but most are still the foundation for modern psychology.
lol, no. Most of the stuff Freud came up with was nonsense. He definitely played an important roll in psychology's history, but not because his theories were valid.
If there is only one thing most people know about psychology, it is Freud. Many people seem to think Freud is the einstein of psychology, but as any psychologist will tell you, it's just no true.
Hmm did your studies at university have a big focus on psychology?
If not I would like to know where you are getting your information from. I'd also like to know what specific theories of his were debunked.
Freud was certainly not the be all end all of Psychology. Many people after him did important research, but most of his theorys are still valid.
There are ofcourse a few that were far out there that have been debunked, like penis envy, but that was hardly the core of his work.
I'd also like to know what specific theories of his were debunked.
As good as none and that's part of the point. His theories are unfalsifiable and based on anecdotal evidence, and thus not scientific. You can't just make up random theories anymore that'd explain everything but are at the same time unfalsifiable, so at the same time they also don't really explain anything at all (compare to God). Psychology as a science has advanced beyond that. They don't need to be debunked, they just shouldn't be taken too seriously. I think most universities take the same stance.
Here is some typical Freud. You can read some more of it and make up your own mind on whether you think it should still be regarded as scientifically valid. The general consensus is that it's not, and I trust that most people capable of critical thinking should hopefully come to the same conclusion. If you think his theories are spot on, you can always carry out experiments by today's standards to finally prove them to be right, good luck.
(you should maybe read the first quote before reading the following paragraph)
F.e. in the case of the hat, I'd suggest something like a study where you (actually it probably shouldn't be you because you could subconsciously manipulate the experiment because after all you want to prove Freud is right, it should be a pretty neutral person instead, preferably one who doesn't know that Freud thought it symbolizes a penis) try to talk one group of people into interpreting the hat as a nipple instead of a penis, tell both groups it's generally accepted by science, see if more people admit it's truly a penis. Then you'd also have to find out if people are more likely to admit that symbols in dreams should be interpreted as a penis in general, so maybe it has nothing to do with the hat after all. And this would just be the start, you'd just have proven more people admit it's a penis, not that it truly symbolizes one. If you ask me, the whole idea is just silly. Even if it turns out in 10% of people's dreams a hat really symbolizes a penis, it still doesn't prove you should just interpret it as a penis in everybody's dreams. It's just ridiculous imo.
We also know nowadays that psychotherapy does pretty badly when trying to cure agoraphobia, whereas confrontational therapy does very well. Most of his stuff is just dated.
Freud in Traumdeutung wrote:
1. The hat as the symbol of a man (of the male genitals): *
(A fragment from the dream of a young woman who suffered from agoraphobia as the result of her fear of temptation.) -
* From "Nachtrage sur Traumdeutung" in Zentralblatt fur Psychoanalyse, i, Nos. 5 and 6, (1911). -
I am walking in the street in summer; I am wearing a straw hat of peculiar shape, the middle piece of which is bent upwards, while the side pieces hang downwards (here the description hesitates), and in such a fashion that one hangs lower than the other. I am cheerful and in a confident mood, and as I pass a number of young officers I think to myself: You can't do anything to me.
As she could produce no associations to the hat, I said to her: "The hat is really a male genital organ, with its raised middle piece and the two downward-hanging side pieces." It is perhaps peculiar that her hat should be supposed to be a man, but after all one says: Unter die Haube kommen (to get under the cap) when we mean: to get married. I intentionally refrained from interpreting the details concerning the unequal dependence of the two side pieces, although the determination of just such details must point the way to the interpretation. I went on to say that if, therefore, she had a husband with such splendid genitals she would not have to fear the officers; that is, she would have nothing to wish from them, for it was essentially her temptation- phantasies which prevented her from going about unprotected and unaccompanied. This last explanation of her anxiety I had already been able to give her repeatedly on the basis of other material.
It is quite remarkable how the dreamer behaved after this interpretation. She withdrew her description of the hat and would not admit that she had said that the two side pieces were hanging down. I was, however, too sure of what I had heard to allow myself to be misled, and so I insisted that she did say it. She was quiet for a while, and then found the courage to ask why it was that one of her husband's testicles was lower than the other, and whether it was the same with all men. With this the peculiar detail of the hat was explained, and the whole interpretation was accepted by her.
