5 ms·
Not the first time for Psychology, I remember my professor dismissing Freud and etc. even though we learnt about him in our textbooks. Not saying that Freud is
by forkLding 8y ago
Not the first time for Psychology, I remember my professor dismissing Freud and etc. even though we learnt about him in our textbooks.
Not saying that Freud is a fraud (or even Jung or Maslow), but their theories are hard to replicate and have been gradually phased out as a real explanation of events and furthermore their psychiatric/psychotherapy diagnoses are not effective to diagnose actual psychological illnesses, their treatment techniques on the other hand have been invaluable (https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/mental-health-and-the-legacy-of-sigmund-freud/ https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/mental-health-and-the-le...). Psychology is definitely going thru a replication crisis. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psychology_replication_rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psychology_...)
- SubiculumCode 8y agoFreudian "theory" was not science, it was a catchy narrative.
- Uhhrrr 8y agoWhen I was assigned "Civilization and its Discontents" in college, I already knew Freud's theories were poorly supported, but it was still pretty convincing while I was reading it.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoThat says something about the quality of the writing, but not about the quality of the ideas.
- Uhhrrr 8y agoExactly.
- forkLding 8y agoCan't really blame him much then, likely only the truly psychotic would have been depicted as mentally ill back then simply because didn't know what psychology was and thus definitely skewed his samples all over the place. Then again, I'm probably just stating another unproven assumption.
- lolc 8y agoWhat Freud with few of his contemporaries got right is that most of our thinking is unconscious. If he'd stopped there and investigated, we would have a different picture of him today. But no, he developed theories on top of that theory, then shifted his stories to fit his wild speculation. Even as a historical source he's hard to take seriously. The only recourse to avoid calling him a fraud is to call him a fanatic.
- forkLding 8y agoYeah it was quite revolutionary then simply because psychology wasnt even a thing, its kind of looking back at people worshipping fire whereas nowadays we understand way more about the whole process of fire