NationStates Jolt Archive

I think Freud's theories are bunk. And so is anything that is based on them.

Comments please.

I think you are bitter out of a desire to have sex with your parents.

yeah, who would have penis envy when they've got a clitoris?

I think your parents are bitter out of a desire to have sex without you always barging in unannounced looking for your housekeys.

I don't know very many specifics about him.

However, I do know that I think he puts to much emphasis on the subconscious and symbolism.

Even he made the statement "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

I would like to inform him that a cigar is always a cigar unless your CONSCIOUS gives some other meaning to it. (or you load it with something else)

But what do I know?

C'mon people.

Some defend Freud. Or is he, as I suspect, just a quack who peddled nonsense.

Sometimes a cigar is also a burning brown stinky turd hanging from your lips. ;)

I think Freud's theories are bunk. And so is anything that is based on them.

Comments please.
you're about 50 years behind the times :).

yeah, who would have penis envy when they've got a clitoris?
seriously...who wants a shotgun when you've got a semi-automatic?

C'mon people.

Some defend Freud. Or is he, as I suspect, just a quack who peddled nonsense.

All psychiatrists are nonsense peddlers. But as they dole out heaping helpings of bullshit as the years go by, one occasionally stumbles upon a corn kernel of truth. Freud had quite a few kernels in his bullshit. But that was still a lot of bullshit.

seriously...who wants a shotgun when you've got a semi-automatic?

When you are duck hunting I would imagine.

Or as Freud's own teachings or George Carlin would say "a big brown dick"

C'mon people.

Some defend Freud. Or is he, as I suspect, just a quack who peddled nonsense.

Well, it's all theoretical anyway, DeaconDave. I suspect Freud may have been, in a limited way, correct in some of his observations, but Freud had his own psychosexual baggage that he failed to take into account. Personally, I think there's more of interest to the things that Carl Jung wrote about, but we're not talking about Jung.

So...I'm tempted to say more of a quack, but the important thing to remember is that he didn't consider HIMSELF to be a quack.

All psychiatrists are nonsense peddlers. But as they dole out heaping helpings of bullshit as the years go by, one occasionally stumbles upon a corn kernel of truth. Freud had quite a few kernels in his bullshit. But that was still a lot of bullshit.

It is the psychiatrists that believe that the human brain is wired any differently from animal brain that are quacks. Psychologists like Skinner and Pavlov have contributed a great deal. Even psychiatrists like Jung were productive.

Or as Freud's own teachings or George Carlin would say "a big brown dick"

Indeed he did. Yay Carlin. :D

It is the psychiatrists that believe that the human brain is wired any differently from animal brain that are quacks. Psychologists like Skinner and Pavlov have contributed a great deal. Even psychiatrists like Jung were productive.

You see that mirror my thoughts.

The ones that do experiments like pavlov come up with uselful stuff. Science in other words.

Freud just seemed to pull all this stuff from his ass. At best it is anecdotal, at worst utter dog-poo.

You know, no-one wants to defend freud, but there are a million other threads you read that bang on about repression etc?

Why is that.

I think Freud's theories are bunk. And so is anything that is based on them.

Comments please.
Psychopharmocology is the real deal.

Soma anyone?

I don't really believe a whole lot in Freud, but many of my ideas, particularly metaphysical ones, are influenced heavily by Jung and Reich, who learned from Freud.

You mean sometimes a cigar is not just a cigar???????

You mean sometimes a cigar is not just a cigar???????

Dunno, ask Monica Lewinsky.

I think Freaud did a lot to popularize psychology. Otherwise...drivel.

Me, I'm a cognitive-behaviorist.

I think Freaud did a lot to popularize psychology. Otherwise...drivel.

Me, I'm a cognitive-behaviorist.

The only reason we behave like we do is through the way our brain recieves and translates input. Only way to change that is through massive flooding of positive or negative input.

The only reason we behave like we do is through the way our brain recieves and translates input. Only way to change that is through massive flooding of positive or negative input.


Ah but isn't the bulk of "brain structure" developed before puberty. And therefore in some respects can never be changed, no matter what the input.

I believe in free will, myself.

I believe in free will, myself.

That one is still on the table though isn't it. I mean the whole free will argument could go either way at this point.

I think Freud's theories are bunk. And so is anything that is based on them.

Comments please.
Well, yes. Psychology has come a long way since then. What's your point?

I believe in free will. And if I'm wrong, it's not my fault, is it?

I also have clitoris envy.

Some of what Freud said was true, other stuff was a bit (or a lot) dodgy.

Well, yes. Psychology has come a long way since then. What's your point?

Because people still refer to freud, or the freudian way of looking at things, all the time.

People still perform literary analysis from a freudian perspective. Didn't Deridda also draw on Freud's work. So I think it is a little more pervasive than just psychology having moved on.

I also have clitoris envy.
I could use a lot more clitoris myself.

Aristotle was a moron as well, right? I mean, we know so much now about how his atomic theory was totally inadequate. No one should regard Aristotle as anything but a redneck dipshit. Right? ;)

I could use a lot more clitoris myself.

"/me has a six inch clitoris"

- you in a lesbien chat-room. ;)

Because people still refer to freud, or the freudian way of looking at things, all the time.

People still perform literary analysis from a freudian perspective. Didn't Deridda also draw on Freud's work. So I think it is a little more pervasive than just psychology having moved on.
Yes, but people do a lot of stupid things and don't even know why. It doesn't matter if Freud was right or wrong, or where he was right or wrong, because people don't understand the theories anyway.

Nevertheless, it's important at least that people know there's more about them than meets the eye.

EDIT: What I mean is, don't take people too seriously. Except for the ones in this forum, of course :)

"/me has a six inch clitoris"

- you in a lesbien chat-room. ;)
Actually, I prefer my clitorises (?) in smaller form. Just more of them.

The only reason we behave like we do is through the way our brain recieves and translates input. Only way to change that is through massive flooding of positive or negative input.
You ignore psychopharmacology.

NEWSFLASH:

Copernicus was WRONG! Planets make ELLIPTICAL orbits!

Reenstate the ANETHEMA on that HERETIC!

You mean sometimes a cigar is not just a cigar???????

Or if you're a computer game fan (such as Final Fantasy), we should remember that sometimes a 14-foot-long sword is just a 14-foot-long sword.

Freud's theories aren't by any means current, but they were an important step along the way. Calling Freud bunk is like calling medieval medicine bunk-- you're right, but who cares? You have to respect the steps in the evolution of ideas.

Aristotle was a moron as well, right? I mean, we know so much now about how his atomic theory was totally inadequate. No one should regard Aristotle as anything but a redneck dipshit. Right? ;)

Good point. And your previous one was good as well. "I believe in free will, and if I'm wrong its not my fault." ...If you don't mind, I'm gonna steal that line for future use.

You ignore psychopharmacology.
Also strokes, brain injuries and some diseases affect not only behavior, but things like taste (in music, food, etc.) and talent.

Is that a 14-foot-long sword in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me? :)

Good point. And your previous one was good as well. "I believe in free will, and if I'm wrong its not my fault." ...If you don't mind, I'm gonna steal that line for future use.

Do I have any choice? :(

NEWSFLASH:

Copernicus was WRONG! Planets make ELLIPTICAL orbits!

Reenstate the ANETHEMA on that HERETIC!

People don't use aristotilean physics in their arguments anymore. Nor do people dispute orbital mechanics by citing to copernicus.

People do make value and literary judgments and support them by citing to freudian imagery. There is a difference.

Also aristotilean logic is still a valid reasoning method. the same cannot be said for freud.

Freud's theories aren't by any means current, but they were an important step along the way. Calling Freud bunk is like calling medieval medicine bunk-- you're right, but who cares? You have to respect the steps in the evolution of ideas.
yes indeed. We'd laugh at Freud in my psych lectures. I can't remember the context... but we did. :p

yes indeed. We'd laugh at Freud in my psych lectures. I can't remember the context... but we did. :p

Was it his "blooper reel"?

I believe in free will, myself.
What is "free will"? Is free will is the ability to choose options within a universe of 'known' options. The more limited that universe the more limited the options.

Emotional overwhelm precludes rational thought or creates a prejudicial basis for the stream of thought that passes for free will decisions. Psychopharmacological interventions can completely alter both the landscape of the known universe of options and the ability to respond to them.

I think Freud's theories are bunk. And so is anything that is based on them.

Comments please. It is as valid a relegion as any other. Christianity is bunk too.

It is as valid a relegion as any other. Christianity is bunk too.

What ?????

It is as valid a relegion as any other. Christianity is bunk too.

Way to try and turn an intellectual discussion into a flame war... Thanks :rolleyes:

Well, Freud makes a lot of sense about many things, like for example in how life traumas could translate in phobias, personality disorders, etc. Obviously not everything is 100% true, but nobody can tell me that Darwin was 100% right, or Newton, Einstein, Lobatchevsky, Gauss, Any of the Bernoullis, Hawking, Jung, Pablov,Fromm,Frankl, etc. or whoever that has contributed for things that are merely theories, and not really 100% proven facts. The fact that all of them have contributed with such great, allthough not completely true, theories is what has made our kind to advance. Psychoanalysis can mix a lot of authors currents, and everything has worked anyway. I bet that most of the ones that say that what Freud said is a load of hockey don't really know much about him or psychology.

Also strokes, brain injuries and some diseases affect not only behavior, but things like taste (in music, food, etc.) and talent.
Thank you for furthering my point that the mind is a function of a physical structure, the brain.

What is "free will"? Is free will is the ability to choose options within a universe of 'known' options. The more limited that universe the more limited the options.

Emotional overwhelm precludes rational thought or creates a prejudicial basis for the stream of thought that passes for free will decisions. Psychopharmacological interventions can completely alter both the landscape of the known universe of options and the ability to respond to them.

So if I shot your parents, you wouldn't hate me at all? How can you, since I didn't really choose to do so?

It is as valid a relegion as any other. Christianity is bunk too.

It's a religion? I don't remember seeing shrines to Freud anywhere.

Thank you for furthering my point that the mind is a function of a physical structure, the brain.
That was my objective, to provide a few other examples of behavioral change that does not involve conditioning.

Look at Françoise Dolto's "L'Evangile au risque de la psychanalyse" or many writings by Matte Blanco on psychoanalysis and religion. For jewish people i can suggest Kaplan's studies on Freud's theories and jewish tradition.
May you have some good reading.

Do I have any choice? :(

Well, I dunno. That's kinda the point isn't it? ;)

You ignore psychopharmacology.

You are correct that psychopharmacology can change behavior. However, I am unaware that it can provide a permanent change to behavior. Also, a great deal of of behavior modifying drugs are simply a chemical flooding of positive inputs.

Originally Posted by DeaconDave
I think Freud's theories are bunk.
And so is anything that is based on them.
Comments please.

Well yes , but what more can you expect from a man who took cocaine and had a ' morbid fear ' of ferns ?

Well yes , but what more can you expect from a man who took cocaine and had a ' morbid fear ' of ferns ?

He was afraid of ferns?

People don't use aristotilean physics in their arguments anymore. Nor do people dispute orbital mechanics by citing to copernicus.

People do make value and literary judgments and support them by citing to freudian imagery. There is a difference.

Ah, but Freudian theory isn't a science, instead it is a mythopoetic way of understanding the world: which is a more useful explanation and exploration of Hamlet - one which is based on atomic structure or one which is based on Freudian theory?

You are correct that psychopharmacology can change behavior. However, I am unaware that it can provide a permanent change to behavior.

You obviously haven't met the same amount of people who have had their latent schizophrenic tendencies brought to the surface due to drug misuse as I have...

Ah, but Freudian theory isn't a science, instead it is a mythopoetic way of understanding the world: which is a more useful explanation and exploration of Hamlet - one which is based on atomic structure or one which is based on Freudian theory?

Neither, they both would miss the point.

And if Freudian theory is now a mythopoetical way of understanding the world instead of science then someone should point that out.

I take it you also accept religion as a valid way of understanding the world too.

I take it you also accept religion as a valid way of understanding the world too.

I view some of the narratives of religion as a valid way of understanding the world, yes. It matters little whether there was an actual Jesus who said and did certain things: instead the narrative of his life is a valid way of understanding the world as it provides us with an example of a potent meme which has survived for over 2000 years and draws from sources which pre-date that. As such it tells us much about what it is to be human.

Your point being?

He was afraid of ferns?

Who isn't? :(

*shudders* ...ferns... *shudders*

Neither, they both would miss the point.


Explain to me the point of Hamlet, would you?

Explain to me the point of Hamlet, would you?

1) an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind; or

2) don't trust ghosts, they don't give a shit what happens to you as long as they get their way; or

3) despite what Mel Brooks says, it's not always so good to be da king.

Well, Freud makes a lot of sense about many things, like for example in how life traumas could translate in phobias, personality disorders, etc. Obviously not everything is 100% true, but nobody can tell me that Darwin was 100% right, or Newton, Einstein, Lobatchevsky, Gauss, Any of the Bernoullis, Hawking, Jung, Pablov,Fromm,Frankl, etc. or whoever that has contributed for things that are merely theories, and not really 100% proven facts. The fact that all of them have contributed with such great, allthough not completely true, theories is what has made our kind to advance. Psychoanalysis can mix a lot of authors currents, and everything has worked anyway. I bet that most of the ones that say that what Freud said is a load of hockey don't really know much about him or psychology.


Best point in the whole thread, but it seems like nobody noticed it. Bumpy.

1) an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind; or

2) don't trust ghosts, they don't give a shit what happens to you as long as they get their way; or

3) despite what Mel Brooks says, it's not always so good to be da king.

...which just goes to show there are a multiplicity of points in something as simple as a two-hour play, never mind the world as a whole: thus it appears that there a manifold amount of different valid ways of comprehending it. No evidence has been put forward to show that Freudian analysis is inapplicable, just the blank assertion by DeaconDave.

...which just goes to show there are a multiplicity of points in something as simple as a two-hour play, never mind the world as a whole: thus it appears that there a manifold amount of different valid ways of comprehending it. No evidence has been put forward to show that Freudian analysis is inapplicable, just the blank assertion by DeaconDave.

4) For a woman, a lesbian relationship (symbolized by the cup) can be just as venomously dangerous as a hetero one (the sword).

I view some of the narratives of religion as a valid way of understanding the world, yes. It matters little whether there was an actual Jesus who said and did certain things: instead the narrative of his life is a valid way of understanding the world as it provides us with an example of a potent meme which has survived for over 2000 years and draws from sources which pre-date that. As such it tells us much about what it is to be human.

Your point being?

So, freud's theories are just narratives too.

My point is that if Freud's theories are a valid way of interpreting everything, so are religions. I'm not a literature person, but this is all starting to sound like Derrida.

Freud's viewpoint is just an anecdotal viewpoint of how the mind works. It has no more bearing on hamlet than the epic of gilgamesh or the book of job.
Or do you maintain that the book of hamlet cannot be understood without freud.

Odeipus Rex was a fine work long before freud was born you know.

The way I see it, Freud is like Lamarck (proposed an alternate theory of evolution to Darwin). He identified a few problems, but his approach to the solutions was completely wrong. Freud, like Lamarck should be a footnote.

By that standard so should Aristotle and Copernicus. Like them, Frued represented a watershed in thought.

By that standard so should Aristotle and Copernicus. Like them, Frued represented a watershed in thought.

What watershed.

Freud didn't "invent" pyschology. He made up a few theories. All of which were wrong, and his whole methodology was flawed and can't be built upon.

Edit: And the difference is with copernicus, not that his final theory was "correct" and not that heliocentrism was even his theory, but that he finally showed through repeated scientific observation that the earth goes round the sun.

What watershed.

Freud didn't "invent" pyschology. He made up a few theories. All of which were wrong, and his whole methodology was flawed and can't be built upon.

Edit: And the difference is with copernicus, not that his final theory was "correct" and not that heliocentrism was even his theory, but that he finally showed through repeated scientific observation that the earth goes round the sun.

IN A CIRCLE. Flawed. Unable to be built upon, until Kepler fixed it.

And Frued made repreated scientific examinations too. Like Copernicus', they resulted in errors. But they were also, like Copernicus' critical to future advancement. Without Frued there would not have been Jung.

Gotta prob wiph Jung?

IN A CIRCLE. Flawed. Unable to be built upon, until Kepler fixed it.

And Frued made repreated scientific examinations too. Like Copernicus', they resulted in errors. But they were also, like Copernicus' critical to future advancement. Without Frued there would not have been Jung.

Gotta prob wiph Jung?

Copernicus did not attempt to fix orbital mechanics, he never had the technology to make the observations. He set out to demonstrate heloicentrism that and he did. Kepler used the observations of Tycho Brahe to come up with a set of laws that accuratley described obseved planetary motion. (And kepler's laws don't competely hold either). They did not lock astronomy into a in flawed paradigm however.

Also the difference between Copernicus and freud's observations were one set were repeatable one was not, making one science the other just interesting stories.

Copernicus did not attempt to fix orbital mechanics, he never had the technology to make the observations. He set out to demonstrate heloicentrism that and he did. Kepler used the observations of Tycho Brahe to come up with a set of laws that accuratley described obseved planetary motion. (And kepler's laws don't competely hold either). They did not lock astronomy into a in flawed paradigm however.

Also the difference between Copernicus and freud's observations were one set were repeatable one was not, making one science the other just interesting stories.

Oh the observations were all repeatable. Only the conclusions were wrong, for both of them. And are you telling me that pshychotherapy is locked into a flawed paradigm today? And yes, as you mentioned before, Frued did not invent psychology (btw who did?), any more than Copernicus invented astronomy. Both, however, were pivotal figures, just as both were wrong.

BTW just what have you got against Frued?

Do you disbelieve in the seperation of the mind into conscious, subconscious, and unconscious? Do you disagree with the idea that formative experiences determine future psychopathology? Do you believe that there is no ego, id or superego?

Or are you just saying that a cigar is just a cigar more often than Frued would have said it is?

