4 ms·

We actually shouldn't. The psychoanalysis is contempted and forgotten however psychoanalysis is something like a computer language, the language of human inner

We actually shouldn't. The psychoanalysis is contempted and forgotten however psychoanalysis is something like a computer language, the language of human inner world. Some kind of lisp with probably terrible interpreter. The modern neuroscience is of course something like an assembler. So lisp or assembler? If you want to write modern OS, then you know the answer. The Freud, Jung, Lacan theory is related to psychotherapeutic work is like automata theory relationships to writing modern enterprise applications. I don't believe there is something 'true' or 'objective' in psychoanalysis - deep inside is some ocean, some chaos of different introjections, emotions and feelings. But the psychoanalysis helps to create structure there, to look and make sense out of the ocean. There is no substitude for psychoanalysis except really good prose probably or poetry. And of course Freud was a genius.

nradov 9y ago
If a man who was wrong about almost everything can be considered a genius then the word "genius" has lost all meaning.
- pizza 9y ago
  Would you consider Democritus a genius? Or Zeno?
  - RhysU 9y ago
    Everytime I reflect on Zeno, I get halfway closer.
- ivkustov 9y ago
  I don't know how he was 'wrong about almost everything'? I just searched the article with the same name. Penis envy? Well, I saw myself and read myself about women who desired to castrate their brothers for example because they attributed their envy and jealousy of parental attention to them. Oedipus issues? Seriously? I believe every other mother or father out there in emotionally incestous relationships with their kids. Id, ego, superego? It's a model of consciousness, pretty primitive, but still useful. You basically split everything into 3 buckets - e.g. compulsive lust, fetishism goes to id, rational thinking to ego, overresponsibility to superego. Oral, anal, phallic, etc. stages of development? There were much more better theories by Theodore Lidz and Erickson.
  - nradov 9y ago
    I really hope you're being sarcastic, and that you're not deranged enough to believe that nonsense.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  There are dimensions to genius. Seeing a common subject, a set of boundaries, a possible (even if incorrect) set of guiding principles, can be genius. If it inspires further exploration or refinement or even rejection of ideas, it's a productive step. Einstein railed against QM, Newton believed in alchemy, Kelvin though the Earth was 30 million years old, the list of people opposed to continental drift / plate techtonics is vast (see Naomi Oreskes several papers and books on the history of the development of that subject), Samuel Morse had what would now be dispicable views on race and religion, Ford was an anti-semite, Crick and/or Watson have their own failings, etc., etc., etc. Much of genius is being able to jump out of and beyond the present dominant paradigm and mental models. It's not about being right but of being less wrong. Than that which came before, not after.
  - nradov 9y ago
    The scientists you listed at least attempted to follow the scientific method as best they could in most of their professional work (although they certainly made their share of methodological errors and allowed personal biases to affect their work). Whereas most of Freud's writing was the moral equivalent of astrology: based mostly on random anecdotes and not falsifiable. Hardly equivalent.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      That is not the original criticism you raised, nor is it the one I addressed.
Pica_soO 9y ago
Sorry, but all those people he helped to blame themselves for being uncurable, those are something to glance over, right? Oh, you are a paranoid schizophrenic. Well, im not going to admit defeat and helplessness- i got a reputation to run here- no Sir, you are eternally afraid for having a shorter wiener then your father. This is genius, yes, but of the marketing kind.
manmal 9y ago
I would not call him genius. Alfred Adler perhaps was. Freud was a misogyn and a drug addict, and he proposed a lot of theories that leave modern people scratching their heads. Eg he attributed almost all mental problems to sexuality, coined the ridiculous Oedipus complex, and once called girls „strange little beings without a penis“. Sure, the field was at the very beginning, but why did he always have to bring penises into play? He happened to found the first thought school for explaining mental illnesses, but most of his ideas have since been accepted to be wrong or way too crude.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Freud was a misogyn and a drug addict, and he proposed a lot of theories that leave modern people scratching their heads. All three are totally orthogonal to someone being a genius -- and at least the second is a very puritan concern to level at someone regarding their contributions to science/culture/etc. >Eg he attributed almost all mental problems to sexuality And a heck of a lot (of the soft kind, not physiological issues) can be attributed there -- especially since the only real mechanism behind humanity's (and any animals) continued existence, and the closest thing to an "end purpose" for any individual, is reproduction. >coined the ridiculous Oedipus complex Nothing ridiculous about it -- and it was not for some irrelevant chance that those kind of relationships and dynamics were studied and concerned civilizations for millennia (including, but not limited nor starting from, the ancient Greek play on Oedipus).
  - phkahler 9y ago
    >> >coined the ridiculous Oedipus complex >> Nothing ridiculous about it Except that Freud suffered from it himself - he had a thing for his own mother - and then projected his shame onto patients to such an extent that he thought it was the foundation of everyones problems. The challenge with analysis is that it needs to be done by the patient. Only they can see/hear whats going on in their head.
    - LyndsySimon 9y ago
      > The challenge with analysis is that it needs to be done by the patient. Only they can see/hear whats going on in their head. Based on my limited personal experience as a patient, this is quite insightful. No medication could solve my issues with depression. What did turn my life around was when I was finally able to get a hold on the cycles that my mind goes through on a regular basis and terminate the feedback loop that leads to despondency for me. Counseling was only useful for me in that it allowed me to consult with someone with much more experience in the field to make sure my own observations of self matched the outward reality. In my early twenties I believe I experienced a taste of what schizophrenia is, although I was never diagnosed with it. My mind would make connections between ideas that seemed extremely important at the time, but between which no connections actually existed. I developed a habit of taking notes when I get excited about an idea and then going back in a day or two to review them to see if it still makes sense. In the vast majority of cases they don't.

