'A Science of Man' to transcend 'The Man of Science'

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why would you talk about brains to someone needing a pep talk? You were originally talking about a murderer!
If you go back to my original statement I said we need more research into the working of the brain. When we know how it works particularly in respect to 'emotions' we can then apply the most appropriate 'treatment'. It may be the most useful people in the (near) future will be neuropsychologists. I'm all for the diciplines working together. Neurosis is not labelled neurosis by coincidence surely?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Without addressing any specific point, but relating to the general observations of sniffy and grantywanty (and I suppose of Coberst too) I'd like to make the following observation. We seem to be talking primarily about abnormal psychology, about damaged minds, whether that damage is physical or emotional. For me, while this is interesting, it constitutes only a small part of psychology. The major part of psychology deals with how normal minds work normally. It was Coberst's decision (through ignorance or whimsy) to ignore this and focus instead on the highly restricted field of psychoanalyis, that I found so annoying.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it was because Freud and his peers wanted to make their therapies sound scientific. This led him into some mental contortions. The truth is that people not coming from a scientific model have come up with techniques that are similar to many of the ones Freud and his followers came up with.

Your main point was not simply about us benefitting from more information about the brain, it was an assertion that thinking and talking about sex, etc. (ie. talk therapeutic strategies) is a silly approach. The real approach is to think in terms of the physical brain and to consider problems using those metaphors and approaches. You want one map to be the only map.

Fortunately methods that do not look at issues in terms of nerves etc. are effective adn this has been proven scientifically.

In other words, you were wrong. You do not have to use the map you are touting as the only one to effectively help people with all sort of psychological problems.

 

I have no doubt that there are physical correlates to emotional problems. In fact this is pretty cleary established. I was making a different point.

What would you like to discuss about Normal Psychology? Is there a thread in this? Or is it simply that there is something wrong with focusing on abnormal psych. or really, people with problems. For myself I can't think of a person who does not have patterns of thought, feeling and behavior that are not problematic, and so I think that understanding the patterns in those who have these in extremes (even minor extremes in what has been called neurosis) is useful to everyone). But anyway, what'd ya have in mind? puns intended.

 

No, we are discussing normal human behavior. I suspect that we all are so caught up in our illusions that we hate psychology because psychology tries to force us to know our self.

 

I don't know what 'we' you are referring to. You don't seem to hate psychology. I are absolutely certain I don't. Ophiolite has stated his interest in Cognitive Psychology which is partially where his problems with Analytic Psychology come from.

Take a second and look in to what you were really trying to say to Ophiolite.

 

Some sex offenders have not responded to therapy (presumably attempted to address their 'issues' about sex and power) but they have responded to surgery. This suggests that sexual abnormality is routed in the brain not in the behaviour. The same might be said of homosexuality.
How can we know ourselves when we are so ignorant? Who are psychologists to judge what is normal an therefore abnormal?

 

This could suggest all sorts of things: 1) perhaps the neurological map is best applied to a certain small % of the population 2) perhaps the therapies chosen were not appropriate or carried out well. 3) they did not want to change. So the therapeutic map with emotions, thoughts and motivations prioritized needs more client participation. Surgery in this case is not a therapy per se, but a judicial process. I am sure there are other possible conclusions. And again, since you are talking about ´some sex offenders´ who did not respond this makes a very poor case for saying that EVERYONE SHOULD STOP THINKING IN TERMS OF TALK THERAPIES and their maps and use the map you like.

1) now you are talking about abnormalities - and extreme ones. Most people who resolve issues around that are openly or unconsciously related to sex are not this extreme. Again, it is a poor argument for saying that talking about sex in a therapists office is a waste of time, we should really just think about brains, drugs and surgery. Your model is limited and I see no reason produced by you for saying it is the only model or the best model to follow.

2)The way you worded this sentence is confusing or contains a confused interpretation of my position.

Do you recommend surgery for this also?

Who are neurosurgeons to judge what is normal or not normal? This concern seems vastly more an issue when people intend to change someone´s brain without engaging the person themselves in the process.

We are talking about maps of problems and as far as I can tell the ones who agree with you are as or more likely to judge normality than psychologists who tend to be more flexible in incorporating the clients´ovn goals in the therapeutic process.

You think when you get brain surgery or are prescribed prozac someone has NOT decided their is something abnormal going on?

 

I would not recommend surgery for homosexuals because I think homosexuality is normal for homosexuals. In fact I wouldn't recommend surgery, drugs or talk therapy until I know a lot more about what drives us. The brain is a very complex machine and it seems to me there is a lot of tinkering going on without any real understanding.

I said that our behaviour has more to do with the functioning of the brain and that we should be funding more research before we decide what is normal or not. I actually think most things are 'normal' but society couldn't possibly live with that. So we should be looking more closely at the brain and allowing what we discover to inform what we do. I'm not denying that it's good to talk. But beyond pathological level of say two out of four, talk is extremely limited. As is the judicial process.

The neurologists show us the map, which presumably will have more than one route, perhaps a multidisciplinary team will then decide the best direction to follow.

 

For the last ****ing time I don't hate psychology. I use it on a regular basis. I used it effectively in a meeting I just hosted in which success depended upon how the participants were divided into teams that would work together effectively, despite many Alpha males, large egos and opposing views. There is a host of work that deals with normal psychology of normal people doing normal things. (And, grantywanty, that includes little bits of gaussian tail behviour. That, I still call normal.)
Freud, apart from being wrong, was dealing with abnormal, sexually repressed Austrian females, more than anyone else. Not normal. And I, not interested in the flawed understanding he purveyed.

 

Do you think his ideas about defense mechanisms and anxiety are wrong?

Do you think he was wrong about us having unconscious motivations for certain behavior that would surprise us?

Do you think he was wrong that dreams can reveal emotional issues?

Do you think his ideas about sex and sexual feelings can play out in behavior that on the surface seems not to have to do with sex?

do you think he was wrong in his ideas about religion?

do you think his ideas about

superego - morals, judgements of correct behavior
ego - sense of self, boundaries of identity
id - impulses desires

is wrong and not useful?

Do you think his idea that openly talking about feelings and thoughts normally kept secret can be helpful is wrong?

do you think his idea his idea was wrong that giving people feedback about patterns of behavior they engage in in relationships is useful?

 

Your detailed questions deserve a detailed response. I formed my opinion on Freud four decades ago. I may need to revisit the original data to explain the reason for that opinion.
I will say, in the meantime, that you are placing some very general takes on what he believed.

 

Don't feel you have to come back with a detailed rebuttal or that I will assume that if you don't it means you couldn't. It was half-rhetorical, of course, on my part, and your challenge that I have generalized his beliefs is a good challenge. I think think my generalization is fair because these beliefs are implicit and have done a lot of good. I also see Freud as hampered by the judgements of the day and he tried to squeeze his beliefs into scientific metaphors and other forms to keep him from being ostracized. In fact, he was, literally ostracized. I mean, other scientists and doctors would not talk to him, when he said that sexual abuse of children by their parents might be more common than was realized. He was shut out, not allowed to lecture at conferences; he became a professional non-person. When he recanted and in his recant came up with the whole Oeidipus as rule fiasco (my opinion) he was welcomed back in the ranks. I think his concerns about his colleague's reactions caused him problems. of course, his texts are his texts, and hallucinating the 'real Freud' would be unfair. I do think the generalizations above are not unfair. he would have agree with them and his ideas led directly to them. He also functioned within them.

And before Freud, there was no school or official use of such ideas of practices.

 

A map.