6 ms·

Freud’s Discontents

41 points by Petiver 10y ago

mpweiher 10y ago
>he was “no more a person now but a whole climate of opinion.” >it is rather shocking how swiftly, [..] Freud’s relevance has waned in the past two decades I think the first quote answers the second: it was just a climate of opinion, with very little of substance to back it up. And so it has rightly been discarded. Not that we don't have new fashionable opinions to take its place, many no more substantial. >It is more common now to regard humanity as lucid about its interests, and rational in its fulfillment of them Wut? The opposite is true. We are more and more aware of the foibles of human perception and thinking, but nowadays based on a solid scientific foundation, not the fantasies of a ... well, imaginative person.
rgejman 10y ago
Outstanding essay on why Freud has faded from his ultimate cultural and scientific pedestal -- and why and other grand theorists are not relevant today. I agree with the author that "The grand theories of an earlier age offered us an ability to look at the intersections between the self, society, and history; in comparison, their replacements look not just intellectually meek but politically unpromising." On the other hand, the potency of well defined, minimal theories is unarguable.
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  On the contrary, the theories of Freud, Jung, etc. may strive to place the study of human psychology into a larger context, but it is evolutionary psychology that actually accomplishes this task. Right now, the field of psychology is replacing phrenology and faith healing with biochemistry. And, you know what, good riddance!
- jhanschoo 10y ago
  In some sense, the lack of grandeur in present research comes from academia realizing just how complex psychological nature is. Freud's era was one that underestimated the complexities of analysing, well, complex systems, where phenomena arise not out of the interactions of more-or-less pure entities like in Newtonian physics, but as the chaotic aggregation of heterogeneous subsystems, like what we now understand many biological processes to be. I think the field today is doing what mathematics had been doing a couple ago; back then mathematicians realized that calculus was on shaky foundation, and developed tools to set mathematics on a firm logical and set theory foundation. Likewise, psychology is investigating neurology and trying to find a firm foundation in it.
Pigo 10y ago
> Instead of believing that pathologies could be described or drugged away, Freudians wanted us to work through them. If this is true, then it's definitely a practice that needs to be focused on again. I've had nothing but bad experiences with various medical professionals throwing drugs at me the moment I mentioned personal difficulties. The anti-depressants kept me in a bad place for a long time, when I think I mostly needed someone to provide some insight or constructive advice. Maybe I just had bad luck, but I definitely don't remember anyone trying to work on anything with me.
- phkahler 10y ago
  >> If this is true, then it's definitely a practice that needs to be focused on again. I've had nothing but bad experiences with various medical professionals throwing drugs at me the moment I mentioned personal difficulties. I've found it to be true. Understanding where my undesirable behaviors come from is helping me correct them tremendously. It can be a painful process - expect to get worse before you get better - but it can be effective if you're working with the right person. For me the mental picture was less like an onion and more like a tangled knot of yarn, but it is straightening out quite nicely. I personally don't like the Freudian approach. There are other non-drug based camps.
  - Pigo 10y ago
    I eventually found help through attending a church that focuses on community outreach and small groups, which helped me get outside my own head long enough to make some positive steps. But I've always wanted to find a therapist who is genuinely interested and can provide more insight than I can learn on my own from books like The Road Less Traveled. I don't know what other people go through, and I wish I understood Jung well enough to share with other people, but I suspect professionals are just throwing drugs because they're overwhelmed by the constant wave of misery and depression they're confronted with.
    - phkahler 10y ago
      >> But I've always wanted to find a therapist who is genuinely interested and can provide more insight than I can learn on my own from books like The Road Less Traveled. Insight is tricky, as is introspection. Other people can offer suggestions and even insight as to what is going on in your head, but they have their own preconceived ideas and patterns they try to fit on you. Ultimately introspection must win, as you are the only one who can actually see what's happening in there. Variations on those suggestions may feel like a better fit - go with what feels most correct, but don't assume you've found "the" answer - I've had several step changes in the accuracy of my understanding of me. Talk to people who know you, or are related to you, or have their own issues, whatever. You never know what will tip your thoughts into a better understanding of yourself.
pococo 10y ago
Excuse my ignorance, but why does everyone seem to hate on Freud, considering he has had a tremendous influence on modern psychology? Honest question.
- makmanalp 10y ago
  Probably because he was wrong so often, and his ideas got popular. Being wrong in a medical field is Not Good - it leads to real harm. I've heard it phrased as "he had the wrong answers, but the right questions".
