[ 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, 200px-Sigmund_Freud_LIFE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3998707 No.3998707 [Reply] [Original]

Does psychoanalysis work?

Is psychology really complete bullshit?

Is it possible to analyze people to manipulate them using psychoanalysis/psychology?

>> No.3998820

Que?

>> No.3998834

it is possible to make conjectures pulled out of your ass based on simplistic observations and potentailly apply them to manipulate groups of people than fit into the conjecturised state of mentality.

ie. yes, psychology is complete bulshit

>> No.3998839

>Does psychoanalysis work?
Of course it does.

>Is psychology really complete bullshit?
No, why on earth would you even think that?

>Is it possible to analyze people to manipulate them using psychoanalysis/psychology?
>analyze people to manipulate them
wut

You can't analyze someone to manipulate them. You can both analyze a person and you can also manipulate them. The degree of success depends on individual differences of course and your skill and knowledge of manipulation.

>> No.3998846

>>3998834
lern2statisticalrelevancy

>> No.3998854

Phrenology = same as psychology/psychoanalysis


100 hundred years from now we will look at the field of psychology and anything related to it and lol

>> No.3998852

It does changes behaviours and cognitions as well as curing some pathologies.

Psychology is obviously real and improves itself as a scientific discipline.

It would be hard to manipulate someone without using the notion of consciousness and manipulation, two psychological concepts.

>> No.3998868

Psychoanalysis works in that desocialized bourgeois are given an opportunity to confess their problems for many many hours over the course of months and years and that focus and the almost religious aura the analyst gives off helps the person consciously realize the causation of their suffering and unconsciously work against the tics and behaviors which dominated them like parasites.

But drugs and philosophy also work too.

>> No.3998860

>Does psychoanalysis work?
Sometimes.
>Is psychology really complete bullshit?
Of course not.
>Is it possible to analyze people to manipulate them using psychoanalysis/psychology?
Yeah, happens all the time.

>> No.3998876

Firstly, most of what FREUD said was indeed this
>>3998834
However, since the 60s/70s Psychology has gone from strength to strength. And is one of the fastest growing scientific disciplines.

Also, what is being described ITT and what Freud was interested in was mainly SOCIAL Psychology.

There is also:
>Neuroscience
>Perception
>Cognition
>Health psychology
And near infinite combinations of these put together.

>> No.3998881

>>3998834
Yeah, because researches or scientists that do that don't loose all credibility in face of the other scientists. Plus, if the theory isn't really good, it'll show its weaknesses pretty fast.

>>3998854
Phrenology is the study of bumps on the skull that presumably matches the gyri of the brain. That isn't studie anymore as legit, although localization of cerebral functions is supposed to exist.

>> No.3998891

>>3998854
Yeah, no.

I'm amazed you even know what phrenology was.

>> No.3998898
File: 27 KB, 519x384, 1305758748853.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3998898

>>3998881
>Phrenology is the study of bumps on the skull that presumably matches the gyri of the brain. That isn't studie anymore as legit

One company I applied to for a job was using a consultant to run their hiring process. The guy asked me for a photo of myself so that he could judge what positions I would be suited for and what kind of personality I had.
>mfw

>> No.3998899

Freud gets a bad rap because they don't realize how little he had to work with and how stark his ideas were to descriptions of human psychology that were dominated by social morality, social religion, or variant forms of idealistic philosophy.

>> No.3998907

>>3998891

Phrenology isn't that obscure within the sample population that would be drawn to browse 4chan /sci/ lol.

>> No.3998912

Does anyone know of any good books/sites to study to get better at psychoanalyzing people?

Books like Carnegie's How to win friends? Stuff to help build a better relationship with people?

>> No.3998916

>>3998898
For fuck's sake. And to say personality psychologists have been trying to find the best theory to find dispositions in people when, all that time, we only had to take pictures of people to do so!

>> No.3998921

>>3998899
Yeah, for his time he was truly a genius. And not everything he said was bullshit. A lot of it was actually tested later on and is still true to this day.

