravened by evidence. Heliocentrism, for example.

The point is only that they were written as Non-Fiction

I'm the person who posted the list in question including the bible, by the way.

>> No.4179882

>>4179879
heliocentrism going against things in the bible, mind you

I wrote that poorly

>> No.4179883

>>4179879
It might be better to classify books as Entertainment and Informative.

>> No.4179892

>>4179883
*tipping intensifies*

>> No.4179902

>>4179892
... has the meaning of the fedora thing done a full 180 now? Religious texts would be "Informative" you spastic.

>> No.4179906

>>4179879
>I'm the person who posted the list in question including the bible, by the way.

So you're the idiot who thinks the average person has Principia Mathematica on their bookshelf?

>> No.4179917

>>4179854

I made some shit up. == Fiction
No, I'm serious guys. == Non-Fiction

That's It. Right there. That's all there is to it.

Oh, and Freud invented talk therapy, which is without a doubt the most widely used and single most effective form of psychological therapy ever discovered.

Inb4 "but that was obvious" hindsight, bitch

>> No.4179922

>>4179906
that was a bullshit premise within the context of the conversation, that I was prepared to argue against, but instead the inclusion of the Bible became the new focus (because /lit/ is filled with fucking idiots)

The conversation was

"among psychologists and psych students"

not the average person


You're probably still right that Principa Mathematica is a bad pick, but I'm not sure it weakens the list, and I'm sure the inclusion doesn't warrant you calling me an idiot.

>> No.4179953

>>4179917
>Oh, and Freud invented talk therapy

Have you ever heard of the stoics? Or Socrates?

>> No.4179976

>>4179953
shut the fucking fuck up you fucking fuck

>> No.4179995

>>4177697
Well, I was talking about the relation between Eros and Will. When talking about Eros, Freud's directly ripping-off the schopenhauerian Will. Libido is like a more physiological consequence of what the erotic impulses are.

>> No.4180010
File: 754 KB, 400x358, tim.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4180010

>>4178543
>his notion that platonic love is simply a guise for sexual desire
Way to misinterpret (or to talk about anything you haven't even read about). There's a difference between platonic love and erotic love, you know? And erotic doesn't mean sexual. >has almost irrevocably banalized social dynamics between members of the same sex
Wow, blaming Freud for the sociological results of capitalism? Good job, nigger.

(Sorry, I couldn't continue reading your post past this point).

>> No.4180011

>>4177630
only pseudo-intellectual scientismists are against him

>> No.4180019

>>4180011
That's not true.

>> No.4180020

>>4180019
you're repressing

>> No.4180022

I think that Freud did some disservice to us, but still, he needs to be read, even if it's just to criticize him and do a better job, or to understand Lacan and some other people that are really relevant to today's society.

>> No.4180028

>>4180020
If you're talking about 4chan specifically, you might be right, but plenty of intelligent people have been anti-Freud, e.g., any number of feminist thinkers (for obvious reasons)

>> No.4180029

>>4180022
I read you people and i think Psychoanalysis is some of those things that you better experiment than just "know the theory". It really makes sense after you solve your first trauma. Like riding a roller coaster, you cant describe it.

>> No.4180035

>>4180028
Yeah I know, Nabokov hated him too. I'm talking about the computer science undergrads of 4chan of course

>> No.4180038

>>4180028
pro-freud people: Kubrick, Hitchhock, Woody allen, Lacan, Facault, Milan Kundera, Salvador Dali...i could go on forever.

>> No.4180042

>>4180035
Nabokov was an insufferable piece of shit with bad opinions on a lot of things, including literature

>> No.4180054

because psychologists and psych students are crazier than their patients

i knew a child psychiatrist who was afraid of a fucking salamander. if you can't handle a lizard i don't think you should be handling my child's brain

also, this field is mostly just used to segregate undesirables and then make them crazier, not actually help them
mental hospitals are some fucked up places with some fucked up routines and policies

don't trust doctors, ever

>> No.4180058

>>4180054
man you are confusing psychoanalyst and psychiatrists.

Fuck you lit , you talk about Freud and you dont even know what is all about. At least go see the wikipedia entry.

>> No.4180067

>>4180038
>>4180038

Anti-freud people:Scientists.