Even he made the statement "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

If you had bothered to read anything about him, you would know he made this statement as a joke just to get people to stop pestering him about his own teachings in relation to him enjoying a cigar once in a while.

BTW just what have you got against Frued?

Well, Freud looks like "fraud", which is suspicious.

Gotta prob wiph Jung?

Given his rather metaphysical bent, they probably do. I happen to think that the collective unconscious is the perfect answer to a philosophical problem I was considering.

BTW just what have you got against Frued?

Do you disbelieve in the seperation of the mind into conscious, subconscious, and unconscious? Do you disagree with the idea that formative experiences determine future psychopathology? Do you believe that there is no ego, id or superego?

Or are you just saying that a cigar is just a cigar more often than Frued would have said it is?

Yes I disagree that formative experiences determine future psypchopathology. I hold with a neuro-chemical model. i.e, psychopathology is a result of a physical malfunction of the brain. Hence the far greater success treating these pathologies with drugs than counselling.

Also I don't now how consciousness works, and nor does anyone else, so any division into conscious, subconscious and unconsious is specious.

As I said before, if anything freud should be viewed as another Lamarck, someone who contributed to a field, but whose contribution was fundamentally flawed and in the wrong direction.

Also I take issue with the idea that Freud produced repeatable observations. He did not. At least not in a scientific sense.

Yes I disagree that formative experiences determine future psypchopathology. I hold with a neuro-chemical model. i.e, psychopathology is a result of a physical malfunction of the brain. Hence the far greater success treating these pathologies with drugs than counselling.

Also I don't now how consciousness works, and nor does anyone else, so any division into conscious, subconscious and unconsious is specious.

As I said before, if anything freud should be viewed as another Lamarck, someone who contributed to a field, but whose contribution was fundamentally flawed and in the wrong direction.

Also I take issue with the idea that Freud produced repeatable observations. He did not. At least not in a scientific sense.

So the basis of your rejection of Freud is that you subscribe to a conflicting theory of neuropathology? Damn I thought you had some sort of proof! :(

Personally I don't see why traumatic causation and neurochemical causation are contradictory. Why would there be only one basis for all forms of mental disease?

So the basis of your rejection of Freud is that you subscribe to a conflicting theory of neuropathology? Damn I thought you had some sort of proof! :(

Personally I don't see why traumatic causation and neurochemical causation are contradictory. Why would there be only one basis for all forms of mental disease?

Oh thats easy. Because not all psychic "trauma" results in neuropathology, and not all neuropathology is caused by by psychic "trauma". But all pyscho- pathology results from neuropathology.

Therefore psychic trauma and pyschopathology are unrelated, although sometimes co-incidental. Which is why someone could survive the holocaust and live a normal psychopathology free life. (Albeit bitter about the experience),

And freuds pscho-sexual imagery is all the more bunk. :)

Well, Freud looks like "fraud", which is suspicious.


..but, then, as I'm sure you know, it also means 'joy' in German.

..but, then, as I'm sure you know, it also means 'joy' in German.

Yes, and I'm sure you will read something potty-mouthed into it with your twisted "Fraudian" interpretations. :)

(j/k)

..but, then, as I'm sure you know, it also means 'joy' in German.

yes, but we all know the germans are tricky bastards

Freud didn't "invent" pyschology.


No, what he did that was of great importance was to identify the enormous role that subconscious motivation had throughout our everyday life. True, Nietzsche had skirted around this topic numerous times, but nearly always of a cursory nature which failed to state the every present nature of such subconscious drives: for him they were something which came out only in extremis. That was the part of the watershed that was Freudian thought.

He made up a few theories. All of which were wrong, and his whole methodology was flawed and can't be built upon.


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it was Freud that came up with the theory that in order to enjoy the benefits of society we must repress any animalistic impulses to rape, murder and destroy that we possess, and such repression leads to a creation of inner conflict and a psychopathological state within us, yes? Explain to me why this is wrong, would you?

C'mon people.

Some defend Freud. Or is he, as I suspect, just a quack who peddled nonsense.

Uh, no one defends Freud, his theories were debunked quite some time ago. The model by which he worked and his approach to therapy are what he is known for. His theories are history.

So, freud's theories are just narratives too.

Yes.

My point is that if Freud's theories are a valid way of interpreting everything, so are religions. I'm not a literature person, but this is all starting to sound like Derrida.

Where was it established that religions were invlaid ways of interpreting everything? - I appear to have missed that conclusive memo somewhere along the line...

As far as Derrida goes, his main concerns are to problematise and complicate what we believe to be simple narratives, and so to disrupt their structures - a very crude reading, but sufficient to show that he is working from a position almost contrary to Freud. Where Freud provides us with a range of narratives with which to comprehend the world, Derrida's main task is to destroy the whole idea of 'simple' narratives/grand narratives.

..but, then, as I'm sure you know, it also means 'joy' in German.

...but, then, I'm sure you know, 'joy' also means 'gay' in English, and we all know what the the other meaning of 'gay' is and what he was really doing on some level with that cigar ;)

hehe

No, what he did that was of great importance was to identify the enormous role that subconscious motivation had throughout our everyday life. True, Nietzsche had skirted around this topic numerous times, but nearly always of a cursory nature which failed to state the every present nature of such subconscious drives: for him they were something which came out only in extremis. That was the part of the watershed that was Freudian thought.

As I said, as no-one even understands conciousness, these distinctions are arbitrary and without justification. What are these "subconscious" drives. Why do some people have them in a given situation and some do not. I argue than they are nothing more than freud imposing a myth upon a misunderstood phenomemnon, and the real truth is wholly different. You would not argue the validity of the celestial spheres and freud's interpretation falls into that catagory.


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it was Freud that came up with the theory that in order to enjoy the benefits of society we must repress any animalistic impulses to rape, murder and destroy that we possess, and such repression leads to a creation of inner conflict and a psychopathological state within us, yes? Explain to me why this is wrong, would you?

Didn't Diogenes say something similar. I can't remember, but Freud was not the first to posit that we have to restrain, or supress, natural urges to benefit from societ. Didn't locke believe the same thing essentially.

As to the creation of a psychopathological state, well see my point above that psychic "trauma" is not related to psychopathology, rather pychopathology has it roots in the physical/chemical structure of the brain.

Also from that description, everyone would suffer from psychopathology and thus freud's theory becomes untestable, and therefore invalid.

Yes, and I'm sure you will read something potty-mouthed into it with your twisted "Fraudian" interpretations. :)

(j/k)

Well, to be honest, Freude is actually the German word for joy, but it is close enough to be interesting... especially when we consider that Jung translates as 'young'...

We're all pathetic morons anyway. We know nothing that matters, so nyah.

Anyways, I'd just like to point out that failure is just as valuable in scientific experimentation as success, if not more so. It all adds data which must be considered.

Yes I disagree that formative experiences determine future psypchopathology. I hold with a neuro-chemical model. i.e, psychopathology is a result of a physical malfunction of the brain. Hence the far greater success treating these pathologies with drugs than counselling.

I hope you don't practice in any psychological field with theories like this. You are aware that the two are not mutually exclusive, aren't you? Hence why both treatments work. Drugs mask symptoms, they do not cure them. Therapy cures symptoms, but does not mask them. Depending on the problem, either could be effective or ineffective. Try counselling a schizophrenic, or prescribing something for a phobia. You'll meet with comparable failures.

Also I don't now how consciousness works, and nor does anyone else, so any division into conscious, subconscious and unconsious is specious.

As I said before, if anything freud should be viewed as another Lamarck, someone who contributed to a field, but whose contribution was fundamentally flawed and in the wrong direction.

Give the guy a break, he was making observations and theories during the field's infancy. He didn't exactly have much to go off of.

Originally Posted by DeaconDave
He made up a few theories. All of which were wrong, and his whole methodology was flawed and can't be built upon.

Actually, people built upon them for decades, besides deriving inspiration from Freud's work. This is why he was so respected. The field may have been refined since, but your claims are quite exaggerated.

Yes.


Well if you look at them as just narratives, then that's ok. But it doesn't make them "right" or useful. As long as you accept that my narratives are just as valid as Freud's, and then what's the point in the first place.


Where was it established that religions were invlaid ways of interpreting everything? - I appear to have missed that conclusive memo somewhere along the line...

About the time that people seperated church and state I suppose. :)

More practically, that leads to relativism. No one viewpoint is more correct that any other, and no one viewpoint is any more useful. Well that's not right though is it, some viewpoints are more useful. That's why creationism shouldn't be taught in biology class. It's not a useful way of interpreting biology.

As far as Derrida goes, his main concerns are to problematise and complicate what we believe to be simple narratives, and so to disrupt their structures - a very crude reading, but sufficient to show that he is working from a position almost contrary to Freud. Where Freud provides us with a range of narratives with which to comprehend the world, Derrida's main task is to destroy the whole idea of 'simple' narratives/grand narratives.

Okay. I though I read something else about him in one of the articles around the time of his death. Like I said I'm not a literature person.

Though now you mention it, is structure position sounds like Legal Critical studies. I have big problems with that too, but I guess I'll have to read up on Derrida before I post I debunk Derrida and legal critical studies thread to make sure that there is a connection.

As I said, as no-one even understands conciousness, these distinctions are arbitrary and without justification.

Yes, but Freud provides the first tentative framework of internal mental structuring as a way of attempting to understand why not all our motivations are immediately apparent to us.

What are these "subconscious" drives. Why do some people have them in a given situation and some do not.

If you had read your Freud you would know the answers here. Even if you disagree vehemently with Freud's actual theories he remains a fascinating and entertaining writer purely on the basis of the style with which he presents his ideas.

I argue than they are nothing more than freud imposing a myth upon a misunderstood phenomemnon, and the real truth is wholly different. You would not argue the validity of the celestial spheres and freud's interpretation falls into that catagory.

Notice the switch you have now made from claiming earlier that Freud's theories were invalid, to claiming that they are untrue...

What is a true interpretation of Hamlet?
What is a valid interpretation of Hamlet?

I never claimed anywhere that they were true - indeed I identified that I considered them to be mythopoetic in nature when I entered this discussion.




Didn't Diogenes say something similar. I can't remember, but Freud was not the first to posit that we have to restrain, or supress, natural urges to benefit from societ. Didn't locke believe the same thing essentially.

Hobbes certainly drew a similar picture, but without the return of the animal drives as psychopathologicl behaviour.

Give the guy a break, he was making observations and theories during the field's infancy. He didn't exactly have much to go off of.

Using the scientific method wouldn't hurt though.

Aristotle was a moron as well, right? I mean, we know so much now about how his atomic theory was totally inadequate. No one should regard Aristotle as anything but a redneck dipshit. Right? ;)
yeah, i mean, he thought the earth was the centre of the universe, everything was made of earth, wind, fire and water and that fossils were fish that swam through rocks instead of water.

I hope you don't practice in any psychological field with theories like this. You are aware that the two are not mutually exclusive, aren't you? Hence why both treatments work. Drugs mask symptoms, they do not cure them. Therapy cures symptoms, but does not mask them. Depending on the problem, either could be effective or ineffective. Try counselling a schizophrenic, or prescribing something for a phobia. You'll meet with comparable failures.


As far as I know, there are no cures for schizophrenia. Only drugs to mask the symptoms.

And there are drugs for phobia's.

Using the scientific method wouldn't hurt though.

That must have slipped by his IRB. :rolleyes:

Freud was a therapist who made theories based on his observations. He was not a researcher who did therapy based on his research. Where the emphasis is placed is important here.

As far as I know, there are no cures for schizophrenia. Only drugs to mask the symptoms.

And there are drugs for phobia's.

Go back and read what I said. Drugs cure nothing, they mask symptoms (such as those of schizophrenia - I know, I work with them daily). Therapy cures things like phobias, but not schizophrenia, which is considered a chemical imbalance (phobias are not). Drugs are prescribed for phobias, but usually just in extreme cases. It's better to resolve them with therapy, because drugs only mask symptoms.

Well if you look at them as just narratives, then that's ok. But it doesn't make them "right" or useful. As long as you accept that my narratives are just as valid as Freud's, and then what's the point in the first place.

I can readily accept that your narratives, whatever they may be, could be as valid as Freud's, but are they as productive or as interesting?



That's why creationism shouldn't be taught in biology class. It's not a useful way of interpreting biology.

And Biology shouldn't be taught in Religious Education/Divinity. it's not a useful way of interpreting religious thought. (Although it is fine to speculate within Religious Education if there is a biologically hardwired tendency in the human animal to interprete the world in a religious manner, but that is a separate matter...)




Though now you mention it, is structure position sounds like Legal Critical studies.

Exactly what you mean be Legal Critical studies I don't know, but we see here when we look at the field of jurisprudence the return of the same questions we refered to earlier with regard to Hamlet - should we try and understand Shakespeare's plays on the basis of modern physics or on the basis of Freudian analysis or some other interpretative framework? In law there is the general assumption of culpable human agents that are responsible for their actions, and there is little interest in describing the world at a molecular or galactical scale, instead the human being is seen as something akin to the smallest unit that the law can understand (forensic evidence aside). Should jurisprudence operate on the basis of a theory which views the cosmos as an 11-dimensional set of superstrings which are somehow folded in on themselves, or should it focus upon apportioning praise and blame to conveniently drawn discrete units with free will and an assumed inner moral sense?

yeah, i mean, he thought the earth was the centre of the universe, everything was made of earth, wind, fire and water and that fossils were fish that swam through rocks instead of water.

You left out the fifth Aristotelian element - the ether, from which the stars and the divine were primarily comprised.

Yes, but Freud provides the first tentative framework of internal mental structuring as a way of attempting to understand why not all our motivations are immediately apparent to us.

What if that's all cobblers though. What it there is no mental structuring? What if we are not even really "conscious".



If you had read your Freud you would know the answers here. Even if you disagree vehemently with Freud's actual theories he remains a fascinating and entertaining writer purely on the basis of the style with which he presents his ideas.

Hmm, I was looking at it from the larger point that these things are presently inexplicable. And the way freud points doesn't seem to lead to answers, so why rely on him


Notice the switch you have now made from claiming earlier that Freud's theories were invalid, to claiming that they are untrue...

okay I was being imprecise, or whatever, freud !=true.

What is a true interpretation of Hamlet?
What is a valid interpretation of Hamlet?

[QUOTE=Bodies Without Organs]I never claimed anywhere that they were true - indeed I identified that I considered them to be mythopoetic in nature when I entered this discussion.[QUOTE]

Well as I said, fair enough, but then what's the point.

My larger issue with freud in this sense is why him. Why not Hitler's weltanschaung. They are both wrong. Doesn't it make more sense then to interpret a text within it's own corners and not import other narratives wholesale to explain it.

You left out the fifth Aristotelian element - the ether, from which the stars and the divine were primarily comprised.


Shhh, that one is secret.

Exactly what you mean be Legal Critical studies I don't know, but we see here when we look at the field of jurisprudence the return of the same questions we refered to earlier with regard to Hamlet - should we try and understand Shakespeare's plays on the basis of modern physics or on the basis of Freudian analysis or some other interpretative framework? In law there is the general assumption of culpable human agents that are responsible for their actions, and there is little interest in describing the world at a molecular or galactical scale, instead the human being is seen as something akin to the smallest unit that the law can understand (forensic evidence aside). Should jurisprudence operate on the basis of a theory which views the cosmos as an 11-dimensional set of superstrings which are somehow folded in on themselves, or should it focus upon apportioning praise and blame to conveniently drawn discrete units with free will and an assumed inner moral sense?

It's a school of thought in jurisprudence that nominatively looks to expose the deep structure bias of the law in respect of certain characteristics. Usualy race or gender.

Most theorists, like Dworkin, reject it because it does not further an overall understanding of how the law works.

Personally I hold that the Law is an interpretivist process, and can only be understood from looking at its evolution as a body, i.e. how is changes with use. Not by looking at is as a fixed body that occasionally has modifications. In otherwords it is dynamic, unlike hamlet which is static.

Go back and read what I said. Drugs cure nothing, they mask symptoms (such as those of schizophrenia - I know, I work with them daily). Therapy cures things like phobias, but not schizophrenia, which is considered a chemical imbalance (phobias are not). Drugs are prescribed for phobias, but usually just in extreme cases. It's better to resolve them with therapy, because drugs only mask symptoms.


I thought true phobia's couldn't be cured either. You could only develop coping strategies. What is the etiology of a phobia?

What if that's all cobblers though. What it there is no mental structuring? What if we are not even really "conscious".

It doesn't matter if there is no id/ego/superego internal structure: the question is whether it is enlightening to explore human activity in the light of imagining that there is: the situation is somewhat akin to clean room reverse engineering - it doesn't matter if we end up with a completely different internal architecture when we attempt to reverse engineer a computer algorithim, just so long as it supplies us with the appropriate outputs in response to the data we input to it.

The important fact is that we maintain the illusion of consciousness and of free will, although it may not be the case that we possess either of these attributes.





Hmm, I was looking at it from the larger point that these things are presently inexplicable. And the way freud points doesn't seem to lead to answers, so why rely on him

Few, if any people do still rely purely on Freud: there are myriad schools of thought which take him as their root - he is seen as the father of psychoanalysis, but no the be-all-and-end-all.

I never claimed anywhere that they were true - indeed I identified that I considered them to be mythopoetic in nature when I entered this discussion.

Well as I said, fair enough, but then what's the point.

The point is that the very explicatory narratives that Freud attempts to provide are in themselves as interesting as Hamlet. What does Hamlet actually tell us about the lifestyles of the Danish court in C13th (or whenever)? Very little - but it tells us much about the human condition. The same is true of Freud.

My larger issue with freud in this sense is why him. Why not Hitler's weltanschaung. They are both wrong. Doesn't it make more sense then to interpret a text within it's own corners and not import other narratives wholesale to explain it.

