3 ms·

I didn't know that. Why are there so many psychologists practicing psychoanalysis today, then? Has modern psychoanalysis evolved so far beyond Freud's psychoan

I didn't know that. Why are there so many psychologists practicing psychoanalysis today, then? Has modern psychoanalysis evolved so far beyond Freud's psychoanalysis that it became a serious branch of psychology? If so, why is it still called "psychoanalysis"?

stronglikedan 4y ago
I presume because it has a place, in a nonscientific way. A lot of issues can be merely talked through. For those that can't, the patient can be referred to a psychiatrist, who can further evaluate and identify the issues using scientific methods, and prescribe medicines if necessary (which a psychologist cannot do).
abyssin 4y ago
Many psychologists use psychoanalysis the same way many priests use religious stories to provide guidance. It’s a great source of allegories. It’s also prestigious and lets them charge a lot of money, while practicing “floating attention” ie. letting their mind wander while listening and not actually paying attention. Last is that in many countries anyone can pretend to be a psychoanalyst. Lacan famously said “Le psychanalyste ne s'autorise que de lui-même”.
- Gerard0 4y ago
  Surprised to read this quote here! This means nothing/no one can guarantee you being a psychoanalyst. Just like either you can code and be good at it or not. That's all this phrase means. Of course it gets tricky. A programmer can show the result and it either works or it doesn't. An analyst can't show anything, really. Even if the analysand claims his/her life has changed because of an analysis (people also claim Jesus changed them, for example). About the floating attention thing, that's a very strange generalization ("analysts don't pay attention"). It is about treating all the "material" equally (ie without preconceptions).
  - abyssin 4y ago
    A common opinion held in the field of psychoanalysis is that its goal isn’t even to cure people because they claim it isn’t possible. Escaping accountability by saying accountability doesn’t make sense.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
> Why are there so many psychologists practicing psychoanalysis today, then? They aren't uncommon, but CBT, DBT, EMDR, Family Systems, Internal Family Systems, Rational emotive, Humanistic, Mindfulness-based are currently much more in vogue than psycho-analysis/dynamics. Rather than a point-in-time analysis of psychoanalytic vs humanistic approaches, there's a deeper, more interesting story in the history of prevalence between the two. The comment section in a HN discussion won't do the story justice, but to understand the historical picture, I'd recommend reading about how homosexuality was extricated from the DSM and the stories of John Fryer, Ronald Gold, and others. It's the story of the ousting of psychoanalysts from the APA by the humanists and helps set the stage for understanding the landscape of psychology today with respect to psychoanalysis.
462436347 4y ago
> Why are there so many psychologists practicing psychoanalysis today, then? There aren't. Psychology (in the US) abandoned Freud roughly in the 50s and 60s, with the rise of Behaviorism and later Cognitive psychology. These movements tried to make psychology an empirical science, with testable hypotheses subjected to replicable experiments. (Obviously, given the replication crisis, this effort hasn't been completely successful.) Psychiatry (the medical specialization) took much longer, until the 80s, but eventually they dispensed with his nonsense as well. Most talk therapy today entails some form of CBT, REBT, ACT, or something similar, and these have nothing to do with Freud.
- EGreg 4y ago
  I mean, you could also say B F Skinner was a charlatan for behaviorism, and so on. Very reductionist to say that though! And you can say B J Fogg is a more modern charlatan. And Robert Cialdini. But all of them put together very interesting theories!
  - 462436347 4y ago
    > Skinner was a charlatan for behaviorism Being wrong doesn't make you a charlatan. Skinner, to his credit, tried to operate scientifically, by formulating empirically falsifiable hypotheses and testing them. Freud, by contrast, crafted reams of "theory" that his followers were expected to unquestioningly accept as gospel.
    - naniwaduni 4y ago
      Being wrong doesn't make Freud a charlatan either. It makes him a crackpot and a crack, but that's not the same thing.
- bowsamic 4y ago
  This is only true in the US. Even in the UK it isn’t uncommon. In Germany it is very common
bowsamic 4y ago
Because it works

stronglikedan 4y ago

I presume because it has a place, in a nonscientific way. A lot of issues can be merely talked through. For those that can't, the patient can be referred to a psychiatrist, who can further evaluate and identify the issues using scientific methods, and prescribe medicines if necessary (which a psychologist cannot do).

abyssin 4y ago

Many psychologists use psychoanalysis the same way many priests use religious stories to provide guidance. It’s a great source of allegories. It’s also prestigious and lets them charge a lot of money, while practicing “floating attention” ie. letting their mind wander while listening and not actually paying attention. Last is that in many countries anyone can pretend to be a psychoanalyst. Lacan famously said “Le psychanalyste ne s'autorise que de lui-même”.

Gerard0 4y ago
Surprised to read this quote here! This means nothing/no one can guarantee you being a psychoanalyst. Just like either you can code and be good at it or not. That's all this phrase means. Of course it gets tricky. A programmer can show the result and it either works or it doesn't. An analyst can't show anything, really. Even if the analysand claims his/her life has changed because of an analysis (people also claim Jesus changed them, for example). About the floating attention thing, that's a very strange generalization ("analysts don't pay attention"). It is about treating all the "material" equally (ie without preconceptions).
- abyssin 4y ago
  A common opinion held in the field of psychoanalysis is that its goal isn’t even to cure people because they claim it isn’t possible. Escaping accountability by saying accountability doesn’t make sense.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

> Why are there so many psychologists practicing psychoanalysis today, then? They aren't uncommon, but CBT, DBT, EMDR, Family Systems, Internal Family Systems, Rational emotive, Humanistic, Mindfulness-based are currently much more in vogue than psycho-analysis/dynamics. Rather than a point-in-time analysis of psychoanalytic vs humanistic approaches, there's a deeper, more interesting story in the history of prevalence between the two. The comment section in a HN discussion won't do the story justice, but to understand the historical picture, I'd recommend reading about how homosexuality was extricated from the DSM and the stories of John Fryer, Ronald Gold, and others. It's the story of the ousting of psychoanalysts from the APA by the humanists and helps set the stage for understanding the landscape of psychology today with respect to psychoanalysis.

462436347 4y ago

> Why are there so many psychologists practicing psychoanalysis today, then? There aren't. Psychology (in the US) abandoned Freud roughly in the 50s and 60s, with the rise of Behaviorism and later Cognitive psychology. These movements tried to make psychology an empirical science, with testable hypotheses subjected to replicable experiments. (Obviously, given the replication crisis, this effort hasn't been completely successful.) Psychiatry (the medical specialization) took much longer, until the 80s, but eventually they dispensed with his nonsense as well. Most talk therapy today entails some form of CBT, REBT, ACT, or something similar, and these have nothing to do with Freud.

EGreg 4y ago
I mean, you could also say B F Skinner was a charlatan for behaviorism, and so on. Very reductionist to say that though! And you can say B J Fogg is a more modern charlatan. And Robert Cialdini. But all of them put together very interesting theories!
- 462436347 4y ago
  > Skinner was a charlatan for behaviorism Being wrong doesn't make you a charlatan. Skinner, to his credit, tried to operate scientifically, by formulating empirically falsifiable hypotheses and testing them. Freud, by contrast, crafted reams of "theory" that his followers were expected to unquestioningly accept as gospel.
  - naniwaduni 4y ago
    Being wrong doesn't make Freud a charlatan either. It makes him a crackpot and a crack, but that's not the same thing.
bowsamic 4y ago
This is only true in the US. Even in the UK it isn’t uncommon. In Germany it is very common

bowsamic 4y ago

Because it works