>> No.4180078

>>4180058
i may be wrong, but...

>> No.4180086

>>4177603
Do you even Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

>> No.4180087

>>4179530

Because modern psychology is Skinner-tier bs.

Also "the current accepted theories that are consistent with observation only" fail to explain anything about the unconsious mind.

Our mind has a lot irrational stuff, you cannot explain it with the scientific method, writing fomulas and laws.

>> No.4180091

>>4179855

But philosophy is actually based on stuff

Also many philosophy books are about the History or philosophy, history which is real

>> No.4180098

>>4179953
I can see where you're coming from, but nah man sit down.

>> No.4180100

>>4180086

That's the most stupid shit I've ever seen

It's so fucking self-evident

>> No.4180111

Incidentally, one of Freud's best works in my opinion is Beyond the Pleasure Principle. Here he rejects his original theory of the libido. Anti-intellectual internet culture might learn a lot about itself by giving it a read.

>> No.4180115

>>4179922
that's what people here do when they are out of arguments
that guy saying no one read pre-ww2 non-fiction anymore is clearly a fucktard.

>> No.4180119

>>4180067
cool story bru, whats the argument? are you gonna keep sucking scientists' dicks?

>> No.4180123

>>4180091

History of philosophy*

>> No.4180158

>>4180087
>you cannot explain it with the scientific method
Yes, you can. The human brain consists of elementary particles, atoms and molecyles which operate under the laws of physics. The fact that we can't explain it completely YET doesn't mean we won't ever.
>inb4 dualism

>> No.4180181

>>4179953
Have you read the Stoics or Socrates? Did any of they're shit seem like psychoanalytic talk therapy to you?

What an idiotic post.

>> No.4180182

>>4180158
This is belief not fact.

>> No.4180184

>>4180182
Accepting physics and dismissing the supernatural is not belief, it's the rational world view that's based on empirical evidence.

>> No.4180189

>>4180184
Oh god, what are you talking about how is what your saying grounded in observation, because molecules and atoms abide the laws of physics nowhere implies that consciousness itself also must do this. To state that without observable evidence is voodoo tier pseudo science.

>> No.4180190

>>4180184
what empirical evidence?

your assumption of a "rational world view" is a belief in itself

>> No.4180206

>>4180158
>dualism
Why not? There are versions of dualism that actually make sense to me.
The idea that our thoughts are not really ours is almost self-evident to me and it fills most of the gaps modern neuroscience ignores.

>Why is the brain so important?
because it transforms the code into information processable by the body and then stores it. No brain= no observable processes because we can't observe consciousness directly.
This theory is interesting because it doesn't claim you have a soul, but rather that your random thoughts are also determined.
People tend to think that dualism = paranormal pseudoscience and that's not it at all. That's the reason most /sci/ threads about consciousness end up derailed or trolled.

>> No.4180213

>>4180184

there is no empirical evidence that consciousness exists because there isn't even a good definition or scientific concept of consciousness.

as such consciousness is clearly pseudo-science voodoo, just like qualia.

>> No.4180222

>>4180213
>consciousness is clearly pseudo-science voodoo, just like qualia.

>Evidence based on our own observation is anecdotal and therefore not valid.

Then nothing is valid at all because ultimately everything is based upon our own anecdotal experiences.
You could say that dreams and imagination are as inconceivable as consciousness yet nobody doubts we can dream.

>> No.4180227

>>4180213
What do you think counts as a good definition? Are you familiar with the demarcation problem?

>> No.4180228

>>4180222
That's what fedora-core scientismifists forget, that everything might not be accessible by empiricism so we might also develop good alternative methods.

>> No.4180269

>>4177566
>Why is Freud considered a laughing stock among psychologists and psych students today?

He's not.

>> No.4180309

There's a kind of weird hardcore of people who are obsessed with this idea that Freud is a joke, even though in professional psychology, nobody really thinks that. It's a strange phenomenon - why don't people think this about other early pioneers of fields - like Gregor Mendel in genetics?

PS: This thread's discussion of epistemology is fucking retarded.

>> No.4180317

>>4177583
>Try Neuroscience for your hardware

I bet you are a "neurorealist" arent you?