No, because texts are not created out of whole cloth: they fit within traditions and fashions and particular historical condidtions. For example, it is possible to examine The Magnificent Seven in isolation, and we learn something about 1950s American attitudes to heroism and morality, or we could also look at The Seven Samurai in conenction with it, and our understanding of the text is enriched - not only do we learn about the way narratives feed off each other, but we also gain a contrasting perspective on Japanese ideas of morality and heroism - if we want we can then expand backwards and see what earlier narratives informed Kurosawa's work, and so our understanding of the world is enriched further...

You left out the fifth Aristotelian element - the ether, from which the stars and the divine were primarily comprised.
i've read it with ether left out before too recently at that... i thought that maybe i was mistaken when i thought it was 5 and that maybe it was someone who came along after who came up with the ether one...

i guess not.

In otherwords it is dynamic, unlike hamlet which is static.

Tangential: the written text of Hamlet may be static, but in each new production it is dynamic in that it is never performed the same way twice* and each new person involved in presenting it brings their own interpretation of the 'correct' way to stage it.




* which also, even more tangentially, brings us back to Diogenes...

I thought true phobia's couldn't be cured either. You could only develop soping strategies. What is the etiology of a phobia?

One can develop coping strategies, and one can be desensitized to trigger. A psychologist can cultivate a phobia or take it away. Watson's work on Little Albert evidenced this. Of course, for all people you'll meet with varying degrees of success. Biofeedback work also shows this. Conditioning is a major component in theories on phobias and their treatment.

Tangential: the written text of Hamlet may be static, but in each new production it is dynamic in that it is never performed the same way twice* and each new person involved in presenting it brings their own interpretation of the 'correct' way to stage it.




* which also, even more tangentially, brings us back to Diogenes...

Yeah okay, but the text of hamlet is static, the text of the law, if you will, is dynamic over time, not just the way it is staged. What is most meaningful for a study of the law as a whole is studying the changes in its text and how they evolve. Otherwise you just end up as a positivist - (in the legal sense), or worse a realist, and the whole philosophy of law becomes moot.

It doesn't matter if there is no id/ego/superego internal structure: the question is whether it is enlightening to explore human activity in the light of imagining that there is: the situation is somewhat akin to clean room reverse engineering - it doesn't matter if we end up with a completely different internal architecture when we attempt to reverse engineer a computer algorithim, just so long as it supplies us with the appropriate outputs in response to the data we input to it.

The important fact is that we maintain the illusion of consciousness and of free will, although it may not be the case that we possess either of these attributes.







Few, if any people do still rely purely on Freud: there are myriad schools of thought which take him as their root - he is seen as the father of psychoanalysis, but no the be-all-and-end-all.



The point is that the very explicatory narratives that Freud attempts to provide are in themselves as interesting as Hamlet. What does Hamlet actually tell us about the lifestyles of the Danish court in C13th (or whenever)? Very little - but it tells us much about the human condition. The same is true of Freud.



No, because texts are not created out of whole cloth: they fit within traditions and fashions and particular historical condidtions. For example, it is possible to examine The Magnificent Seven in isolation, and we learn something about 1950s American attitudes to heroism and morality, or we could also look at The Seven Samurai in conenction with it, and our understanding of the text is enriched - not only do we learn about the way narratives feed off each other, but we also gain a contrasting perspective on Japanese ideas of morality and heroism - if we want we can then expand backwards and see what earlier narratives informed Kurosawa's work, and so our understanding of the world is enriched further...


Your point about texts being informative outside of the confines of their narratives is well taken. :)

But to return to the freud issue and the notion of the whole id/ego/super ego . Following your analogy of reverse engineering, even when proceeding with such an operation, the internal model that is assumed, must have some hope of returning the desired output. Therefore although it does not need to be identical to the original, it still must be operatively valid.

I contend that freud is not. Therefore while looking at a text from a freudian perspective may be a fun academic exercise, is serves no larger purpose because the conclusions will really illuminate the human condition.

Interpreting a text from an historical standpoint I get. From a freudian one, because freud is wrong, I do not.

From a freudian one, because freud is wrong, I do not.

You see, to be blankly asserting again and again that Freud is 'wrong', without going into detail as to specifically what you mean and why and how.

All psychiatrists are nonsense peddlers. But as they dole out heaping helpings of bullshit as the years go by, one occasionally stumbles upon a corn kernel of truth. Freud had quite a few kernels in his bullshit. But that was still a lot of bullshit.

I think you have Psychiatrists confused with Psychoanalysists. Psychiatrists have discovered many things. For instance the make-up of the brain. Anyone who does not believe in counterconditioning, flooding, systematic desensification and operant conditioning doesn't have scientific back up.
These can be very easily proven in everyday occurences.

I think you have Psychiatrists confused with Psychoanalysists. Psychiatrists have discovered many things. For instance the make-up of the brain. Anyone who does not believe in counterconditioning, flooding, systematic desensification and operant conditioning doesn't have scientific back up.
These can be very easily proven in everyday occurences.

those were all corn kernels. You should've seen the shit they came out of! :eek:

One can develop coping strategies, and one can be desensitized to trigger. A psychologist can cultivate a phobia or take it away. Watson's work on Little Albert evidenced this. Of course, for all people you'll meet with varying degrees of success. Biofeedback work also shows this. Conditioning is a major component in theories on phobias and their treatment.

Nice input. Every watch the Stanford prisoner experiment?

You see, to be blankly asserting again and again that Freud is 'wrong', without going into detail as to specifically what you mean and why and how.

Well it doesn's seem to be seated in reality. And no-one has come forth to defend the current acceptence of his work by the medical profession.

All this division of the mind into a triumverate. And acting on subconscious urges. How can that explain the human condition, when all the evidence is that the human condition is a completely different phenomenom.

And I don't buy his psycho-sexual imagery either. A cigar is just a cigar.

So I question his value as an interprative tool. You mentioned Nietzsche before, should hamlet be interpreted from his perspective? Didn't he talk about the inner conflict in man too? (I've only read Beyond Good and Evil so you'll probably no a lot more about it than me).

But why choose one and not the other?

I think Freud's theories are bunk. And so is anything that is based on them.

Comments please.

I agree. But you should still support yourself.

In my opinion, Freud's biggest mistake was saying that his theories applied to everyone, as all his theories are based upon deep self analysis. Saying they apply to everything is a very egomaniacal thing to say.

Holy shit

What a Freudian thing to say...

All psychiatrists are nonsense peddlers. But as they dole out heaping helpings of bullshit as the years go by, one occasionally stumbles upon a corn kernel of truth. Freud had quite a few kernels in his bullshit. But that was still a lot of bullshit.


DeaconDave, and to all of you who are out there, until you take several psychology classes and fully understand the many, many, many different schools of Psychology that exist, I do not believe you are qualified to debate this topic.

I myself am studying to become a Clinical Psychologist, and some of you are confusing Psychologists with Psychiatrists. Psychiatrists are the people you go to that give you mind-altering medicines and make the big bucks because they can see 4+ patients in an hour. Psychologists are the ones who actually listens to your problems and attempt to resolve them without reverting to potentially harmful medicines that affect the chemical levels of the brain.

I would argue in defence of Freud, but I'm very tired at the moment. Perhaps tomorrow evening, if this thread hasn't died by then. But DeaconDave, you havn't given any evidence showing that his theories are false, so please - provide some instead of posting mindless conjecture. (I did not mean that as an insult, to clarify my intent by the last sentence.)

DeaconDave, and to all of you who are out there, until you take several psychology classes and fully understand the many, many, many different schools of Psychology that exist, I do not believe you are qualified to debate this topic.

I myself am studying to become a Clinical Psychologist, and some of you are confusing Psychologists with Psychiatrists. Psychiatrists are the people you go to that give you mind-altering medicines and make the big bucks because they can see 4+ patients in an hour. Psychologists are the ones who actually listens to your problems and attempt to resolve them without reverting to potentially harmful medicines that affect the chemical levels of the brain.

I would argue in defence of Freud, but I'm very tired at the moment. Perhaps tomorrow evening, if this thread hasn't died by then. But DeaconDave, you havn't given any evidence showing that his theories are false, so please - provide some instead of posting mindless conjecture. (I did not mean that as an insult, to clarify my intent by the last sentence.)

Well, none of us have law degrees, or are politicians, but we still debate that.

Just some things you hear, you know are bullshit. And some makes sense, like B.F. Skinner, and behaviorism. It makes more sense to me, than "cigars resemble penis envy" or we're all born in love with our mothers or fathers. It just doesn't make sense.

DeaconDave, and to all of you who are out there, until you take several psychology classes and fully understand the many, many, many different schools of Psychology that exist, I do not believe you are qualified to debate this topic.

I myself am studying to become a Clinical Psychologist, and some of you are confusing Psychologists with Psychiatrists. Psychiatrists are the people you go to that give you mind-altering medicines and make the big bucks because they can see 4+ patients in an hour. Psychologists are the ones who actually listens to your problems and attempt to resolve them without reverting to potentially harmful medicines that affect the chemical levels of the brain.

I would argue in defence of Freud, but I'm very tired at the moment. Perhaps tomorrow evening, if this thread hasn't died by then. But DeaconDave, you havn't given any evidence showing that his theories are false, so please - provide some instead of posting mindless conjecture. (I did not mean that as an insult, to clarify my intent by the last sentence.)


No, that is not how debate works here on these forums. I will not cease posting my mindless conjecture. Whenever people post mindless conjecture about things I do know about and I point it out they just get angry and continue posting the conjecture - citation to court cases and statutes notwithstanding. At least I do not get angry.

In any event, while you are correct that I have never taken a pyschology class in my life (I took religion classes instead), I do have a hard science undergrad. degree, so my scientific way of looking at the world conflicts with the whole psycho-analysis school of though.

Here is my point. I can readily understand that repeated exposure to a specific stimulus can modify future behavior, however, that is only because the exposure actually manifests itself as physical changes to brain structure/chemistry which subsequently alter how the brain responds to fresh inputs. Also I can readily understand how either genetics or trauma can lead to a malfunctioning brain. What I cannot understand is how discussion of the events surrounding these stimuli can ever redress the underlying change.

Thus it is understandable that prolonged stress can alter behavior, but it is the stress, and not the reason for the stress that produces the change. Weeks of sleeplessness could do the same, so what?

So it's all physical isn't it? And as no-one understands "conciousness" its pointless to start on big discussions about what it means.

Also I think repressed memories are rubbish too. Some people are just prima-donnas who like the attention.

So you once saw your mother naked, so what, I am positing that said naked mother watcher now has problems from damaging their brain chemistry some other way. ;)

Edit: And most of the discussion so far has been about freudian theory as a metapoetic viewpoint. I don't see what that has to do with psychology.

Well, none of us have law degrees


Speak for yourself. :)

yeah, who would have penis envy when they've got a clitoris?

Here's the thing about Freud: he thought the jealousy runs both ways. Basically, he was looking at a time in childhood when children are just selfish and want everything for themselves. They also happen to be in the process of figuring out the difference between boys and girls.

Little girls experience penis envy. Little boys also envy Daddy's bigger, more functional penis.

Meanwhile, little boys envy the ability to have children. Little girls also envy Mommy, who can have children now. (Kids are not good with, "you can do it later.")

Anyway, it's only because we happen to live in a male-dominated society that penis envy becomes stronger than girl-envy (a situation difficult even to name because the penis is better symbolized--in male society--than the female ability). (Of course, Jessica Benjamin astutely points out that it may be no better to symbolize the feminine, since symbolization is already laden with maleness. The 'correct' approach may be to regard feminine desire as relational rather than symbolic.)

So anyway, there is that. Freud's theories are not so much sexist (there are aspects that are sexist, and upon which his successors improved) as much as they describe the construction of a mind within already-sexist society.

Here's the thing about Freud: he thought the jealousy runs both ways. Basically, he was looking at a time in childhood when children are just selfish and want everything for themselves. They also happen to be in the process of figuring out the difference between boys and girls.

Little girls experience penis envy. Little boys also envy Daddy's bigger, more functional penis.

Meanwhile, little boys envy the ability to have children. Little girls also envy Mommy, who can have children now. (Kids are not good with, "you can do it later.")

Anyway, it's only because we happen to live in a male-dominated society that penis envy becomes stronger than girl-envy (a situation difficult even to name because the penis is better symbolized--in male society--than the female ability). (Of course, Judith Green astutely points out that it may be no better to symbolize the feminine, since symbolization is already laden with maleness. The 'correct' approach may be to regard feminine desire as relational rather than symbolic.)

So anyway, there is that. Freud's theories are not so much sexist (there are aspects that are sexist, and upon which his successors improved) as much as they describe the construction of a mind within already-sexist society.

Now this sounds like feminist critical theory. Critical theory could well be my next topic.

Actually, I would like to do a series of topics examining the "way we think".

Basically, my unsupported conjecture v. people who know about it. If we
got enough people it could be interesting.

If you had bothered to read anything about him, you would know he made this statement as a joke just to get people to stop pestering him about his own teachings in relation to him enjoying a cigar once in a while.

It's pretty obvious why he said it. That doesn't detract from my point that his idea to add symbolism to everything is completely pointless. He said that elongate objects represent the penis to your unconscious, so by his logic a natural attraction to cigars would mean that you are subconsciously attracted to a penis. That is crap, and even Freud knew it at that instant.

Well, none of us have law degrees, or are politicians, but we still debate that.

Just some things you hear, you know are bullshit. And some makes sense, like B.F. Skinner, and behaviorism. It makes more sense to me, than "cigars resemble penis envy" or we're all born in love with our mothers or fathers. It just doesn't make sense.

And it doesn't make sense most likely because you havn't studied the various schools of Psychology. Freud, incidently, was not a Psychologist (He was a neurologist).

And it doesn't make sense most likely because you havn't studied the various schools of Psychology. Freud, incidently, was not a Psychologist (He was a neurologist).

You seem more than willing to tell us that we are wrong, but you haven't come close to telling us why. You seem very enlightened on the semantics of psychiatry and psychology, but show us what you know about the ideas behind it.

And he was a psychologist, the field he invented is called PSYCHOanalysis.

Neurologists deal with the physical make-up of the nervous system.

It's pretty obvious why he said it. That doesn't detract from my point that his idea to add symbolism to everything is completely pointless. He said that elongate objects represent the penis to your unconscious, so by his logic a natural attraction to cigars would mean that you are subconsciously attracted to a penis. That is crap, and even Freud knew it at that instant.

Actually, a phallic symbol does not have to be an elongate object... and certainly some long objects, much of the time, are non-phallic.

Of course, you would only know that if you read Freud, or a Freudian analyst. But instead you base your lack of judgment on the popular but hardly accurate notion that Freud has been "debunked." The psychodynamic approach, including theories that derive directly from Freud's, remains quite an active force in the psychological community. Furthermore, while psychoanalysis never relied on a positivist epistemology--and you should realize that scientific-realism is a valid epistemological approach in sciences well outside of psychoanalysis and even psychology--in the past fifty years psychological researchers have discovered large-N results that bear out psychoanalytic predictions. For example, recent studies published by the APA have shown that homophobic men are more likely than non-homophobic men to be unconsciously "aroused" by scenes of homosexual pornography. (A device measures the firmness of their penises, a good physical indicator of sexual arousal, while they are shown a variety of sexual scenes.) As the researchers point out, this is predicted by the psychodynamic theory that phobias are the result of inadequately repressed desires, i.e. that homophobic men have "unresolved" homosexual feelings.

And he was a psychologist, the field he invented is called PSYCHOanalysis.

Neurologists deal with the physical make-up of the nervous system.

He was trained in neurology as a medical doctor. And he was quite well respected and talented as a neurologist.

Then he discovered that he could often do more for his patients by talking with them instead of dissecting them. Hence, psychoanalysis. (And the "psycho" part meant something quite different to Freud than it does to us. We think "mind." He thought "soul," having known exactly what he was doing when he chose the Greek term. Soul is a lot more complicated--a lot messier--than mind. He saw human beings as the complex creatures that we are.)

"For example, recent studies published by the APA have shown that homophobic men are more likely than non-homophobic men to be unconsciously "aroused" by scenes of homosexual pornography. (A device measures the firmness of their penises, a good physical indicator of sexual arousal, while they are shown a variety of sexual scenes.) As the researchers point out, this is predicted by the psychodynamic theory that phobias are the result of inadequately repressed desires, i.e. that homophobic men have "unresolved" homosexual feelings."

Only a few phobias are related to the theory that you have mentioned.

Those types of phobias you speak of are affect phobias, as I understand. From what I know about them (a limited amount), they are much better explained in the chemical make up of the mind than the "soul".

Affect phobias are phobias developed by repressed urges. They are responses to the feelings of guilt/shame/anger that arise in a person when they behave a certain way. It seems that behavioral change due to a stream of negative stimuli was addressed much better in psychology through classical conditioning. It takes very little common sense that closet homosexuals would be very self conscious about their sexual feelings through years of conditioning in their lives, and would lash out at homosexuals as a natural defense mechanism to hide their true feelings.

I would like to know what scientific experiments Freud used to advance our understanding of this past what Skinner and Pavlov had shown us.

Freud himself said that he never expected psychoanalysis to provide better "cures," especially for the psychoses, than medical science. (He quite explicitly made a distinction between the two... it was the American analytic community that felt it needed to legitimate itself by requiring that analysts be MDs.) Of course, Nancy McWilliams would take issue with this--and perhaps rightly so--but we should at least consider psychoanalysis on the terms in which Freud understood it.

Freud recognized that human beings are very good at rationalizing our own behavior. His great advance was to recognize that most of the time we hide some of our true motives even from ourselves. He recognized that being a child is a confusing and complicated things... and that childhood involves constant re-adjustment of a limited worldview so that it ultimately agrees with reality as commonly understood. The process, he recognized, involves a continuous series of (hopefully little) traumas--because it is traumatic to constantly have ones views about the world contradicted.