For example repression in memory loss. Referring to the phenomenon where we 'repress' negative memories deep down in the subconscious which could cause us stress or embarrassment.

These memories could 'spring to mind' after certain triggers in the physical world.

But obviously he was before the development of strong scientific method and thus a lot of his 'predictions' and observations were based on his own life and his children.

>> No.3998925

>>3998912
I certainly hope for the sake of both the people you will try to help and yourself that you don't use those kind of books to teach you anything useful or legit about psychoanalysis.

Plus, psychoanalysis wouldn't be as useful as social psychology or cognitive psychology when dealing with social "everyday" relationships.

>> No.3998926

>>3998907
I don't mean the sample population of /sci/ I mean specifically you and your retarded opinions.
I'm surprised someone as limited as you has stumbled across such things.

>> No.3998927

>>3998899


Freud basically invented the concept of the unconscious. (by invented i mean described and popularized)

The idea that our brain does things we're not aware of

very impressive

>> No.3998935

>>3998898
That sounds retarded but that's actually the sort of job I want to do when I finish my course.

There are actually very solid predictors of future job performance out there.

Some that will save companies millions in hiring/firing/training etc.

>> No.3998938

>>3998925

Well not psychoanalysis but analyzing people and finding out how people react to what I would do, say, and stuff like that. Sorry I'm not really articulate enough to get my point across.

What field of psychology should I look into?

>> No.3998944

>>3998707
Majoring in psychology here

>Does psychoanalysis work?
Define work.
For treatment, psychoanalysts claim it works, while scientific data places it right there by the side of placebo. In practical terms, talking to a good friend has the same effect.
But they have a very graceful cop-out where psychoanalysis isn't meant to make people happier, it's made to make them realize who they are, and that tends to be disturbing.
Also, Freud was unable to present one single successful case in his entire life.

>Is psychology really complete bullshit?
Parts of it.
Certain strains use the scientific method and statistical analysis, and when experiment doesn't meet reality, theories get dropped.
Certain strains claim to be scientific but don't experiment, refuse to experiment or claim to be impossible to experiment on, and when results don't match reality, reality is criticized.
Certain strains criticize science as a despotic, reductionist and blinding method that disregards what it means to be and reality is irrelevant because it is different to anyone.
You take your pick.

>Is it possible to analyze people to manipulate them using psychoanalysis/psychology?
With psychoanalysis? Nope. With certain parts of psychology, especially behavioral, yes.

>> No.3998948

>>3998834
This describes Freudian, Jungian and mainly psychoanalytical thinking.
Most of psychology today sees this as a dark past and something to be ashamed, much as doctors see homeopathy.

Then again I'm replying to EK so fuck me for getting trolled.

>> No.3998950

>>3998944
I think you're going to fail your course, bro.

>> No.3998955

>>3998948
>>3998948
>Most of psychology today sees this as a dark past and something to be ashamed, much as doctors see homeopathy.

What nonsense. For the time it was breakthrough stuff and without it we wouldn't be where we are today.

As already mentioned ITT, there are loads of important discoveries made by Freud.

>> No.3998956

>>3998948
mtp isnt EK

>> No.3998969

So behavioral and cognitive psychology is the way to go for analyzing and controlling(to a degree) people?

>> No.3998976

The most hopeless cases don't go to a shrink. They become one.

"We are bringing them the plague" -- Freud on his way to the USA

>> No.3998978

>>3998948
Except it doesn't describe Jungian thought. And it can only be said to describe Freudian thought by an absolute cynic.

>> No.3999003

>psychology is pseudoscience

>pseudo
>fake

>fakescience


/end discussion

>> No.3999011

>>3999003
It's as fake as Physics is.

>> No.3999012

>>3998950
Elaborate.