>> No.4180327

>>4180309
Because literary theory went through a phase were it was jerking off over Freud constantly and if a Humanity likes something that must mean it is wrong by STEM elitist logic.

>> No.4180352
File: 10 KB, 300x116, critbyclas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4180352

>>4180317

>> No.4180353

>>4180352
Isn't it self-defeating to criticise him for classification by classifying his argument as it?

>> No.4180355

>>4177566
Bunch of haters.

Frued was the mistake Psychology needed in order for everyone to prove it wrong/find answers for. He was influential and had some of the most interesting theories that people considered thought provoking or mad about lack of scientific method and they went to prove it wrong for years.

Either way he helped set the foundations for several schools of psychology.

>> No.4180357

>>4177593
/lit/ you are the funniest posters

>> No.4180361

>>4180353
he's pointing out that classifying isn't actually a rebuttal- and he didn't just classify that post with a buzzword, he classified it as a fallacy, so he attached negative value to the classification (calling it out as illogical).

>> No.4180365

>>4177599
real science is pseudotruth, faglord

>> No.4180372

>>4177608
>some of us aren't living under a fucking rock and have a sense of what's actually happening in academia.

Yeah I can tell with the unnecessary anger directed at that offtopic post followed with a paragraph describing why they are an idiot

>> No.4180380

>>4180365
This guy gets it

Philosophy is the highest science. Mathfags just masturbate over which symbol has the biggest value.

Hey Frued was right after all!

>> No.4180416

>>4180380
Math is highly phallic in nature. Mathfags really are only craving cock by their insistence on clarity and rationality. It's self evident people.

>> No.4180419
File: 53 KB, 322x224, 1379113619991.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4180419

>>4180380
>>4180416

>> No.4180423

>>4179836
Indeed. Thanks. I would never deny myself an opportunity to learn just because someone was wrong. How asinine.

>> No.4180567

>>4178042
I know this is probably a silly question, but as someone who is new to psychoanalysis, I would like to know, in a nutshell, what the difference between Freud and Lacan's modes of thinking are?

>> No.4180590

>>4180567
I'm not that guy, but I can tell you: Basically, Freud believed that the subject, i.e. the "Ego" is by and large determined by it's Id and Superego relations which develop from familial and societal relations. Lacan on the other hand believed that the Subject is by and large determined by the 'language' which is used in these familial and societal relations, and that the Unconscious is also structured like a language. Now obviously this is a very gross simplification and you're better off reading both to even begin to understand.

>> No.4180803

I'm hijacking this thread.

I'm from Argentina. In case you don't know, it's the only country, aside from France, where psychoanalysis has still a strong influence in academia. I'm curious about the reasons.
I guess that in EEUU psychoanalysis was disregarded because it's not compatible with positivism and capitalism. The same happened in Europe, and once the most important countries did it, the rest started dismissing psychoanalysis too. But I don't know why Argentina didn't (I find it weird that our neighbour countries follow the same steps as EEUU).

Anyone can recommend me something to read about Psychoanalysis relation with positivism/post-modernism/capitalism? Or steer me in the right direction (I can ask some of my teachers, but since Psychoanalysis is pretty dogmatic here, if I ask a pro-psychoanalysis might get offended, and an anti-psychoanalysis will say me the same retarded things /sci/ says)

>> No.4180835

>>4180803
Adorno, Marcuse, Deleuze & Guatarri and Zizek have all wrote extensively about psychoanalytic concepts in relation to Capitalism, but I'm unsure if any of them have actively written about Psychoanalysis becoming suppressed as a result of Capitalistic ideology.

>> No.4180848

>>4180590

>reading Lacan
my god

>> No.4180862

>>4180355

Which ones?

>> No.4180867

>>4177602
the thread should have stopped hereabouts

>> No.4181072

>>4180835
I think they would actually argue the opposite. That would explain why French is still so strongly influenced by freudian theories; the country kind of hates capitalism.

>> No.4181573

>>4177648
>The Bible
>Non-fiction
o
I haven't read Freud, after I have a comprehensive understanding of the entire history of Marxist thought I might dip my feet in.

