why is psychoanalysis important

[jkeat]

so, the brain is one of the least studied parts of science . Even with all the knowledge of the brain we have about the brain today, we are only able to compile a vague outline. That is why psychology is a Liberal Art, not just a science. As the scientists from the 'Human Brain Project' (commisioned in 2013) puts it:

 

" We find that the major obstacle that hinders our under

standing of the brain is the fragmentation of brain research

and the data it produces. Our most urgent need is thus a con-

certed international effort that can integrate this data in a uni-

fied picture of the brain as a single multi-level system. To reach

this goal, we propose to build on and transform emerging ICT

technologies...

Modern neuroscience research has already generated huge
volumes of experimental data; large-scale initiatives already
in progress will produce a deluge of new findings. Even then,
however, much of the knowledge needed to build multi-level
atlases and unifying models of the brain will still be missing.
The first goal for the HBP should thus be to generate and
interpret strategically selected data, unlikely to come from
other sources. "

(http://tierra.aslab.upm.es/documents/projects/HBP_flagship_report_for_Europe.pdf)

 

 

 

There is no area of psychology more affected by this lack of scientific knowledge then mental illness. This is why antidepressants are so over-prescribed, because psychiatrists are forced to group all depressed or anxious peoples into one treatment. In reality, most of these people have very individualized causes to their depression. You see, Our thoughts and behaviors in the present are not natural, but they were caused by memory's of the past which were responsible for conditioning the subconscious mechanism that leads to our behavior or pattern of thought/behavior. This is where psychoanalysis comes in. Because psychoanalysis works from the outside in, and not the inside out, like science, their methods are entirely dependent on the individual. we have to examine an individuals' memorys, impressions, thoughts and behaviors, and by this, avenues of his inner mind can be paved and mapped out by the psychoanalyst. Then, through a delicate choice of words, we talk to him, lead him down certain pathways and thought-patterns, introduce ideas, suggest things, and thus we are able to re-wire his subconscious thoughts and heal him of his ill behavior. Every word is also a memory, or an impression, on our mind. Thus, different words can have different effects on different people. A Psychoanalyst in practice seeks to re-wire someones behaviors through using the subconscious effects that some words or phrases can have.

[Sirona]

Psychoanalysis is pseudoscience; it is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific because you cannot test hidden psychological states and any knowledge gained is going to be just a prediction.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Sirona

[jkeat]

Psychoanalysis is pseudoscience; it is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific because you cannot test hidden psychological states and any knowledge gained is going to be just a prediction.

 

well, its not really science, more like therapy. Its all based on a person's reactions to what you say, not on any solid framework. In psychoanalysis, we can identify a person's symptoms, but thats it. the rest is individualized based on the therapist observing the patients reactions(mainly verbal) to his ideas and suggestions, and from his reactions he can start to understand what causes his ill behavior's or thought patterns.

to give you a good example, you automatically think of a past experience when someone says a specific phrase. thats a reaction. if a therapist can identify these associations of reactions, and the past experiences tied to them, he can begin to build a 'map' of his mind.

Edited November 2, 2016 by jkeat

[Sirona]

I am not saying that people won't benefit from psychodynamic therapy, I am merely saying that it's effectiveness in treating psychological disorders is unable to be tested accurately. Certainly talking to someone, receiving support and learning constructive ways to deal with problems would not hurt and it could be beneficial to some. I certainly do not think it's harmful like other pseudosciences like naturopathy for example, but whether it's actually beneficial is unable to be effectively tested.

[Ophiolite]

Psychoanalysis is pseudoscience; it is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific because you cannot test hidden psychological states and any knowledge gained is going to be just a prediction.

Interesting observations. Did you have a close relationship with your father?

/parody.

[DrKrettin]

Psychoanalysis is pseudoscience; it is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific because you cannot test hidden psychological states and any knowledge gained is going to be just a prediction.