>>3998955
Homeopathy was also a huge breakthrough.
Most of what Freud "got right" was wild and wide guesses that can be thought of as right if you interpret them enough. You can easily do this with the bible too. Barnum effect all over this.
While he got some details right, he did get a massive amount of things so wrong it's actually perplexing how he got so popular.
The idea that the brain does things we don't know it does precedes Freud, and while he got this piece right, everything else after this was oh god please stop. Most of his explanations revolved around a mysterious device that required free will and an ability to create shit out of nowhere, in tl;dr, a mystery man that explained everything but was unexplainable himself.

Also a broken clock is right twice a day etc.

>>3998969
Well, in short, yes.

>> No.3999025

Psychoanalysis is a reputable field. Don't imagine it full of Freudian stereotypes. Not to take anything from freud's insights but things have changed

http://www.observer.com/2011/10/sigmund-says-analysts-expand-their-horizon-by-going-beyond-father-fr
eud/?show=all

>> No.3999033

>>3999012


I'm interested into getting psychology. I'm afraid of studying Freud for the fact that if I study him some of his "fake science" will stick with me.

So is it even worth studying Freud?

>> No.3999040

>>3998978
Ever read Freud on infant sexuality? He pretty much starts it with "people say that infants don't think about sex but this isn't true because I'm saying so with no experiments whatsoever".
He actually argues that the child develops a fascination for his anus because when he is able to control his shitting his mother gets happy.

Jung comes over with the same method of theory production, argues for astrology, and goes on with the same level or argumentation.

And overall, the way I'm arguing isn't really relevant since their theories systematically fail to produce any relevant, peer-reviewable, trustworthy evidence, which is enough to rest a case on it being broken.

>> No.3999052

>>3999033
>I'm afraid of studying Freud for the fact that if I study him some of his "fake science" will stick with me.

It doesn't matter what you study, the fact that you think "fake science" can "stick to you" means that "real science" will roll right off you.

>> No.3999075

>>3999052


I mean how would I tell the difference between what is right and wrong in his work? Until after I read a shit load of other psychology works.

>> No.3999076

>>3999025
If a basic conjecture is bad and the methodology is poor, anything produced isn't trustworthy.
If you build over Freud's conjectures of "I can't understand this shit so it must follow that it is impossible to understand and experiment" and his method of postulating without evidence or experiment, nothing you ever conclude will (or at least should never) be taken seriously on a scientific conversation regarding the health and well being of people, and personally I find it neglectful, irresponsible and mildly sadistic to attempt to use it in those fields.

tl;dr the basis of psychoanalysis are shit and everything else after it is ad-hocked to infinity in a way that would make string theory look good.

>>3999033
Worth? No.
But read some of his shit and go for the basic conjectures. If you know your science and research well, you should be throwing the book away before some 20 pages go by.

>> No.3999089

>>3999076


Got any websites/books suggestions to get started on psychology?

>> No.3999095

>>3999040
>He actually argues that the child develops a fascination for his anus because when he is able to control his shitting his mother gets happy.

I desperately hope that you're not the guy who claimed to be a psych major upthread, because this is complete and utter bullshit, and you should fail whatever test you wrote this on.

>Jung comes over with the same method of theory production, argues for astrology, and goes on with the same level or argumentation.

1. No
2. I don't have the slightest confidence that you even understand astrology as Jung viewed it
3. Jung's stuff isn't strictly science, so if you're looking for strict science then of course you won't find what you're looking for.

>> No.3999094

>>3999075
Evaluate conjectures and argumentation, constantly think if his line of thought and reasoning makes sense and agrees with reality, demand evidence and experimentation, and when you realize something is broken, figure out why.
It's basic science reading really.

>> No.3999117

>>3999095
On Freud I'm pretty much quoting from the text, from what multiple teachers forced on my head and from having to write this in texts and get good grades.
It's funny but my best grades are in psychoanalysis because I'm so good at bullshitting with the flow.

As for Jung, he actually argues that if quantum mechanics is right, everything is possible and probabilities do not have to add up to 100%, thus he can, in practical terms, conjecture anything.
He wrote this in 1926 when we (much less Jung himself) knew practically shit about this.
And I'm also pretty much quoting directly from the book.

