Of Infants unregenerate it flyes.
(Unconscious of its fault which tortur’d cryes)
“unconscious of” is not the same idea, concept, as “the unconscious”. If you do ad-hoc research please at least do it properly that took like two seconds to find.
The rough concept existed before Freud, yes, you can trace it back to the likes of Schopenhauer, but our current understanding very much is exactly Freudian. In particular, of the conscious as something that’s structured, which distinguishes it e.g. from the Buddhist (much older) formless.
You are a fish in water, unaware of swimming in it.
So now the person back-tracking on their “facts” is claiming others should do better research.
I’m not back-tracking. If you say “unconscious”, obviously in the sense of “the unconscious”, you’re referring to Freud.
Same as when you say “Vulcan” you’re referring to Gene Roddenberry, not Urbain Le Verrier.
Your first instinct was to attack the messenger, not the message.
My brother or sister in Discord I’ve been attacking the message for literally at least ten comments before I went personal. I can’t even make sense of it as you can’t even tell me what you think is actually bunk about Freud. All I’m seeing is “has been discredited”, without elaboration, and that reeks of “no I don’t want to look there”: You’re not even bothering to figure out what you disagree with.
Fine, don’t, for all I care. But if you don’t want to, why are you so invested in this thread. Is that a question you can answer?
Can you expand on what you mean by “a lot of stuff”? Anything particular come to mind?
Or are you expecting me to defend everything he said whole-sale? Which I wouldn’t, because there’s aspects which he got wrong, heck I agree with e.g. all of Adler’s and Jung’s critiques of Freud. I disagree with all of them on Hypnosis.
Why?
In a nutshell? Because it’s nonsensical. If you throw out all of Freud modern psychiatry, psychology, psycho-anything, loses very core theoretical aspects. If you throw out all his therapeutic approaches, you’re throwing out evidence-based treatments.
You don’t have to throw out anything. Everything that’s right has now been through peer reviewed studies authored by other people.
The problem is most of what Freud said is wrong, you can be a psychoanalyst without a medical degree because it isn’t a medical field.
Modern psychiatry is a separate subject and you’re happy to defend psychoanalysis and conflate it with psychiatry.
Which would be no different to conflating nutritionists and dietitians, chiropractors and physiotherapists, or, to quote Dara O’Brien, dentists and toothologists.
Psychiatry and psychology, all of it, are different subjects (though psychiatrists have at least a basic acquaintance with psychology). Also plenty of Freud in modern psychiatry.
Are you sure you’re not the one conflating psychiatry and psychology, here. An why would psychology be a medical degree it has plenty of applications outside of medicine. There’s psychologists working in market analysis.
dentists and toothologists.
that would be dentology, not dentistry. Applied vs. academic.
If you’re practicing medicine and are not medically trained or supervised by someone medically trained you’re in the same bracket as quacks.
Quacks who read Freud and implement his Victorian ideas when we know them to be false are a problem.
That’s why it’s important to discredit old ideas, whoever they’re from.
Old mistaken ideas in science are the most credible and often the most harmful pseudoscience.
Freud shouldn’t be studied outside of a history class these days.
Ideas of his which have survived scrutiny will still exist. He may get passing mentions. But he really needs to be out of focus in the academic and public perception of the subject.
In general an unsupervised psychologist is not a good thing. Those capable of becoming or having their practice enforced by a psychiatrist have a place.
Those still practicing psychoanalysis with no medical training do not. Especially if they don’t recognise that Freud was more often wrong than right.
Psychologists who are academic only are the ones discrediting Freud, or they’re peer reviewed and told their wrong themselves.
Mental health has a huge problem with lack of professionalism and regulation in practice.
Urban design is health, yet urban designers aren’t practising medicine.
Quacks who read Freud and implement his Victorian ideas when we know them to be false are a problem.
Yes? That doesn’t mean that there’s not plenty of non-Quack applications of Freud out there. False dichotomy and everything. As to “Victorian”: Freud was quite progressive for his time, e.g. refusing to attempt conversion therapy for a gay man who came to him to be converted, quoth, more or less “There’s nothing wrong with you it’s society which is fucked”. He was influenced by his times, sure, but within that time was far from someone who swam with the flow, that kind of stance on homosexuality back then was absolutely radical.
Mental health has a huge problem with lack of professionalism and regulation in practice.
Then regulate better, wherever you are. “Freud shall not be taught” is not a thing that should be put into any regulation that aspires to be scientific, though. As said: You’d be throwing out evidence-based medicine. Most of the psychoanalysis out there today is called psychodynamic therapy: Still same theory, but practice changed by lessons learned over the decades. For people unacquainted with details this stuff looks exactly like what Freud did. And it’s just as generally effective as CBT (which btw has its root in Stoicism. Capital S, the antique philosophy).