>> No.4181617

>>4177583
>hardware/software dichotomy
in one of my neuroscience courses one of the exam questions was to list 10 ways in which brains are not like computers.
Trust me, thoughts as software is not really accurate

>> No.4181646

>>4181617
just for fun can you list some of those reasons lol

>> No.4181654

>>4177574
>chemical therapy
Well we know which side of that debate you're on.

>>4177591
Behaviorism is not out of favor. The word "behaviorism" is, but flooding/systematic desensitization is still the therapy of choice for anxiety and panic disorders. And while most practitioners are basically doing cognitive therapy and calling it CBT, theoretically there's a lot of merit to blending behaviorist methods with cognitive and rational-emotive therapy.

>> No.4181666

>>4179922
You are an idiot. Psych students and the overwhelming majority of psychologists aren't reading Principia Mathematica or the Bible.

>> No.4181667

loving all the typically ignorant responses ITT: 'psychology isn't even a real science', 'study a real subject, dummy!'

no. shut up. the study of the brain is the most important frontier of knowledge in the 21st century, the repercussions of which will be felt for the next few hundred years. meanwhile, your (doubtful) degree in literature, consisting of a careful and "insightful!" recycling/reframing of something already done to death, will be lucky to secure a readership of more than 6 or 7 people. so pls, show a little restraint & keep your stupid comments in your pocket.

>> No.4181672

>>4180010


>There's a difference between platonic love and erotic love, you know?

which was my point? dont try to pretend the meat and potatoes of freudian psychoanalysis doesnt basically boil down to 'its libido/'sublimated' libido' in practice, because thats what it does.

>> No.4181681

>>4180115
>that guy saying no one read pre-ww2 non-fiction anymore is clearly a fucktard.

Out of the general populace? He was spot on with an exception or two. Go check a best selling nonfiction list to confirm for yourself. And those are just copies sold, not copies read.

Psych students and psychologists aren't much different. Not sure why you're deluded into thinking that they specifically are reading older non-fiction.

>> No.4181688

>>4181667
psychology isn't really the study of the brain though, that's the problem. neuroscience does that.

>> No.4181723

>>4181688
the mind then.

>> No.4181756

>>4181646
http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/03/27/why-the-brain-is-not-like-a-co/

>> No.4181763

>>4180803
Maybe you dont like what im going to tell you, but maybe what keep psychoanalysis in your country is the amount of jews. idk.

>> No.4181775

>>4181763
There are a lot of Jews in Argentina? I thought there were a lot of Nazis in Argentina.

>> No.4181785

>>4181775
a lot, only Usa and canada have more jews than argentina in America. They even have a football team. But I guess they are going to israel now.

>> No.4181821

>>4181785
And now we have arrived at the important learning moment of the thread:

There are lots of Jews in Argentina. Really that explains why there's a musical about it.

>> No.4181936

>>4179902
>/r/atheism

>> No.4181937

>>4177566

Because he never cured any patients and basically just guessed everything.

Psychology isnt exactly a real science yet, but you at least have to pretend it is. You cant get away with making shit up in maths or physics. Youll get laughed out of the building.

>> No.4181938

>>4177566
because we think we're doing better. /laughingstock

>> No.4181947

>>4181937
>he never cured any patients

Confirmed for not knowing anything. Back to the conventional wisdom barn with you.

>> No.4182112
File: 436 KB, 1680x1050, 03d49495775d964c5da2e52cc11b9610.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4182112

This thread has been bretty gud. Basically, everyone is overrated. Yes, you are, so shut up. I am, too, and I not going to fucking cry about it. Any new discoveries in this field? We found where we get intuition, right? I think someday we'll learn how thoughts process. In fact, you are doing just that right now. Will we ever figure out, with 100% clarity, our biological interface with what we call reality, where the spark of consciousness resides? Don't know but finding out has been a hell of a ride.

>> No.4182142

>>4181937
>You cant get away with making shit up in maths or physics
That's because maths and physics are made up axioms that get built on top of observations, peer review and waifuistic reputations!

>> No.4182144

>>4181947
whom did he cure, and of what?

>> No.4182146

>>4178067
certainly, but psychology is just nonsense

>> No.4182164

>>4182146
Go back to masturbating to your perfect waifugons

>> No.4182172

>>4182164
???
is that some crack at me that I think mathematics is pure, and like I'm some NEET neckbeard?