>> No.3999131

>>3999012
>Elaborate.
Nearly everything you said was wrong.

>> No.3999134

>>3999117
>On Freud I'm pretty much quoting from the text

Citation fucking needed, because what you wrote is precisely the opposite of what he said about anal complexes.

>> No.3999155

>>3999012
So because he was right, he was only right because he was bound to be right?

Sorry, he WAS right wasn't he?

Homeopathy was never right, it wasn't even close. Freud pioneered shit-loads of stuff. And most of what is considered 'bullshit' hasn't even been disproven.

It's like saying Darwin's theory of evolution was 'embarrassing' because of the finer points he missed out.

Nonsense. Revolutionary is what it was.

>> No.3999162

Psychology and theoretical physics are the dirtiest corners of the scientific universe.

All psychology will forever cling to the skirt of it's neuroscience foster mother while it's accidental charlatans consistently forget to check it's back-pocket for validity.

>> No.3999166

>>3999134
what DOES he say on sexuality.?

>> No.3999173

>>3999155
Disregard this reply. Just read some of your other posts and I can see that you are genuinely clueless.

>> No.3999175

>>3999162
>lumping theoretical physics in with social science

no

>> No.3999188

>>3999162
What are you talking about?

Neuroscience tells us precisely fuck all without the insights of other fields.

"HURR DURR THE BRAIN LIGHTS UP"

Excellent, now how? when? how? and why?

I'm out of this thread.

>> No.3999191

>>3999175
>Lumping real science with theoretical science

No.

>> No.3999200

>>3999166
First of all, his theories on anal complexes are one small subset of his work on sexuality. And indeed, even when I say "sexuality" here, anal fixations are not always what we in the modern era would think of as being related to sex.

Basically, what retard above got utterly wrong was that if the baby controls its defecations and the mother is happy, that is the healthy and "normal" development and no complexes result, in perfect opposition to what he claimed Freud said. It is when the infant is subjected to negative pressures during the developmental stages that complexes result. Anal retentive for example, is Freudian terminology. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_stage The important thing is that the complexes only result from dysfunctional environment during those stages, making
>>He actually argues that the child develops a fascination for his anus because when he is able to control his shitting his mother gets happy.
the exact opposite of what Freud says happens.

>> No.3999205

>>3999131
>Placebo effect of psychoanalysis
A comprehensive study with double blind trials can be found on a book called "Placebo Effects in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis". 1970.
There is also a book by D. Evens on the (large) placebo effect of psychoanalysis.

>Talking to a friend is pretty much the same
http://horan.asu.edu/cpy702readings/seligman/seligman.html

>Freud epic failed
Read Unauthorized Freud: Doubters Confront a Legend, page 143. Also useful: Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire.

>Different types of psychology theories
I referred to, in order, behavioral, freudian and phenomenological. Please elaborate on how this is wrong.

Your turn.

>>3999134
Three essays on sexuality, chapter two, oh the different phases of infant development, he uses the idea of potty training as something that makes the child's mother happy with him, and thus this control over his anus, harnessing the love of the mother, triggers a fascination with it.

>> No.3999220

>>3999205
>Freud failed because a book I read said so

You're in your first year aren't you?

It's ok, I was in your position once. 5 years ago.

>> No.3999223

>>3999200
first, could you write what you wrote in this comment sooner in discussion instead of stating others are wrong and having to be prompted to explain further.

second, okay so freud said the opposite of what that anon claimed, but still back to his main critique of freud. where is the evidence?

>> No.3999238

>>3999155
He was right because his theories were vague enough and complicated enough for one to disregard a massive amount of fail in light of one near hit.
It's called wide guess.

also
>hurr durr prove me wrong
If I make a theory of something but this something cannot ever be tested and thus checked, the fact that I'll never be proven wrong doesn't seem that much of a miracle.

tl;dr please be trolling.

>>3999162
Assuming you didn't copy this from somewhere, I will now use it shamelessly.
You have been notified.