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  The problem with Freud is that his ideas have been taken seriously for way too long. His theories of human psychology are on par with phrenology in their ability to provide a framework that explains human behavior. It's rank pseudo-science. And now, finally, evolutionary psychology is gaining widespread acceptance.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  Because most of his theories are nonsense. He got the idea of the unconscious right and understood transference eventually, but the rest of his theories are mostly bunk. Worse, some are harmful bunk. He denied the existence of child sex abuse and invented a set of complex rationalisations which blamed the victims and shamed them for inventing fantasies. We know now that at least some of their stories were correct, and not fantasies and delusions at all. Pure Freudian psychoanalysis is incredibly expensive and time consuming and never scores well when tested objectively. It's not an exaggeration to say that in terms of value for time and money it's more of a scam than astrology and homeopathy are, but it never seems to get the same attention from debunkers. Modern approaches that score much better (e.g. ACT and other MBTs) have almost no baggage imported from Freudian beliefs.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "but why does everyone seem to hate on Freud, considering he has had a tremendous influence on modern psychology?" Because his theories were not necessarily scientific, and it was unjust perhaps that he had such influence.
tehwalrus 10y ago
I've heard that Freud's methods were poor and his brain science was junk; but I can't actually name any particular bad theory or experiment. This article did not enlighten me, at least in the first ten minutes reading it. Anyone know of a good guide? And, since it's Freud, one that won't turn my stomach?
- inimino 10y ago
  There's a lot of nonsense thrown around about Freud. If you're interested, there's nothing better to just read the man himself. You can form your own opinions and you'll get a lot more out of it than reading someone's inevitably biased commentary.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    Given that most of us here probably don't have any sort of medical training, are our own opinions likely to be worth anything?
    - inimino 10y ago
      Medical training is not necessary to understand Freud. If you think your opinion is worthless, how would you choose which "expert" to trust?
- tboyd47 10y ago
  It wasn't his methods. His idea of curing by talking is now standard practice, but was revolutionary for that time. The problem was that it put him on the path to exposing the widespread incest and rape that was going on in his society. Freud initially believed his patients, but wasn't prepared to face the consequences, so he changed his tune, and this reversal led him to come up with the far-out psychosexual theories he's so famous for. Freud is still regarded as the father of modern psychology, perhaps because he was the first to actually sit down with his patients and take them seriously. Here's an article that tells the story in detail: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1984/02/freud-and-the-seduction-theory/376313/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1984/02/freud-an...
lolc 10y ago
I have on my bookshelf "Unauthorized Freud". The book is not favorable to his work. Rather, he is described as a fraud. Now where he was right for the wrong reasons, we could see him like we see Galilei today: As a popularizer of new ideas. There is no need to go further than that.
woodandsteel 10y ago
Freud made many important contributions. He invented psychotherapy, and many of his ideas about human nature, such defense mechanisms, are quite insightful. Perhaps most important is that he was the first to try to think in detail about the psychological development of the infant and child. Freud has gone out of date in part because the science has just moved beyond some of his key ideas. His theory is based on a set of ideas about the mind of the infant that were largely speculative. In recent decades a real empirical science of infant psychology has developed, and it turns out baby's minds are quite a bit different than Freud thought. Psychotherapy has also become much more effective, thanks to methods like cognitive behavioral therapy. In addition, in America the practice of Freudian psychoanalysis was usually restricted to psychiatrists, which made it unavailable to most people. Non-analytic psychotherapy is practiced by psychologists and counselors, and so is far more available. Another factor in this country is that Freud's gloomy and rather authoritarian Middle European philosophy just doesn't fit with the general optimism of Americans.
lukeasrodgers 10y ago
My one quibble with this article, which I think is otherwise spot on in many regards, concerns this claim: "It is more common now to regard humanity as lucid about its interests, and rational in its fulfillment of them (a few behavioral foibles aside)." There is a strong trend in psychology (both pop and scientific) at the moment to focus on all the ways in which we (or, by an odd synecdoche, "our brains") are irrational (e.g. Dan Ariely). If you contrast this viewpoint, which I think is increasingly common if not already quite prevalent, with say the viewpoint of intellectuals in the 18th century on "man's nature" I'd say we have a comparatively strong belief in the deep and wide-ranging irrationality of humanity, both when it comes to ends and means.
- nicops 10y ago
  The irrationality studied by Dan Ariely et al it's not comparable _at all_ with the freudian irrationality. The former brings to the forefront our fauly heuristics and biases. The later is about how culture and our psyche actively makes us ignorant of parts of ourselves that are inconvenient, and that can come out in bursts of irrational, unstable, "crazy" behavior.
  - lukeasrodgers 10y ago
    You're right that they are very different takes on irrationality. Whether they are a comparable "at all" is obviously just a matter of context. If I'm interested in research on loss aversion, looking at Freud and Ariely together would be silly. If I'm interested in the history of ideas (which my point was addressing) then looking at them alongside each other makes perfect sense. You're saying "apples vs oranges" and I'm saying, "sure, but I'm talking about fruits."
    - nicops 10y ago
      But maybe bringing fruits up it's irrelevant in some context, depending on what we're talking about. This is one of these contexts. The very same phrase you quoted from the article clarifies it's not talking about "perfect" rationality. In the history of psychology/sociology, Freud and Ariely don't make sense with each other.