 

That is rather harsh, I don't really see why it should be in the same category as, say, astrology. On the above definition of science, wouldn't the theory of evolution also qualify as pseudoscience?

[jkeat]

on second thought, even Freud admitted that psychoanalysis is surrendered to the area of pseudoscience. but also that with future knowledge of the brain, it could become scientifically apparent and therefore much clearer and easier to do.

[Strange]

 

so, the brain is one of the least studied parts of science .

 

 

 

I find that hard to believe. Do you have any data to back this up? Number of researchers in fields like neuroscience and psychology, vs things like physics, biology, etc?

 

 

 

That is why psychology is a Liberal Art, not just a science.

 

Although it got off to a shaky start with people like Freud and Jung, my impression is that psychology is now largely a serious science. There are a few exceptions, of course.

 

Do you have any evidence that psychology is not, in general, a scientific discipline? (I know it is hard to prove a negative but perhaps the absence of peer-reviewed journals, no data analysis used in research, etc).

 

 

 

As the scientists from the 'Human Brain Project' (commisioned in 2013) puts it:

 

As they explicitly talk about science and data collection, this would not seem to support your position.

 

 

 

Because psychoanalysis works from the outside in, and not the inside out, like science, their methods are entirely dependent on the individual.

 

You seem to be saying that psychoanalysis is better because it is not scientifically based. That is, to put it bluntly, an idiotic proposition. It is also very dangerous. If science shows that an alternative therapy is better but you (or people like you) ignore that better treatment because it is "too scientific" then you are putting people's health and maybe even lives at risk.

[Sirona]

Interesting observations. Did you have a close relationship with your father?

/parody.

I just wanted him to be proud of me.

 

When I say that psychology is not a science, I believe you are misunderstanding my point. I do strongly support that psychology and sociology have value in our society and I am in no means undermining psychologists work as being inferior to a physicist, chemist or biologist. I'm merely pointing out that the studies are not scientific because people's thoughts and behaviours are complex and experiments cannot be falsifiable. However, I do not doubt it's usefulness and effectiveness for some individuals and as someone who has studied psychology, I know that it is vigorous.

 

Think about other disciplines like economics for example, economists analyse data, research history and trends and conduct studies but it's not scientific. Education is invaluable to society and attempts to be scientific to improve pedagogy and learning, but it's not science.

 

I think it's important to keep the term 'science' consistent because there is a lot of harmful pseudoscience out there which is just completely wrong and ineffective. By labeling anything as scientific because some attempt at testing has been undertaken undermines the work of hard science.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Sirona

[jkeat]

 

 

 

 

 

we know alot about the structures of the brain and what they do, but not much about how events/stimuli are processed throughout many different levels of the brain to produce things like cognition and behavior.

 

"Today, we know a lot about the individual levels [of organization]. What we do not' have is a casual understanding of the way events at the lowest level in the hierarchy cascade through the different levels to produce human cognition and behaviour."

... "Today, brain diseases are usually diagnosed in terms of symptoms and syndromes, an approach that makes it very difficult to produce correct diagnoses, or even to select patients for clinical trials. To prevent and cure brain disease, researchers need to understand their underlying causes"

..."This means we need to move beyond isolated studies of individual disorders"..."Today, the knowledge we need is lacking".

https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/documents/10180/17648/TheHBPReport_LR.pdf/18e5747e-10af-4bec-9806-d03aead57655

 

because of this lack of knowledge, many cognitive or behavioral illnesses are identified by their symptoms, not their underlying causes, causing psychiatrists to prescribe one medication over-proportionately (and this explains why antidepressant prescriptions have skyrocketed the past few decades. Is humanity becoming more depressed, or is modern psychology ill equipped to handle some cases of mental illness?

 

and this is where psychoanalysis fills in where todays psychiatry lacks. by observing a patients verbal reactions, movements, or behavior when confronted with a suggestion or idea, we can make an educated guess as to what associations or experiences cause a negative cognitive or behaviorial trait is caused.