“unconscious of” is not the same idea, concept, as “the unconscious”. If you do ad-hoc research please at least do it properly that took like two seconds to find.
The rough concept existed before Freud, yes, you can trace it back to the likes of Schopenhauer, but our current understanding very much is exactly Freudian. In particular, of the conscious as something that’s structured, which distinguishes it e.g. from the Buddhist (much older) formless.
You are a fish in water, unaware of swimming in it.
So now the person back-tracking on their “facts” is claiming others should do better research.
I said you were wrong and you were wrong. So I guess this is where we find out whether you care about objectivity.
Are you going to shift your opinion any iota’s to match the facts?
“You are a fish in water, unaware of swimming in it.”
Your first instinct was to attack the messenger, not the message. But feel free to take a second stab at it.
I’m not back-tracking. If you say “unconscious”, obviously in the sense of “the unconscious”, you’re referring to Freud.
Same as when you say “Vulcan” you’re referring to Gene Roddenberry, not Urbain Le Verrier.
My brother or sister in Discord I’ve been attacking the message for literally at least ten comments before I went personal. I can’t even make sense of it as you can’t even tell me what you think is actually bunk about Freud. All I’m seeing is “has been discredited”, without elaboration, and that reeks of “no I don’t want to look there”: You’re not even bothering to figure out what you disagree with.
Fine, don’t, for all I care. But if you don’t want to, why are you so invested in this thread. Is that a question you can answer?
Freud was wrong about a lot of stuff.
You disagree. Very strongly.
Why?
Can you expand on what you mean by “a lot of stuff”? Anything particular come to mind?
Or are you expecting me to defend everything he said whole-sale? Which I wouldn’t, because there’s aspects which he got wrong, heck I agree with e.g. all of Adler’s and Jung’s critiques of Freud. I disagree with all of them on Hypnosis.
In a nutshell? Because it’s nonsensical. If you throw out all of Freud modern psychiatry, psychology, psycho-anything, loses very core theoretical aspects. If you throw out all his therapeutic approaches, you’re throwing out evidence-based treatments.
You don’t have to throw out anything. Everything that’s right has now been through peer reviewed studies authored by other people.
The problem is most of what Freud said is wrong, you can be a psychoanalyst without a medical degree because it isn’t a medical field.
Modern psychiatry is a separate subject and you’re happy to defend psychoanalysis and conflate it with psychiatry.
Which would be no different to conflating nutritionists and dietitians, chiropractors and physiotherapists, or, to quote Dara O’Brien, dentists and toothologists.
Psychiatry and psychology, all of it, are different subjects (though psychiatrists have at least a basic acquaintance with psychology). Also plenty of Freud in modern psychiatry.
Are you sure you’re not the one conflating psychiatry and psychology, here. An why would psychology be a medical degree it has plenty of applications outside of medicine. There’s psychologists working in market analysis.
that would be dentology, not dentistry. Applied vs. academic.
Mental health is health.
If you’re practicing medicine and are not medically trained or supervised by someone medically trained you’re in the same bracket as quacks.
Quacks who read Freud and implement his Victorian ideas when we know them to be false are a problem.
That’s why it’s important to discredit old ideas, whoever they’re from.
Old mistaken ideas in science are the most credible and often the most harmful pseudoscience.
Freud shouldn’t be studied outside of a history class these days.
Ideas of his which have survived scrutiny will still exist. He may get passing mentions. But he really needs to be out of focus in the academic and public perception of the subject.
In general an unsupervised psychologist is not a good thing. Those capable of becoming or having their practice enforced by a psychiatrist have a place.
Those still practicing psychoanalysis with no medical training do not. Especially if they don’t recognise that Freud was more often wrong than right.
Psychologists who are academic only are the ones discrediting Freud, or they’re peer reviewed and told their wrong themselves.
Mental health has a huge problem with lack of professionalism and regulation in practice.
Urban design is health, yet urban designers aren’t practising medicine.
Yes? That doesn’t mean that there’s not plenty of non-Quack applications of Freud out there. False dichotomy and everything. As to “Victorian”: Freud was quite progressive for his time, e.g. refusing to attempt conversion therapy for a gay man who came to him to be converted, quoth, more or less “There’s nothing wrong with you it’s society which is fucked”. He was influenced by his times, sure, but within that time was far from someone who swam with the flow, that kind of stance on homosexuality back then was absolutely radical.
Then regulate better, wherever you are. “Freud shall not be taught” is not a thing that should be put into any regulation that aspires to be scientific, though. As said: You’d be throwing out evidence-based medicine. Most of the psychoanalysis out there today is called psychodynamic therapy: Still same theory, but practice changed by lessons learned over the decades. For people unacquainted with details this stuff looks exactly like what Freud did. And it’s just as generally effective as CBT (which btw has its root in Stoicism. Capital S, the antique philosophy).