NationStates Jolt Archive

Now I had long ago dismissed Freud as unempirical BS, but today I witnessed a little girl ask her daddy to marry her, and although I'm not likely going to revisit Freud, it got me wondering, what are your opinons?

Now I had long ago dismissed Freud as unempirical BS, but today I witnessed a little girl ask her daddy to marry her, and although I'm not likely going to revisit Freud, it got me wondering, what are your opinons?

I think the Dad should decline.

even though his ideas that daughters are attracted their fathers and sons are attracted to their mothers are disturbing, they aren't completely without foundation. People like what they are used to, and their family is often the most comforting thing they have in life, especially from early childhood.

I was realy wondering about what yall think about the whole Freud thing, not just the Oedipus and Electra complexes...

Well, some study or another also proves that girls look for guys who remind them of their fathers, and treat them the way their fathers treat them. (A daughter who was abused by her father will most likely get into an abusive relationship if the issue was never dealt with.) Also, guys tend to treat their girlfriends/wives the way they treat their mothers - disrespect their mothers, tend to be jerks. Dunno if it's exactly the same thing, but there are certainly mother-son, father-daughter connections.

Edit: Freud in general? Sorry, can't really help you... don't know so much myself on the subject. :p

Pfffft Freud was full of shit.

*lights up a stogie*

i think freud had alot of insights. most of his ideas have become completely accepted by society and we are left to argue with the stupid fringes of things he thought.

id never even consider going into freudian analysis as a way to cure myself of any psychological problem.

People learn extremely fast when they are very young (from taking in everything at lightspeed as a baby to being curious as a toddler). This slows down overtime as you have already learned the basics and your mind can start to develop in different ways. Thus, you learn about relationships by observing other people's relationships. Since your parents are the biggest relationship in your life for most people, you subconciously learn most of what you know from them. Of course this can change later, but you will find that many people strive to fill what their parents have taught them unintentionally when they were very young.

Need I say "Duh"? Freud was a genius and he cleverly figured all this shit out and then took it to extremes simply because he could and he wanted something to think about. Most of it is commonly not believed to be true but the basics of some of it are not only acknowledged but painfully obvious.

I think you need to go to Vienna, sit down in the Cafe Central and have a melange with some of those decadent deserts they serve there.

Freud, like Falco, really makes no sense outside of the city.

*is reminded of Brave New World, shudders*

Now I had long ago dismissed Freud as unempirical BS, but today I witnessed a little girl ask her daddy to marry her, and although I'm not likely going to revisit Freud, it got me wondering, what are your opinons?
Alll three of mine asked me that. I just explained what they could understand at the time and let it go at that. In my experience, most little girls who love their daddies go through that early on. It's normal.

Some of Freud's stuff is BS/guesswork, but he eerily anticipated a lot of stuff, particularly in the neuroscience department. Some of the drawings he made of brain functions look quite a bit like how we now know neurons are wired.

The other stuff though: ego/superego etc? Not really. Electra/Oedipus complexes? Possible. Long term love produces oxytocin, and the biggest oxytocin high a person gets is when they're a baby, so in some ways people seeking love are trying to approximate that half-remembered euphoria.

A daughter asking her dad to marry her has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with marriage.

in general, Freud has been greatly dismissed. The fact is, there is much more to development than sex (I prefer psychosocial over psychosexual theories myself). This isn't to say he didn't have great ideas. the idea of the subconscious and ego/id/superego is pretty relevant, as is the full text of civilization and its discontents (that comes into play with literature more than psych tho, I think). Also, his defence mechs. are still credible, such as sublimination and denial, etc.

Overall, he was wrong. But atleast he gave us something to work off of.

in general, Freud has been greatly dismissed. The fact is, there is much more to development than sex (I prefer psychosocial over psychosexual theories myself). This isn't to say he didn't have great ideas. the idea of the subconscious and ego/id/superego is pretty relevant, as is the full text of civilization and its discontents (that comes into play with literature more than psych tho, I think). Also, his defence mechs. are still credible, such as sublimination and denial, etc.

Overall, he was wrong. But atleast he gave us something to work off of.
This is why I don't get all the bashing done to him.

