Azelma wrote:
Things Aestu thinks are bullshit:
Psychiatry Counseling - Individual or Relationship Therapy - Individual or Relationship Medication/ Chemical imbalances / depression / etc. Things Aestu thinks are law: Psychoanalytic Theory
It's not a contradiction. It's just comical that you believe in Psychoanalysis. It's just so fitting. Of all the things you call bullshit and discount any data that contradicts them, you attach your believes to Psychoanalysis. It's really quite perfect and explains your douchebaggery and willful ignorance so perfectly.
I never said I thought psychoanalysis was law. I merely said that Freud's insight into the human character was ingenious.
You're saying that:
A) Practitioners of shrinkology are dismissive of Freud
B) I am dismissive of shrinkologists
C) My disdain for shrinkology and its practitioners conflicts with my respect for Freud
Is that or is that not an accurate summary of your claims? If not, how not?
So are Freud and the shrinkologists the same thing or aren't they?
If you want to argue that the latter is better and inextricable from the former because it came after it chronologically then do we also argue that there's a contradiction between approving of Jesus and despising the Vatican or the Crusades?
Azelma wrote:
Additionally, you know all the crap I get for changing my views? Freud did that ALL THE FUCKING TIME because so many of his theories were revealed to be utter shit when held up to empirical data.
Having strong views and changing them in response to experience is part of genius.
Geniuses aren't geniuses because they have all the answers, they're geniuses because they have thought processes more incisive than ordinary men. It's how they get there that makes them geniuses; after all, even the most revolutionary concept seems simple and obvious once you read it in a book someone else wrote.
I've never seen you change your views, in fact it's dubious whether you have any views at all. Your "views" appear to be made of memory foam. They lack clear definition, and change shape easily when pressed with force, but when force is released, they slowly revert back to their original shape.
What you are doing here is measuring your own mental processes and how they are regarded against a genius and getting angry and frustrated when they don't measure up. Maybe my initial conclusion was correct - the concept of genius offends you because you don't like to think anyone is simply better than you are.
Azelma wrote:
Freud was full of a lot of shit. Here I've got more:
Quote:
Freud is truly in a class of his own. Arguably no other notable figure in history was so fantastically wrong about nearly every important thing he had to say. But, luckily for him, academics have been -- and still are -- infinitely creative in their efforts to whitewash his errors, even as lay readers grow increasingly dumbfounded by the entire mess.
So what can we see today that we didn't see during the last century? We now know that Freud compulsively fudged the historical record. This tendency is evident in Freud's backsliding statements on his advocacy of cocaine, his opportunism concerning the case of Anna O., his flip-flops on the seduction theory, and in almost every instance where he mentions a patient.
Just ask the "Wolf Man," Sergius Pankejeff, whom Freud supposedly cured but who was, in truth, consigned to psychoanalysis for an additional 60 years. Not surprising, Pankejeff considered Freud's effect on his life a "catastrophe."
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/feb/18 ... dufresne18Empirical data for Freudian theories is universally lacking. That's one of my biggest gripes.
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/freuddead.htmQuote:
Freud's cultural influence is based, at least implicitly, on the premise that his theory is scientifically valid. But from a scientific point of view, classical Freudian psychoanalysis is dead as both a theory of the mind and a mode of therapy (Crews, 1998; Macmillan, 1996). No empirical evidence supports any specific proposition of psychoanalytic theory, such as the idea that development proceeds through oral, anal, phallic, and genital stages, or that little boys lust after their mothers and hate and fear their fathers. No empirical evidence indicates that psychoanalysis is more effective, or more efficient, than other forms of psychotherapy, such as systematic desensitization or assertiveness training. No empirical evidence indicates the mechanisms by which psychoanalysis achieves its effects, such as they are, are those specifically predicated on the theory, such as transference and catharsis.
So do academics go out of their way to whitewash him or don't they? If you think that academics are irrationally supportive of Freud then what makes a bunch of Googled academic criticisms any more impartial?
I've often criticized shrinkology as a pseudoscience.
Shrinkologists criticizing Freud for lacking in empirical proof is like an ostrich criticizing a pig for being unable to fly.