I'm not a positivist, but psychoanalysis is actually nonsense, it has no connection to anything
it might as well be a fairy tail, if only it wasn't so dull to study

>> No.4182177

>>4182172
Mathematics is an insufferable whore that ended up accepted as pure because of how it finely fits onto everything

But as any lawyer can tell you, she is just another slut that craves for shit

You cannot do some things that look logical on the onset with mathematics alone

Maths break up for the understanding of many great things, or we'd be already going through some serious lsd shit with it as is

How many fucking geniuses do you think there are in mathematics?

Do you think you, me, anyone in this planet, is better at maths than them? Or on the universe?

>> No.4182191

>>4182177
I don't understand what this has to do with my post.

>> No.4182197

>>4182191
Your post had next to zero to do with my post, so I doubled the bet and posted something that made even less sense!

Post Parasite

>> No.4182246

You guys are idiots. Empirical Psychology is nothing more than the scientific study of behaviour. Cognitions count as behaviour. Psychologists tend to be varying degrees of stupid (and this is coming from someone studying psychology at a decent institution) but they're incredibly dogmatic and serious about their scientific method.
I've had to hear profs lecture on and on about basic tenants of empiricism and have even actually had to take courses on it. There's also a huge emphasis on statistical validity and reliability.

>> No.4182288

>>4178085

Comment was nearly fantastic.
>The mind is not something to be treated with science.

>> No.4182323

>>4182246
What type of jobs could you get with your degree?
Should one have a certain set of traits that would facilitate his majoring in psychology?
A bit unrelated, but I'm going to the university next year and I'm interested in psychology.

>> No.4183340

>>4181672
Eros and Thanatos. Two BASIC impulses. I think this is your only complaint since the rest is true. But you point is bullshit because you don't understand shit about Freud since you haven't read him. Read again, please. Or just shut up and don't talk about stuff you don't know.

>> No.4183399

>>4182323

Can you become a psychiatrist with a psychology degree?

>> No.4183498

>>4177595
Anon was right, faget, it's now widely accepted that classical conditioning isn't nearly adequate enough to explain human behaviour. Skinner basically tried to explain acquisition of language by giving rats and pigeons treats.

>> No.4183519

>>4183399

No. Psychiatrists are doctors.

>> No.4183576

>>4181723
And the value I see in psychoanalysis is that psychoanalysts seem to me to be much more willing to think through the mind from the inside and from a non-reductionist standpoint. I don't see why one should have to choose only seeing validity in either psychoanalysis or neuroscience, though.

>> No.4183586

>>4183576
>a non-reductionist standpoint.

Ok, I like psychoanalysis, but this is frankly bullshit.

Most, if not all, of psychoanalytic theory boils down to this: You have unconscious material which is beyond your immediate control which causes you to behave neurotically.

That is terribly reductionist.

>> No.4183617

Psychology is a fucking joke, pure and simple. Want proof?
>Not a fucking science.
>Any advances dealing with the mind are made by real doctors.
>Psychology is literally asking people questions/observing actions and coming to your own fucking opinions on the matter.
>No way to control all the variables in the "studies" psychologists do.
>Business and Psychology both deal with theories and opinions, not real science, but business is considered a science degree. How does that make you shitchologists feel?
>Shitchologists consistently rip on Freud because they want to get rid of the stereotype that psychology is "just like, my opinion, bruh" even though that is impossible because that is what psychology is.
>Psychology is the study of over generalizations.
>Psychologists can expect a job as a school counselor because psychology degrees are becoming worthless. Psychiatrists are the only psychologists worth seeing because they have taken more than Biology 101 in college.
>Not kidding, the hardest science class psychologists have to take is Biology 101. Once again proofing that it is not a science because high school students are required to take more and harder science classes.
Do you guys find it hard to believe I will never see a psychologist in my life? My roommate almost has her psychology degree. Dumbest person I know and she still doesn't believe me when I tell her it isn't a science.

