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).
You’re just being silly now. Urban designers do not have patients.
Victorian is a description of the time period. It is factually accurate. If you want to infer something else from the word Victorian then I can’t stop you but you’ll be wrong.
“Victorian engineering”, “Victorian Science” and “Victorian medicine” will definitely have different connotations.
“Victorian science” has the connotation that, unlike say Darwin, it’s not considered part of the modern consensus.
You should not learn Victorian science or medicine in the modern day outside of a history class.
Evidence based medicine that relies on evidence even 50 years old should be re-examined. Let alone 130.
From the article you posted.
“For example, meta-analyses in 2012 and 2013 came to the conclusion that there is little support or evidence for the efficacy of psychoanalytic therapy, thus further research is needed”
“In 2017, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found psychodynamic therapy to be as efficacious as other therapies, including cognitive behavioral therapy”
So low to no effectiveness, trying to reach a low bar of another “treatment” which is in question.
You’re just being silly now. Urban designers do not have patients.
Indeed not, they’re not practising medicine. And I never claimed they did. Market analysts or social workers aren’t practising medicine, either, yet both have plenty of use for psychology. You’ll see plenty of psychology in off-beat fields such as criminal geography. Plenty of urban design in that one.
“Victorian science” has the connotation that, unlike say Darwin, it’s not considered part of the modern consensus.
So Darwin isn’t from that age? Newton was even earlier. Yes, Newton was fundamentally wrong about physics but yes, we do still use his theories. Whether something is current consensus or not has nothing to do with its age. At best that kind of connotation is completely silly. Taking that kind of connotation as a basis for argument (“he’s from that time but not Darwin thus he’s bunk”) is right-out puerile.
So low to no effectiveness,
Learn to read, please, that’s not what the quotes say.
trying to reach a low bar of another “treatment” which is in question.
We have better treatments for some specific stuff, say histrionic personality disorders, but for general therapy CBT is very much considered a benchmark. If you come across someone who considers it a panacea though you’ve come across a cultist, that’s true for all therapeutic approaches. There’s no silver bullet.
Two things about psychotherapies in general, which drastically impedes any attempt to compare them, is a) diagnosis is usually insufficiently precise to actually compare things. “Depression” is a mightily fuzzy word, and depending on the patient’s temperament different approaches might work better or worse for the same ailment. Then, b) that patient outcomes are better correlated with the person of the therapist than with the method employed. That is, a shitty therapist with a hypothetically perfect method very well can have worse results than a talented therapist throwing their raw intuition at the patient.
You know what’s the kicker, though? That’s very much in line with Freud: The importance of rapport was recognised by early hypnotists, going all the way back to Mesmer, Freud carried it into the wider psychotherapeutic community, making it a cornerstone of his patient-therapist interaction theory. Behaviourists pretty much threw all of that out, CBT isn’t as extreme any more but one of the criticisms people have about CBT is precisely along those lines, that it considers humans as input-output machines, ignoring subjective experience. Still, if the patient just needs some tips and tricks to deal with their behaviour, CBT can be very helpful. If you want a therapy that addresses the subjective yet doesn’t rely on rapport there’s stuff like the Method of Levels which doesn’t even require therapist and patient to share a common frame of reference, understanding of reality.
The point is is anyone has a use for psychology they should pick someone alive to listen to instead of Freud.
Because it doesn’t matter if he got some things right when he got lost things wrong.
But I’m glad we at least agree no one should be using what he says as medicine.
Please read the articles on Wikipedia yourself, they’ll be a good starting point for you as they’re usually very balanced. Unlike the other material you’ve read.
The point is is anyone has a use for psychology they should pick someone alive to listen to instead of Freud.
Those people are likely to cite Freud in one way or the other.
But I’m glad we at least agree no one should be using what he says as medicine.
We don’t agree there. I absolutely think that people should have the option of using psychodynamic psychotherapy (among others). Both as patients and therapists. Where we’ll likely agree is that priming patients towards an analytical framework is highly problematic, see the whole “Freudian patients have Freudian dreams, Adlerian patients have Adlerian dreams” thing. But that’s recognised and worked into modern practice. Noone, literally noone, takes Freud to be an infallible prophet. That’s more of a thing Jungians do, much to Jung’s chagrin (quoth: “I’m glad I’m Jung, and not a Jungian”).
they’ll be a good starting point for you as they’re usually very balanced.