nradov 9y ago

If a man who was wrong about almost everything can be considered a genius then the word "genius" has lost all meaning.

pizza 9y ago
Would you consider Democritus a genius? Or Zeno?
- RhysU 9y ago
  Everytime I reflect on Zeno, I get halfway closer.
ivkustov 9y ago
I don't know how he was 'wrong about almost everything'? I just searched the article with the same name. Penis envy? Well, I saw myself and read myself about women who desired to castrate their brothers for example because they attributed their envy and jealousy of parental attention to them. Oedipus issues? Seriously? I believe every other mother or father out there in emotionally incestous relationships with their kids. Id, ego, superego? It's a model of consciousness, pretty primitive, but still useful. You basically split everything into 3 buckets - e.g. compulsive lust, fetishism goes to id, rational thinking to ego, overresponsibility to superego. Oral, anal, phallic, etc. stages of development? There were much more better theories by Theodore Lidz and Erickson.
- nradov 9y ago
  I really hope you're being sarcastic, and that you're not deranged enough to believe that nonsense.
dredmorbius 9y ago
There are dimensions to genius. Seeing a common subject, a set of boundaries, a possible (even if incorrect) set of guiding principles, can be genius. If it inspires further exploration or refinement or even rejection of ideas, it's a productive step. Einstein railed against QM, Newton believed in alchemy, Kelvin though the Earth was 30 million years old, the list of people opposed to continental drift / plate techtonics is vast (see Naomi Oreskes several papers and books on the history of the development of that subject), Samuel Morse had what would now be dispicable views on race and religion, Ford was an anti-semite, Crick and/or Watson have their own failings, etc., etc., etc. Much of genius is being able to jump out of and beyond the present dominant paradigm and mental models. It's not about being right but of being less wrong. Than that which came before, not after.
- nradov 9y ago
  The scientists you listed at least attempted to follow the scientific method as best they could in most of their professional work (although they certainly made their share of methodological errors and allowed personal biases to affect their work). Whereas most of Freud's writing was the moral equivalent of astrology: based mostly on random anecdotes and not falsifiable. Hardly equivalent.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    That is not the original criticism you raised, nor is it the one I addressed.

Pica_soO 9y ago

Sorry, but all those people he helped to blame themselves for being uncurable, those are something to glance over, right? Oh, you are a paranoid schizophrenic. Well, im not going to admit defeat and helplessness- i got a reputation to run here- no Sir, you are eternally afraid for having a shorter wiener then your father. This is genius, yes, but of the marketing kind.

manmal 9y ago

I would not call him genius. Alfred Adler perhaps was. Freud was a misogyn and a drug addict, and he proposed a lot of theories that leave modern people scratching their heads. Eg he attributed almost all mental problems to sexuality, coined the ridiculous Oedipus complex, and once called girls „strange little beings without a penis“. Sure, the field was at the very beginning, but why did he always have to bring penises into play? He happened to found the first thought school for explaining mental illnesses, but most of his ideas have since been accepted to be wrong or way too crude.

coldtea 9y ago
>Freud was a misogyn and a drug addict, and he proposed a lot of theories that leave modern people scratching their heads. All three are totally orthogonal to someone being a genius -- and at least the second is a very puritan concern to level at someone regarding their contributions to science/culture/etc. >Eg he attributed almost all mental problems to sexuality And a heck of a lot (of the soft kind, not physiological issues) can be attributed there -- especially since the only real mechanism behind humanity's (and any animals) continued existence, and the closest thing to an "end purpose" for any individual, is reproduction. >coined the ridiculous Oedipus complex Nothing ridiculous about it -- and it was not for some irrelevant chance that those kind of relationships and dynamics were studied and concerned civilizations for millennia (including, but not limited nor starting from, the ancient Greek play on Oedipus).
- phkahler 9y ago
  >> >coined the ridiculous Oedipus complex >> Nothing ridiculous about it Except that Freud suffered from it himself - he had a thing for his own mother - and then projected his shame onto patients to such an extent that he thought it was the foundation of everyones problems. The challenge with analysis is that it needs to be done by the patient. Only they can see/hear whats going on in their head.
  - LyndsySimon 9y ago
    > The challenge with analysis is that it needs to be done by the patient. Only they can see/hear whats going on in their head. Based on my limited personal experience as a patient, this is quite insightful. No medication could solve my issues with depression. What did turn my life around was when I was finally able to get a hold on the cycles that my mind goes through on a regular basis and terminate the feedback loop that leads to despondency for me. Counseling was only useful for me in that it allowed me to consult with someone with much more experience in the field to make sure my own observations of self matched the outward reality. In my early twenties I believe I experienced a taste of what schizophrenia is, although I was never diagnosed with it. My mind would make connections between ideas that seemed extremely important at the time, but between which no connections actually existed. I developed a habit of taking notes when I get excited about an idea and then going back in a day or two to review them to see if it still makes sense. In the vast majority of cases they don't.