>> No.4183658

>>4183617

totally #rekt

>> No.4183659

>>4183617
why can't I hold all this undergrad stem major

>>>/sci/

>> No.4183661

>>4183617
>>list of over generalizations and irrational anger
>>complains about over generalizations and refuses to see psychologists.

Well, no shit.

>> No.4183665

>>4183617
Amen.

>> No.4183671

>>4183617

what are you doing on /lit/?

I hope it's not because you enjoy literature. Since literature it's not science, it's a joke (as art, sports, any form of entertainment, social interaction, etc).

>> No.4183674

>>4183617
what is a science that will help me deal with my feelings of loneliness and emptiness in life

>Not a fucking science.
I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE

>> No.4183682

>>4183674
It's called family/friends/chatrooms and doctors. You know, the people that can truly help only you don't have to pay $100 an hour even though they can't tell you how to calculate Density.

>> No.4183690

>>4183617
The reason I like Psychology is because it's not completely science.
Your resistance only made me harder.

>> No.4183697

I don't understand the need for people to defend Freud. He has nearly no influence on modern psychology. I'm not even a scifag fedora type, I would major in philosophy if I felt I could make a living off of it. The literary theory types and the humanities in general need to quit dressing up dead scientific/ideological corpses e.g. psychoanalysis, Marxism. Clinging onto pseudo-science ultimately undermines the fight for social justice in the long run.

>> No.4183700

>>4183697
>dead ideological corpses e.g. Marxism.
Do you even dialectic? Do you even historicism? I sound sorta glib, I realize, but Marxism is by no means dead. It's just that like any other good theory it needs modification over time.

>> No.4183719

>>4183700
Confirmed for freshman in college.

>> No.4183729

>>4183700
I should have specified I'm mainly referring to Marxist economics. Although Marx was good for bringing in the element of class into mainstream economics.

>> No.4183733

>>4179790

Sounds like freud was way ahead of his time. Prescribing drugs that hide symptoms and cause as much harms as it does good.

He would make a great modern day doctor.

>> No.4183752

>>4183697
Freud is defended because he isn't wrong about everything. Or is that too hard for you to grasp? Examples are his defense mechanisms, his theory of repression, the existence of the Unconcious to be studied scientifically, etc.

>> No.4183759

>>4183519
Yes. If you get into medical school. I'm thinking of doing a masters in clinical psych while in medical school.
>>4182323
Not many. You can't do anything with a Bachelors unless you're an engineer or something. I'm gonna apply to medical school. I'm interested in psychiatry. Where I live, medical schools accept any undergraduate.

>> No.4183770

>>4177566
No hard evidence, just wrote shit down. Albeit, I do think he got some stuff right. (Sexuality does drive most of us), but in terms of hard evidence, he had none

>> No.4183773

>>4177566
if he didn't try so hard to act like he was doing science nobody would care

>> No.4183789

>>4183752
I never said he was wrong about everything. I said there is little modern psychology takes from Freud. I also didn't say he couldn't be studied scientifically. You study anything scientifically, that doesn't mean you will find evidence of what you're looking for.

>> No.4183793

>>4183789
can*

>> No.4183799

Two questions:

1) In a lot of texts Freud say something among the lines 'there must be some chemical/biological cause of this, it just not what I'm interested in studying'. For example in three essays, when he introduce the concept of 'pulsion/Trieb'. Did he died with that expectation, making the dualist lecture of his work some /sci/ tier shit?

2) Is the 'new' neuropsychoanalysis what 1) is about? Can anyone recommend me something in that field?

>> No.4183816

>>4183789
Oh, are you the authority on what is and is not "modern psychology"? Sorry, I had no idea.

>> No.4184436

>>4183697
>He has nearly no influence on modern psychology
lel

>> No.4184452

>>4177566
Because psychology is a science, while soft, and Freud wrote some game changing ideas that made every scientist mad and jealous because he got more attention and debate over him without empirical data

He was the Rupert Sheldrake and Jacques Benveniste of Psychology

>> No.4185113

>>4183729
marxist economics dead?

let me ask you .. does the fact that we live in capitalism world have something to do with it?
Like an inconvenient concept that have to be hidden. The sort of things that creationist want to do by banning evolution theory in schools (But they dont have the power anymore).

>> No.4187572

bumping for reasons