Since these occasions are painful, and since our "old" way of seeing things conflicts with the way we need to behave in the world, we "repress" the old symbols and desires. Repression, as has already been pointed out in this thread, is necessary to becoming reasonable, "civilized" human beings. In the best form of repression, "old" desires are sublimated into higher pursuits, so that the basic "me! me!" eroticism of childhood is satisfied indirectly. The problem occurs when repressed desires are not redirected, but just shut out. As any of us can attest, trying to simply refuse to think something, much like trying to break a habit or addiction, saps a lot of energy. So some of your energy is wrapped up in unconsciously persuing the drive, while more of your energy is consumed in repressing it... and the intense inner conflict leads to neurotic symptoms.

Psychoanalysis, for Freud, was ultimately a method through which people could recognize their own unconscious fears and desires, and by understanding them learn to control them. His was a project of elevating reason over instinct. Since he thought that we all deal with these issues, even when we are not sick, he sought a means of control that could be achieved without medical treatment. While neurotic patients would certainly need help, he expected that psychoanalysis would be beneficial to anyone who wants to understand her/his own inner conflict.

Of course, whether or not it all comes down to brain chemistry (and as a neurologist Freud certainly appreciated the benefits of drug therapy), the way we deal with our own minds is necessarily through symbolism. There is no way around it. Thus, Freud developed a method for interpreting our own inner symbolism--one which in many ways varies entirely from person to person.

In the process, he discovered that many of his patients seemed to remember the same childhood incidents, or to make similar associations across seemingly unrelated spaces. It was these analyses, along with studies of children, that suggested the psychosexual approach. One has to mention, of course, that "sexuality" was quite a bit broader for Freud than "just sex." The entire notion of sex, in fact, occurs rather late in psychosexual development.

Actually, a phallic symbol does not have to be an elongate object... and certainly some long objects, much of the time, are non-phallic.

Of course, you would only know that if you read Freud, or a Freudian analyst. But instead you base your lack of judgment on the popular but hardly accurate notion that Freud has been "debunked." The psychodynamic approach, including theories that derive directly from Freud's, remains quite an active force in the psychological community. Furthermore, while psychoanalysis never relied on a positivist epistemology--and you should realize that scientific-realism is a valid epistemological approach in sciences well outside of psychoanalysis and even psychology--in the past fifty years psychological researchers have discovered large-N results that bear out psychoanalytic predictions. For example, recent studies published by the APA have shown that homophobic men are more likely than non-homophobic men to be unconsciously "aroused" by scenes of homosexual pornography. (A device measures the firmness of their penises, a good physical indicator of sexual arousal, while they are shown a variety of sexual scenes.) As the researchers point out, this is predicted by the psychodynamic theory that phobias are the result of inadequately repressed desires, i.e. that homophobic men have "unresolved" homosexual feelings.

Hmm, I'd like to see that study. Off-hand I can think of several reasons why that is mistaking cause for correlation, not least of which an erection is not always the product of "arousal." Also I think you'd get a lot of sample bias with it. It's hard to imagine there being many true homophobes who would consent to being test subjects.

What other large N studies have born out pyschodynamic predictions?

As to your contention that a few large N studies bring psycho-dynamics within the same fold as other sciences, I demur. It's based upon symbology is it not? By what mechanism is that amenable to statical analysis. What are the metrics used to translate pyschodynamic symbols into measurable real world phenomenon?

Affect phobias are phobias developed by repressed urges. They are responses to the feelings of guilt/shame/anger that arise in a person when they behave a certain way. It seems that behavioral change due to a stream of negative stimuli was addressed much better in psychology through classical conditioning. It takes very little common sense that closet homosexuals would be very self conscious about their sexual feelings through years of conditioning in their lives, and would lash out at homosexuals as a natural defense mechanism to hide their true feelings.

I would like to know what scientific experiments Freud used to advance our understanding of this past what Skinner and Pavlov had shown us.

Why? I think it is so much more interesting to point out all of the Freudian language you use. So, you basically gave an explanation, in behavioral terms, that is identical to the Freudian explanation. The only difference is that Freud argues that homophobes are not aware of their feelings, a little fact you leave out at the end. Behaviorism doesn't really believe in an unconscious though, does it? So, how do you reconcile the clear fact of repression with their view?

And, if you want to talk about psychological theories that are entirely out of fashion, the days of behaviorism have come and gone. No one takes it seriously anymore, while the psychodynamic approach continues to inspire generations of therapists.

Why? I think it is so much more interesting to point out all of the Freudian language you use. So, you basically gave an explanation, in behavioral terms, that is identical to the Freudian explanation. The only difference is that Freud argues that homophobes are not aware of their feelings, a little fact you leave out at the end. Behaviorism doesn't really believe in an unconscious though, does it? So, how do you reconcile the clear fact of repression with their view?

And, if you want to talk about psychological theories that are entirely out of fashion, the days of behaviorism have come and gone. No one takes it seriously anymore, while the psychodynamic approach continues to inspire generations of therapists.

*ahem*

Occam's razor.

And there is no proof of the unconsious.

Edit: and who is to say that there homophobes aren't aware of their motivation?

Why? I think it is so much more interesting to point out all of the Freudian language you use. So, you basically gave an explanation, in behavioral terms, that is identical to the Freudian explanation. The only difference is that Freud argues that homophobes are not aware of their feelings, a little fact you leave out at the end. Behaviorism doesn't really believe in an unconscious though, does it? So, how do you reconcile the clear fact of repression with their view?

And, if you want to talk about psychological theories that are entirely out of fashion, the days of behaviorism have come and gone. No one takes it seriously anymore, while the psychodynamic approach continues to inspire generations of therapists.

Just because Freudian terms are so widely used in our vernacular doesn't mean that his theories hold water.

I would say that they are probably aware of their feelings, but that doesn't matter.

It would not matter because it would not change the external stimuli, and in the end it is the external stimuli that causes the change in behavior. There would be no need for repression if there were no negative stimuli to cause it.

And I would still like to know what scientific data Freud has to back up his theories. I can already answer that for you: none. Why? Because it is impossible to find experimental data for an unfalsifiable theory. There is nothing that cannot be explained by it, so like God there is no way to prove it is true and no way to prove it isn't.

Hmm, I'd like to see that study.

It's lurking on the Internet somewhere, along with several others that confirm the results. At the moment I can't find it, although this article (http://www.petertatchell.net/homophobia/bigots%20are%20buggers.htm) makes mention of it.

Off-hand I can think of several reasons why that is mistaking cause for correlation, not least of which an erection is not always the product of "arousal."

Here you are correct. Of course, given the correlation (and a proper experimental design), one is forced to posit a common cause for the homophobic test group. In fact, the researchers are responsible enough to offer an alternative explanation, viz. that stress itself can cause an erection. Nevertheless, the APA write-up (Ah! Here it is: http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html) cites this as support for the psychodynamic theory.

Also I think you'd get a lot of sample bias with it. It's hard to imagine there being many true homophobes who would consent to being test subjects. As long as you isolate the variable and have enough variance between the self-described non-bigots and the self-described homophobes, it does not really matter. A correlation can be expected to continue as you approach the extreme values.

What other large N studies have born out pyschodynamic predictions?

That's the only one that occurs off the top of my head... Although I am confident there are a ton of studies on children that confirm psychoanalytic predictions. (Such as the fact that when children are presented with information about sex that is "beyond their years," they tend to stick with their own fantasies anyway. Or the fact that at a very young age both little boys and little girls are convinced (though no one tells them this) that the little girl simply has not yet grown her penis, but will later. Little boys are also convinced that they can have a baby (they think babies come out of the rectum)--and they want to as well.)

As to your contention that a few large N studies bring psycho-dynamics within the same fold as other sciences, I demur.

I never said that! I offered up the statistical evidence as suggestive of more credibility within positivist epistemology than the average person would usually admit for psychoanalysis. Never did I imply that it could ever be "proven" on such results. Of course, if you really understand epistemology, you know that this variety never "proves" theories, since it holds prediction and falsifiability as supreme virtues, never "accuracy." From the large-N standpoint, one is not concerned with "the real reason behind phenomena," but rather the generalizability of the prediction. Thus, most rational choice theorists do not believe that people actually think the way their model depicts them, but that their model, taken as an assumption, produces generalizable results in the aggregate.

When you try to get to "the truth" of the matter, you are practicing a differenct kind of science, one that relies on a scientific-realist epistemology that tries to "be convincing" rather than to generate predictions. The most accurate understanding of a phenomena is always the most specific explanation... and therefore the one that applies to the least other instances. The ultimate test for scientific-realism is, "Does this seem convincing (to the scientific community)?" Of course, you will say that psychoanalysis does not seem convincing to you. The problem, then, is that you probably have not read Freud or the people who support psychodynamic theory. And you can never make an honest judgment, in the realist epistemology, without looking at the theory in all its complexity, giving it the benefit of the doubt in order to understand it, and--in this case--applying it honestly to one's self to see if any of it rings true.

I suspect that if you took the time, like most people you would be surprised to find how well Freud resonates with everyday experience. On that note, I might recommend The Psychopathology of Everyday Life as an excellent starting point.

Just because Freudian terms are so widely used in our vernacular doesn't mean that his theories hold water.

I think the fact that they have taken hold is a highly significant indicator of their influence, don't you?

I would say that they are probably aware of their feelings, but that doesn't matter.

All scientific evidence to the contrary.

It would not matter because it would not change the external stimuli, and in the end it is the external stimuli that causes the change in behavior. There would be no need for repression if there were no negative stimuli to cause it.

Yes, Freud would agree with you entirely.

And I would still like to know what scientific data Freud has to back up his theories. I can already answer that for you: none. Why? Because it is impossible to find experimental data for an unfalsifiable theory. There is nothing that cannot be explained by it, so like God there is no way to prove it is true and no way to prove it isn't.

You have a very limited view of science. Falsifiability is a good thing when you can get it, but plenty of science goes right on without it. (Take a look at cosmology, if you want a "hard science" example.) Here the epistemological test is not, "Can I verify that the data avoid the conditions under which I would be convinced of the falseness of my statement" but "Does my explanation account for the data and, if so, is it convincing to other people?"

Actually, a phallic symbol does not have to be an elongate object... and certainly some long objects, much of the time, are non-phallic.

Of course, you would only know that if you read Freud, or a Freudian analyst. But instead you base your lack of judgment on the popular but hardly accurate notion that Freud has been "debunked." The psychodynamic approach, including theories that derive directly from Freud's, remains quite an active force in the psychological community. Furthermore, while psychoanalysis never relied on a positivist epistemology--and you should realize that scientific-realism is a valid epistemological approach in sciences well outside of psychoanalysis and even psychology--in the past fifty years psychological researchers have discovered large-N results that bear out psychoanalytic predictions. For example, recent studies published by the APA have shown that homophobic men are more likely than non-homophobic men to be unconsciously "aroused" by scenes of homosexual pornography. (A device measures the firmness of their penises, a good physical indicator of sexual arousal, while they are shown a variety of sexual scenes.) As the researchers point out, this is predicted by the psychodynamic theory that phobias are the result of inadequately repressed desires, i.e. that homophobic men have "unresolved" homosexual feelings.

The machine is called a Penile Plethysmograph.

The machine is called a Penile Plethysmograph.

Why, thank you.

I think the fact that they have taken hold is a highly significant indicator of their influence, don't you?

Influence is not a very good judge of correctness.

Yes, Freud would agree with you entirely.

A change in behavior due to repeated negative stimuli is classical conditioning. Now if you said that these men behaved this way due to a repressed sexual attraction to their fathers, that would be psychoanalysis.

You have a very limited view of science. Falsifiability is a good thing when you can get it, but plenty of science goes right on without it. (Take a look at cosmology, if you want a "hard science" example.) Here the epistemological test is not, "Can I verify that the data avoid the conditions under which I would be convinced of the falseness of my statement" but "Does my explanation account for the data and, if so, is it convincing to other people?"

Falsifiability is not just whether it avoids the conditions that would prove it false, the opposite also applies. If there are no conditions in which it can be proven false it is also unfalsifiable. Since there are no conditions that would cause this to be false, there can be no conditions that prove it to be true.

DeaconDave, and to all of you who are out there, until you take several psychology classes and fully understand the many, many, many different schools of Psychology that exist, I do not believe you are qualified to debate this topic.

I myself am studying to become a Clinical Psychologist, and some of you are confusing Psychologists with Psychiatrists. Psychiatrists are the people you go to that give you mind-altering medicines and make the big bucks because they can see 4+ patients in an hour. Psychologists are the ones who actually listens to your problems and attempt to resolve them without reverting to potentially harmful medicines that affect the chemical levels of the brain.

I would argue in defence of Freud, but I'm very tired at the moment. Perhaps tomorrow evening, if this thread hasn't died by then. But DeaconDave, you havn't given any evidence showing that his theories are false, so please - provide some instead of posting mindless conjecture. (I did not mean that as an insult, to clarify my intent by the last sentence.)

Your profile shows you as being 17, please list all of the psychology courses you have completed that qualify you to speak on the issue.

Influence is not a very good judge of correctness.

Then why continue to use the terms?

A change in behavior due to repeated negative stimuli is classical conditioning. Now if you said that these men behaved this way due to a repressed sexual attraction to their fathers, that would be psychoanalysis.

No, that would be quackery and a straw-man. Psychoanalysis is much more subtle than that--but I suspect you knew this.

Falsifiability is not just whether it avoids the conditions that would prove it false, the opposite also applies. If there are no conditions in which it can be proven false it is also unfalsifiable. Since there are no conditions that would cause this to be false, there can be no conditions that prove it to be true.

I know what falsifiability is. My point is that, while (especially American) scientists pay lip-service to it, and it is a very nice thing to have in a theory, science itself does not demand it. A true positivist can never talk about what really causes something, since causation is inherently non-falsifiable. The behaviorist is this kind of positivist insofar as he says, "If you have repeated negative stimuli, you will probably see a decrease in the behavior in question." This is falsifiable: if you test it and it turns out that the behavior does not decrease, the statement is false. However, it says nothing about why or how negative stimuli have this effect. Moreoever, it says nothing about consciousness vs. unconsciousness. For the behaviorist, it does not "matter" if people "know" why their behavior changes or not.... But for those of us interested in the reality of the human condition, such questions have a natural importance. Of course, that is one of the reasons that no one teaches behaviorism anymore, except in undergraduate survey courses.

Quote:
You have a very limited view of science. Falsifiability is a good thing when you can get it, but plenty of science goes right on without it. (Take a look at cosmology, if you want a "hard science" example.) Here the epistemological test is not, "Can I verify that the data avoid the conditions under which I would be convinced of the falseness of my statement" but "Does my explanation account for the data and, if so, is it convincing to other people?"

Don't ever say that to an astrophysicst.

They posit theories then every astronomer in the world thinks of counter-examples that could exsit in nature and goes looking for them. Which is why cosmology changes so rapidly.

Again, it goes back to the lack of physical rooting that Freud's theories suffer from.

It is my belief that a behavioralist actually tries to explain what happens to the brain when bahavioral change happens, while psychoanalysists merely add a superficial meaning to it.

Take our homosexual test for example:
Behavioralists explained that through repeated negative external stimuli behavior can begin to be programmed into the brain. So it could be assumed, (and proven through experiments) that repeated positive reinforcement could begin to correct this behavior.

Psychoanalysists explain that they react the way they do because they are subconsciously avoiding the feelings that stem from another behavior, but do not actually provide a reason why this mechanism occurs or what can be done to correct it.

I know what falsifiability is. My point is that, while (especially American) scientists pay lip-service to it, and it is a very nice thing to have in a theory, science itself does not demand it.

Sorry for jumping in on the discussion this late - I wanted to comment on the scientific method, not on Freud specifically.

No matter what, I still think that you have to have testable predictions of some sort. Any theory that is "only theoretical" - merely a fanciful description or explanation - can't really be considered reality unless it's been tested somehow. In the realm of physics, this means that string theory and multiple-universe theory are still a level below the theories that give testable predictions, such as Big-Bang and inflationary-universe.

Having read through a thread, I see the most obvious test of Freud's theories - as suggested by AnarchyeL's post that described Freud's theories and said that
"Psychoanalysis, for Freud, was ultimately a method through which people could recognize their own unconscious fears and desires, and by understanding them learn to control them. His was a project of elevating reason over instinct. Since he thought that we all deal with these issues, even when we are not sick, he sought a means of control that could be achieved without medical treatment. While neurotic patients would certainly need help, he expected that psychoanalysis would be beneficial to anyone who wants to understand her/his own inner conflict."

Simple enough - if people respond to psychoanalysis, and do experience a noticeable benefit, then that is evidence to support the fact that Freud had at least some things right. Probably not everything, the human mind is way too complex for it to be understood right off the bat, but at least some things.

If psychoanalysis has no significance - people who sit down and talk with a psychoanalyst end up, later, feeling no different than people that did not have a psychoanalist - then the theory needs to be either scrapped or amended very significantly (and, of course, tested.)

Now, I don't know much psychology, I've taken two semesters of AP Psychology and that's it - so I don't know whether some experiment has been done, whether there have been other verifications.
But I think Science cannot be built on explanations alone. Any theory that claims to be reality has to be verified by experiment. That's the basis of science, that's how we can claim that we are actually describing reality and not merely making up nice-sounding stories.

Don't ever say that to an astrophysicst.

They posit theories then every astronomer in the world thinks of counter-examples that could exsit in nature and goes looking for them. Which is why cosmology changes so rapidly.


:eek:

I'm an aspiring physics major, and I've had a fascination with particle physics and astrophysics for a while, though I'm not sure whether I'll go into either of those fields...

I was just typing my post as you posted that...

LOL LOL LOL I don't think I'll stop laughing for a while...

Good call, DeaconDave!!!!

It's lurking on the Internet somewhere, along with several others that confirm the results. At the moment I can't find it, although this article (http://www.petertatchell.net/homophobia/bigots%20are%20buggers.htm) makes mention of it.



Here you are correct. Of course, given the correlation (and a proper experimental design), one is forced to posit a common cause for the homophobic test group. In fact, the researchers are responsible enough to offer an alternative explanation, viz. that stress itself can cause an erection. Nevertheless, the APA write-up (Ah! Here it is: http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html) cites this as support for the psychodynamic theory.

