Is Freud still around?

[Jennifer]

Tee hee, maybe my title is misleading, we all know Freud is dead, physically, but his teachings?

 

Let me explain. Me and friends have been in a......debate. They are of college age and have been taking basic college psychology courses. (United States) One day, somehow, Freud get's brought up, and they say "Freud's a crackpot."

 

Is this true? Has Freud "died" in the scientific community? I realize that a..few... of his theories are shunned, but I was of the opinion that psychoanalytical theory was still pretty popular and generally held in high esteem.

 

I've been studying Psychology for a while, but I admit most of my sources are outdated. (What is Walden II? Just kidding ~_^)

[geoguy]

 

Is this true? Has Freud "died" in the scientific community? I realize that a..few... of his theories are shunned, but I was of the opinion that psychoanalytical theory was still pretty popular and generally held in high esteem.

 

 

I wouldn't call it popular as in 'the norm' but also not completely dropped. Freud never was and still isn't held 'in awe' outside of his field by the scientific community. He was held more in awe by the popular culture. Most biologists, anthropologists, and so on were never enthused about the fellow's theories. Better understanding of the brain as an evolved physical organ has sidelined Freud even further. The reason one may have poor coping skills or depression isn't because of some early childhood relationship issue with mom or pop but a chemical deficiency, etc. that is corrected with diet, pharmaceutical regimen or allergy avoidance.

[gib65]

One day, somehow, Freud get's brought up, and they say "Freud's a crackpot."

 

When it comes to Freud, one thing you have to realize is that his being labelled a "crackpot" is actually a prediction of his theories. He theorized about what we have a natural inclination to deny, and so naturally he's going to be shunned more than the average theoretician.

 

I also think psychoanalytic thought has evolved and changed quite a bit since Freud. I'm not sure what today's psychoanalysts believe, but in the twentieth century, there have been numerous contentions to Freud's original model offered by thinkers in the same tradition (Jung and Adler come to mind).

 

It's hard to say. Personally, I think Freud went into crackpot territory when he declared sexuality to be the number one driving force in all human endeavors, and then came up with oedipus and electra complexes. Sexuality was indeed quite a touchy subject for the time and place where we worked, but I think this says more about the victorian culture that he was at the center of more than human nature itself.

[1veedo]

Tee hee, maybe my title is misleading, we all know Freud is dead, physically, but his teachings?

 

Let me explain. Me and friends have been in a......debate. They are of college age and have been taking basic college psychology courses. (United States) One day, somehow, Freud get's brought up, and they say "Freud's a crackpot."

 

Is this true? Has Freud "died" in the scientific community?

Yes, Freud is a crackpot. He was however the first person to actually consider that "crazy people" might have something wrong with them that is inherently curable.

 

PS. I also happen to be "college age" and have taken basic college psychology courses. Maybe there's a bit of a correlation with being educated on the subject and understanding that Freud's ideas have mostly been shown to be incorrect. He's a popular figure in the general population, not in academy.

 

/thread

[NeonBlack]

Speaking of Oedipus/Electra, I just saw this:

Women like guys who look like dear old dad

[Sisyphus]

The thing about basic [blank] college courses is that their primary effect is usually to convince the student he knows far more than he does about [blank], and to make ridiculous sweeping statements that will make him cringe in embarrassment a few years down the line when he actually knows a little bit more about [blank]. It's a cliche, but "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" is painfully true...

 

No, there's not much in Freud that, by our current scientific understanding, you could point to and unqualifiedly call "correct." In fact much of it is pretty laughable. However, there is also almost nothing in the current scientific understanding that cannot in one way or another be traced back to Freud. Furthermore, many of the parts where he's considered most "wrong" are also the parts that we understand the least, which by rigorous standards is still a bunch of "crackpot" nonsense.

[bombus]

I actually think the basics of Fruedian theory are correct. From an evolutionary point of view it's hard to believe that sexual desire ISN'T the prime mover behind everything else.

 

I think he went a bit far, and some of his conclusions were just plain wrong, but in general I think he was on the button.

[Jennifer]

I actually think the basics of Fruedian theory are correct. From an evolutionary point of view it's hard to believe that sexual desire ISN'T the prime mover behind everything else.

 

I think he went a bit far, and some of his conclusions were just plain wrong, but in general I think he was on the button.

 

 

This is more of what I was believing.

 

The reason one may have poor coping skills or depression isn't because of some early childhood relationship issue with mom or pop but a chemical deficiency, etc. that is corrected with diet, pharmaceutical regimen or allergy avoidance.

 

 

I'm a firm believer of exhausting every psyhcological therapy known and maybe thinking of new ones before even considering "chemical" solutions to problems.

 

 

Of course, I'm not really an expert, like I said, I am of young college age myself.

[geoguy]

This is more of what I was believing.

 

 

 

 

I'm a firm believer of exhausting every psyhcological therapy known and maybe thinking of new ones before even considering "chemical" solutions to problems.

 

 

Of course, I'm not really an expert, like I said, I am of young college age myself.

 

I don't understand what this belief of yours has to do with whether or not Freudian psychoanalysis is valid or not. If someone has a broken arm one doesn't call a witch doctor and if someone has a physical deficiency in the brain many would not waste time calling in a Freudian analysist.

 

Even if someone has a non-physical psychological issue most health care providers today would still not call in a Freudian analysis but would try other approaches to help the patient. Few would be obsessed with the complexities of the patient's buried repressed subconscious sexual relationship with their parents Instead they might try stress relief, coping skills, etc. Freud would be out of the picture.