>>3999173
Nice ad-hominem there bro. Come back when you do have an argument or a source.

>>3999200
In no point was it ever implied that the fascination was pathological or in any way negative. I quoted one of his examples, that is all.

>> No.3999247

>>3998969
You can't control people by learning psychology. Don't follow pop psych.

>> No.3999251

>>3999238
It's time for you to stop embarrassing yourself.
You're making Psychology majors look bad.

>> No.3999262

>>3999223
>first, could you write what you wrote in this comment sooner in discussion instead of stating others are wrong and having to be prompted to explain further.

I could do a lot of things. Going back in time to fulfill your request is not one of them. Putting your future appeasement above my own interests in not wasting time when I don't know who might be reading is, but I won't do it.

>>3999238
>In no point was it ever implied that the fascination was pathological or in any way negative.

Fascination is negative. It is a fixation, which is negative.

Shit, you can't even get this right. No way in hell I'm approaching Jung with you when you can't even understand Freud.

>> No.3999259

>>3999040
I wouldn't dismiss Freud's ideas on the child developmental stages yet. Although the stages are very unlikely to match measurable phenomena, this idea that there are many impulses going through the body which later will shape sexuality is not to be thrown to the dustbin yet. The theory of impulses could very well be understood today as a form of embodied cognition with emphasis on shaping affective and sexual development.

>> No.3999261

Social studies really all need to be considered in conjunction. this is what I see as the purpose of sociology. to bring the different ideas and insights as well as concrete substantiated theories together, turn them over and root out inconsistencies. there needs to be collaboration between geography sociology psychology and any others i havent mentioned. if you're writing paper for one, analysis and results from the others should feed in.

>> No.3999264

Freud gets a lot of shit, and most of it is valid. He doesn't have the scientific evidence to back it up. But some of his work just feels so right.

For example, the defense mechanisms. We see them used all the time. You can't scientifically study them in experiments, but come on. You know they exist and you know people use them.

This is why Freud is very wishy-washy. Some things are unfounded but still seem to apply.

>> No.3999271

>>3999238
>Disregards all the posts where he gets told

>Acknowledges the post which is complete bullshit

Your retardation knows no limits. You're spectacularly stupid.

>> No.3999277

>>3999220
Freud failed because he provided no evidence for his theories and they failed and still fail to make accurate predictions and survive empirical scientific testing.

The book provides evidence of this, that is all.

I'm not even getting down to his theory, that is not necessary to criticize him, if I did it was merely to poke fun because all in all it isn't even an argument.

The main point here is that if psychoanalysis is subjected to scientific testing it will, and systematically does, fail to provide trustworthy evidence, where other theories provide much better and reliable evidence with much more simplicity and elegance, while being hand-to-hand with modern knowledge of neurosciences.

You can bring your bible and overinterpret it, cherry pick, claim that even it it's wrong it's still mind blowing, but the bottom line is that it simply doesn't work.

>> No.3999278

>>3999264
100% agree
It's very wishy-washy. However it's important to recognize the significance of his findings and his suggestions which have promoted and encouraged further and superior evidence within the field.

Without him raising these initial questions, who knows where we would be?

>> No.3999299

>>3999277
>Freud failed because he provided no evidence

>This book proves he provided no evidence

>Concludes with example of the Bible, ironically demonstrating the glaring contradiction of 'disproving a positive'

Oh wow. Was that meant to be satirical?

>> No.3999307

>>3998707
yes

no, certainly not

wat?

>> No.3999314

I'm a psych major but my concentration is neuroscience and psychopharmacology. I do know (and it is evidence based) that psychotherapy is effective and can result with an increased well being and can cause physiological changes

>> No.3999318

>>3999259
>so basically he isn't really right nor even quite near it but if you cherry pick and interpret and then ignore half of what he said, he is in the ballpark
Meanwhile, in the neuropsychology department.

>>3999251
So bother to argue for your case.