As long as you isolate the variable and have enough variance between the self-described non-bigots and the self-described homophobes, it does not really matter. A correlation can be expected to continue as you approach the extreme values.



That's the only one that occurs off the top of my head... Although I am confident there are a ton of studies on children that confirm psychoanalytic predictions. (Such as the fact that when children are presented with information about sex that is "beyond their years," they tend to stick with their own fantasies anyway. Or the fact that at a very young age both little boys and little girls are convinced (though no one tells them this) that the little girl simply has not yet grown her penis, but will later. Little boys are also convinced that they can have a baby (they think babies come out of the rectum)--and they want to as well.)



I never said that! I offered up the statistical evidence as suggestive of more credibility within positivist epistemology than the average person would usually admit for psychoanalysis. Never did I imply that it could ever be "proven" on such results. Of course, if you really understand epistemology, you know that this variety never "proves" theories, since it holds prediction and falsifiability as supreme virtues, never "accuracy." From the large-N standpoint, one is not concerned with "the real reason behind phenomena," but rather the generalizability of the prediction. Thus, most rational choice theorists do not believe that people actually think the way their model depicts them, but that their model, taken as an assumption, produces generalizable results in the aggregate.

When you try to get to "the truth" of the matter, you are practicing a differenct kind of science, one that relies on a scientific-realist epistemology that tries to "be convincing" rather than to generate predictions. The most accurate understanding of a phenomena is always the most specific explanation... and therefore the one that applies to the least other instances. The ultimate test for scientific-realism is, "Does this seem convincing (to the scientific community)?" Of course, you will say that psychoanalysis does not seem convincing to you. The problem, then, is that you probably have not read Freud or the people who support psychodynamic theory. And you can never make an honest judgment, in the realist epistemology, without looking at the theory in all its complexity, giving it the benefit of the doubt in order to understand it, and--in this case--applying it honestly to one's self to see if any of it rings true.

I suspect that if you took the time, like most people you would be surprised to find how well Freud resonates with everyday experience. On that note, I might recommend The Psychopathology of Everyday Life as an excellent starting point.

Thanks for posting that.

But it still doesn't overcome the basic objection to Freudian analysis that it is superflous.

Also I am not sure that I agree with you charaterization of accepted scientific theories. If anything they tend to be general and have corollaries which deal with specific cases. Moreover they tend to mesh with the rest of the accepted paradigm. For example, physiological theories can also be understood through chemistry, which in turn meshes with physics. Darwins theory of evolution presuposes a mechanism for heredity, that later on was born out with genetics. Accepted scientific "fact" has to accord with more than just the approval of the narrow field of experts that are most knowledgeable within the field, is must also have wider concordance before it is fully accepted.

Saying that, Freud's work is just to stand alone. It does not have the type of cross disciplinary concordance that brings it into the fold. Now, it is entirely possible to imagine a different model that explains behavior, one rooted in physical alteration in the structure of the brain for example, that does.

Also as I pointed out before, freuds symbology is not amenable to scientific interpretation, it is too anecdotal in nature, i.e., certian objects represent x, or certian feelings occur and manifiest as x, to have the kind of systematic nature of accepted science.

Finally, I admit it has resonance - it is popular after all - but so what? So does astrology, you don't class that as science.

Don't ever say that to an astrophysicst.

Again, it goes back to the lack of physical rooting that Freud's theories suffer from.

Ah, perhaps our disagreement stems in part from the fact that we approach the issue from very different ends of the scientific spectrum.

As a political scientist, I guess I am just used to dealing seriously with theoretical objects that have no physical rooting--at least no clear one. Thus, I tend to think that people overestimate the usefulness of pure positivist theorizing. We have tried it--building hypotheses from observation, testing these, then "building" them into more general theories--and it does not seem to work very well when dealing with human things. Perhaps you astrophysicists are better at it, but I suspect you too have a tendency to use your imagination first and see what facts it points out. After all, "facts" do not create themselves.

Oh thats easy. Because not all psychic "trauma" results in neuropathology, and not all neuropathology is caused by by psychic "trauma". But all pyscho- pathology results from neuropathology.

Therefore psychic trauma and pyschopathology are unrelated, although sometimes co-incidental. Which is why someone could survive the holocaust and live a normal psychopathology free life. (Albeit bitter about the experience),

And freuds pscho-sexual imagery is all the more bunk. :)

That last bit is what I thought you were on about in the first place, and the only area in which I agree with you, even partly, about the wrongitude of Freud's theories.

Well, can you prove that all psychopathologies result from neuropathology? And I note that you have not claimed that all neuropathologies lead to psychopathologies.

Certainly there are cases in which psychopathologies have resulted from neuropathologies without any experiencial trauma having triggered them, but just look at the mental health statistics of trauma survivors compared to the rest of the population. Would you refute that there is a higher incidence of mental illness in such people? Or would you suppose that their own neuropathological predispositions somehow caused them to suffer these traumas?

And then there is the chicken and the egg. Are a person's seratonin levels lower than average because he is depressed, or is he depressed because his seratonin levels are lower than average? Those who suffer mental illness after a trauma may have been predesposed, but would they suffer if not for the trauma? Psychotherapy can indeed help such people, albeit not so much those for whom organic causes were the original ones.

You have the theory that you prefer but it is not fully accepted by the scientific community, and thus it does nothing to refute Freud's work.

Ah, perhaps our disagreement stems in part from the fact that we approach the issue from very different ends of the scientific spectrum.

As a political scientist, I guess I am just used to dealing seriously with theoretical objects that have no physical rooting--at least no clear one. Thus, I tend to think that people overestimate the usefulness of pure positivist theorizing. We have tried it--building hypotheses from observation, testing these, then "building" them into more general theories--and it does not seem to work very well when dealing with human things. Perhaps you astrophysicists are better at it, but I suspect you too have a tendency to use your imagination first and see what facts it points out. After all, "facts" do not create themselves.

Positivist. Hmmm. Well Millikan actually won his nobel prize (for physics) with faked experimental results I believe. Later on he truned out to be right anyway, so I don't know how much of a positivist he was.

I think it is the potential for concordance with the rest of the scientific paradigm that is the primae facie test as to whether or not a scientific theory can mesh. The problem is with a lot of these psychoanalytic ideas is that they don't lead to physically rooted phenomenon.

But it is early days, and we are now at a very exciting time in terms of being able to measure physical phenomena. Plus our knowledge of neuro-anatomy is far in advance of freuds day. I even saw something a while ago that talked about a model of the brain as a quantum computer, something to do with microtubules in it's deep structure. (Not that I'm saying it's right, but it is an intriguing possibility). So why encumber ourselves with metaphysics like Freud. Why not take a fresh approach and use these new tools to study pyschology. I mean once upon a time astronomy=astrology (sort of), when the ability to measure things improved astrology got dumped.

I think adhereing to freud is retrograde.

Edit: I'm not an astrophysicist. My undergrad was engineering. (With a minor in religion - to avoid having to take pysch class :) )

Ah, perhaps our disagreement stems in part from the fact that we approach the issue from very different ends of the scientific spectrum.

As a political scientist, I guess I am just used to dealing seriously with theoretical objects that have no physical rooting--at least no clear one. Thus, I tend to think that people overestimate the usefulness of pure positivist theorizing. We have tried it--building hypotheses from observation, testing these, then "building" them into more general theories--and it does not seem to work very well when dealing with human things. Perhaps you astrophysicists are better at it, but I suspect you too have a tendency to use your imagination first and see what facts it points out. After all, "facts" do not create themselves.

I think the difference is between how you view humans. DeaconDave views them in a scientific bundle of cells way, while you see something more to people. But, unfortunately, we are nothing more than a bundle of cells. All of our behavior is explained through chemical reactions and electrical currents traveling along synapses. The only thing trauma causes is a rewiring of the brain so that behavior avoids repeating the trauma, people don't repress the events, they avoid stress.

Psychoanalysists explain that they react the way they do because they are subconsciously avoiding the feelings that stem from another behavior, but do not actually provide a reason why this mechanism occurs or what can be done to correct it.

Of course they provide a reason why this mechanism occurs. It is the behaviorist who claims no explanation is necessary. Psychoanalysis is all explanation, with little prediction--I thought that was your problem with it!

Moreover, psychoanalysis says precisely what can be done to correct it! What makes you think that psychoanalysis is not concerned with treatment? The nature of that treatment is the hypothesis that, once unconscious feelings are rooted out and brought to the attention of the conscious mind, a person can consciously resolve them--thus removing the cause of the ailment.

Behaviorists do not care about the cause, other than to speculate that it may have been a previous stimulus. As far as treatment goes, it does not really matter to them if it was innate behavior, learned behavior, or what sort of stimulus caused it. What matters is that with new stimuli, one can create new behavior. Psychoanalysis thinks that it is important to discover what the cause was and deal with that rather than simply overlaying new behaviors. There should be something fairly intuitive about it. We have all experienced that nagging feeling that something is amiss, or noticed that we are biting our nails... only to realize later what it was we were worried about. Once we realize what it was, we can evaluate it rationally and decide what to do about it, or even simply tell ourselves not to worry anymore. And then we feel better and stop biting our nails.

Psychoanalysis just takes that common sense feeling a step further, and posits that for very persistent symptoms there may be a deeper layer of repression--a section of the mind almost totally closed off to conscious, rational investigation. He found with his patients that if they could uncover the hidden cause, working through it tended to remove the symptoms. He had discovered the unconscious.

In the process, he found that certain very early experiences in life were virtually universal, that the development of the unconscious appeared to be a very regular process common to everyone. It was through the discovery of the unconscious and the recognition of common experience that the more formal theory developed.

Of course they provide a reason why this mechanism occurs. It is the behaviorist who claims no explanation is necessary. Psychoanalysis is all explanation, with little prediction--I thought that was your problem with it!

Moreover, psychoanalysis says precisely what can be done to correct it! What makes you think that psychoanalysis is not concerned with treatment? The nature of that treatment is the hypothesis that, once unconscious feelings are rooted out and brought to the attention of the conscious mind, a person can consciously resolve them--thus removing the cause of the ailment.

Behaviorists do not care about the cause, other than to speculate that it may have been a previous stimulus. As far as treatment goes, it does not really matter to them if it was innate behavior, learned behavior, or what sort of stimulus caused it. What matters is that with new stimuli, one can create new behavior. Psychoanalysis thinks that it is important to discover what the cause was and deal with that rather than simply overlaying new behaviors. There should be something fairly intuitive about it. We have all experienced that nagging feeling that something is amiss, or noticed that we are biting our nails... only to realize later what it was we were worried about. Once we realize what it was, we can evaluate it rationally and decide what to do about it, or even simply tell ourselves not to worry anymore. And then we feel better and stop biting our nails.

Psychoanalysis just takes that common sense feeling a step further, and posits that for very persistent symptoms there may be a deeper layer of repression--a section of the mind almost totally closed off to conscious, rational investigation. He found with his patients that if they could uncover the hidden cause, working through it tended to remove the symptoms. He had discovered the unconscious.

In the process, he found that certain very early experiences in life were virtually universal, that the development of the unconscious appeared to be a very regular process common to everyone. It was through the discovery of the unconscious and the recognition of common experience that the more formal theory developed.

I'm not questioning you on this, but can you direct me to some documented proof of the subconscious? I would like to read about it.

Also explain to me what psychoanalysis has done to explain the physiological changes that person goes through when exposed to trauma. In my opinion, and most people's as far as I know, behavior is governed by physical responses in the brain. Just like no one can consciously reorganize their organs or reroute their veins, I don't see how someone can consciously change the way in which their brain works.

Also, in our homophobe case, do you think if a psychiatrist made one of the subjects aware of their homosexual leanings do you think they would accept them or do you think it would spawn more homophobic behavior. In my opinion awareness would only increase the behavior.

Any theory that claims to be reality has to be verified by experiment. That's the basis of science, that's how we can claim that we are actually describing reality and not merely making up nice-sounding stories.

Not all science is experimental. Most of social science depends on natural data. Of course, when it comes to prediction, we especially want falsifiable (and preferably quantitative) data. But when it comes to explanation the strongest tradition is and always will be one that favors plausibility over falsifiability. Think about the task of explaining the politics that led to the New Deal. Certainly you will never conduct an experiment that can test your theory. Your theory may have some predictions about data that should turn up about the period, but these will usually be highly qualified. In the final analysis, the conclusions of your study rest on whether or not they present a believable explanation of the events. No theory may ever be "proven," but by convention we accept the most plausible explanation as true.

Neuropsychologists are, of course, relatively good at predicting what particular chemicals will do to the brain. Nevertheless, when you ask one of them why he is sad, he is likely to name a saddening event--not a chemical. Psychoanalysis is an attempt to capture what the physical sciences can never quite lay hold of--the complex "why?" of the mental apparatus. It cares about causes.

Of course they provide a reason why this mechanism occurs. It is the behaviorist who claims no explanation is necessary. Psychoanalysis is all explanation, with little prediction--I thought that was your problem with it!

Moreover, psychoanalysis says precisely what can be done to correct it! What makes you think that psychoanalysis is not concerned with treatment? The nature of that treatment is the hypothesis that, once unconscious feelings are rooted out and brought to the attention of the conscious mind, a person can consciously resolve them--thus removing the cause of the ailment.

Behaviorists do not care about the cause, other than to speculate that it may have been a previous stimulus. As far as treatment goes, it does not really matter to them if it was innate behavior, learned behavior, or what sort of stimulus caused it. What matters is that with new stimuli, one can create new behavior. Psychoanalysis thinks that it is important to discover what the cause was and deal with that rather than simply overlaying new behaviors. There should be something fairly intuitive about it. We have all experienced that nagging feeling that something is amiss, or noticed that we are biting our nails... only to realize later what it was we were worried about. Once we realize what it was, we can evaluate it rationally and decide what to do about it, or even simply tell ourselves not to worry anymore. And then we feel better and stop biting our nails.

Psychoanalysis just takes that common sense feeling a step further, and posits that for very persistent symptoms there may be a deeper layer of repression--a section of the mind almost totally closed off to conscious, rational investigation. He found with his patients that if they could uncover the hidden cause, working through it tended to remove the symptoms. He had discovered the unconscious.

In the process, he found that certain very early experiences in life were virtually universal, that the development of the unconscious appeared to be a very regular process common to everyone. It was through the discovery of the unconscious and the recognition of common experience that the more formal theory developed.

Ah, but does pyscho-analysis work? As has been pointed out previously that there is no evidence that it does. (In the scientific sense).

Also, it seems as if it is straying into the intelligent design realm. After all if one uses intelligent design one can accept evolution as a mechanism without probing it further. The rest is explained by metaphysics. But this approach does not improve real understanding of the processes and forces involved.

Can psycho-analysis ever get to the root of these problems - inasmuch as there is hope for its "cure" rate being vastly improved. It doesn't seem so, so why continue with it further. It is not a fruitfull model.

Not all science is experimental. Most of social science depends on natural data. Of course, when it comes to prediction, we especially want falsifiable (and preferably quantitative) data. But when it comes to explanation the strongest tradition is and always will be one that favors plausibility over falsifiability. Think about the task of explaining the politics that led to the New Deal. Certainly you will never conduct an experiment that can test your theory. Your theory may have some predictions about data that should turn up about the period, but these will usually be highly qualified. In the final analysis, the conclusions of your study rest on whether or not they present a believable explanation of the events. No theory may ever be "proven," but by convention we accept the most plausible explanation as true.


I would not choose science to understand the politics of the New Deal though. I would use history and law. And I would never expect to derive a general theory from my study.

But it still doesn't overcome the basic objection to Freudian analysis that it is superflous.

How so? Do you think we can reach a middle ground if we agree that behavioral and neuropsychological theory is very good at telling us how to control behavior "from the outside," while psychodynamics probably has a better hold on how to do so "from the inside"?


Also I am not sure that I agree with you charaterization of accepted scientific theories. If anything they tend to be general and have corollaries which deal with specific cases.

We are talking about two different kinds of theory. In your definition, "psychoanalysis" or "relativity" are theories. In this case you are quite right.. All scientists want this kind of theory to be as general as possible. However, when it comes to "testing" theories, one rarely "tests" psychoanalysis, or even relativity; rather, one tests a theory about some thing, and this theory may or may not have some connection to a broad, architectonic theory. Now, here is where the problem of generalizability comes into play. Suppose someone proposes the question, "what causes arachnophobia?" The behaviorist, wanting to say something general, says one of two things (depending on how seriously he takes his behaviorism). Either he says, "Who cares what caused it? I know that positive stimuli can change it," or perhaps he ventures the guess that "some negative stimulus caused it, probably involving spiders."

Well, yeah. Both of those statements apply to a large number of people, and we can test them to see if they are true.

Psychoanalysis, on the other hand, usually fails to produce very generalizable theories. To the question about arachnophobia, the analyst's response is always "who is asking?" And by the end of the analysis, the analyst points to certain things and says, "These events and/or fantasies are the cause of the phobia." Now, when we read the analysis (especially if we have some real knowledge of psychodynamics), we can follow the argument... and we usually agree that this makes sense. But it's not generalizable. And it's not testable, since it only tells us about this case--and everyone knows you cannot test your theory on the same data that generates it.

Yet at the same time, it provides more information about the specific case. And as long as we find that information interesting, our scientific approach will be to evaluate the theory on the basis of how much sense it makes to us.


Moreover they tend to mesh with the rest of the accepted paradigm. For example, physiological theories can also be understood through chemistry, which in turn meshes with physics.
Physics and chemistry are not paradigms. Perhaps you should reread Kuhn. Kuhn, by the way, and his notion of paradigm shift, defies the notion of verifiability. He thinks that scientific truth is established essentially by common agreement amongst the scientific community, not positive proof.

Accepted scientific "fact" has to accord with more than just the approval of the narrow field of experts that are most knowledgeable within the field, is must also have wider concordance before it is fully accepted.