41 points by Petiver 10y ago

>he was “no more a person now but a whole climate of opinion.” >it is rather shocking how swiftly, [..] Freud’s relevance has waned in the past two decades I think the first quote answers the second: it was just a climate of opinion, with very little of substance to back it up. And so it has rightly been discarded. Not that we don't have new fashionable opinions to take its place, many no more substantial. >It is more common now to regard humanity as lucid about its interests, and rational in its fulfillment of them Wut? The opposite is true. We are more and more aware of the foibles of human perception and thinking, but nowadays based on a solid scientific foundation, not the fantasies of a ... well, imaginative person.

rgejman 10y ago

Outstanding essay on why Freud has faded from his ultimate cultural and scientific pedestal -- and why and other grand theorists are not relevant today. I agree with the author that "The grand theories of an earlier age offered us an ability to look at the intersections between the self, society, and history; in comparison, their replacements look not just intellectually meek but politically unpromising." On the other hand, the potency of well defined, minimal theories is unarguable.

toasterlovin 10y ago
On the contrary, the theories of Freud, Jung, etc. may strive to place the study of human psychology into a larger context, but it is evolutionary psychology that actually accomplishes this task. Right now, the field of psychology is replacing phrenology and faith healing with biochemistry. And, you know what, good riddance!
jhanschoo 10y ago
In some sense, the lack of grandeur in present research comes from academia realizing just how complex psychological nature is. Freud's era was one that underestimated the complexities of analysing, well, complex systems, where phenomena arise not out of the interactions of more-or-less pure entities like in Newtonian physics, but as the chaotic aggregation of heterogeneous subsystems, like what we now understand many biological processes to be. I think the field today is doing what mathematics had been doing a couple ago; back then mathematicians realized that calculus was on shaky foundation, and developed tools to set mathematics on a firm logical and set theory foundation. Likewise, psychology is investigating neurology and trying to find a firm foundation in it.