 

Edited to point out this is in response to the full positng and not the just parts quoted above

[Jennifer]

I don't understand what this belief of yours has to do with whether or not Freudian psychoanalysis is valid or not. If someone has a broken arm one doesn't call a witch doctor and if someone has a physical deficiency in the brain many would not waste time calling in a Freudian analysist.

 

Even if someone has a non-physical psychological issue most health care providers today would still not call in a Freudian analysis but would try other approaches to help the patient. Few would be obsessed with the complexities of the patient's buried repressed subconscious sexual relationship with their parents Instead they might try stress relief, coping skills, etc. Freud would be out of the picture.

 

Edited to point out this is in response to the full positng and not the just parts quoted above

 

Sorry, I was just throwing that in.

[Realitycheck]

Has anyone ever read any kind of documented confirmation that Freud was superimposing religious duality on the human mind, or did it just kind of work out that way? I guess it's kind of hard to know what his motives and beliefs were at the time that he dreamt that up.

[CharonY]

From what I know Freud is more of historical interest for modern psychology. He gave essential inputs in his time, but psychology/psychoanalysis moved on from there. Some of the most basics tenets have still a (limited) validity though.

Much that he developed from that is considered too crude or inaccurate nowadays.

 

Also I am not aware that he proposed any religious dualities at all. Are you thinking of the superego/ego/it trinity? This was more a model than anything else.

[1veedo]

From what I know Freud is more of historical interest for modern psychology. He gave essential inputs in his time' date=' but psychology/psychoanalysis moved on from there. Some of the most basics tenets have still a (limited) validity though.

Much that he developed from that is considered too crude or inaccurate nowadays.[/quote']Yes.

However, there is also almost nothing in the current scientific understanding that cannot in one way or another be traced back to Freud.

Psychology goes back many many centuries. You'd be surprised how old it actually is. Most of modern psychology is based on ideas from humanistic psychology and cognitive psychology (which itself is rooted on behaviorism). Beyond that some ideas in psychology can be traced back to structuralism and functionalism, but definitely not Freudian psychology. There are some ideas that are still around today, some of which are even valid, but Freud's only important contribution to psychology was actually psychiatry, even though psychiatry today is based more on research in psychology instead of psychoanalysis.

 

You cant possibly be suggesting that our understanding of schizophrenia, for example, can be traced back to Freud, can you? The vast majority of psychology has nothing to do with psychological disorders in the first place. Most people seem to associate psychology with abnormal brain functioning but most of psychology is actually involved with normal brain functioning.

[bombus]

I don't understand what this belief of yours has to do with whether or not Freudian psychoanalysis is valid or not. If someone has a broken arm one doesn't call a witch doctor and if someone has a physical deficiency in the brain many would not waste time calling in a Freudian analysist.

 

Even if someone has a non-physical psychological issue most health care providers today would still not call in a Freudian analysis but would try other approaches to help the patient. Few would be obsessed with the complexities of the patient's buried repressed subconscious sexual relationship with their parents Instead they might try stress relief, coping skills, etc. Freud would be out of the picture.

 

Yes, I'd agree. While Freud's general theories may have been correct in many ways, it's not really that readily applicable to most psychological problems. Also, I would reckon that most psychological problems that people encounter do not stem from such 'deep' psychology, and have occured 'further up' the 'psychological ladder'.

[Miss.Nobody]

I think 1veedo summersized it best with

He's a popular figure in the general population, not in academy.

Contempory Psychology is very passionate about being viewed as a science on par with the harder sciences such as chemistry and physics. So, to that end, the academic psychological community tends to shuns non-scientific theories such as Freud's. (His theories are non-scientific as they cannot be disproved - any evidence coming to light being construed in terms of the theory rather than revising or abolishing it.)

The popularity of Freud in the public eye, however, can be explained in part due to the work of Edward Bernays- Freud's nephew in Amercia. Bernays was the founding father of Public Relations and used his uncle's ideas about the irrational subconscious in order to produce more effective advertising. He was therefore a very influentail figure and a master of selling things to people, so that when Freud came into financial difficulties Bernays did what he did best - published and pushed his uncle's works in Amercia. Bernays use of his uncle's ideas can also explain to some extent the period of political and social influence psychoanaylsis enjoyed in the 20th century.

[Mag]

From what I've learned, and what all my Psych teachers have said "some of his theories are bad, but some others hold some truth."

and other variants.

 

basically, only some of this theories can still be applied today

[ParanoiA]

Most biologists, anthropologists, and so on were never enthused about the fellow's theories. Better understanding of the brain as an evolved physical organ has sidelined Freud even further. The reason one may have poor coping skills or depression isn't because of some early childhood relationship issue with mom or pop but a chemical deficiency, etc. that is corrected with diet, pharmaceutical regimen or allergy avoidance.

 

So, are you saying the tried and true proverbial "couch" isn't really used anymore?

 

And is Jung considered a crackpot? Highly respected? Everytime I hear 46 & 2 I think of him.

 

Funny, when I took an intro to psychology course I had fully expected a wishy washy kind of study with little evidence and alot of speculation. I was so surprised when the first thing we studied was the physiology of the human brain. I was never more fascinated and happy to be wrong.

[Reaper]

Freud's theories have largely been destroyed. Even in philosophical circles he is highly questionable, never mind the psychological community.

 

Karl Jung and, well, in fact most of his students and other psychologists, pretty much debunked most of his theories. His theories have been attacked by psychologists, psychiatrists, and philosophers on all fronts, and Karl Popper pretty much made it clear that it was rather unscientific because a lot of it is made to be unfalsifiable through empirical means.

 

He is studied more in a historical context, and some of his ideas were taken and much better refined.