Sure. But that just reinforces the point that what "makes or breaks" a scientific theory is its acceptance within the scientific community--which is exactly what I said.

Saying that, Freud's work is just to stand alone. It does not have the type of cross disciplinary concordance that brings it into the fold.

Sure it does! But they are all in the social sciences and humanities.

Now, it is entirely possible to imagine a different model that explains behavior, one rooted in physical alteration in the structure of the brain for example, that does.

Yes, but why? Physical facts can never completely explain mental phenomena--basically the first rule in the philosophy of mind. Why not find an explanation of mental phenomena that accords with the experience of them? What could be more empirically satisfying than that?

Nice input. Every watch the Stanford prisoner experiment?

I've seen clips here and there in a few documentaries...Zimbardo's work was brilliant. Milgrim also did wonderful work on obedience, and his book "Obedience to Authority" is a must read (both interesting and short). He did a documentary video, but it's very rare (my mentor had a bootleg off the BBC). How long would you obey commands from a superior? Would you go so far as to kill someone you'd shaken hands with minutes earlier? The results are shocking.

Fascinating stuff. Unfortunately, ethics panels don't let us do such innovative research anymore. Research regulations have gotten quite ridiculous.

I agree. But you should still support yourself.

In my opinion, Freud's biggest mistake was saying that his theories applied to everyone, as all his theories are based upon deep self analysis. Saying they apply to everything is a very egomaniacal thing to say.

Holy shit

What a Freudian thing to say...

I think of Freud's theories these days as telling us only a great deal about Freud. I'm not sure that was his intention, though.

Positivist. Hmmm. Well Millikan actually won his nobel prize (for physics) with faked experimental results I believe. Later on he truned out to be right anyway, so I don't know how much of a positivist he was.

Okay... so?

I think it is the potential for concordance with the rest of the scientific paradigm that is the primae facie test as to whether or not a scientific theory can mesh. The problem is with a lot of these psychoanalytic ideas is that they don't lead to physically rooted phenomenon.

The first part makes sense. But psychoanalytic ideas certainly relate to physical phenomena; they describe, after all, real events. Moreover, why must an explanation of mental phenomena always (or, for that matter, often) lead to physically rooted phenomena? What makes you think this is the dominant paradigm?

So why encumber ourselves with metaphysics like Freud.

Because they are the "metaphysics" of the human mind. They tell us how to understand ourselves, because "some chemical did it" does not satisfy most of us as an explanation of things like love and hate. It is the only successful science of the subjective.

I think the difference is between how you view humans. DeaconDave views them in a scientific bundle of cells way, while you see something more to people. But, unfortunately, we are nothing more than a bundle of cells. All of our behavior is explained through chemical reactions and electrical currents traveling along synapses. The only thing trauma causes is a rewiring of the brain so that behavior avoids repeating the trauma, people don't repress the events, they avoid stress.

If you really believe that, then there is no point to politics, is there? If "all of our behavior is explained through chemical reactions" then there is no such thing as free will, or will at all for that matter. Of course, I doubt you really belive that.

There is an interior to psychology. Its science is psychoanalysis.

I'm not questioning you on this, but can you direct me to some documented proof of the subconscious? I would like to read about it.[QUOTE]

Clearly, you're not serious. You dream, don't you? Ever lose your keys--where did that memory go? Ever forget the name of that band... and suddenly no one around you can remember it either? Why did you forgot? Why did your forgetting cause other people to forget? Ever daydream while driving and not quite remember all of the trip? Do you drive to school or work the same way every day? Ever start off to go somewhere else one day, and wind up going your usual route without even thinking about it?

So many things in every day experience point to the existence of unconscious phenomena, it is ridiculous to question its existence. It would be like asking for proof that the Earth exists.

[QUOTE]Just like no one can consciously reorganize their organs or reroute their veins, I don't see how someone can consciously change the way in which their brain works.

Well, if we cannot consciously change the way our brains work, then we cannot consciously do anything, can we?

Also, in our homophobe case, do you think if a psychiatrist made one of the subjects aware of their homosexual leanings do you think they would accept them or do you think it would spawn more homophobic behavior. In my opinion awareness would only increase the behavior.

Why do you think it takes a trained analyst? Not every idiot knows how to get people to deal with things they'd rather not.

Ah, but does pyscho-analysis work? As has been pointed out previously that there is no evidence that it does. (In the scientific sense).

http://www.apsa-co.org/ctf/pubinfo/NewsRoom/newsreleases/IPAstudy.htm

Okay... so?



The first part makes sense. But psychoanalytic ideas certainly relate to physical phenomena; they describe, after all, real events. Moreover, why must an explanation of mental phenomena always (or, for that matter, often) lead to physically rooted phenomena? What makes you think this is the dominant paradigm?

But the real events they describe are real only in the sense that they cause manifestation in human behavior. Not some specific measurable property, like temperature, pH, electric potential &ct for example.

And I say it must lead to physically rooted phenomena, because the universe is physically rooted. Unless you wish to ascribe conciousness to a "soul" which is a whole other debate.



Because they are the "metaphysics" of the human mind. They tell us how to understand ourselves, because "some chemical did it" does not satisfy most of us as an explanation of things like love and hate. It is the only successful science of the subjective.

But it is not that sucessful. Moreover its approach will not lead to a successful science of the subjective because it is not ground in the elements that provide a sucessful science. You could make the same defense of Roman mystics that saw the world in terms of gods 2,000 years ago. Occasionally it hit the nail on the head, but that was co-incidence, not because the theory was in anyway correct. I have the same problem with freudian analysis.

As metapoetics, it may help some people interpret their own experience. Just as personal religion helps some others. But it doesn't make it a fruitful avenue for further general study. It can't, by its own limitations, ever expand beyond wht it offers now. It is a closed avenue of thought, not an expansive one, so we shouldn't be looking to the future with it. It should be rejected and a more positivist approach should be adopted.

I would not choose science to understand the politics of the New Deal though. I would use history and law. And I would never expect to derive a general theory from my study.

Okay... you are willing to use history and law, which have nothing to do with science, yet your criticism of psychoanalysis is that it is... unscientific?

And you should not expect to derive a general theory... but that was my point.

(By the way, history and law are both starting to tend, unfortunately, toward positive science. Try talking about literature in a history class anymore... They just won't stand for it.)

Okay... you are willing to use history and law, which have nothing to do with science, yet your criticism of psychoanalysis is that it is... unscientific?

And you should not expect to derive a general theory... but that was my point.

(By the way, history and law are both starting to tend, unfortunately, toward positive science. Try talking about literature in a history class anymore... They just won't stand for it.)

Really, law went through that phase. Legal positivism. Not in vogue anymore.

I critisize pschoanalysis for being unscientific because it tries to cast itself in that mold - as science. It is applied as if it is scientific, and I think many people go to it with misplaced hope. You might as well go to a priest or a rabbi for "talking therapy" as far as I am concerned.

But the real events they describe are real only in the sense that they cause manifestation in human behavior. Not some specific measurable property, like temperature, pH, electric potential &ct for example.

Well, you won't get that in the mind. Sorry. If the only things you understand are perfectly quantifiable, then you are just going to have to admit that the mind is off-limits.

And I say it must lead to physically rooted phenomena, because the universe is physically rooted. Unless you wish to ascribe conciousness to a "soul" which is a whole other debate.

The non-physical is not the same as the other-worldly.

You could make the same defense of Roman mystics that saw the world in terms of gods 2,000 years ago. Occasionally it hit the nail on the head, but that was co-incidence, not because the theory was in anyway correct. I have the same problem with freudian analysis.

Then you clearly do not understand it. It is not as if analysts just make things up and "whoops" maybe they "hit the nail on the head." Their generalizations, such as they are, derive from common observations amongst patients. If the observation does not recur, then no analyst will accept the theory. Moreover, if it does not seem to help patients, analysts will be reluctant to consider it confirmed. Their investigation is entered into with a scientific mindset, but the nature of their subject means that no analysis can ever be recreated. We can merely look at similar cases.

It can't, by its own limitations, ever expand beyond wht it offers now. It is a closed avenue of thought, not an expansive one, so we shouldn't be looking to the future with it.

For another view, see Nancy McWilliams' Psychoanalytic Diagnosis. My father (director of counseling at a small college), who was not trained in psychoanalysis, has recently become excited by her book, in which he sees great advances for therapy. (Especially in his own field, addictions and sexual deviance.)

Really, law went through that phase. Legal positivism. Not in vogue anymore.

Ummm... Legal positivism has nothing to do with the scientific study of the law. Just because two terms have "positivism" in them doesn't mean they should be compared. Legal positivism was the belief that law is entirely conventional -- it provided no basis for scientific study. The economic study of the law is closer to what I have in mind -- taking the law itself as a result to be explained scientifically.

Well, you won't get that in the mind. Sorry. If the only things you understand are perfectly quantifiable, then you are just going to have to admit that the mind is off-limits.

But the brain is a physical engine. As I said before we are on the verge of technology that allows us to measure physical activity within the brain. Look at active brain scans for example. Our understanding of deeper structures in the brain are starting to expand also as I indicated with the possible link to micro-tubules and quantum physics.



The non-physical is not the same as the other-worldly.


Everything, including emotion has to be rooted in the physical. If it isn't what else can account for it.


Then you clearly do not understand it. It is not as if analysts just make things up and "whoops" maybe they "hit the nail on the head." Their generalizations, such as they are, derive from common observations amongst patients. If the observation does not recur, then no analyst will accept the theory. Moreover, if it does not seem to help patients, analysts will be reluctant to consider it confirmed. Their investigation is entered into with a scientific mindset, but the nature of their subject means that no analysis can ever be recreated. We can merely look at similar cases.

As did the generalizations of ancient prognosticators. They knew when to plant crops, when to harvest, understood the cycle of season. But their understanding of this was rooted in the metaphysical. They would adjust their world view accordingly, but that same worldview hampered true insight.

Is it not possible, that ulitmatley we will devlop a science of "thought" based upon a physically rooted model.

Ummm... Legal positivism has nothing to do with the scientific study of the law. Just because two terms have "positivism" in them doesn't mean they should be compared. Legal positivism was the belief that law is entirely conventional -- it provided no basis for scientific study. The economic study of the law is closer to what I have in mind -- taking the law itself as a result to be explained scientifically.


Okay, I was offering that because you were lamenting the lack of interest in literature as a tool for understanding history. Legal postivism = just the facts.

Law and economics = Chigaco law school.

They are both theories of jurisprudence.

Everything, including emotion has to be rooted in the physical. If it isn't what else can account for it.

Dave, your notion of "accounting for it" is a bit too limited. We agree, I think, that every emotional state can be linked to some chemical in the brain. But what made the chemical do that? I know, you will say another chemical. Is that all we are, then, chemicals affecting chemicals? But does that say anything other than that thoughts affect thoughts? Don't you see the paradox? The physical can never fully explain the mental. One can practically state it as a theorem of mental science.

Is it not possible, that ulitmatley we will devlop a science of "thought" based upon a physically rooted model.

No. It's not.

Dave, your notion of "accounting for it" is a bit too limited. We agree, I think, that every emotional state can be linked to some chemical in the brain. But what made the chemical do that? I know, you will say another chemical. Is that all we are, then, chemicals affecting chemicals? But does that say anything other than that thoughts affect thoughts? Don't you see the paradox? The physical can never fully explain the mental. One can practically state it as a theorem of mental science.

Ah, so you take a sort of hardware/software approach.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree.

Dave, your notion of "accounting for it" is a bit too limited. We agree, I think, that every emotional state can be linked to some chemical in the brain. But what made the chemical do that? I know, you will say another chemical. Is that all we are, then, chemicals affecting chemicals?

I was going to provide an argument here, but realized I would get too deep into technical stuff, so I will just yes.

But there is no paradox, as it takes an external stimuli to trigger the brain, otherwise there would be no behavior.

Ah, so you take a sort of hardware/software approach.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree.

I'm willing to say, I think, "close enough."
:)

I'm willing to say, I think, "close enough."
:)


I see where you are coming from, in that, from the software/hardware analogy, even though we can measure the software "running" we can never really understand it unless we know the software "code", and the code is a non-physically rooted phenomenon. That's a powerful concept, but, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.

I will tenitively point out that I believe that software could, with the correct instruments, be "reverse" engineered. Although you might not end up with identical code, functionally the algorithms would be identical in operation. To extend the analogy. Hmm.

I think I see the problem here. I believe the way to understand the actual behavior is to work up to it - by physically measuring the code's manifestation in the machine and reverse engineering the code from what I observe. You see it more as a top down approach, in other words, trying to devine the code from observing how it works, i.e. studying the process of consciouness.

If my characterisation is correct I think we have a fundamental difference in how we believe the brain runs.

I see where you are coming from, in that, from the software/hardware analogy, even though we can measure the software "running" we can never really understand it unless we know the software "code", and the code is a non-physically rooted phenomenon. That's a powerful concept, but, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.

I will tenitively point out that I believe that software could, with the correct instruments, be "reverse" engineered. Although you might not end up with identical code, functionally the algorithms would be identical in operation. To extend the analogy. Hmm.

I think I see the problem here. I believe the way to understand the actual behavior is to work up to it - by physically measuring the code's manifestation in the machine and reverse engineering the code from what I observe. You see it more as a top down approach, in other words, trying to devine the code from observing how it works, i.e. studying the process of consciouness.

If my characterisation is correct I think we have a fundamental difference in how we believe the brain runs.

Jesus, I told you guys that back on page 11.

Jesus, I told you guys that back on page 11.

Sorry it's hard to keep track of everything. :)

Our understanding of deeper structures in the brain are starting to expand also as I indicated with the possible link to micro-tubules and quantum physics.


Is this following on from Penrose and The Emperor's New Mind (which, I admit, I never got round to finishing)? It seems to me that it doesn't so much present a way of answering the mind/body question, instead just providing a convoluted way of shuffling off the area of interaction between the two into an obscure area. If micro-tubules are the points of intereaction between mind and brain are we not left in just the same position as when Descartes argued that the Pineal gland was the site of such activity? We are still left uninformed as to how the mind can interact with the brain and vice-versa.

I am certainly a materialist, and have no problem with DeaconDave's view of the human being as just being a particular organisation of cells or matter, but merely stating this fact does not go on to sufficiently explain the way in which emergent characteristics are generated due to the organisation of such cells. Until such time (if ever) as this is better understood then we find ourselves in some cases best equipped to understand certain human behaviours through methodologies and ideas such as Freud's or those of later psychoanalysists.

Are we at present able to explain the almost ever-present urge to cast down our superiors and possess their wealth (cf Oedipus Complex) through brain imaging? Are we able to explain the desire to possess phallic symbols (and thus the possibility of possession of the phallus) through chemical analysis of the brain? Are we able to explain the particular imagery of our dreaming minds through electrical exploration of the brain?

At present science fails us in these fields, and yet they remain pressing concerns, and thus we are forced to use other tools in an attempt to understand ourselves both as individuals and as a species, thus the psychoanalytic narratives of Freud, Jung and Lacan are still valid ways of investigating the human condition and producing fresh and interesting new narrative viewpoints and insights. Certainly, there is no guarantee that they will produce definitive or ultimate answers, but even if they cannot provide us with a piece of terra firma to stand upon, they can at least give us debris to cling to midst the flood.

I agree, Dave. I'm more about Bandura's social learning theory.

Are we at present able to explain the almost ever-present urge to cast down our superiors and possess their wealth (cf Oedipus Complex) through brain imaging? Are we able to explain the desire to possess phallic symbols (and thus the possibility of possession of the phallus) through chemical analysis of the brain? Are we able to explain the particular imagery of our dreaming minds through electrical exploration of the brain?


The urge to cast down our superious and possess their wealth is basic pack mentality, and is explainable through behavioral evolution.

As for phallic symbols, there is no proof of symbolism in objects. And this is more or less (in my mildly uninformed opinion) one of the theories Freud used to cover up the fact that he had discovered pedophilia was so prevalent.

As for dreams, have we proven that the images in our dreams are symbolical, and are not a completely random emission?

The urge to cast down our superious and possess their wealth is basic pack mentality, and is explainable through behavioral evolution.

Right, so we are in agreement here that the Oedipus Complex is not a complete fiction (despite DeaconDave's claims). Behavioural evolution explains it in one manner, while Freud explains it in another.

As for phallic symbols, there is no proof of symbolism in objects. And this is more or less (in my mildly uninformed opinion) one of the theories Freud used to cover up the fact that he had discovered pedophilia was so prevalent.

There is certainly no proof of symbolism in objects: the symbolism is created in the observer's perceptions and internal reactions to them.

I don't quite follow here: 'pedophilia' as in the desire to have sexual relations with children, or do you actually mean Freud's realisation that children, even before the age of puberty possess 'sexual' desires (ie. are polymorphously perverse)?



As for dreams, have we proven that the images in our dreams are symbolical, and are not a completely random emission?

Certainly we haven't proven that the imagery of dreams is in fact symbolic, but the question is rather whether Freud provides an interesting and useful way of exploring our subconscious mind through his 'royal road'. What cannot be ignored here is how great a part of dreams that we appear to remember from sleep are in fact created retrospectively upon the moments immediately post and prior to waking: thus we see that our concerns and proclivities are impressed upon them giving them particular contents and structures.

I'm gonna bump this 'cause I wanna response, DD:

Oh thats easy. Because not all psychic "trauma" results in neuropathology, and not all neuropathology is caused by by psychic "trauma". But all pyscho- pathology results from neuropathology.

Therefore psychic trauma and pyschopathology are unrelated, although sometimes co-incidental. Which is why someone could survive the holocaust and live a normal psychopathology free life. (Albeit bitter about the experience),

And freuds pscho-sexual imagery is all the more bunk. :)

That last bit is what I thought you were on about in the first place, and the only area in which I agree with you, even partly, about the wrongitude of Freud's theories.

Well, can you prove that all psychopathologies result from neuropathology? And I note that you have not claimed that all neuropathologies lead to psychopathologies.