Pigo 10y ago

> Instead of believing that pathologies could be described or drugged away, Freudians wanted us to work through them. If this is true, then it's definitely a practice that needs to be focused on again. I've had nothing but bad experiences with various medical professionals throwing drugs at me the moment I mentioned personal difficulties. The anti-depressants kept me in a bad place for a long time, when I think I mostly needed someone to provide some insight or constructive advice. Maybe I just had bad luck, but I definitely don't remember anyone trying to work on anything with me.

phkahler 10y ago
>> If this is true, then it's definitely a practice that needs to be focused on again. I've had nothing but bad experiences with various medical professionals throwing drugs at me the moment I mentioned personal difficulties. I've found it to be true. Understanding where my undesirable behaviors come from is helping me correct them tremendously. It can be a painful process - expect to get worse before you get better - but it can be effective if you're working with the right person. For me the mental picture was less like an onion and more like a tangled knot of yarn, but it is straightening out quite nicely. I personally don't like the Freudian approach. There are other non-drug based camps.
- Pigo 10y ago
  I eventually found help through attending a church that focuses on community outreach and small groups, which helped me get outside my own head long enough to make some positive steps. But I've always wanted to find a therapist who is genuinely interested and can provide more insight than I can learn on my own from books like The Road Less Traveled. I don't know what other people go through, and I wish I understood Jung well enough to share with other people, but I suspect professionals are just throwing drugs because they're overwhelmed by the constant wave of misery and depression they're confronted with.
  - phkahler 10y ago
    >> But I've always wanted to find a therapist who is genuinely interested and can provide more insight than I can learn on my own from books like The Road Less Traveled. Insight is tricky, as is introspection. Other people can offer suggestions and even insight as to what is going on in your head, but they have their own preconceived ideas and patterns they try to fit on you. Ultimately introspection must win, as you are the only one who can actually see what's happening in there. Variations on those suggestions may feel like a better fit - go with what feels most correct, but don't assume you've found "the" answer - I've had several step changes in the accuracy of my understanding of me. Talk to people who know you, or are related to you, or have their own issues, whatever. You never know what will tip your thoughts into a better understanding of yourself.

pococo 10y ago

Excuse my ignorance, but why does everyone seem to hate on Freud, considering he has had a tremendous influence on modern psychology? Honest question.

makmanalp 10y ago
Probably because he was wrong so often, and his ideas got popular. Being wrong in a medical field is Not Good - it leads to real harm. I've heard it phrased as "he had the wrong answers, but the right questions".
toasterlovin 10y ago
The problem with Freud is that his ideas have been taken seriously for way too long. His theories of human psychology are on par with phrenology in their ability to provide a framework that explains human behavior. It's rank pseudo-science. And now, finally, evolutionary psychology is gaining widespread acceptance.
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
Because most of his theories are nonsense. He got the idea of the unconscious right and understood transference eventually, but the rest of his theories are mostly bunk. Worse, some are harmful bunk. He denied the existence of child sex abuse and invented a set of complex rationalisations which blamed the victims and shamed them for inventing fantasies. We know now that at least some of their stories were correct, and not fantasies and delusions at all. Pure Freudian psychoanalysis is incredibly expensive and time consuming and never scores well when tested objectively. It's not an exaggeration to say that in terms of value for time and money it's more of a scam than astrology and homeopathy are, but it never seems to get the same attention from debunkers. Modern approaches that score much better (e.g. ACT and other MBTs) have almost no baggage imported from Freudian beliefs.
edblarney 10y ago
"but why does everyone seem to hate on Freud, considering he has had a tremendous influence on modern psychology?" Because his theories were not necessarily scientific, and it was unjust perhaps that he had such influence.

tehwalrus 10y ago

I've heard that Freud's methods were poor and his brain science was junk; but I can't actually name any particular bad theory or experiment. This article did not enlighten me, at least in the first ten minutes reading it. Anyone know of a good guide? And, since it's Freud, one that won't turn my stomach?

