[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 10 KB, 200x284, freud.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3948805 No.3948805 [Reply] [Original]

What does /sci/ think of Freud?

>> No.3948813

frued's thoeries are just geusses (a story)

>> No.3948819

I'm a psych major. I realize his ideas have no evidence at all.

But come on. Some of the shit he came up with just seems to make sense most of the time. This is just my personal opinion.

>> No.3948820

I didn't know Freud died from voluntary euthanasia, but he did. He was old and suffering from mouth cancer, so he had his doctor knock him off with a morphine OD.

>> No.3948832

Did a lot of crack and thought too much about his mother.

Jung's collective unconscious idea was way ahead of it's time in terms of behavioural sciences (like fixed action patterns, preprogrammed responses to certain stimuli). Although that persona-shadow-anima/animus was pretty much hocus-pocus.

>> No.3948833

Just a guy who invented excuses for his sexual proclivities.

>> No.3948841

Hes worth the read. I read "civilization and its discontents" and I liked it.

I could accept that he wasnt a scientist, that he was only a scholar or something.

A lot of people's criticisms are unfounded. A lot of the mythos about freud is perpetuated by people who have never read freud.

>> No.3948849

I think people read the surface of what he is saying and just claim it bullshit before actually analyzing it. For example, someone sees the names of the psychosexual stages and immediately assumes it's a bunch of bullshit. But when you actually delve into them it seems to make a lot of sense.

>> No.3948872

A lot of psychologists criticized Freud for reasons like acting as if the Viennese bourgeois of c. 1900 were somehow representative of all societies.

>> No.3948899

A lot of psychologists ITT or some samefagging

wtf happened to the /sci/ who lampoons all that isn't a hard science

>> No.3948915

>>3948899
They're in highschool classes for another hour or so

>> No.3948930

>>3948872
And a lot of those psychologists are using Freud's ideas even as they are rejecting them by branding them with their own individual flavors.

>> No.3948961

Freud's ideas of the uncounscious and especially the repression mechanism is, to my knowledge, important to consider since they are concepts that explain in a good way many behaviours and it is desillusional, although Freud isn't the one to have created most of them, to think that each of every one doesn't use defense mechanisms in every day life. By being more aware of such mechanisms is too get a better grasp on your own behaviours and, thus, discrediting most of the critics making psychoanalysis a theory that enslaves peope as mere product of their uncounscious pulsions. Like in anything, knowing your limits help you overcome them, and Freud put some light on one of human's psyche limits.

>> No.3948977

ITT: Interesting conjecture

take it elsewhere, chaps.

>> No.3948987

>>3948899
No real psychologist respect Freudian analysis because it doesn't deserve it. it only tries to command respect. Psychology's come along way since then. Jung and freud are no longer central pillars, if they ever were.

>> No.3948988

freud's alright, he had some good ideas and some insanely bad ideas. i prefer jung to him, though jung seems prone to overcomplicating his interpretations. man was a genius though.
>>3948977
>>3948899
quiet down children, grown ups are having a civil discussion. go play outside, it's good for you.

>> No.3948994

>>3948977
You are familiar with the concept of an open forum, are you not? Plus, the responses are somewhat interesting and Anon knows it doesn't happen that often.

>> No.3949006

In France, psychoanalysis (freudian school too) it still is pretty popular. North america was never really fond of Freud's psychoanalysis thought; environment's role (e.g. culture, society, individual's experiences, etc.) didn't take enough place in his theory.

>> No.3949002 [DELETED] 
File: 18 KB, 670x304, 1319496555080.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3949002

>> No.3949018

he's just a sick man
that went so far to fuck his daughter

it would be kind of tragic, if i cared

>> No.3949025

>>3948988
You are obviously not at all experience with modern psychology. Jung and Freud aren't even spoken of in their departments

>> No.3949042

>>3949025
That explains how crap modern psychology is, then.

>> No.3949049

>>3949025
Please elaborate.

>> No.3949053

>>3949025
Modern psychology has become very liberalized. It's now more about justifying psychological issues rather than curing them.

>> No.3949056

>>3949025
um what? this thread is not about modern psych, it's about freud. also, you are judging them based on how they compare now, not how they were at the time they were active. of course they're going to be deprecated now...

>> No.3949094

>>3949056
All Op asked was : What does /sci/ think of Freud?. he did not ask: what does /sci/ think of the historical value of freud

>>3949049
The only fields that actually mention freud nowadays are social sciences out with psychology and it's usually only glazing over it for undergrads to offer them a different approach. it's only done because it's novel (for their discipline) and because they're not psych professors so they don't actually understand how outdated it is.