Certainly there are cases in which psychopathologies have resulted from neuropathologies without any experiencial trauma having triggered them, but just look at the mental health statistics of trauma survivors compared to the rest of the population. Would you refute that there is a higher incidence of mental illness in such people? Or would you suppose that their own neuropathological predispositions somehow caused them to suffer these traumas?

And then there is the chicken and the egg. Are a person's seratonin levels lower than average because he is depressed, or is he depressed because his seratonin levels are lower than average? Those who suffer mental illness after a trauma may have been predesposed, but would they suffer if not for the trauma? Psychotherapy can indeed help such people, albeit not so much those for whom organic causes were the original ones.

You have the theory that you prefer but it is not fully accepted by the scientific community, and thus it does nothing to refute Freud's work.

I will tenitively point out that I believe that software could, with the correct instruments, be "reverse" engineered. Although you might not end up with identical code, functionally the algorithms would be identical in operation.

Functional equivalence fails to understand the human aspects of the "code" (since I think this analogy, while technically incorrect, is the closest we will get to understanding one another). It goes back to the old problem... if you create a robot that passes the Turing test... is it conscious or sentient? It must certainly say that it is, but does it "think" or "feel" in the same way a person does?

I think I see the problem here. I believe the way to understand the actual behavior is to work up to it - by physically measuring the code's manifestation in the machine and reverse engineering the code from what I observe. You see it more as a top down approach, in other words, trying to devine the code from observing how it works, i.e. studying the process of consciouness.

Again... close enough, for the discussion at hand. But you miss the more fundamental difference. You don't seem to think that "the code itself" or "the process of consciousness" are valid objects of scientific study. If you can find a code--any code--that produces the same verifiable results as the one in operation, you will say that you have duplicated the system in all important respects. I think you leave out the most important one. You want to limit the scope of science.

(I think any philosopher of mind will point out good reasons to suspect that "reverse engineering" of the human system is not even possible. Then again, some of them claim that thermometers "think," so what do they know?)

Very good post, Bodies Without Organs.

While I suspect that we will never be able to reduce all of thought to a set of physical and chemical operations, otherwise we agree. And of course, I am willing to be proven wrong on that point... but that will take some time, I think.

Right, so we are in agreement here that the Oedipus Complex is not a complete fiction (despite DeaconDave's claims). Behavioural evolution explains it in one manner, while Freud explains it in another.

Yeah, I have to say that the Oedipus Complex is not complete fiction, altough I don't feel truly relates to envying your father's possessions.

There is certainly no proof of symbolism in objects: the symbolism is created in the observer's perceptions and internal reactions to them.

That is exactly why I don't really care for psychoanalysis. It is too much of a toss up, its always right, no matter what occurs it has an explanation for it.

I don't quite follow here: 'pedophilia' as in the desire to have sexual relations with children, or do you actually mean Freud's realisation that children, even before the age of puberty possess 'sexual' desires (ie. are polymorphously perverse)?

It really has nothing to do with that. Many believe that in his early studies and research, he found that the level of child molestation was alarming high. He formed some initial theories on this, but revised them to make it more of a child psychology issue as he knew that any theory using the data he found would not be accepted popularly. I certainly don't know if it is true, but there is some documentation that it might have been the case.

Certainly we haven't proven that the imagery of dreams is in fact symbolic, but the question is rather whether Freud provides an interesting and useful way of exploring our subconscious mind through his 'royal road'. What cannot be ignored here is how great a part of dreams that we appear to remember from sleep are in fact created retrospectively upon the moments immediately post and prior to waking: thus we see that our concerns and proclivities are impressed upon them giving them particular contents and structures.

The trouble with this is, that the effect is documented, but the cause is sometimes arbitrarily assigned using reasonable judgement. I won't outright dismiss it but I would like to see much more of a causal relationship to it. I may be just underinformed, but I really don't know how the causes actually "cause" the effect.

The urge to cast down our superious and possess their wealth is basic pack mentality, and is explainable through behavioral evolution.

Okay... psychoanalysts have no problem with that interpretation. What they attempt to explain, however, is how that desire is "passed on" from one generation to the next. Which is the more straightforward explanation--that there is a set of genes programmed to find authority and rebel against it, or that a process of species/cultural transmission occurs psychologically at a very young age? Possibly some combination of the two... but I think you cannot rule out the psychological cause simply because you have a biological candidate. I think there are subtleties, at any rate, that the psychological better explains.

As for phallic symbols, there is no proof of symbolism in objects.

Ummm, other than the fact that we use it all the time? Name a culture--just one--that has not used objects symbollically.

And this is more or less (in my mildly uninformed opinion) one of the theories Freud used to cover up the fact that he had discovered pedophilia was so prevalent.

That whole issue is a red herring. As you know, Freud was surprised by how many of his female patients claimed, in their analysis, that they had been sexually abused by their fathers as young girls. At some point, Freud decided that it was simply not possible that this much child abuse went on in his neighborhood... and it led him to the speculation that at least some of these cases resulted from the repressed fantasies of his female patients. He thus discovered childhood sexuality, as well as the deeply erotic longing for family members.

Now, in retrospect we think that more of these cases involved actual abuse than Freud was willing to admit. It is unfortunate that no one caught the bastards. Even so, Freud's discovery of the unconscious bore such fruit that its utility for understanding the psychology of the human mind could not be denied.

As for dreams, have we proven that the images in our dreams are symbolical, and are not a completely random emission?

They are symbolic partly because we treat them that way (obviously circular, yet indisputably true), but also partly because the explanations derived from treating them symbolically seem to work so well. Here, of course, one has to avoid the notion that a given object always represents the same thing for everyone. Jung took a step too far in this direction, I think. That is why analysts use free association, posing the question, "what do you think of when you see this?" This tends to lead to thoughts that were "in there somewhere" but of which the individual was unaware or only partly aware. That moment of realization (aha!) is very powerful, however, and suggests--although it can never confirm--that the arrived at idea was in fact the culprit behind the dream.

(Returning to my first comment, that they are symbolic because we treat them that way... it is true that "Freudians have Freudian dreams, Jungians have Jungian dreams.")

(I think any philosopher of mind will point out good reasons to suspect that "reverse engineering" of the human system is not even possible. Then again, some of them claim that thermometers "think," so what do they know?)

Thermostats, rather than thermometers, IIRC...

Okay... psychoanalysts have no problem with that interpretation. What they attempt to explain, however, is how that desire is "passed on" from one generation to the next. Which is the more straightforward explanation--that there is a set of genes programmed to find authority and rebel against it, or that a process of species/cultural transmission occurs psychologically at a very young age? Possibly some combination of the two... but I think you cannot rule out the psychological cause simply because you have a biological candidate. I think there are subtleties, at any rate, that the psychological better explains.

I can concede that it is very possibly a combination of the two. I see no reason why that behavior couldn't be a transmitted behavior. However, I would say that it is very biological in nature; through my experience with kids, (I have four half-siblings at least 10 years younger than me) that the selfish, controlling, nature is most prevalent in children and seems to decrease as the brain develops.

Ummm, other than the fact that we use it all the time? Name a culture--just one--that has not used objects symbollically.

Those are always conscious symbols.

That whole issue is a red herring. As you know, Freud was surprised by how many of his female patients claimed, in their analysis, that they had been sexually abused by their fathers as young girls. At some point, Freud decided that it was simply not possible that this much child abuse went on in his neighborhood... and it led him to the speculation that at least some of these cases resulted from the repressed fantasies of his female patients. He thus discovered childhood sexuality, as well as the deeply erotic longing for family members.

Now, in retrospect we think that more of these cases involved actual abuse than Freud was willing to admit. It is unfortunate that no one caught the bastards. Even so, Freud's discovery of the unconscious bore such fruit that its utility for understanding the psychology of the human mind could not be denied.

I don't know how much of the unconscious nature of the brain I subscribe to, but I will say that we have made large advances in coping with stress and trauma that are thanks in large part to Freud.

They are symbolic partly because we treat them that way (obviously circular, yet indisputably true), but also partly because the explanations derived from treating them symbolically seem to work so well. Here, of course, one has to avoid the notion that a given object always represents the same thing for everyone. Jung took a step too far in this direction, I think. That is why analysts use free association, posing the question, "what do you think of when you see this?" This tends to lead to thoughts that were "in there somewhere" but of which the individual was unaware or only partly aware. That moment of realization (aha!) is very powerful, however, and suggests--although it can never confirm--that the arrived at idea was in fact the culprit behind the dream.

(Returning to my first comment, that they are symbolic because we treat them that way... it is true that "Freudians have Freudian dreams, Jungians have Jungian dreams.")

Once again my trouble with psychoanalysis. It seems that symbolism can and has been assigned arbitrarily. Also the reason symbolism works so well is that it is symbolism. Symbols are abstract and can be construed to represent about anything. It allows for way to much margin of error.

Yeah, I have to say that the Oedipus Complex is not complete fiction, altough I don't feel truly relates to envying your father's possessions.

In fact, neither did Freud. The Oedipus complex is just that: complex. The popular simplification of "love your mother, hate your father" is an easily rejected straw man.

First, it must be noted that both boys and girls go through the Oedipal stage. (If you have heard something about "Elecra," this was Jung's baby, and one which precipitated Freud's rejection of his former student. The so-called "Electra complex" is real horse-shit.)

Second, there are two prongs to the Oedipal complex, which Freud called the "positive" and the "negative." The positive Oedipal complex, for the boy, involves his erotic longing for his mother (or mother figure) and therefore his competition with his father (or father figure) for her affections. The negative Oedipal complex involves the boy's erotic longing for his father (and/or his identification with his mother), and therefore his competition with his mother for his father's affection. Reverse the two, obviously, for the girl.

Of course we're dealing with a very obvious trait of small children, viz. what they want, they want for themselves only--and they want all of it. At this stage of development, the child is also in the process of figuring out the difference between men and women, boys and girls... and realizing that Mommy has some kind of love for Daddy that she does not have for the child. And vice versa, of course, Daddy has some kind of love for Mommy that he does not have for his child.

Ultimately, the Oedipal stage should result in the child's acceptance that he or she cannot have a certain kind of relationship with her/his parents. This acceptance involves the understanding that later, when the child grows up, he or she will be allowed to have such a relationship with another adult. (Hence the notion that later relationships "substitute" for a lost or inaccessible relationship to the parent.)

The Oedipal complex is given its particular form, however, largely as a result of the kind of society in which we live, specifically with respect to the elevation of men over women (politically, socially, etc). To the extent that this facet of our society has been mitigated over the last century or so, the Oedipal complex has become less of a problem--it is much easier to resolve without the stark power inequalities that one gave it shape. Of course, by no means is this process complete.

The symbolization of the phallus has more to do with the existing power relation than with any "innate" symbolic value. Because the child sees that the kind of love Daddy has for Mommy involves his power over her, and Daddy has a penis but Mommy does not, the child comes to understand the penis as a symbol invested with power. Moreover, the boy understands that Daddy can only love him like Mommy if his penis is removed / he renounces his claim to power. Thus the child gives up on a significant portion of his erotic attachment to his father (rather than be castrated), and comes to identify himself with the man's position of power over the woman. The girl, meanwhile, necessarily also recognizes the father's power... so she, too, wishes to identify with her father, especially since (for both children) the more powerful erotic attraction is to the mother, their very first love-object. But the girl realizes that she cannot ever have a penis of her own--instead, she must hope that Daddy/"a man" will love her enough to "give" her one. (She may also begin to symbolize the notion of a baby--especially a boy baby--in phallic terms. But she still needs a man to "give" her a baby, whereas the boy's power exists as a part of himself.)

This serves to explain some very interesting recurring trends, not least of which is the tendency to "marry one's mother (or father)." Also, while the boy has to immediately renounce his erotic love of his mother (against the threat of castration), there is a less-strong motive for girls to renounce erotic longing for their father. Thus, we probably see more examples of "Daddy's little girl" than outright "Mama's boys," because daughters take it upon themselves to impress their fathers while boys are trained to lord over women (just not Mom while Dad is around), not make themselves attractive to women.

That is exactly why I don't really care for psychoanalysis. It is too much of a toss up, its always right, no matter what occurs it has an explanation for it.

While it is always true that the analyst seeks "an explanation for everything," this does not imply that there are no standards as to what counts as a good explanation. You seem to confuse the two.

I can concede that it is very possibly a combination of the two. I see no reason why that behavior couldn't be a transmitted behavior. However, I would say that it is very biological in nature;

Yes, but so did Freud. He always insisted that his theories depended on a physical notion of biological drives--but he pointed out, rightly I think, that when human beings became speaking creatures those drives were problematized and symbolized, just as everything else in the world was symbolized by language. The result is that biological drives can be expressed in ways that biology itself could never predict.

For instance, I know a woman who was prescribed Depo-Provera as birth control a few years ago. As she quickly learned, the drug has a major effect in decreasing sexual libido. She used to have great sex drive, and masturbated on a regular basis. She stopped. What interests us from a psychodynamic perspective, however, is that she also used to go shopping every weekend, and frequently enough during the week. The drug also significantly decreased her desire for shopping. Now, with very little analysis, it was possible to figure out how shopping was related to erotic desire because of the symbols to which it was related. Biology alone can never predict how the "chemical" drives are channeled and sublimated in a given individual. Of course, this is why psychoanalysis cannot make many broad predictions--one could not say, for example, that Depo Provera will reduce interest in shopping for very many patients. But when it comes to counseling or self-understanding, what do you need most? Predictions that are true most of the time, or an explanation that is true, this time?

through my experience with kids, (I have four half-siblings at least 10 years younger than me) that the selfish, controlling, nature is most prevalent in children and seems to decrease as the brain develops.

You beg the question. Is it the development of the brain, or the development of the personality, or both? How does a child behave if raised "wild," with no human contact? It's a rhetorical question: clearly, brain development alone cannot account for psychological development or brain development is itself affected by social inputs. In either case, the door remains open for a symbolic, psychological understading of psychic phenomena as opposed to a purely biological one.

Those are always conscious symbols.
It doesn't matter. They are symbols. The point is that there is nothing complex or "advanced" about abstraction. On the contrary, it is the most basic thing in the world; indeed, in many ways our culture, as it has "advanced," has become less symbolic. But that only goes to prove the point: those "primitive" parts of our own minds are just as likely to rely on symbols as are "uncivilized" human beings.

Once again my trouble with psychoanalysis. It seems that symbolism can and has been assigned arbitrarily.

Then you have not been paying attention. If the symbolization could be arbitrary, then one set of symbols would "work" for everyone. As it happens, no psychoanalyst--not even a Jungian--believes this. First, in general symbols are highly personal. Far from arbitrary, they inherently depend on the patient's particular history. On the other hand, some symbols do seem to have rather far-reaching significance. (The emphasis on this varies from school to school, with the Jungians making the strongest claim.) Of course, these are not at all arbitrary either--they depend upon, for most, the specific culture of the person under analysis. Even for the strongest claims (which, in general, I reject), the identification of a symbol is not arbitrary, but relies on evidence of a truly universal human experience.

Symbols are abstract and can be construed to represent about anything. It allows for way to much margin of error.

That is true. But of course that's why in most cases it takes a trained analyst to help a patient sort out the irrelevent associations to find the symbolization that actually means something to them.

The problem is that the unconscious is a messy place, and you want to "clean it up" before you study it. Psychoanalysis wants to study it as it is.

I think we will suffer the same fate as you and DeaconDave.

I see the brain as organic computer that its. If we had a documented account of all external stimuli and resulting behavior, we could accurately predict behavior and come up with foolproof plans on how to fix "incorrect" behavior. Unfortunately, we don't have that, so we make the most educated judgement we can.

The thing is, we can come to the exact same result, only our reasoning is different.

I also want to acknowledge that I could be completely wrong, this is just a portrayal of how I think the brain works. And I have a limited understanding of the brain at best.

People have been saying that Freud is full of it for ages. Since the rise of Behaviorism at least, if not before.

People have been saying that Freud is full of it for ages. Since the rise of Behaviorism at least, if not before.

Yep. But behaviorism came and went, yet psychodynamics remains.

" Predictions that are true most of the time, or an explanation that is true, this time?"

But how do we know that it's true? We don't. It seems logical that it would be - but that doesn't make it true. You don't need to make general predictions about everybody. You can go ahead and make predictions about individual people, or about any set of people, and they can be as general or as specific as you like.

But if all you offer is an explanation that sounds reasonable, but isn't supported by any evidence - well, how can you insist that this explanation is better than another one? The fact that it seems reasonable doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

That might be one of the reasons we physicists are so anal about requiring evidence, because the two most successful curent theories - quantum electrodynamics and general relativity - are so counterintuitive and make no sense, and would be rejected by everybody if they weren't so GOOD at predicting results.

Likewise, with the brain... saying that it's a complicated thing would be the understatement of the century. Just because a certain way of looking at it makes sense doesn't mean it's true. Without evidence, speculation about how the brain works is just speculation.

You say " Biology alone can never predict how the "chemical" drives are channeled and sublimated in a given individual," but from that example, neither can psychoanalysis. Nobody predicted how the woman would react; they looked at how she reacted and concocted an explanation. And that explanation might be right or might be wrong.

But how do we know that it's true? We don't.

When it comes to explanation, you will never know with perfect certainty that anything is true. Your examples from physics are quite appropriate. Since we cannot know with any certainty the processes that we try to explain, we take a step back and use "predictive accuracy" as an epistemological test.

Granted, it's not a bad test. But when it comes to some things, prediction alone is not a very satisfying standard. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that some neuropsychologists develops a perfect predictive model. Let us even say that the recovery rate of patients under such treatment is near 100%. Great. Fantastic. But it still doesn't tell us anything about the everyday experience of evaluating our feelings and understanding ourselves.