inimino 10y ago
There's a lot of nonsense thrown around about Freud. If you're interested, there's nothing better to just read the man himself. You can form your own opinions and you'll get a lot more out of it than reading someone's inevitably biased commentary.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  Given that most of us here probably don't have any sort of medical training, are our own opinions likely to be worth anything?
  - inimino 10y ago
    Medical training is not necessary to understand Freud. If you think your opinion is worthless, how would you choose which "expert" to trust?
tboyd47 10y ago
It wasn't his methods. His idea of curing by talking is now standard practice, but was revolutionary for that time. The problem was that it put him on the path to exposing the widespread incest and rape that was going on in his society. Freud initially believed his patients, but wasn't prepared to face the consequences, so he changed his tune, and this reversal led him to come up with the far-out psychosexual theories he's so famous for. Freud is still regarded as the father of modern psychology, perhaps because he was the first to actually sit down with his patients and take them seriously. Here's an article that tells the story in detail: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1984/02/freud-and-the-seduction-theory/376313/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1984/02/freud-an...

lolc 10y ago

I have on my bookshelf "Unauthorized Freud". The book is not favorable to his work. Rather, he is described as a fraud. Now where he was right for the wrong reasons, we could see him like we see Galilei today: As a popularizer of new ideas. There is no need to go further than that.

woodandsteel 10y ago

Freud made many important contributions. He invented psychotherapy, and many of his ideas about human nature, such defense mechanisms, are quite insightful. Perhaps most important is that he was the first to try to think in detail about the psychological development of the infant and child. Freud has gone out of date in part because the science has just moved beyond some of his key ideas. His theory is based on a set of ideas about the mind of the infant that were largely speculative. In recent decades a real empirical science of infant psychology has developed, and it turns out baby's minds are quite a bit different than Freud thought. Psychotherapy has also become much more effective, thanks to methods like cognitive behavioral therapy. In addition, in America the practice of Freudian psychoanalysis was usually restricted to psychiatrists, which made it unavailable to most people. Non-analytic psychotherapy is practiced by psychologists and counselors, and so is far more available. Another factor in this country is that Freud's gloomy and rather authoritarian Middle European philosophy just doesn't fit with the general optimism of Americans.

lukeasrodgers 10y ago

My one quibble with this article, which I think is otherwise spot on in many regards, concerns this claim: "It is more common now to regard humanity as lucid about its interests, and rational in its fulfillment of them (a few behavioral foibles aside)." There is a strong trend in psychology (both pop and scientific) at the moment to focus on all the ways in which we (or, by an odd synecdoche, "our brains") are irrational (e.g. Dan Ariely). If you contrast this viewpoint, which I think is increasingly common if not already quite prevalent, with say the viewpoint of intellectuals in the 18th century on "man's nature" I'd say we have a comparatively strong belief in the deep and wide-ranging irrationality of humanity, both when it comes to ends and means.

nicops 10y ago
The irrationality studied by Dan Ariely et al it's not comparable _at all_ with the freudian irrationality. The former brings to the forefront our fauly heuristics and biases. The later is about how culture and our psyche actively makes us ignorant of parts of ourselves that are inconvenient, and that can come out in bursts of irrational, unstable, "crazy" behavior.
- lukeasrodgers 10y ago
  You're right that they are very different takes on irrationality. Whether they are a comparable "at all" is obviously just a matter of context. If I'm interested in research on loss aversion, looking at Freud and Ariely together would be silly. If I'm interested in the history of ideas (which my point was addressing) then looking at them alongside each other makes perfect sense. You're saying "apples vs oranges" and I'm saying, "sure, but I'm talking about fruits."
  - nicops 10y ago
    But maybe bringing fruits up it's irrelevant in some context, depending on what we're talking about. This is one of these contexts. The very same phrase you quoted from the article clarifies it's not talking about "perfect" rationality. In the history of psychology/sociology, Freud and Ariely don't make sense with each other.