3 ms·

It might be useful for you to distinguish between the psychoanalytical tradition of psychology (which is not a science) from the more recent field of cognitive

It might be useful for you to distinguish between the psychoanalytical tradition of psychology (which is not a science) from the more recent field of cognitive science. Lacan is nowhere to be found in the OP’s paper, for example, and by conflating the two, you’re throwing out a lot of very robust science. To be a bit more direct (though please be assured that I mean no disrespect): bringing up Lacan in this conversation tells me you don’t know psychological science very well. You’re missing out. :)

p-e-w 3y ago
> bringing up Lacan in this conversation tells me you don’t know psychological science very well Lacan is one of the most famous psychologists of all time. Probably only Freud and Jung would rank above him in that regard. That in itself is a pretty big indictment of the field, since the latter two are not much better. But the problem is not that Lacan was spouting garbage while being a psychologist. The problem is that other psychologists were tolerating that garbage, instead of ostracizing him. That's as if an immunologist who spreads conspiracy theories about vaccines containing microchips somehow continued to be invited to conferences, and have his peers listen to him and discuss and debate his "theories". It's obvious that the field as a whole is incapable of cleanly separating itself from left-wing politics, philosophical intellectualism, and outright nonsense.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Famous doesn't mean current. Don't think anybody is following Lacan, Freud, Jung today. They were earlier pioneers. Just like physicist don't believe in the 'ether' anymore. You are citing current physics and how great it is, but then cite old psychologist as if they are current.
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    They weren't pioneers, they were bullshitters. Their claims had no basis whatsoever. They just made stuff up. That's not comparable to the luminiferous aether, which was actually a reasonable assumption once the wave nature of light was recognized, because most waves need a medium to propagate through. Aether theory is wrong, but it's not nonsensical.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      So when a physicists makes something up as a reasonable assumption, later to be found wrong, that is just good science. But a psychologist makes some assumptions, later to be found wrong, it is complete bullshit, con artists, the entire field is corrupt. Do you see the false dichotomy here? You are so biased you can't even see the problem.
    - omginternets 3y ago
      They're in the humanities. They deal in metaphors and archetypes. What you are somewhat correctly tracking is that psychology underwent a transition from the humanities to the sciences about 60 years ago. Scientific psychology is a completely different animal.
- weberson 3y ago
  The names you provide (Freud, Jung, Lacan) were trained in psychiatry or neurology and represent the psychoanalytical tradition in _psychiatry_. They've never been fundamental to _psychology_. Fundamental to psychology have been e.g. Watson, Skinner, Thorndike.
- omginternets 3y ago
  You are doing the equivalent of citing blood-letters to discredit the field of medicine. Or citing the four elements to discredit the field of physics. Modern cognitive science looks like this: - https://opg.optica.org/abstract.cfm?uri=oam-1987-TUB2 https://opg.optica.org/abstract.cfm?uri=oam-1987-TUB2 - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148504 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001002779290049N https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001002... - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027798000067 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00100... Again, with all due respect, you very clearly do not know what you are talking about. Nobody takes Lacan seriously, even in the lowest tier of politicized social-science (which in turn is not taken terribly seriously by cognitive scientists). If you're actually interested in human perception, cognition and behavior, I am happy to point you in the right direction.
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    You're talking about cognitive science, I am talking about psychology. The two are not the same thing, nor is one a subfield of the other. The papers you have linked are more closely related to neuroscience than to psychology. I'm well aware that neuroscience is a proper scientific discipline; I'm also well aware that psychology is something else entirely. The psychoanalytic tradition, including Freud, is still a part of psych major curricula around the world. Therapists with psychology degrees still practice psychoanalysis, which, while not identical to what was happening 100 years ago, is still strongly influenced by Freud and Jung. Therefore, claims that the field has left its past behind just aren't credible. And I'm not even going to go into psychology's entanglement with postmodern intellectualism and the political left.
    - omginternets 3y ago
      Cognitive science is the term I am using to distinguish from classical psychology. Cognitive science very much is psych. Your argument hinges on out-of-date notions and false distinctions. Again, if you were actually curious about psychology, you’d want to engage with the scientific psychology literature instead of putting on blinders and insisting that the psychoanalytic tradition is the only relevant one. I’m left to conclude that you’re more interested in looking down your nose at a field you don’t respect than actually understanding anything. Let us know if that changes. I’m always happy to point you towards the interesting literature in whatever subfield you’re curious about.