As I have said previously, Freud never expected that psychoanalysis would have a great deal to add to the treatment of serious psychological ailments. (Some of his successors would disagree.) What he offers, however, is a scientific means of analyzing the self. It is scientific, as opposed to philosophical or religious, in the sense that it proposes specific methods and symbols with which to interpret the imagery and impulses of the mind, and the "truth" of its theoretical framework is judged by how successful such analysis seems to be. But part of its "success" has to be a resonance with experience, i.e. people have to recognize themselves in the process. No discussion of chemicals and neurons will ever have any place in a meaningful discussion of "selfhood."

But if all you offer is an explanation that sounds reasonable, but isn't supported by any evidence - well, how can you insist that this explanation is better than another one?

But it is supported by plenty of evidence. It's just that psychological evidence is very different from physical evidence. If it were not supported by any evidence, it surely would have followed the career of Mesmerism and died.

The fact that it seems reasonable doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

Of course not. But the fact that it seems reasonable, and it's theories are born out in one analysis after another, suggests that it is true.

That might be one of the reasons we physicists are so anal about requiring evidence, because the two most successful curent theories - quantum electrodynamics and general relativity - are so counterintuitive and make no sense, and would be rejected by everybody if they weren't so GOOD at predicting results.

Well, it is true that they are counterintuitive. But isn't it also necessary that their results at the slow, macro level are intuitive and obvious? That is, when you restrict them to the everyday world of human existence, don't they predict exactly what we would have gotten from Newtonian mechanics? Perhaps more importantly... doesn't it make a lot more sense to use Newton when dealing with everyday life than to jump to relativistic equations and quantum theory? If I am going to figure out how to set up a simple pulley, which should I choose?

Psychoanalysis, in that sense, is somewhat similar to classical physics. Even if we "know" it's "not what's really going on" (that's all chemicals and brainwaves), we also know that it is a really useful way of negotiating the everyday world, as well as solving simple problems--especially for those of us who are suspicious of putting drugs in our bodies that may have more than the intended effects.

You say " Biology alone can never predict how the "chemical" drives are channeled and sublimated in a given individual," but from that example, neither can psychoanalysis.

Sure it can. Had we known the history of the patient prior to the application of the drug, we would have been very likely to predict the result. Moreover, psychoanalytic understandings still play a large role, I believe, in the sort of forensic science that seeks to "profile" a suspect based on salient features of a crime. As far as I know, neurology offers very little help.

Aren't there any psychological theories that aren't deterministic?

Aren't there any psychological theories that aren't deterministic?

Letila, I suspect you would like psychoanalytic thinking very much, if you gave it a chance. As you know, I lean heavily toward anarchist thinking in politics, and I can tell you that psychoanalysis has a lot to offer.

Many leftists reject it because they think it insists people are "doomed" to take up particular gender roles, that power is defined in certain ways, and that individuals have no control over their lives -- since it so strongly stresses unconscious motivations.

When you actually get into it, however, you discover a number of things. First, Freud was involved in describing a patriarchal society, not prescribing it. While his personal politics tend to be conservative, and this cannot be entirely separated from his theory, psychoanalysis itself has no inherent political leaning. It depends on how you use it.

Second, you realize that since it describes this society at a psychological depth that few other theories can match, it offers a particularly interesting critique. Surely as an anarchist you feel that human nature is malleable. Psychoanalysis, even as it challenges aspects of this view, allows us to state more clearly which aspects are truly malleable... and it even provides recommendations for what society would have to look like in order to "deproblematize" gender, for instance.

Finally, psychoanalysis is about as far from determinism as one can get. Although it points to certain common experiences and fantasies of growing up, there should be little surprising about this--we know intuitively that there is a process of developing selfhood. However, one of the reasons people like our physicist friend dislike psychoanalysis is that the result of common experiences often comes down to a matter of how the individual in question deals with them. Ultimately, Freud always thought of psychoanalysis as a way to free human beings from themselves, from our own animal nature. He thought that by recognizing hidden fears and desires, we could learn to control them... and thus become more autonomous, less deterministic creatures.

Letila, I suspect you would like psychoanalytic thinking very much, if you gave it a chance. As you know, I lean heavily toward anarchist thinking in politics, and I can tell you that psychoanalysis has a lot to offer.

Many leftists reject it because they think it insists people are "doomed" to take up particular gender roles, that power is defined in certain ways, and that individuals have no control over their lives -- since it so strongly stresses unconscious motivations.

When you actually get into it, however, you discover a number of things. First, Freud was involved in describing a patriarchal society, not prescribing it. While his personal politics tend to be conservative, and this cannot be entirely separated from his theory, psychoanalysis itself has no inherent political leaning. It depends on how you use it.

Second, you realize that since it describes this society at a psychological depth that few other theories can match, it offers a particularly interesting critique. Surely as an anarchist you feel that human nature is malleable. Psychoanalysis, even as it challenges aspects of this view, allows us to state more clearly which aspects are truly malleable... and it even provides recommendations for what society would have to look like in order to "deproblematize" gender, for instance.

Finally, psychoanalysis is about as far from determinism as one can get. Although it points to certain common experiences and fantasies of growing up, there should be little surprising about this--we know intuitively that there is a process of developing selfhood. However, one of the reasons people like our physicist friend dislike psychoanalysis is that the result of common experiences often comes down to a matter of how the individual in question deals with them. Ultimately, Freud always thought of psychoanalysis as a way to free human beings from themselves, from our own animal nature. He thought that by recognizing hidden fears and desires, we could learn to control them... and thus become more autonomous, less deterministic creatures.

I see. I was under the impression that it said we were at the mercy of unconscious conflicts and whatnot.

There's behaviorism, which I hate because it is extremely deterministic, though.

I see. I was under the impression that it said we were at the mercy of unconscious conflicts and whatnot.

I think it's interesting, because it says that we are at their mercy, but that it is possible to transcend this condition. Thus, there is an ideal of liberation hidden at the heart of the psychoanalytic enterprise.

Behaviorists, on the other hand, (as well as several people posting to this thread) want to believe that we are perfectly deterministic. The significant evidence to the contrary tends to be very frustrating for them.
:)

Also, in our homophobe case, do you think if a psychiatrist made one of the subjects aware of their homosexual leanings do you think they would accept them or do you think it would spawn more homophobic behavior. In my opinion awareness would only increase the behavior.

Very likely, yes. The reaction would likely be compensation...to prove they're not gay, they're going to go out and call someone a fag (or some such thing). Or, they'd probably just brand the psychiatrist a quack and never go back. Whatever it would take to resolve the cognitive dissonance such a revelation would cause...

Behaviorists, on the other hand, (as well as several people posting to this thread) want to believe that we are perfectly deterministic. The significant evidence to the contrary tends to be very frustrating for them.

I see. I've been considering that desire in a philosophical context, with existentialism and such.

Very likely, yes. The reaction would likely be compensation...to prove they're not gay, they're going to go out and call someone a fag (or some such thing). Or, they'd probably just brand the psychiatrist a quack and never go back. Whatever it would take to resolve the cognitive dissonance such a revelation would cause...

Yep. That's why no analyst in his right mind would just go around telling people things like that. (With the possible exception of Lacan, but who is to say he was in his right mind?)

Of course, most analysands go through a period in which they seriously dislike their analyst, often for reasons similar to this one (but also as a generalized result of the process of projection and working-through).

it's theories are born out in one analysis after another, suggests that it is true.


also know that it is a really useful way of negotiating the everyday world, as well as solving simple problems

Sure it can. Had we known the history of the patient prior to the application of the drug, we would have been very likely to predict the result. Moreover, psychoanalytic understandings still play a large role, I believe, in the sort of forensic science that seeks to "profile" a suspect based on salient features of a crime.

Hmm, okay. That works, that's very acceptable. If it is applicable to solving problems and gives results - hey, that's evidence, that counts. Without evidence, we can't claim that our "understanding" is correct...

[btw, I don't think your analogy with Newton's laws is appropriate. Newton's laws gave multitudes and multitudes of testable predictions - while at the same time giving very little "understanding." We knew that F=ma, but what that meant was beyond us, besides the fact that objects would accelerate at a certain rate. Newton's laws didn't explain the "why" or even the how at all - exactly the opposite of psychoanalysis, which is built to explain and not to predict]

...since you seem so confident that there is evidence, but did not provide it, I took the liberty of doing my own quick search - several quick queries of pubmed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14704612
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12100831

They cite a valid tests of psychoanalysis in a clinical trials. So they exist.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11992328 also seemed related.

According to

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12064032 , psychoanalysis has only now begun to be viewed from an evidence-based perspective - there is little evidence yet, but progress is apparently being made.

...okay, I'll buy that. There's evidence. Not much as of yet, according to that last reference the search is just beginning.

I think that this is interesting. Here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/work/onereason.html)

Unfortunately this is the only reference I could find, but I remeber it being mentioned in a magazine. (It came to me this morning in the shower).

Now, it is quite easy to imagine psychoanalyzing a teen, and aplying freudian theories &ct., but at a fundamental level their brain is operating differently to an adults. It is engaging different areas to the fully developed adult brain, so despite the fact the we think that there process of conciousness is the same, phsically it is not. In my view that means that somehow, the "conciousness" of an adolescent is different to that of a fully developed adult. Thus the reliance on percieved symbols is not only superfluos, it is possibly actively detrimental to the process. After all, it seems as if adolescents will process interaction with others in a fundamentally different way to adults.

I don't want to throw fuel on the fire here, but I think this supports my view that the best way to understand the brain is through physical processes and develop a physically rooted model. Freud's theories simply do not take this aspect of brain physiology into account, yet clearly these differences have huge impact on cognative function. It also begs the question that any approach rooted in "symbology" and analysis of experience of conciousness may be flawed, given that the adolescent perception of conciousness, while anecdotally identical to an adults, is completely different.

I'm gonna bump this 'cause I wanna response, DD:


Okay.

They way I see it is that is all psychopatholoies stem from neuropathology. In other words I have a disease model of psychopathology. We just have not the equipment or instrumentation to identify them all yet.

I admit that it is possible for a traumatic event to set this process into motion, but this is only because of physiological reaction experienced. Essentially, a traumatic event may lead to changes in hormone balance &ct., and over time this may induce a neuropathology. (As in Seles (sp-?) theory of adaptation, not that that deals with the brain per se.)

Importantly however, it is not the event itself that causes the disease, but the individual's reaction to it. This explains why some individuals can experience periods of extreme stress and remain mentally unscathed, whereas others suffer permanent pyschopathology after relatively mild events. The pyschopathology they suffer is caused by the neuropathology induced, and their subseptibility to this is a function of thier underlying "robustness" for want of a better term. Just as some people can smoke all their lives and never get cancer, whereas some people -as has been shown I believe - are extremely suseptible to carcinogens. The key point of this analogy is that is not the fact that cigarettes cause cancer, but the individual's physiological reaction which is important.

I think that this is interesting. Here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/work/onereason.html)

Unfortunately this is the only reference I could find, but I remeber it being mentioned in a magazine. (It came to me this morning in the shower).

Now, it is quite easy to imagine psychoanalyzing a teen, and aplying freudian theories &ct., but at a fundamental level their brain is operating differently to an adults. It is engaging different areas to the fully developed adult brain, so despite the fact the we think that there process of conciousness is the same, phsically it is not. In my view that means that somehow, the "conciousness" of an adolescent is different to that of a fully developed adult. Thus the reliance on percieved symbols is not only superfluos, it is possibly actively detrimental to the process. After all, it seems as if adolescents will process interaction with others in a fundamentally different way to adults.

I don't want to throw fuel on the fire here, but I think this supports my view that the best way to understand the brain is through physical processes and develop a physically rooted model. Freud's theories simply do not take this aspect of brain physiology into account, yet clearly these differences have huge impact on cognative function. It also begs the question that any approach rooted in "symbology" and analysis of experience of conciousness may be flawed, given that the adolescent perception of conciousness, while anecdotally identical to an adults, is completely different.


That is interesting, but try again...everyone knows kids' brains function in ways different from adults. Hell, that's one reason I don't want to work with anyone under 18 once I start practicing. The theories out there are mostly created around an adult model (barring developmental theories), the most stable kind. So, you've proven what we already know, and it has little to do with the existence or lack thereof of consciousness.

That is interesting, but try again...everyone knows kids' brains function in ways different from adults. Hell, that's one reason I don't want to work with anyone under 18 once I start practicing. The theories out there are mostly created around an adult model (barring developmental theories), the most stable kind. So, you've proven what we already know, and it has little to do with the existence or lack thereof of consciousness.

But how can you use childhood experience then. Everything that happens before 18 should be off the table.

But how can you use childhood experience then. Everything that happens before 18 should be off the table.

No, now you're talking about throwing out formative experiences, which are quite valid and influential. We know that children learn as they grow, and that their experiences have a more profound effect on them than on adults. It's acknowledged, though, that the mind of a child/young adult is more variable or unpredictable than that of adults. That shakes up theories of processes, but not development as a whole. Developing brains can be compared to developing brains (in this, valid theories can be formed), but in comparing them to fully formed brains, you're going to meet with some problems. Apples and oranges...

I vote BUNK!!! But he's so much fun for interpreting myth with though. I mean come on, Herakles fought off serpents as a babe...what does that say?!

On the one hand, he did make certain myths a little more accessible, how many people would have heard of Oedipus without him? But on the other, he gave the Oedipus myth this whole other bend. Bastard.

But that's the whole thing with theories. Theories are theories, the can never be proved, only disproved. They can never be right, only wrong.

I'd say there's something there. But I would agree that it's a chemical thing that cause the unconscious/sub-conscious blah blah reaction. Just like everyone else is saying...I think...I dunno, I lost the plot somewhere in there...
Everything can be explained with chemicals I reckon. And how the basic urge of any species is propogation.

Man, poor Oedipus eh. The gods were just having their fun. Nothing about having a secret desire to kill his father and have sex with his mummy.... Or was there?! :eek:

[btw, I don't think your analogy with Newton's laws is appropriate. Newton's laws gave multitudes and multitudes of testable predictions - while at the same time giving very little "understanding." We knew that F=ma, but what that meant was beyond us, besides the fact that objects would accelerate at a certain rate. Newton's laws didn't explain the "why" or even the how at all - exactly the opposite of psychoanalysis, which is built to explain and not to predict]

Point taken, and in principle I agree with you. However, for those posters who are convinced that the "why" and the "how" are all ultimately related to chemicals and physical structures in the brain, the analogy should still be useful. My point for them is that at least psychoanalysis provides a useful means with which to understand human psychology at the "macro" level, dealing with a fully developed person in a real historical context. While the "real" truth may be what they say it is (just as all mechanics "really" comes down to quanta and relativistic behavior), psychoanalysis remains just as useful for the everyday as Newton is for solving regular mechanical problems. I happen to think there is more truth in it than this... but I am willing to be satisfied if I can at least convince someone of the former argument, which in its own way legitimates the work.

...since you seem so confident that there is evidence, but did not provide it, I took the liberty of doing my own quick search

I guess you missed the section a few pages back in which I provided token examples of statistical research (one on psychoanalytic theory, and one on clinical trials). I figured I wouldn't clutter the thread with repetitious examples, which anyone with interest can easily find--as you have adequately demonstrated.

Well DeaconDave , this does beg the question.. How do you feel about your parents? :D

Now, it is quite easy to imagine psychoanalyzing a teen, and aplying freudian theories &ct., but at a fundamental level their brain is operating differently to an adults. It is engaging different areas to the fully developed adult brain, so despite the fact the we think that there process of conciousness is the same, phsically it is not.

What psychoanalyst thinks that juvenile and adult processes of consciousness are the same?

In my view that means that somehow, the "conciousness" of an adolescent is different to that of a fully developed adult.

Again, you agree with the psychoanalyst.

Thus the reliance on percieved symbols is not only superfluos, it is possibly actively detrimental to the process.

Non sequitur. Especially since the article you cite involves an argument about symbols (reading emotion from an expression). The question to be asked is, does brain development alone account for the advanced ability to read an expression? Or, perhaps more appropriately, what causes the development of the brain? We know that if we let young children go without learning language, the ability of the brain to do so fades away--"wild" children never learn to speak. In the same way, we have to wonder what would happen to a teen who was never compelled (by the reality principle) to conform to an adult world. Would her/his brain even develop the higher function?


It also begs the question that any approach rooted in "symbology" and analysis of experience of conciousness may be flawed, given that the adolescent perception of conciousness, while anecdotally identical to an adults, is completely different.

You seem not to understand that the bulk of psychoanalytic research is focused on how to understand the "strange" symbolism of the childish mind.

They way I see it is that is all psychopatholoies stem from neuropathology. In other words I have a disease model of psychopathology. We just have not the equipment or instrumentation to identify them all yet.


Okay. I'm willing to say "maybe." But what does any of it tell you about everyday life, about the process of controlling your own urges, or channelling one's energy into higher pursuits? What does it tell you about being human?

Okay.

They way I see it is that is all psychopatholoies stem from neuropathology. In other words I have a disease model of psychopathology. We just have not the equipment or instrumentation to identify them all yet.

I admit that it is possible for a traumatic event to set this process into motion, but this is only because of physiological reaction experienced. Essentially, a traumatic event may lead to changes in hormone balance &ct., and over time this may induce a neuropathology. (As in Seles (sp-?) theory of adaptation, not that that deals with the brain per se.)

Importantly however, it is not the event itself that causes the disease, but the individual's reaction to it. This explains why some individuals can experience periods of extreme stress and remain mentally unscathed, whereas others suffer permanent pyschopathology after relatively mild events. The pyschopathology they suffer is caused by the neuropathology induced, and their subseptibility to this is a function of thier underlying "robustness" for want of a better term. Just as some people can smoke all their lives and never get cancer, whereas some people -as has been shown I believe - are extremely suseptible to carcinogens. The key point of this analogy is that is not the fact that cigarettes cause cancer, but the individual's physiological reaction which is important.

Granted. So... basically your rejection of Freud is not based on any particular evidence of flaws in his theories or in the practice of psychotherapy, but merely on the fact that you subscribe to a conflicting theory of psychopathology. Correct?