Edited November 2, 2016 by jkeat

[Strange]

I'm merely pointing out that the studies are not scientific because people's thoughts and behaviours are complex and experiments cannot be falsifiable.

 

 

I have read about several very scientific bits of research in psychology. Just because thoughts and behaviours are complex does not mean they cannot be studied in a falsifiable way.

 

 

we know alot about the structures of the brain and what they do, but not much about how events/stimuli are processed throughout many different levels of the brain to produce things like cognition and behavior.

 

You haven't answered any of my questions. I assume that is because you can't. So when you said "the brain is one of the least studied parts of science" that was just an unsupported opinion. As such, I see no reason to take your other opinions seriously.

 

 

 

because of this lack of knowledge, many cognitive or behavioral illnesses are identified by their symptoms, not their underlying causes, causing psychiatrists to prescribe one medication over-proportionately

 

If we don't have the information that you claim we need, then how can you know it is "over-proportionately" ?

[Sirona]

 

You seem to be saying that psychoanalysis is better because it is not scientifically based. That is, to put it bluntly, an idiotic proposition. It is also very dangerous. If science shows that an alternative therapy is better but you (or people like you) ignore that better treatment because it is "too scientific" then you are putting people's health and maybe even lives at risk.

I completely agree with you and alternative therapy is particularly harmful when practitioners attempt to sell their services and products in a scientifically plausible way by using terminology and examples which could possibly be misinterpreted by someone who doesn't have a background in biology or chemistry.

 

However, in the case of mental disorders such as depression and anxiety, it's difficult to draw a comparison. For example, most people would know (at least, I sincerely hope so) that your chances of survival are much more likely to seek an Oncologist rather than a natropath if you have cancer. However, seeking psychotherapy over antidepressants is more ambiguous because in this case, the effectiveness of either in treating depression and anxiety is questionable.

 

That is rather harsh, I don't really see why it should be in the same category as, say, astrology. On the above definition of science, wouldn't the theory of evolution also qualify as pseudoscience?

It's not harsh; I genuinely believe we should not blur the lines of what science is. However, it is not in the same category as astrology because psychology is a vigorous discipline and has value whereas astrology does not. This was my point earlier about people assuming that something has more or less value depending on whether it's scientific or not and it leads frauds, religious zealots and quacks to make their practices and ideologies sound scientifically plausible to gain reputation.

[jkeat]

 

 

I have read about several very scientific bits of research in psychology. Just because thoughts and behaviours are complex does not mean they cannot be studied in a falsifiable way.

 

You haven't answered any of my questions. I assume that is because you can't. So when you said "the brain is one of the least studied parts of science" that was just an unsupported opinion. As such, I see no reason to take your other opinions seriously.

 

 

If we don't have the information that you claim we need, then how can you know it is "over-proportionately" ?

 

thats because if you actually read my posts slowly you would realize your questions were answered

 

 

I think that HBP report made it clear that This science is incomplete because although we have an abundance of data about the brain, integrating this data and mapping out a complete system of psychology is a huge challenge currently. "Today, however, neuroscience has no strategy for integrating the flood of data generated by experimental research."

 

but you think psychology is already mostly understood? and you make this assumption based off..what? Do you have any idea how young psychology is compared to other sciences? Significant research only started 200 years ago, and even our incomplete knowledge today has only been discovered recently!

 

"If we don't have the information that you claim we need, then how can you know it is "over-proportionately" ?"

Any time the use of a prescription drug skyrockets in a short amount of time, it means one of three things: There is an epidemic, there is an economic explanation, or They are being over-prescribed.

Edited November 2, 2016 by jkeat

[Strange]

thats because if you actually read my posts slowly you would realize your questions were answered

 

 

I don't see how reading it slowly will make data supporting your claim that "the brain is one of the least studied parts of science" suddenly appear. Or that it is not science.

