4 ms·

In 100 years we will look back onto Freudian Psychologie as we are looking back on Alchemy: a movement which was taken far to serious with scientific rigor.

remoquete 3y ago
Oh well. Freudian psychology hasn't been considered scientifically sound for decades now, so I guess you're right. Not sure if you were implying that modern psychology also sustains itself on Freudian theories; that would be so wrong.
- DiscourseFan 3y ago
  No, of course not. Though talk therapy, as a method, is intricately linked with Freud's theories, so anyone employing talk therapy is by definition sustained by his theories. But when people don't read Freud, they can believe whatever they want about him. (And sure, there is psych research which has nothing to do with therapeutic methods, but why is that considered important? That's like a mathematician saying they're a physicist just because physicists use math!)
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  It was never "scientifically sound" for reasons of unfalsifiability. Was it ever a useful tool? Here and there maybe. Has it had a massive infuence on culture and the world? Absolutely. So I was chatting with a clinical psych/therapist recently who said "Since it could only be validated from the _inside_ wouldn't it be hilarious if advances in AI validated Freud?" Like GPT10 comes on and says " I want to kill my father and fuck mum, pass me the cocaine!"
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Was it ever a useful tool? Here and there maybe. What makes you quantify it like that? I'm not sure I could quantify it, but it's certainly been used, directly and indirectly, extraordinarily widely.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      Other than that I lived in Hampstead momentarily, Freud only appears to me as side effects. My psycho-friends, as I call them, are all into Bowlby and Winnicott and whatnot. And I did a study on Bernays in some military work. Wherever you look, there's Freud. No escaping the chap.
kelseyfrog 3y ago
We currently do that; we don't need to wait 100 years. Anyone going through an undergrad psych program comes out the other side with the feeling you described. It's exactly like how people coming out of a csci program has an understanding that "they once programmed on punch cards and it was bad".
SubiculumCode 3y ago
Fuck Freud. He has nothing to do with today's serious psychology research.
- DiscourseFan 3y ago
  Serious! What is more serious than helping people find outlets for their violent and self-destructive fantasies? Or do therapists do something different nowadays...
  - SubiculumCode 3y ago
    psychology does not always mean psychiatry does not always mean therapy. I talk about Psychology as a science. Freud has nothing to do with that.
    - DiscourseFan 3y ago
      What is the point of a "pure" science of Psychology, don't we already have neuroscience, cognitive science, cybernetics...the list goes on. There are so many "pure" empirical disciplines focused on the studied of the mind, but psych is the only one where those findings have to be critically interrogated relative to their usefulness. Otherwise, Psychology is just lagging behind everything else.

remoquete 3y ago

Oh well. Freudian psychology hasn't been considered scientifically sound for decades now, so I guess you're right. Not sure if you were implying that modern psychology also sustains itself on Freudian theories; that would be so wrong.

DiscourseFan 3y ago
No, of course not. Though talk therapy, as a method, is intricately linked with Freud's theories, so anyone employing talk therapy is by definition sustained by his theories. But when people don't read Freud, they can believe whatever they want about him. (And sure, there is psych research which has nothing to do with therapeutic methods, but why is that considered important? That's like a mathematician saying they're a physicist just because physicists use math!)
nonrandomstring 3y ago
It was never "scientifically sound" for reasons of unfalsifiability. Was it ever a useful tool? Here and there maybe. Has it had a massive infuence on culture and the world? Absolutely. So I was chatting with a clinical psych/therapist recently who said "Since it could only be validated from the _inside_ wouldn't it be hilarious if advances in AI validated Freud?" Like GPT10 comes on and says " I want to kill my father and fuck mum, pass me the cocaine!"
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Was it ever a useful tool? Here and there maybe. What makes you quantify it like that? I'm not sure I could quantify it, but it's certainly been used, directly and indirectly, extraordinarily widely.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    Other than that I lived in Hampstead momentarily, Freud only appears to me as side effects. My psycho-friends, as I call them, are all into Bowlby and Winnicott and whatnot. And I did a study on Bernays in some military work. Wherever you look, there's Freud. No escaping the chap.

kelseyfrog 3y ago

We currently do that; we don't need to wait 100 years. Anyone going through an undergrad psych program comes out the other side with the feeling you described. It's exactly like how people coming out of a csci program has an understanding that "they once programmed on punch cards and it was bad".

SubiculumCode 3y ago

Fuck Freud. He has nothing to do with today's serious psychology research.

DiscourseFan 3y ago
Serious! What is more serious than helping people find outlets for their violent and self-destructive fantasies? Or do therapists do something different nowadays...
- SubiculumCode 3y ago
  psychology does not always mean psychiatry does not always mean therapy. I talk about Psychology as a science. Freud has nothing to do with that.
  - DiscourseFan 3y ago
    What is the point of a "pure" science of Psychology, don't we already have neuroscience, cognitive science, cybernetics...the list goes on. There are so many "pure" empirical disciplines focused on the studied of the mind, but psych is the only one where those findings have to be critically interrogated relative to their usefulness. Otherwise, Psychology is just lagging behind everything else.