3 ms·

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 psy

• 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.