5 ms·

While I did not find this article particularly deep, psychoanalysis has hardly been discredited. The core of the theory has been infused into almost every psych

While I did not find this article particularly deep, psychoanalysis has hardly been discredited. The core of the theory has been infused into almost every psychological modality practiced today aside from CBT, and studies have shown its general efficacy as a practice to be on par with others and in some cases superior. For the past 20 or so years, the field of neuropsychoanalysis under Mark Solms et al. has done a lot of good work understanding memory, dreaming, and higher cognitive processes stemming from Freud's ideas. Nobel Laureat Eric Kandel wrote in the 90's that psychoanalysis still constitutes the most intellectually satisfying model of the mind; Kandel has gone on to promote studying psychoanalytic ideas with modern neuroscientific techniques. Although several authors have been critical of psychoanalysis, having been criticized by some does not make an idea instantly discredited. There remains no clear way to verify a model of higher cognitive processes in the same fashion as a physics formula.

Ygg2 6y ago
> Hardly been discredited. In 2015, psychoanalyst Bradley Peterson, who is also a child psychiatrist and director of the Institute for the Developing Mind at Children's Hospital Los Angeles, said: "I think most people would agree that psychoanalysis as a form of treatment is on its last legs." https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/magazine/tell-it-about-your-mother.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/magazine/tell-it-about-yo... Not really singing its praises. > Nobel Laureat Eric Kandel wrote in the 90's Sure and Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman said: > If you look at all of the complicated ideas that they have developed in an infinitesimal amount of time, if you compare to any other of the sciences how long it takes to get one idea after the other, if you consider all the structures and inventions and complicated things, the ids and the egos, the tensions and the forces, and the pushes and the pulls, I tell you they can't all be there. It's too much for one brain or a few brains to have cooked up in such a short time.
- exaltation999 6y ago
  In 2020, "exaltation999"'s grandmother, said: "I think Ygg2 is an absolute idiot". That's the weight of your argument. Capitalism desires to bring psychoanalysis to its knees and there's a reason for this. Watch some Zizek on Youtube. Do your research.
- hexxiiiz 6y ago
  The difference between Kandel and Feynman is that Kandel is a neuroscientist who understands psychoanalysis and Feynman clearly hadn't really read Freud's work, only expressing skepticism on the basis of his vague intuitions about how long it should take to come up with a theory.
  - Ygg2 6y ago
    Kandel got Nobel for medicine, namely memory physiological basis of neuron storage, not for proving psychoanalysis correct. His thoughts on it are as relevant as Feynman. A counterexample - Tesla was also a genius Engineer but he also believed in Aliens, and doves with laser eyes, being infused by Cosmic energy.
    - hexxiiiz 6y ago
      Kandel's obvious expertise on the functioning of the brain puts him in precisely the right position to give an assessment of how realistic Freud's models in describing what happens in the brain. More specifically, his expertise on the neurology of memory is directly connected to a lot of what Freud hypothesized about how memory functions. In fact, in his 99 paper on psychoanalysis and neuroscience https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ajp.156.4.505 https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ajp.156.4.... Kandel cites specific neuroscientific mechanisms that connect with mechanisms in the paychoanalytic model. This is very much his area of expertise and far more relevant than Feynman shooting from the hip about something he does not really know much about. Kandel is an expert in neuroscience and from the literature very well versed in psychoanalytic work, and makes actual arguments salient to both disciplines to justify his opinions, as can be seen in the above article. In general, a lot of work has been done in this area, particularly by Solms https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vD4p8rQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vD4p8rQAAAAJ&hl=en... Apropos of Tesla, this is far more than the paranoid spiritual fantasies of a genius struggling with mental illness.
      - Ygg2 6y ago
        Ok, but did Kandel proved Freud right? Did he found proof for ego, id, super-ego, Thanatos/Eros in brain morphology? Me skimming it shows little to no evidence of so, hence his contributing to prove Freud right is no more different than what Feynman did. I did found this gem though: > Thus, unlike various forms of cognitive therapy and other psychotherapies, for which compelling objective evidence now exists—both as therapies in their own right and as key adjuncts to pharmacotherapy—there is as yet no compelling evidence, outside subjective impressions, that psychoanalysis works better than nonanalytically oriented therapy or placebo. So wait. Even he admits Psychoanalysis is less useful than what we have currently. Way to bury the lede. From what I see, this is more a rally to revive psychoanalysis on solid biological grounds, than confirmation of psycho analysis as such.