>>3999271
I adressed all posts that had arguments.
Also, the beautiful part of that post was the "accidental charlatans consistently forget to check it's back-pocket for validity.", everything else was meh.

>>3999264
>He doesn't have the scientific evidence to back it up. But some of his work just feels so right.
>I can't prove it but it's so cool dude
>I believe in god because it makes me feel good

As said before, you can ad-hoc and interpret it until it makes some sense, but other theories have left Freud on the dust. Accept it with tranquility.

>>3999278
Pavlov figured out the basis of behavior before Freud opened his church. Wundt had psychology labs going and many students when Freud was still in med school
Without him we would have been better off and his disservice will echo for many years to come, just as flat earthists and creationists hold our science back by forcing it to divert resources towards fighting cancer.

>> No.3999322

>>3999314
Fellow psych major here. The OP said psychoanalysis (the Freudian approach to psychotherapy).

Psychotherapy is any form of psychological therapy (such as cognitive-behavioral therapy or systematic desentization).

You should know this distinction as a psych major yourself.

>> No.3999330

>>3999318
I know other theories have left Freud in the dust. My point was that although he made points without evidence, his points nonetheless had meaning. If he didn't make these unfounded claims nobody would have pursued them the right way.

>> No.3999344

>>3999299
Book provides evidence that his theory and method don't hold up to scientific testing.

And even if I didn't reply to this, it does not change the fact that no shred of evidence was ever provided towards psychoanalysis, and your argument was empty from the start.

>>3999314
And all of that has been explained away by poor testing methods, tendencious results, poor peer review and placebo effect.

Meanwhile, behavioral and neuroscience theories have vastly higher rates of success.

>> No.3999364

>>3999322
Motherfucking this.

In my reply I oversaw the jargon mistake. I retreat from my reply since this is a far simpler and more effective one.

>>3999330
>If it wasn't right people wouldn't believe in it
Have you ever been to church?

>> No.3999378

>>3999364
Yeah, it's not like the Oedipian complex has been observe in other cultures and societies but more about the father than the genitor.

>> No.3999384

>>3999378
Back that up with evidence, please.

>> No.3999457

>>3999384
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/hom_0439-4216_1967_num_7_3_366902

It is in french, but there I'll translate the important part (not also that the authors seems are critic regarding Freud's model of the oedipus): " the problem remains to know if it is possible to note observable variations in societies much different than the one the [Oedipian] model was built in. The analysis of the clinical data collected in Dakar shows that the reference to the father and the "drives" of the oedipus exist but that the resolution of the complex might just happen in other ways.

>> No.3999477

>>3999457
Wow. My English was retarded. Forgive me for the incoherent statements.

I meant to write: It is in French, but I'll translate the important part of the text (note that the authors seemed quite opposed to Freud's theories)

>> No.3999496

>>3999457
Well, a not really that but close form of a wide guess theory has been found in one culture somewhere in the middle of buttfuck nowhere.

Sorry but I am unimpressed.

>> No.3999513

>>3999496
Okay, so I'm not fucking carrying my fucking studies about the Oedipian Complex universality according to ethnologists and developmental psychologists in tribal societies.

Still, this fucking study exist and others too; I showed you one among others and this evidence isn't enough for you.

>> No.3999524

>>3999513
There are many studies regarding the effectiveness of the behavioral model in many cultures, it is often experimented to great success and is cross cultural to all cultures studied.

It's called weighting the evidence. Sure, this is some evidence, but my point was that if you make a wide enough theory that is open to lots of interpretation and then search enough cultures, you'll find a hit, but that will not be significant.

>> No.3999550

>>3999524
The kid is attracted to the mother (not necessarily in a sexual manner), has some hostile behaviours towards his reprensentation of the paternal figure and identifies himself with the said figure in the end, but that passes as too vague to be considered the Oedipian Complex?

And I acknowledge that psychoanalysis is so vast in its concepts and models that any behaviour can be interpreted in many ways, but we don't say that the theory of cognitive dissonance isn't legit since there are many ways that the dissonance can be resolved.