They’re a good starting point but they generally slant heavily American, if not that then Anglo. The US isn’t exactly a role model to follow when it comes to psychology.
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).
You’re just being silly now. Urban designers do not have patients.
Victorian is a description of the time period. It is factually accurate. If you want to infer something else from the word Victorian then I can’t stop you but you’ll be wrong.
“Victorian engineering”, “Victorian Science” and “Victorian medicine” will definitely have different connotations.
“Victorian science” has the connotation that, unlike say Darwin, it’s not considered part of the modern consensus.
You should not learn Victorian science or medicine in the modern day outside of a history class.
Evidence based medicine that relies on evidence even 50 years old should be re-examined. Let alone 130.
From the article you posted.
“For example, meta-analyses in 2012 and 2013 came to the conclusion that there is little support or evidence for the efficacy of psychoanalytic therapy, thus further research is needed”
“In 2017, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found psychodynamic therapy to be as efficacious as other therapies, including cognitive behavioral therapy”
So low to no effectiveness, trying to reach a low bar of another “treatment” which is in question.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Criticisms
The fact is Freud is right except in the majority of what he’s said and done.
Indeed not, they’re not practising medicine. And I never claimed they did. Market analysts or social workers aren’t practising medicine, either, yet both have plenty of use for psychology. You’ll see plenty of psychology in off-beat fields such as criminal geography. Plenty of urban design in that one.
So Darwin isn’t from that age? Newton was even earlier. Yes, Newton was fundamentally wrong about physics but yes, we do still use his theories. Whether something is current consensus or not has nothing to do with its age. At best that kind of connotation is completely silly. Taking that kind of connotation as a basis for argument (“he’s from that time but not Darwin thus he’s bunk”) is right-out puerile.
Learn to read, please, that’s not what the quotes say.
We have better treatments for some specific stuff, say histrionic personality disorders, but for general therapy CBT is very much considered a benchmark. If you come across someone who considers it a panacea though you’ve come across a cultist, that’s true for all therapeutic approaches. There’s no silver bullet.
Two things about psychotherapies in general, which drastically impedes any attempt to compare them, is a) diagnosis is usually insufficiently precise to actually compare things. “Depression” is a mightily fuzzy word, and depending on the patient’s temperament different approaches might work better or worse for the same ailment. Then, b) that patient outcomes are better correlated with the person of the therapist than with the method employed. That is, a shitty therapist with a hypothetically perfect method very well can have worse results than a talented therapist throwing their raw intuition at the patient.
You know what’s the kicker, though? That’s very much in line with Freud: The importance of rapport was recognised by early hypnotists, going all the way back to Mesmer, Freud carried it into the wider psychotherapeutic community, making it a cornerstone of his patient-therapist interaction theory. Behaviourists pretty much threw all of that out, CBT isn’t as extreme any more but one of the criticisms people have about CBT is precisely along those lines, that it considers humans as input-output machines, ignoring subjective experience. Still, if the patient just needs some tips and tricks to deal with their behaviour, CBT can be very helpful. If you want a therapy that addresses the subjective yet doesn’t rely on rapport there’s stuff like the Method of Levels which doesn’t even require therapist and patient to share a common frame of reference, understanding of reality.
The point is is anyone has a use for psychology they should pick someone alive to listen to instead of Freud.
Because it doesn’t matter if he got some things right when he got lost things wrong.
But I’m glad we at least agree no one should be using what he says as medicine.
Please read the articles on Wikipedia yourself, they’ll be a good starting point for you as they’re usually very balanced. Unlike the other material you’ve read.
Those people are likely to cite Freud in one way or the other.
We don’t agree there. I absolutely think that people should have the option of using psychodynamic psychotherapy (among others). Both as patients and therapists. Where we’ll likely agree is that priming patients towards an analytical framework is highly problematic, see the whole “Freudian patients have Freudian dreams, Adlerian patients have Adlerian dreams” thing. But that’s recognised and worked into modern practice. Noone, literally noone, takes Freud to be an infallible prophet. That’s more of a thing Jungians do, much to Jung’s chagrin (quoth: “I’m glad I’m Jung, and not a Jungian”).
They’re a good starting point but they generally slant heavily American, if not that then Anglo. The US isn’t exactly a role model to follow when it comes to psychology.