The hat symbol was familiar to me long before the patient related this dream. From other but less transparent cases I believed that I might assume the hat could also stand for the female genitals. * -
Freud in Traumdeutung also wrote:
(Dream of a young man inhibited by a father complex.)
He is taking a walk with his father in a place which is certainly the Prater, for one can see the Rotunda, in front of which there is a small vestibule to which there is attached a captive balloon; the balloon, however, seems rather limp. His father asks him what this is all for; he is surprised at it, but he explains it to his father. They come into a courtyard in which lies a large sheet of tin. His father wants to pull off a big piece of this, but first looks round to see if anyone is watching. He tells his father that all he needs to do is to speak to the overseer, and then he can take as much as he wants to without any more ado. From this courtyard a flight of stairs leads down into a shaft, the walls of which are softly upholstered, rather like a leather arm-chair. At the end of this shaft there is a long platform, and then a new shaft begins...
Analysis. This dreamer belonged to a type of patient which is not at all promising from a therapeutic point of view; up to a certain point in the analysis such patients offer no resistance whatever, but from that point onwards they prove to be almost inaccessible. This dream he analysed almost independently. "The Rotunda," he said, "is my genitals, the captive balloon in front is my penis, about whose flaccidity I have been worried." We must, however, interpret it in greater detail: the Rotunda is the buttocks, constantly associated by the child with the genitals; the smaller structure in front is the scrotum. In the dream his father asks him what this is all for- that is, he asks him about the purpose and arrangement of the genitals. It is quite evident that this state of affairs should be reversed, and that he ought to be the questioner. As such questioning, on the part of the father never occurred in reality, we must conceive the dream- thought as a wish, or perhaps take it conditionally, as follows. "If I had asked my father for sexual enlightenment..." The continuation of this thought we shall presently find in another place.
The courtyard in which the sheet of tin is spread out is not to be conceived symbolically in the first instance, but originates from his father's place of business. For reasons of discretion I have inserted the tin for another material in which the father deals without, however, changing anything in the verbal expression of the dream. The dreamer had entered his father's business, and had taken a terrible dislike to the somewhat questionable practices upon which its profit mainly depended. Hence the continuation of the above dream-thought ("if I had asked him") would be: "He would have deceived me just as he does his customers." For the pulling off, which serves to represent commercial dishonesty, the dreamer himself gives a second explanation, namely, masturbation. This is not only quite familiar to us (see above), but agrees very well with the fact that the secrecy of masturbation is expressed by its opposite (one can do it quite openly). Thus, it agrees entirely with our expectations that the autoerotic activity should be attributed to the father, just as was the questioning in the first scene of the dream. The shaft he at once interprets as the vagina, by referring to the soft upholstering of the walls. That the action of coition in the vagina is described as a going down instead of in the usual way as a going up agrees with what I have found in other instances. * -
* Cf. comment in the Zentralblatt fur Psychoanalyse, i; and see above, note (8) in earlier paragraph. -
The details- that at the end of the first shaft there is a long platform, and then a new shaft- he himself explains biographically. He had for some time had sexual intercourse with women, but had given it up on account of inhibitions, and now hopes to be able to begin it again with the aid of treatment. The dream, however, becomes indistinct towards the end, and to the experienced interpreter it becomes evident that in the second scene of the dream the influence of another subject has already begun to assert itself; which is indicated by his father's business, his dishonest practices, and the vagina represented by the first shaft, so that one may assume a reference to his mother.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
The man created the whole idea of psychoanalysis, in a time that the psyche was not commonly thought of as something that could be analyzed.
He wrote a lot of nonsense when it comes down to the specifics of how exactly to perform this analysis, but to think of him as anything less than groundbreaking is ridiculous.
Freud's theories are still being used as today. Actually, no one ever discredited him, as he's still basis for modern psychoanalysis
My first language is not English, so please excuse myself if I write something wrong. I'll do my best do write as cleary as I can, so cope with me here =)
(ﾉಥ益ಥ）ﾉ
I, on the other hand, have read a lot of psychoanalists claiming that he's totally discredited, and that his work only serves to understand one person: Sigmund Freud.