 

I think that HBP report made it clear that This science is incomplete because although we have an abundance of data about the brain, integrating this data and mapping out a complete system of psychology is a huge challenge currently. "Today, however, neuroscience has no strategy for integrating the flood of data generated by experimental research."

 

So you agree that it is science and that a large amount of research has already been done. Good. So your original post was just misleading.

 

 

but you think psychology is already mostly understood? and you make this assumption based off..what?

 

I never said such a thing and I don't think such a thing. Why are you using such a silly straw man argument?

 

"If we don't have the information that you claim we need, then how can you know it is "over-proportionately" ?"

Any time the use of a prescription drug skyrockets in a short amount of time, it means one of three things: There is an epidemic, there is an economic explanation, or They are being over-prescribed.

There is another possibility: that they have been found to be effective. Without scientific data it would be impossible to know which is the right answer.

 

You seem to oscillate between science being a good thing and a bad thing.

[es111]

The study of the human psychism is not yet a science because ther is a lack in a "common" definition of an ordinary mental state and a lack in a "common" description of the ordinary transformations of these states. Psychiatry lists the different disorders (cf DSM 5) but is ther a descritpion of a normal case ?

 

Freud, Jung and many others decribed the psyschysm with their own model but there is no consensus about these models.

 

Neurology is best understood with the study of the neurones, the glial cells and their connections.

 

So it is always difficult to prescribe a medication (derived from the knowledge in neurology) and to apply it in psychiatry (without knowing the principles).

 

And it is much more dangerous for the multiple therapies based on uncertain models.

[Strange]

The study of the human psychism is not yet a science because ther is a lack in a "common" definition of an ordinary mental state and a lack in a "common" description of the ordinary transformations of these states. Psychiatry lists the different disorders (cf DSM 5) but is ther a descritpion of a normal case ?

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "psychism". I have not come across the word before. Looking it up it seems to refer to various non-scientific ideas.

 

However, the absence of a definition for "normal" does not mean that psychology is not a science. Maybe there is no such thing as "normal". Maybe there is no need to define such a thing. Maybe it can be defined as "not any of the listed disorders" Maybe ...

 

As there is a lot of good scientific research in psychology nowadays (correlated with other work in neurology, biochemistry, genetics, etc) I don't see how you can say is it not scientific.

 

 

Freud, Jung and many others decribed the psyschysm with their own model but there is no consensus about these models.

 

Because they were pseudoscientific fairy stories.

 

 

So it is always difficult to prescribe a medication

 

True in all fields of medicine.

[DrmDoc]

Psychiatry is a medical discipline that focus on the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness and it's as much a science as those medical disciplines that focus on the diagnosis and treatment of physical illness and injury. Indeed, pseudoscience is as much a encumbrance to diagnosing and treating mental illness as it is to the evaluation and treatment of physical illness and injury (e.g., bogus cures). However, mental health related disciplines are likely perceived as pseudoscience more because of the perceived intangible quality of the mind relative to the body. One can't physically examine and sample test the mind as one might the body; therefore, our conclusions regarding mental illness are largely based on conjectures derived from behavioral observations and responses to medication. Science requires tangible and testable examples, which can and does apply to the mind through neuroscience and our understanding of brain function. Psychiatry and psychology become science when their modes of investigation and conclusions are based on valid neuroscience and the effects of observable and tangible brain disorders.

[Tahir Gorgen]

Do'nt like psycho analysis. Diagnoses are more important in mental illnesses. And let himself or herself see, and to have more positive thougths.

 

Depression= less survivalinstinct. Due to circumstances or it's due to him herself. Maybey there is nothing and he she thinks that she he is depressive because everybody seems to be. Let's say he/she is lazy. Or even I could be an a dip (nihilisme Nietzsche for example) so there is nothing with you.

[Tahir Gorgen]

 

Ps: to learn themself to change the negative thougths in positive, is another thing.