Ygg2 6y ago

> Hardly been discredited. In 2015, psychoanalyst Bradley Peterson, who is also a child psychiatrist and director of the Institute for the Developing Mind at Children's Hospital Los Angeles, said: "I think most people would agree that psychoanalysis as a form of treatment is on its last legs." https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/magazine/tell-it-about-your-mother.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/magazine/tell-it-about-yo... Not really singing its praises. > Nobel Laureat Eric Kandel wrote in the 90's Sure and Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman said: > If you look at all of the complicated ideas that they have developed in an infinitesimal amount of time, if you compare to any other of the sciences how long it takes to get one idea after the other, if you consider all the structures and inventions and complicated things, the ids and the egos, the tensions and the forces, and the pushes and the pulls, I tell you they can't all be there. It's too much for one brain or a few brains to have cooked up in such a short time.

exaltation999 6y ago
In 2020, "exaltation999"'s grandmother, said: "I think Ygg2 is an absolute idiot". That's the weight of your argument. Capitalism desires to bring psychoanalysis to its knees and there's a reason for this. Watch some Zizek on Youtube. Do your research.
hexxiiiz 6y ago
The difference between Kandel and Feynman is that Kandel is a neuroscientist who understands psychoanalysis and Feynman clearly hadn't really read Freud's work, only expressing skepticism on the basis of his vague intuitions about how long it should take to come up with a theory.
- Ygg2 6y ago
  Kandel got Nobel for medicine, namely memory physiological basis of neuron storage, not for proving psychoanalysis correct. His thoughts on it are as relevant as Feynman. A counterexample - Tesla was also a genius Engineer but he also believed in Aliens, and doves with laser eyes, being infused by Cosmic energy.
  - hexxiiiz 6y ago
    Kandel's obvious expertise on the functioning of the brain puts him in precisely the right position to give an assessment of how realistic Freud's models in describing what happens in the brain. More specifically, his expertise on the neurology of memory is directly connected to a lot of what Freud hypothesized about how memory functions. In fact, in his 99 paper on psychoanalysis and neuroscience https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ajp.156.4.505 https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ajp.156.4.... Kandel cites specific neuroscientific mechanisms that connect with mechanisms in the paychoanalytic model. This is very much his area of expertise and far more relevant than Feynman shooting from the hip about something he does not really know much about. Kandel is an expert in neuroscience and from the literature very well versed in psychoanalytic work, and makes actual arguments salient to both disciplines to justify his opinions, as can be seen in the above article. In general, a lot of work has been done in this area, particularly by Solms https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vD4p8rQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vD4p8rQAAAAJ&hl=en... Apropos of Tesla, this is far more than the paranoid spiritual fantasies of a genius struggling with mental illness.
    - Ygg2 6y ago
      Ok, but did Kandel proved Freud right? Did he found proof for ego, id, super-ego, Thanatos/Eros in brain morphology? Me skimming it shows little to no evidence of so, hence his contributing to prove Freud right is no more different than what Feynman did. I did found this gem though: > Thus, unlike various forms of cognitive therapy and other psychotherapies, for which compelling objective evidence now exists—both as therapies in their own right and as key adjuncts to pharmacotherapy—there is as yet no compelling evidence, outside subjective impressions, that psychoanalysis works better than nonanalytically oriented therapy or placebo. So wait. Even he admits Psychoanalysis is less useful than what we have currently. Way to bury the lede. From what I see, this is more a rally to revive psychoanalysis on solid biological grounds, than confirmation of psycho analysis as such.