I haven't done that much research personally, but my debate coach once ranted about how psychoanalysis and the Oedipus complex is bad because it implies there's one narrative for everything. This is usually not true. Case and point, Little Hans.
I had no opinion on Freud until I had to read 100 pages of his writings for a literature class in undergrad.
While he was certainly a pioneer in the field, his theories are are largely bullshit, and oftentimes contradictory. His interpretation of dreams is simply too narrow-minded, simplistic, and dogmatic.
Among other things, Freud believes that EVERY dream has a meaning, and the meaning is ALWAYS wish fulfillment. If you counter that some dreams feature your or a loved one dying, Freud will explain that there is some secret, dark part of you that wants that to happen. This kind of response can be used against any criticism of his work.
Ultimately, I would classify his writings as more rhetorical, not scientific. And I agree; most psychologists I have spoken to have long since moved past his ideas. While Freud's theories were very useful as an initial step, I don't believe they form the basis of modern psychoanalysis.
There is also Jung and many other influential early psychologists, too.
My psychology professor explained that Freud's work began at a hospital where he observed patients with something resembling alien hand syndrome or BIID. Because it was known that the fingers in the hand are controlled by two separate nerves (think about how only your third and fourth fingers tingle when you hit your funny bone), Freud reasoned that the dissociation must have been happening farther up, in the brain. That was actually a pretty good observation.
And that's where Freud's science ended.
Psychology, in my eyes, cannot move forward until they divorce themselves first of Freud, and then of the rest of their many non-scientific theories. My professor still spent an agonizing week discussing Freud, even though she knew his theories were garbage. Freud has no more place in an introductory psychology course than Aristotlean physics has place in a physics course.
To his credit, he did indeed revolutionize the field. Also, I have a friend who is a psychologist who once gently explained to me that Freud did have several good ideas but introductory courses and popular perception of him only focus on the nutty, unfalsifiable aspects, such as dreams and supposedly wanting to screw your own mother. I do not know the extent to which my friend is correct, but it is clear to me that any positive aspects to Freud's theories have been largely lost among those who aren't dedicated to picking out the good stuff.
The very basic mistake people make about Freud's theories is taking literally what he wrote. He uses a lot of metaphor, and it becomes clear if you really study him.
Again, every psychoanalyst author uses him as a basis, often to critique or complement him. It is said that Jacques Lacan's work is supposed to complement Freud's work, but I know little about it besides his theories about psychopathology.
But I will tell about the most annoying thing about Psychology. If someone doesn't like another's theory, he'll hate it, call it the worst thing in the world and discredit. There is a LOT of different psychology theories, most of them hate themselves, and not one of them discredited. It's ridiculous.
My first language is not English, so please excuse myself if I write something wrong. I'll do my best do write as cleary as I can, so cope with me here =)
(ﾉಥ益ಥ）ﾉ
It's not a hard science, but there are many scientific approaches applied, which makes it somewhat of a grey area. Things have certainly improved over the years. Freud wouldn't be taken seriously nowadays anymore. The days where theories get wide acceptance just because they sound like they could very well be true are over.
Its main problem is still how to interpret research data, but the data itself tends to be very solid.
I agree with the core sentiment of what they're arguing (yes, prescribing Ritalin for kids is retarded, as are many mental health diagnosis having to do with "attention deficit disorder", "depression", and "bipolar disorder"), but it's such bullshit sensationalism, with an over-eager, comically idiotic narrator to boot, I had to click the red x on my tab after just six minutes.
Why don't you even once surprise us all and link us to something that actually debunks conspiracy theories rather than advances them? That would certainly be different. Currently you are SO predictable that it's not even funny anymore.
Now that this thread has calmed down, I'll just have to say that I was joking when I wrote this, because people seemed to take it too seriously:
nfq OoT thread wrote:
lol, I always knew there was something wrong with his run, because his name was TSA, which was a freudian slip and an anagram for TAS. I've studied psychology for years so I know it's not a coincidence that he chose a name so similar to TAS. He was using a bit of tool-assitance in the run because he was using segments, which is kinda like using save states, but he tried to deny it by calling it single-segment.
