5 ms·

General comment about theoretical systems like Lacanianism. They seem to have these common features: 1) They are self-contained systems. They may be interesti

General comment about theoretical systems like Lacanianism. They seem to have these common features: 1) They are self-contained systems. They may be interesting in the terms of sci-fi worldbuilding, but you must suppress critical thinking and just absorb them or they fall apart. 2) Experts tend to discuss in the terms of what the founder or important figures meant. Understanding the subject is interpreting what few people said and thought. Right and wrong is about right interpretation. 3) Advance happens by forking or dissolving into smaller groups with different interpretations. There are main divisions, sub divisions, and so on. I find hard to understand these kind of systems. There may be some initial core ideas that are interesting to ponder, but building whole system seems very limited and dogmatic. If there is no way to create synthesis or settle questions among experts who disagree, and the only way is to branch, is there anything there? -- edit: My null hypothesis for the effectiveness of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy in clinical setting is that the theory or method is just a framework that A) helps analysts and patients that understand and work well together to find each other. Like Trekkie getting into therapy with a Trekkie fan therapist, or a Chatholic patient having therapist with Catholic backround. B) it gives some needed structure, the theoretical framework itself is not that important. C) the real help comes from interacting and talking with a person intimately. In this sense, anything goes as long as it's not outright harmful.

pfortuny 4y ago
The thing is we discard Aristotelian Natural Science as obsolete and nonsense (which it is) but somehow some people take these systems seriously because 'modern philosophy', whatever it is... To me this is completely unbelievable. Especially given the pseudointellectualism in which those systems are based. But, you know, 'psychoanalysis'...
- lmt55 4y ago
  Doesn't your example illuminate why systems of thought like psychoanalysis are useful? We currently don't know concretely how psychological phenomena like consciousness, happiness, selfhood, desire are formed or what they consist of. We know they exist, because we experience them 'in normal human experience'. Analogously, Aristotle did not know anything concrete about how atoms, energy, time, cells in the body worked. But his natural philosophy created a speculative framework to talk about these things, explore possibilities, and try to relate what was known or observed, to what might possibly be true. The potential advantage of modern theories like psychoanalysis, is that today we are able to make a clear distinction between falsifiable scientific knowledge, and other types of statements about the world. Thus, we can evaluate Lacan's thought on the correct level - as a form of philosophy which gives us a way of thinking about certain matters without attempting to provide definitive information.
  - spupe 4y ago
    But we know several ways in which this way of thinking is incorrect. First, it is based on revelation, or the direct experience of one analyst with a handful of patients. We know that we cannot achieve any meaningful scientific conclusion for the broad topics you mention from this kind of data. Second, this way of thinking is averse to tests, and to the extent it has been tested, it failed. Psychoanalysis has been tested empirically, and it is simply not producing great therapeutical effects. Your rather generous interpretation could equally apply to quantum coaching or any other modern fad that is clearly wrong, because even though we don't know everything, it conflicts with what we know.
    - lmt55 4y ago
      You are literally evaluating psychoanalysis as a scientific theory in this response - which is exactly what I pointed out we should avoid doing if we want to understand its value. Lots of types of thought and culture do not have scientific content, and yet are valuable. Psychoanalysis, when tested empirically, produces therapeutic effects no worse than other talking therapies. In fact the great empirical paradox of therapy is that they are all similarly successful, regardless of the exact details of the theory they are based on.
      - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        > In fact the great empirical paradox of therapy is that they are all similarly successful, regardless of the exact details of the theory they are based on. But if that's so, isn't that saying that the theory is irrelevant? And if so, why do I care about Lacan? Okay, so he's got a theory. So do lots of other people, and they all work just as well in practice.
        lmt55 4y ago
        It is saying that the purpose of trying to understand what Lacan had to say is not to achieve empirically proven therapeutic effects, either as a patient or as a therapist, yes.
      - 4y ago
spupe 4y ago
For the average mental disorder, it is equally as effective to be treated with psychoanalysis compared with any other psychological treatment [1], although it is notoriously one of the longer and most expensive forms of therapy. So, your hypothesis c is likely correct. However, I disagree that it is not harmful. For some conditions, you would find an effect for homeopathy simply because of the placebo effect. What we see with psychological treatments is very similar, but to straight out call them pseudoscience ruffles a lot of feathers. Psychoanalysis and other sorts of garbage take space in university, they get a lot of attention in media/culture, and in the end they are not delivering much at all. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22227111/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22227111/
Symmetry 4y ago
(2) really reminds me of that bit in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions about pedagogy. In some fields you can determine the truth of a statement without reference to who said it. Innovators are seldom the best explainers so you have dedicated textbook writers who rephrase insights in ways easier to understand. In fields where this isn't possible students have to be taught with original sources.