This is why I don't get all the bashing done to him.
because people think he's just all about sex. which isn't completely wrong...just not completely right either. At the very least, he deserves credit for starting it all and giving us something to disprove.

as for him being unempirical, its hard to be empirical with the social sciences. Atleast in the way we think of it in scientific terms

Say what you like about Freud, but he was the father of most modern thought with regards to counseling. Before he came along, the idea that physical symptoms could be caused by mental distress was completely unheard of. The whole "importance of early childhood" thing was all him whether or not you agree about the sexual aspect. Also, we still use his list of defense mechanisms...THAT has pretty much gone unchanged and unchallenged all this time.

I wouldn't call myself a Freudian, but anybody who believes in counseling is technically a Feudian at the root, you know?

Well, his name is one letter away from Fraud and I've always heard he was something of a bullshitter (and an occasional cocaine-user, and he had sexual fantasies about his mother).

My 4 year old used to want to marry my husband, then we explained that while it's okay to love daddy and like his qualities, that she really should look for a husband that is not already married and probably best if he isn't related to her, so she picked out a little boy at church that she is going to marry now.

My 2 year old wants to "marry someone like daddy, but not so old". LOL

I suppose it's normal for little girls to "play wedding" and most of the time daddy is the only guy around.

One of the 2 year olds in the class I teach proposed to me a few weeks back, I explained that I was already married, but that we can be friends. ;)

Mr. Freud, I'm sorry, I've never wanted to marry or had sexual fantasies about my mother.
As a youngin', I got it right rather quickly. Then I turned three, and stopped going to the same daycare, got a big let-down...
Long story short, I skipped incest and jumped right into wanting to marry my terrier at the tender age of three.

Anyhow, I think Freud was on to something about all these, "You're mom!" jokes which might stem from his theories that babies have sexual fantasies.

Freud was a pioneer in both psychological and political-philosophical writings. Postmodern movements, feminist critiques, and critical theorists all use his analysis of people in civilization as a background.

People dismiss Freud, especially in psychology circles, because a) he wasn't an empiricist, b) he was quite fixated on sex, and c) it's fashionable.

I think Freud's contributions are incredible. It's as though people dismiss the few parts they can understand, and ignore the rest of the stuff that is extremely insightful.

Hedging one's bets to a single individual is normally a bad move. But in the big picture, he contributed a ton to our current understanding of human psychology and politics.

My 4 year old used to want to marry my husband, then we explained that while it's okay to love daddy and like his qualities, that she really should look for a husband that is not already married and probably best if he isn't related to her, so she picked out a little boy at church that she is going to marry now.

My 2 year old wants to "marry someone like daddy, but not so old". LOL

I suppose it's normal for little girls to "play wedding" and most of the time daddy is the only guy around.

One of the 2 year olds in the class I teach proposed to me a few weeks back, I explained that I was already married, but that we can be friends. ;)
Awww! That's so cute! Don't ya just love how innocent and straightforward they are at that age? This is one of the reasons I learned more from helping to raise my children than I did from anything else in my life. God, I love 'em so! :)

Well, his name is one letter away from Fraud and I've always heard he was something of a bullshitter (and an occasional cocaine-user, and he had sexual fantasies about his mother).
he was actually a cocaine adict for a while (at that time, it was a common medication). He also managed to rehab himself. Ask any cocaine adict how difficult that is. Also, I wouldn't lable any of his stuff the work of a bullshit artist. Much of it makes sense atleast to some degree. Not to mention it still forms the basis of modern psychology as well as having several elements still in popular use today, some of which have never needed to be modified (see defence mechanisms and the grief cycle)

oh, and the child wanting to marry mom or dad isn't a sexual thing perse. It is difficult to understand without reading his works, so I won't even attempt. But it isn't about wanting to bang mommy or daddy.

Freud may have talked a lot of wank, and been totally unscientific, and overly preoccupied with sex, but he was right about some stuff, like religion. and even though the oedepus stuff sounds stupid, it kinda makes sense.

I've always seen Freud as the Darwin of Psychology. He got a massive number of things wrong, but he got the general idea right, which was more than anyone else had at the time.