That Freud lacked scientific proof is what makes his studies
better than those of shrinkologists: he approached human psychology with the method he was raised and trained in, of philosophers and classical students of the humanities. That is the appropriate method, because the variables in question simply can't be measured in neat absolute scientific terms because they don't EXIST in such terms.
What neat scientific metrics do you use to describe dysfunctional families or depressive states or social anxieties? Any such definitions will be the product of bias, because, scientifically, it makes no difference whether one is happy or not or a family is stable or not.
Science is concerned only with the physical state of the organism, not with value judgements such as whether dysfunctional families are somehow flawed or not. Those distinctions exist only through human preference for one way of life or another.
Now notice I said
scientific proof. Freud definitely had a ton of
empirical proof (which is not the same thing). Freud was a genius because he sought and acquired volumes of that empirical proof. That was his revolutionary contribution to human understanding, the interviews he did, his documentation of the workings of his subjects' psyche.
And the fact that modern shrinkologists (and you) can't distinguish between
scientific and
empirical is telling. Partly because when you say "scientific", what you really mean is not "scientific" at all, but rather
dogmatic.
Azelma wrote:
Now I'll give you this, he was right about the existence of many elements of development (childhood experiences shaping psychology, the existence of the subconscious, etc.). He also asked questions no one was really asking before...so again, still very influential and important. But not someone to base everything you believe about the mind on.
http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/ewater ... scious.pdfThen that's all that matters. He saw something others never did and shared that vision with the world. Genius at work.
Azelma wrote:
But he still created a set of theories designed to be difficult to disprove due to being not part of the traditional scientific method....I guess in that case I can see why you love him. Me, I love data though. Show me the FACTS.
You say facts but what you really mean is dogma.
What you really mean is you are stupid and lazy and you like things to be wrapped up for you in a neat little package with no loose ends or niggling little ambiguities that force you to do your own thinking.
This is proof that shrinkology is a pseudoscience...because in real science...it never works that way...there are always unknowns, and theory doesn't attempt to cross the line of the unknown. Certainly not create practical applications based on wild assumptions about things it can't explain. In that sense, clinical shrinkology is basically miasma theory.
Azelma wrote:
FUBU IF YOU READ ONE THING EVER MAKE IT THIS QUOTE BELOW -- THIS EXPLAINS AESTU:But Grünbaum’s dismissal of the charge of nonfalsifiability overlooks a genuine intellectual weakness of psychoanalysis, one that Popper obviously sensed and gestured toward—however crudely—with his example of the drowning baby. I have in mind the “heads-I-win-tails-you-lose” style of argument that pervades psychoanalytic reasoning. (Freud himself acknowledged the problem in his late essay “Constructions in Analysis,” where he responded to the charge that analysts construe the patient’s “no” to mean “yes” whenever it serves their purpose.) Psychoanalytic theory provides its adepts with too many interpretative alternatives—too many choices—which often seem to function as intellectual escape routes when the evidence is unaccommodating. In particular, concepts like resistance, ambivalence, overdetermination, and reaction formation let the analyst have it both ways—or, as Popper would insist, have it any way whatsoever. Thus, when one of Freud’s patients reported dreams that apparently revealed no hidden wish, Freud notoriously interpreted them as revealing the wish to disprove his dream theory! Clearly Popper was onto something when he charged that analysis is closed to the possibility of contradiction.
A lot of verbiage. Basically this empty suit is grousing that Freud and his supporters were more honest about the limitations of their knowledge and methods than shrinkologists. That's not proof Freud was wrong and the shrinkologists are right, it's proof that Freud was
not wrong and the shrinkologsts
are wrong.
Being not wrong =/= being right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrongAzelma wrote:
It's you Aestu...it's fucking you to a T. Maybe you're the reincarnation of Freud or something.
How is describing a set of views proof that they are wrong?
Or is that a case of poisoning the well?
Azelma wrote:
Work ethic. Achievement. Contribution to society, history, and/or community.
In which respect does Freud fail to meet those criteria? He worked hard and contributed unprecedented insight (and an entire lexicon) to society.
Again, I think the real issue is that you just find intangibles very threatening.