pfortuny 4y ago

The thing is we discard Aristotelian Natural Science as obsolete and nonsense (which it is) but somehow some people take these systems seriously because 'modern philosophy', whatever it is... To me this is completely unbelievable. Especially given the pseudointellectualism in which those systems are based. But, you know, 'psychoanalysis'...

lmt55 4y ago
Doesn't your example illuminate why systems of thought like psychoanalysis are useful? We currently don't know concretely how psychological phenomena like consciousness, happiness, selfhood, desire are formed or what they consist of. We know they exist, because we experience them 'in normal human experience'. Analogously, Aristotle did not know anything concrete about how atoms, energy, time, cells in the body worked. But his natural philosophy created a speculative framework to talk about these things, explore possibilities, and try to relate what was known or observed, to what might possibly be true. The potential advantage of modern theories like psychoanalysis, is that today we are able to make a clear distinction between falsifiable scientific knowledge, and other types of statements about the world. Thus, we can evaluate Lacan's thought on the correct level - as a form of philosophy which gives us a way of thinking about certain matters without attempting to provide definitive information.
- spupe 4y ago
  But we know several ways in which this way of thinking is incorrect. First, it is based on revelation, or the direct experience of one analyst with a handful of patients. We know that we cannot achieve any meaningful scientific conclusion for the broad topics you mention from this kind of data. Second, this way of thinking is averse to tests, and to the extent it has been tested, it failed. Psychoanalysis has been tested empirically, and it is simply not producing great therapeutical effects. Your rather generous interpretation could equally apply to quantum coaching or any other modern fad that is clearly wrong, because even though we don't know everything, it conflicts with what we know.
  - lmt55 4y ago
    You are literally evaluating psychoanalysis as a scientific theory in this response - which is exactly what I pointed out we should avoid doing if we want to understand its value. Lots of types of thought and culture do not have scientific content, and yet are valuable. Psychoanalysis, when tested empirically, produces therapeutic effects no worse than other talking therapies. In fact the great empirical paradox of therapy is that they are all similarly successful, regardless of the exact details of the theory they are based on.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      > In fact the great empirical paradox of therapy is that they are all similarly successful, regardless of the exact details of the theory they are based on. But if that's so, isn't that saying that the theory is irrelevant? And if so, why do I care about Lacan? Okay, so he's got a theory. So do lots of other people, and they all work just as well in practice.
      - lmt55 4y ago
        It is saying that the purpose of trying to understand what Lacan had to say is not to achieve empirically proven therapeutic effects, either as a patient or as a therapist, yes.
    - 4y ago

spupe 4y ago

For the average mental disorder, it is equally as effective to be treated with psychoanalysis compared with any other psychological treatment [1], although it is notoriously one of the longer and most expensive forms of therapy. So, your hypothesis c is likely correct. However, I disagree that it is not harmful. For some conditions, you would find an effect for homeopathy simply because of the placebo effect. What we see with psychological treatments is very similar, but to straight out call them pseudoscience ruffles a lot of feathers. Psychoanalysis and other sorts of garbage take space in university, they get a lot of attention in media/culture, and in the end they are not delivering much at all. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22227111/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22227111/

Symmetry 4y ago

(2) really reminds me of that bit in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions about pedagogy. In some fields you can determine the truth of a statement without reference to who said it. Innovators are seldom the best explainers so you have dedicated textbook writers who rephrase insights in ways easier to understand. In fields where this isn't possible students have to be taught with original sources.