Empirical experiences an individual goes through is a more powerful determinant and factor than the positivist ideological centrality imposed by a behavioral specialist. Why would you tell someone that they can do anything when in reality they really can't on the basis of continual failures of past history (psychoanalysis stumps cognitive theorist)?
Freud's theories have been thoroughly discredited for decades. Here a sample criticism of Freud's theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis#Scientific_criticism I can supply a dozen more if you like.
Nevertheless, he is what opened the doorway to subsequent theories such as psychodynamics and Carl Jung focusing on subconscious and unconscious mechanism. Interesting you say they have been discredited and yet it is still practiced today by psychoanalysts.
Yes, at the time, he was a giant. But, that was a LONG time ago. Psychology, like religion, doesn't require proof for practice. I've listened (via forums like this) to psychoanalysts. Their approach is religious. Freud is their prophet and his writings are their holy writ. Evidence doesn't come into it.
Good point. This however depends on what discipline you are talking about. Experimental psychologists are more like the hard sciences like physicists, chemists, and biologists. Then there are the more "liberal arts types" - that deal with the branch of counseling and psychotherapy, transpersonal psychology, etc.
By the way, students still have to study Freud in a basic intro class as well as personality class and counseling too. Take one of those courses right now if you don't believe me. I guarantee you that you will have to learn about Freud. Also, there are questions too on the GRE.
Take a look at this: "I find it interesting to compare this line of thinking with that of Freud, who created a controversy by suggesting that the unconscious mind played a role in our behavior. The way of thinking regarding these matters now has moved to the extent that some are questioning what role, if any, the conscious mind plays in directing behavior. Namely, Freud was right to an extent that was much greater than he realized.” Source - http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html
It could be genetics, it could be the environment upbringing programming behavior - all causing someone to do something outside their freewill. I don't believe that everyone "consciously chooses" to commit a crime.
Freud was silly. He was also a cokehead. I wonder if I were a cokehead, would more or less people listen to me? Current psychoanalysis would say I am delusional and in need of therapy. How well would Freud fare being subjected to his own analysis. FAIL.
Actually, I beg to differ. There are a lot of people that have benefited from psychoanalysis because they get to the underlying problem and historical trauma. The problem with the cog people is there is the lack of that. Nevertheless, I believe a utilization of all psychotherapeutic approaches is necessary. Nonetheless, people can't really change (normal personality predispositions tend to be very stable) which is why I believe Freud is one of the greatest psychologist of all time alongside with Carl Jung. Both of them is like stimulation to my brain.
Is this what the book you just read that you got a "C" on said, or are you citing from intellectual life experiences? Are we just cattle for your experiments or are you honestly trying to have an open conversation?
It's truly depressing that students still have to study Freud. Forty years ago, when I was in university, I took a "Theories of Personality" course in second year that included 12 mutually incompatible theories including Freud, Jung, Adler, etc. The instructor mentioned that Freud was on the wane then.
Rumors of Freudianism's Death are Greatly Exaggerated That so? One wonders why they persist in being effective. Perhaps you're making the common mistake of mixing up the detail for the outline. Certainly, certain aspects of Freudianism were period-specific; we don't see, for instance, glove paralysis much these days, but conversion disorders still exist today—they manifest themselves differently according to psychocultural boundaries. The processes described in Psychopathology of Everyday Life still have validity in the twenty-first century. Part of the crisis of Freudian psychoanalysis in the first twenty years after his death—when much of this alleged discrediting took place—arose from the erroneous presumption that the symptomology would remain constant; it did not. Yes, the details illustrating the mechanisms driving Freudian psychology proved temporal, but the mechanisms themselves are largely intact. Indeed, attempts to "improve" upon the Freudian triune—such as MacLean's triune brain—have encountered greater problems than Freudianism itself. One cannot accurately prescribe nineteenth century perspectives to psychoanalytic principles in the twenty-first and expect useful results. But just as a lever is a lever is a lever, the mechanisms of psychoanalytic theory remain vibrant and adaptive. Totem and Taboo, Moses and Monotheism, even Character and Anal Erotism—the rich record from which Freud built his theories has lent much to the persistence of Freudian psychoanalytical theories; we haven't exhausted the outlook yet, and most of the components still offer much value. By your outlook, we might as well note the decline in horehound sales to children and suggest that nobody wants candy anymore.
