4 ms·
Fuck Freud. I say this every year, and as a PhD in Psychology and research professor. Freud is not making a resurgence among scientists because Freud didn't con
by SubiculumCode 3y ago
Fuck Freud.
I say this every year, and as a PhD in Psychology and research professor.
Freud is not making a resurgence among scientists because Freud didn't conduct science. He wrote stories that sounded interesting. Literature majors, reporters, etc tend to love Freud. He wrote well, created vivid titillating accounts, but he did not empirically test these accounts. So Fuck Freud. He isn't relevant, and he isn't making a resurgence...not with anyone that knows something about the brain.
And people who give him credit for coming up with the idea that we have inner psychological self/child etc etc etc, just please, the brilliant minds of centuries past deserve more credit than that.
- QuiDortDine 3y agoHere in Canada, you basically can't say "Fuck Freud" if you're a practicing psychotherapist, as there is something in the ethics code about respecting your peers. I can say it as I didn't make it to the PHD, but it's a bit frustrating to realize the field is self-regulating and at least 25% of its members basically don't believe in the power of... evidence. Not unrelated, epistemology classes are not mandatory, despite the field being in the rare position of accepting (or at least tolerating) several vastly different epistemological viewpoints. Kind of like studying homeopathy and epidemiology in the same program.
- andsoitis 3y ago> and at least 25% of its members basically don't believe in the power of... evidence. Why do you say that?
- lelanthran 3y ago>> and at least 25% of its members basically don't believe in the power of... evidence. > Why do you say that? Because saying the actual figure of 99% will make too many people dismiss the statement as hyperbole /s ... In all seriousness, we're talking about psychology/psychotherapy here, not psychiatry. The majority of trials in psychology is characterised by the phrase "non-repeatable", and all the practicing therapies boil down to "this makes a nice narrative". Using people's self-reported feelings of mental health as an indicator of the efficacy of psychotherapy is no different from asking religious people if prayer helps them and using the answers as proof of the existence of god. If therapy makes a difference regardless of whether or not the subject believes it does and we can measure that difference then, sure, that's evidence. Until then all we have is "evidence".
- mrkeen 3y agoTake the other threads here as examples: "so what if it's not falsiable?" Etc.
- chris_va 3y agoI have heard Freud described as someone who asked all the right questions and got all the wrong answers.
- onenukecourse 3y agoStones, replication crisis and glass houses...
- SubiculumCode 3y agoThis is a cheap response. The so called replication "crisis" is multifaceted in cause, the biggest of which is complexity of the brain, and the inherent variability of the brain and behaviors of subjects from person to person, moment to moment. It is a difficult science, but the field is improving. Better methods, larger samples, converging evidence accross levels of description, etc etc, none of which are relevant, btw to my criticisms of Freud, the literary phenom non-scientist.