i just came across this youtube scholar claiming even naming people like Freud, Jung, Piaget as quacks. I did not ask if he/she's a scientologist but i askd her why and she said

"Wow, so it's proven fact that children around two years old go through an anal retention stage? This is documented? This has been tested thoroughly, many times by "a million others"? The electra complex and eodipus complex? The id, ego, and superego? These are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt?

They don't sound like they're based on reality to me! They sound like the insane ramblings of a mad man! "

To me he/she is uninformed and annoying i dont want to wave my degree or feed a troll so i stopped but still i should not stop here saying "im right because i know its right" i might be missing something or worse uninformed and annoying. Anyone please tell me if i did/i am

Views: 225

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

A good question. I don't know. It would make for a good dissertation. :-)
Here is some research on CBT in the treatment of addictions. Psychological research is mostly based on correlational data and statistical significance, but it isn't mumbo jumbo or simply placebo. Before and after PET scans show dramatic brain changes as a result of CBT.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/TXManuals/CBT/CBT19.html
"Wow, so it's proven fact that children around two years old go through an anal retention stage? This is documented? This has been tested thoroughly, many times by "a million others"? The electra complex and eodipus complex? The id, ego, and superego? These are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt?

They don't sound like they're based on reality to me! They sound like the insane ramblings of a mad man! "


Sounds like someone could benefit from some psychotherapy.
She sounds a little hysterical (sorry, couldn't resist.)

Actually, much of Freud's work is open to debate. In fact, he posited a different (and some claim, more successful) approach that, simply stated, demonstrated that pre-adolencent sex with a father figure (child-rape) was a leading cause of a whole slew of adult psychological problems. And, while we know that now, Freud caved when faced with the realization that he was going to have to accuse a significant number of wealthy and influential men of raping their young daughters if he held to this notion. He recanted and came up with a good deal of crap after that - much of which is only marginally useful. Also, he did not agree with much of Jung's work etc.

That said, modern psychology/psychiatry is not singulary based in Freud, or Jung, or Frankl, etc. nor is it frozen in time. It is a 'soft' science. But it helps many people with debilitating issues get far more out of being alive than they, otherwise, would.
It is a 'soft' science. But it helps many people with debilitating issues get far more out of being alive than they, otherwise, would.

That's how I see it.

Berating the entire field of psychology based on Freud is a fallacy of false dilemma. His stuff is a 100 years old for Christ's sakes and represents a tiny blip in the greater field. He started with very little information and, without benefit of good science, created the most comprehensive theory of human psychology to date. He was off as often as not, but many of his ideas are still relevant. For instance, his concept of defense mechanisms remains extremely useful.

Partly because of Freud, psychology has over sold itself from it's inception. Freud et al were medical doctors and tried to sell psychology under the medical model. In truth, psychotherapy is nothing like medicine. I see psychotherapy as being much more like lifting weights than taking medicine ;-) The work an individual puts in to changing his/her thoughts, behaviors and feelings is directly proportional to the benefit gained. Being a medical patient is a passive role. Being a psychotherapy patient is a dynamic one.
I like the weight lifting analogy. The mind is a muscle and sometimes you have to work it until you feel the burn. :-)
It is true that many early psychologists were not scientists. Freud and Jung were not scientists. That Freud and Jung had unscientific and unproven theories does not mean that Psychology as a whole suffers from that problem. They were not the only founders of psychology, just the best known. Freudian-ism set the progress of Psychology back by at least 50 years, but for the most part we've moved past that foolishness.

The snake oil was very appealing. Freudian bull is still widely accepted, but more in the humanities (i.e. deconstructionists) than in psychology. Every science passes through an infancy, including psychology, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a science of psychology. Today we have solid empirically based researchers attacking the field from well grounded theories, such as evolutionary psychology.
we're all online
we're all insane in a civilized way
Karl Popper distinguishes between science and ideology/religion by defining science as a set of theories which are set up in such a way that they can be disproved by contrary evidence. Ideologies and religions, on the other hand, are internally consistent and their constructs can never be disproved.

Since you cannot disprove the existence of an id, ego and superego that makes Freudian theory an ideology and not a science. There would be few psychologists who would dispute that.

Psychologists usually credit Wundt with the commencement of psychology (a behavioural science) and Freud with the commencement of psychiatry (a branch of medicine). These days there are very few psychiatrists who view Freudian theory as scientifically or medically valid. Most psycho-analysts have degrees in philosophy or language arts, not in medicine or psychology.

In other words, discrediting Freud does absolutely nothing to discredit modern psychology, or even modern psychiatry.

Unlike the constructs of Freudian theory, Piaget's constructs lead to falsifiable predictions. They have been tested, reproduced, validated and supported by thousands of studies.
wow tyvm guys its good to know the opinion from a 3rd person perspective. it helped me a lot(read my notes to compare/review the subject). before i knew now iknow better

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service