p-e-w 3y ago

> bringing up Lacan in this conversation tells me you don’t know psychological science very well Lacan is one of the most famous psychologists of all time. Probably only Freud and Jung would rank above him in that regard. That in itself is a pretty big indictment of the field, since the latter two are not much better. But the problem is not that Lacan was spouting garbage while being a psychologist. The problem is that other psychologists were tolerating that garbage, instead of ostracizing him. That's as if an immunologist who spreads conspiracy theories about vaccines containing microchips somehow continued to be invited to conferences, and have his peers listen to him and discuss and debate his "theories". It's obvious that the field as a whole is incapable of cleanly separating itself from left-wing politics, philosophical intellectualism, and outright nonsense.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Famous doesn't mean current. Don't think anybody is following Lacan, Freud, Jung today. They were earlier pioneers. Just like physicist don't believe in the 'ether' anymore. You are citing current physics and how great it is, but then cite old psychologist as if they are current.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  They weren't pioneers, they were bullshitters. Their claims had no basis whatsoever. They just made stuff up. That's not comparable to the luminiferous aether, which was actually a reasonable assumption once the wave nature of light was recognized, because most waves need a medium to propagate through. Aether theory is wrong, but it's not nonsensical.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    So when a physicists makes something up as a reasonable assumption, later to be found wrong, that is just good science. But a psychologist makes some assumptions, later to be found wrong, it is complete bullshit, con artists, the entire field is corrupt. Do you see the false dichotomy here? You are so biased you can't even see the problem.
  - omginternets 3y ago
    They're in the humanities. They deal in metaphors and archetypes. What you are somewhat correctly tracking is that psychology underwent a transition from the humanities to the sciences about 60 years ago. Scientific psychology is a completely different animal.
weberson 3y ago
The names you provide (Freud, Jung, Lacan) were trained in psychiatry or neurology and represent the psychoanalytical tradition in _psychiatry_. They've never been fundamental to _psychology_. Fundamental to psychology have been e.g. Watson, Skinner, Thorndike.
omginternets 3y ago
You are doing the equivalent of citing blood-letters to discredit the field of medicine. Or citing the four elements to discredit the field of physics. Modern cognitive science looks like this: - https://opg.optica.org/abstract.cfm?uri=oam-1987-TUB2 https://opg.optica.org/abstract.cfm?uri=oam-1987-TUB2 - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148504 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001002779290049N https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001002... - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027798000067 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00100... Again, with all due respect, you very clearly do not know what you are talking about. Nobody takes Lacan seriously, even in the lowest tier of politicized social-science (which in turn is not taken terribly seriously by cognitive scientists). If you're actually interested in human perception, cognition and behavior, I am happy to point you in the right direction.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  You're talking about cognitive science, I am talking about psychology. The two are not the same thing, nor is one a subfield of the other. The papers you have linked are more closely related to neuroscience than to psychology. I'm well aware that neuroscience is a proper scientific discipline; I'm also well aware that psychology is something else entirely. The psychoanalytic tradition, including Freud, is still a part of psych major curricula around the world. Therapists with psychology degrees still practice psychoanalysis, which, while not identical to what was happening 100 years ago, is still strongly influenced by Freud and Jung. Therefore, claims that the field has left its past behind just aren't credible. And I'm not even going to go into psychology's entanglement with postmodern intellectualism and the political left.
  - omginternets 3y ago
    Cognitive science is the term I am using to distinguish from classical psychology. Cognitive science very much is psych. Your argument hinges on out-of-date notions and false distinctions. Again, if you were actually curious about psychology, you’d want to engage with the scientific psychology literature instead of putting on blinders and insisting that the psychoanalytic tradition is the only relevant one. I’m left to conclude that you’re more interested in looking down your nose at a field you don’t respect than actually understanding anything. Let us know if that changes. I’m always happy to point you towards the interesting literature in whatever subfield you’re curious about.