I read somewhere that while Frued was an expert in Diagnosing phycological ailments of his subjects, he never actually physiclly helped one of his patients.

I read somewhere that while Frued was an expert in Diagnosing phycological ailments of his subjects, he never actually physiclly helped one of his patients.
depends what you mean. He didn't physically help anyone, as he didn't deal with the physical. He dealt with the mental.

However, he did treat many of his patients, as well as his own, mental issues.

From my Psychology textbook concerning Freud:

Dream about giraffes. Represented Hans' wish to take his mother away from his father, so that Hans could be with his mother.

What now?

Its your mother, she is the source of all your problems.
of course she is, she is the source of me! how in the heck do I fix it? that's what I want to know.

Its your mother, she is the source of all your problems.

Now I had long ago dismissed Freud as unempirical BS, but today I witnessed a little girl ask her daddy to marry her, and although I'm not likely going to revisit Freud, it got me wondering, what are your opinons?

Freud is not unempirical BS.

First of all, you must employ a definition of "empirical" with which I am unfamiliar. Freud's theories, and the theories of the psychoanalysts that have followed him, have always been based in empirical observations... such as the one you just made yourself. The popular (and popularly misunderstood) theory of "penis-envy" was a response to little girls asking, "when will I get mine"... conversely, Freud understood birth-envy to describe the little boy's question, "when will I have mine?" This occurs, Freud says, at an age at which children tend to want to have everything, especially things they cannot have. Of course, penis-envy plays a much more important role... but only because our sexist society privileges men, not for any innate biological/psychological reason.

To return to the point, psychoanalysis has always been empirical. What I think you are driving at is the complaint by many scientists that psychoanalysis is, while empirical, not falsifiable. That is, psychoanalytic theory rests in large part on a standard of plausibility rather than a more positivist standard.

To some extent, psychoanalysts were satisfied to live with this: it is a question for philosophers of science to answer whether "plausibility" is "good enough" as a scientific standard... for answers to some questions, it has been held, it is the best standard we have.

Interestingly, however, in recent years there have increasingly been successful attempts to test psychoanalytic theories according to the positivist standard of falsifiability. For example, the theory that homophobia is an expression of unsuccessfully repressed heterosexual feelings has been successfully tested using a device that measures unconscious feelings of sexual arousal by detecting minute changes in the penis.

even though his ideas that daughters are attracted their fathers and sons are attracted to their mothers are disturbing, they aren't completely without foundation.
Actually, he thought that children of both genders are attracted to both parents. It's only through the resolution of the Oedipal complex that children settle on heterosexuality.

I was realy wondering about what yall think about the whole Freud thing, not just the Oedipus and Electra complexes...Freud discovered the Oedipus complex, which applies to children of both sexes. It was Jung who came up with Electra, because he insisted on innate heterosexuality.

depends what you mean. He didn't physically help anyone, as he didn't deal with the physical. He dealt with the mental.

However, he did treat many of his patients, as well as his own, mental issues.

Not according to what I heard. He apparently left his patients in a worse mental state than before he treated them.

I'll have to verify the accuracy of my source, though.

Well, his name is one letter away from Fraud and I've always heard he was something of a bullshitter (and an occasional cocaine-user, and he had sexual fantasies about his mother).

More than an occasional cocaine-user, at one time he was very much addicted... but you also have to remember that cocaine was "new" at that time, and he was fascinated with the stuff. Thought it was a "miracle-drug" that could do all kinds of useful things.

To his great credit, once it became evident that it was both heavily addictive and dangerous to mental/physical health, he quit. It couldn't have been easy, considering that at that time no one had really studied either the psychology or the physiology of addiction. There were no clinics. Just will-power.

Finally, he discovered parental fantasies by talking with his patients. He later discovered a lot about himself through an impressive self-analysis. He argued, rather convincingly, that it was perfectly normal for people to have such unconscious thoughts about their parents, who are our first love-objects. The fact that parents are "off-limits" when it comes to certain kinds of love is something we have to learn, not something that is innate. Children don't know much about limits.

Nobody knows what's going on inside someone else's head. 'Nuff said.

