3 ms·
It seems that, in some ways, a "crank" is not defined by what they believe or say, nor by whether what they believe or say is true, but by the relation between
by rossdavidh 8y ago
It seems that, in some ways, a "crank" is not defined by what they believe or say, nor by whether what they believe or say is true, but by the relation between themselves and their society. Had Freud been in a society that treated the idea of the Oedipus complex differently, perhaps he would have become a crank. Some, like Darwin, were too circumspect to become cranks, but plenty of respected scientists, whether their main ideas were right or wrong, were not "cranks" mainly because of the way their peers reacted to them, not because of anything about them, or their ideas.
- scotty79 8y agoFreud was definitely a crank. People back then just didn't know any better so they never called him on his bs on the spot. I was interested in psychology in high school trying to understand people around me. I even considered studying psychology. Then somebody gave me Freud to read. The horror I felt when I understood that his "theories" were just the observation of the world but through his deeply disturbed eyes and uniquely bent mind... After that I decided that I don't want to have anything to do professionally with trade that still haven't properly distanced themselves and apologized for ever considering that this Freud guy had some merit. Freud, the father of psychoanalysis. Why not António Egas Moniz, the father of neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatrics.
- gnulinux 8y agoI know absolutely nothing about psychology except I read some Freud. I don't have any opinions about psychology, or the nature of psychology, or Freud (tbh I'm not that interested either). But I'm not clear why I'm supposed to believe you more than psychology community. See, I'm not trying to be skeptical, I'm just trying to understand who is crank, and you stating Freud crank doesn't seem to make him crank in my eyes. Am I wrong? Why?
- scotty79 8y agoYou are not wrong. You shouldn't believe me over anyone else. I'm just sharing personal experience and opinion. If you want to form an opinion about Freud please do research what psychological community thinks about him and why. Basically, "he was asking interesting questions and giving wrong answers but we remember and value him for the questions." > I know absolutely nothing about psychology except I read some Freud. For me it sounds like "I know absolutely nothing about piloting aircraft except I read some notes of failed inventor that tried to build a flapping wings plane before Wright brothers flew, but noone remembers his name because aviation is not psychology." Or "I know exactly nothing about solar system except I read some Ptolemy." If you are interested in Freud, read Freud. If you are interested in psychology read something way more modern. What I think distasteful is that psychological society didn't distance their trade from Freud enough and in 2018 you were under the impression that reading Freud counts in any way towards learning psychology. And to address your more general point. How can you know if Freud is the crank or I'm the crank without knowing anything about the subject and without any interest in the subject? You can't but it's ok since you have no interest. And if you are pressed against the wall you are safer with opinion of majority. Not even majority of psychological community. Just majority of people. Freud was famous so he can't be that bad.
- sincerely 8y agoWould it help if I told you the modern psychology community generally considers Freud a crank as well