/sci/ - Science & Math

He was... off base on quite a few things.

>>5172830
I'm not talking about him in particular.

Just... that section of psychology.

It's bad.

It can give accurate predictions in some instances. Mostly outdated, though.

>>5172871
>accurate predictions
such as?

Nothing about it is accurate in any way, shape, or form.

>>5172885
Freudian theory predicts that unconscious thought has a large impact in behavior. This has been shown to be correct. This is only the first example that came to mind.

That said, it is outdated by modern theory which gives accurate predictions in many more cases.

>>5172895
>psychology
>not bullshit

Are you seriously trying to say that anything involving the theory of the "unconscious" is correct? The existence of unconscious thought is very debatable, and it is not nearly as relevant to decision-making as reward/motivation systems and neuroplasticity.

>>5172904
Neuroplasticity is relevant to literally everything that your brain does. Saying that it's relevant to any particular phenomenon is totally trivial.

And, being that you're not aware of some of what your brain does, we can say that neuroplasticity is even related to the unconscious (just not the anthropomorphized freudian unconscious).

>>5172904
As a cognitive scientist, I would argue that anything involving a theory of the "conscious" is incorrect.

Freudian theory is wrong in many regards. But, you have to accept the fact that there are mental processes that people cannot report that effect their behavior. This is one of the central predictions of Freud.

>>5172914
It is specifically relevant to emotion and supposed "unconscious" thought's impact on neural paths.

>>5172917
I've always thought that existing neurochemical conditions exert more influence on abstract thought, emotional reasoning, and other "mental processes that people cannot report" than the other way around. Since you're an authority in this subject, could you explain this?

>>5172904
The existence of any thought is not even debatable, nobody has ever provided evidence that "thoughts" exist.

If you dont into Freudian psychology, then you probably want to fuck your mother

>>5172828
I agree with some of his work, but for the most part he's just a creepy old sexual deviant. The Interpretation of Dreams is just a scavenger hunt for penis. Carl Jung is the fucking man though.

>>5172828

I think for the most part anybody who is wholly dismissive of it is somebody who has only ever read popular science books and has never ever even touched anything of Freud's work or given it a chance/the benefit of the doubt for that matter.

So many 'scientists' these days dismissing things which, yes, have been nicked by the occasional study(though neither significantly nor irreparably so), without any actual argument other than 'it's wrong and you're stupid if you think otherwise'.

Matters of the pathology of the brain were barely considered medical before him, so there's that advance. Dream symbolism and such is nonsense though.

>>5173010
Neurochemical conditions are not conscious, or if you insist is not "reportable." If you believe that they influence behavior, you are consistent with Freudian theory.

>>5173090
If the dopamine-reward system doesn't influence behavior, then what mental process is altered? The actual "feeling" of the quale of success is a responsive to neurochemistry, but I don't understand to what extent the physical and mental have control.

(Sorry if I seem incoherent, it is the ambien).

>>5173047

How is it nonsense?

Let us suppose that dreams are the result of random firings of brain activity while we are just barely conscious. Our brain interprets purely random meaningless perception and tries its best to rationalize it.

Even if this was the case (which is plausibly is), that does not mean dreams are not symbolic, since the content of the dream would be based off how the brain interprets data.

I, for example, often dream of spiders. I dont know why, and I am not distressed by spiders. But the fact that I dream about them often at the very least suggests I have some propensity to interpret data into spiders. Thus, dreaming of spiders is meaningful and symbolic, even under the assumptions that my dreams are nothing more than some mechination of physical processes.

>>5173167
If you ever pick up one of those stupid paperbacks that tell you that if you dream of scissors, it means x, if you dream of a goat, it means y, then you know what I mean. It's like fortune telling or astrology.

>>5173172
I think you need to stop picking up the stupid paperbacks, and judging an entire thing then upon your limited experience.

This is subjective thing, so people attempting to say that this equals that, are wrong.

>>5173172

I agree, that is nonsense. But that isnt what I addressed. I just addressed the idea that dreams are symbolic and have meaning.

Perhaps Freud wasnt very scientific, but it only takes a little creativity to derive notions of internal conflict, or motherly need from symbolism.

>>5173132
The dopamine-reward system does influence behavior. Like Freudian psychology, its mechanism of influence is not conscious.

Unconscious mental processes completely dominate behavior. Some cognitive scientists even propose that consciousness will itself is an illusion, ie

http://www.amazon.com/Illusion-Conscious-Will-Bradford-Books/dp/0262731622

Sometimes a cigar is just a penis.
Cigar.
I meant cigar.

Absolute nonsense.

>>5172828

Merely of historical/anecdotal value. He influenced a lot of later work. However, his own theories are quite outdated..