I suspect Freud is popular, because his work provides fertile ground for the fashionable intelligencia to write their silly criticisms.

However, if the peak oil theory is correct, these people will soon all be steerin ploughs and digging ditches, so it's probably not worth worrying about.

Not according to what I heard. He apparently left his patients in a worse mental state than before he treated them.

I'll have to verify the accuracy of my source, though.Yes, I would be interested in the source.

Most studies have found that psychoanalytic treatments do just as well, on average, as other psychotherapeutic methods; and that both do as well, with most disorders, as medication.

Until recently, however, psychoanalysts had generally distinguished between the neurotic and psychotic disorders, with many maintaining that neuroses are treatable psychoanalytically, while psychoses are difficult to impossible to treat. The rationale was that neurotics are capable of discussing their problems, and they were in touch with the world enough to engage in the therapeutically essential transference relationship with the analyst; psychotics, it was believed, are so "broken" as to be unable to engage in transferrence... which was classically the basis of psychoanalytic therapy.

Recently, Nancy McWilliams and others have been making a strong case for psychoanalytic treatments of psychosis. They argue that instead of a transference-object, the well-trained analyst can supply something more like a "life-line" to reality for psychotic patients. The first task is to help them regain a sense of self, and to establish transference from there.

Freud was right to say that just about everybody has elaborate defense mechanisms against things that make them ashamed or overly self conscious.

Not according to what I heard. He apparently left his patients in a worse mental state than before he treated them.

I'll have to verify the accuracy of my source, though.
your source is wrong. I would suggest reading about him (namely his case studies) yourself.

pioneers often blunder into dead ends, and freud was a pioneer. maslow set the record streight, that while we are all motivate by gratification, we each see that in our own way, and not just in the much narrower way freud perceived it.

=^^=
.../\...

Well, his name is one letter away from Fraud and I've always heard he was something of a bullshitter (and an occasional cocaine-user, and he had sexual fantasies about his mother).

Question: have you read any of his writings?

your source is wrong. I would suggest reading about him (namely his case studies) yourself.

I'm farmiliar with Rat Boy, Wolf Man, and (To a very small extent) Dora. Supposedly, Freud left Rat Boy in a more messed up state than he was before.

Freud is not unempirical BS... What I think you are driving at is the complaint by many scientists that psychoanalysis is, while empirical, not falsifiable. That is, psychoanalytic theory rests in large part on a standard of plausibility rather than a more positivist standard.

Empiricism includes falsifiability.

Empiricism includes falsifiability.No, it doesn't. Empiricism was around for centuries before philosophers of science settled on falsifiability as an epistemological standard. And it is still very much contestable, on a variety of approaches... Quine, for instance, argues compellingly that since we can only ever test knowledge as an epistemic whole, we cannot coherently talk about falsifying individual hypotheses.

Positivism is the branch of empiricism that emphasizes falsifiability.

in general, Freud has been greatly dismissed. The fact is, there is much more to development than sex (I prefer psychosocial over psychosexual theories myself). This isn't to say he didn't have great ideas. the idea of the subconscious and ego/id/superego is pretty relevant, as is the full text of civilization and its discontents (that comes into play with literature more than psych tho, I think). Also, his defence mechs. are still credible, such as sublimination and denial, etc.

Overall, he was wrong. But atleast he gave us something to work off of.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the defence mechanisms were the work of his daughter, Anna. :confused:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the defence mechanisms were the work of his daughter, Anna. :confused:Yes and no.

Sigmund Freud came up with the general concept of the defence mechanism, a result of his theory of repression. His daughter clarified and expanded his theory, and she is responsible for the structural explanation.

So, while it is probably more correct to call defence mechanisms the work of Anna, historically it should be acknowledged that her father came up with the idea.

Yes and no.

Sigmund Freud came up with the general concept of the defence mechanism, a result of his theory of repression. His daughter clarified and expanded his theory, and she is responsible for the structural explanation.

So, while it is probably more correct to call defence mechanisms the work of Anna, historically it should be acknowledged that her father came up with the idea.

Ah, I thought it was something like that. Thanks :)