Poetry Forum

Full Version: Stumbled Across
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
"Thus a healthy person, too, is virtually a neurotic, but dreams appear to be the only symptoms which he is capable of forming."

                  - Sigmund Freud, Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis

So, as we're all a little gay and all a little racist, we're all a little neurotic - the most "normal" are so bad at it that absolutely *everything* has to be switched off to produce so much as a coltish little nightmare.

Discuss?

just mercedes

Freud has, for the most part, fallen completely out of favor in academia. Virtually no institution in any discipline would dare use him as a credible source. In 1996, Psychological Science reached the conclusion that “[T]here is literally nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire Freudian system or any of its component dogmas." As a research paradigm, it’s pretty much dead.

Many of Freud’s methodologies, techniques, and conclusions have been put into question. Moreover, his theories have even proved damaging — and even dangerous — to certain segments of the population. His perspectives on female sexuality and homosexuality are reviled, causing many feminists to refer to him by a different kind of ‘F’ word. Some even argue that his name should be spelled “Fraud” and not Freud.

“Freud is truly in a class of his own,” writes Todd Dufresne, an outspoken critic. “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.”


http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-freud-still-m...00815?IR=T
(06-07-2017, 08:10 AM)just mercedes Wrote: [ -> ]Freud has, for the most part, fallen completely out of favor in academia. Virtually no institution in any discipline would dare use him as a credible source. In 1996, Psychological Science reached the conclusion that “[T]here is literally nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire Freudian system or any of its component dogmas." As a research paradigm, it’s pretty much dead.

Many of Freud’s methodologies, techniques, and conclusions have been put into question. Moreover, his theories have even proved damaging — and even dangerous — to certain segments of the population. His perspectives on female sexuality and homosexuality are reviled, causing many feminists to refer to him by a different kind of ‘F’ word. Some even argue that his name should be spelled “Fraud” and not Freud.

“Freud is truly in a class of his own,” writes Todd Dufresne, an outspoken critic. “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.”


http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-freud-still-m...00815?IR=T

That's certainly one approach.  Thomas Szasz, who quoted the passage, was particularly affronted by the concept of forming symptoms.  This proves, he noted, that psychiatry is in no way medical for all its pretensions:  real symptoms of real diseases are objectively observable facts - not behaviors formed by anyone.

Yet that particular passage still resonated, for some reason.
I'm not sure I'd chuck the entire field, especially considering that nearly every mental illness defined today has a measure of brain inflammation associated with it, in addition to measurable, repeatable changes in structure. So there is something there and that something appears to be connected to an inflammatory process of some kind in the brain. What triggers it is the question remaining unanswered. Is it autoimmune? Stress-induced? Dietary? Genetic? Epigenetic? Much left to unravel.
(06-07-2017, 08:10 AM)just mercedes Wrote: [ -> ]Freud has, for the most part, fallen completely out of favor in academia. Virtually no institution in any discipline would dare use him as a credible source. In 1996, Psychological Science reached the conclusion that “[T]here is literally nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire Freudian system or any of its component dogmas." As a research paradigm, it’s pretty much dead.

Many of Freud’s methodologies, techniques, and conclusions have been put into question. Moreover, his theories have even proved damaging — and even dangerous — to certain segments of the population. His perspectives on female sexuality and homosexuality are reviled, causing many feminists to refer to him by a different kind of ‘F’ word. Some even argue that his name should be spelled “Fraud” and not Freud.

“Freud is truly in a class of his own,” writes Todd Dufresne, an outspoken critic. “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.”


http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-freud-still-m...00815?IR=T

Yeah, well, we've also become increasingly politically correct. Coincidence?

Studies, which serve as the main method of research are paid for by someone so expects certain results. As the expectations change, necessarily, so do the results.
(06-07-2017, 08:43 AM)Jana Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure I'd chuck the entire field, especially considering that nearly every mental illness defined today has a measure of brain inflammation associated with it, in addition to measurable, repeatable changes in structure. So there is something there and that something appears to be connected to an inflammatory process of some kind in the brain. What triggers it is the question remaining unanswered. Is it autoimmune? Stress-induced? Dietary? Genetic? Epigenetic? Much left to unravel.

That would be very useful, if it holds up.  The problem is that "mental illness" today is still based on observed/patient-produced behaviors, so the types defined are ways the subject acts, never anything the patient could *not* produce if so disposed.

Where we seem to be is, here's an abnormal behavior.  If we give this drug and make sure the subject takes it, the behavior stops.  Therefore, whatever that drug affects must have been the cause of the behavior.  This ignores the likelihood that the drug simply makes the subject feel worse, possibly in conjunction with whatever coercion is necessary to make him take it, so he quits the behavior.    "Off his meds" with the behavior back implies the coercion is also off, as well as the compelled worse feelings; subjects often complain that they don't take their meds because they feel bad while on them. (In other words, the drug could be a more subtle analogue of shock/torture therapy.)

Without detectable lesions that reliably predict a specific behavior, the above deduction of a drug fixing an unwanted behavior loses its cause-and-effect direction and dissolves, logically, into "A witch is made of wood!"


Reading Thomas Szasz can be unpleasant, like that other Thomas (Hobbes):  it's not much fun to think of people as vicious in the state of nature, or comprehensively lying to each other for numinous or ignoble personal benefit.  Yet some persist.
The whole field of psychology has become more "hard" and influenced by neuroscience. So the touchy feely methods of past generations and the theories built on them are seen as rubbish.
The only truly "empirical" sciences left standing are economics and organisational behaviour (and related social sciences).
read 'The Anti-Oedipus' by Deleuze
(06-08-2017, 08:52 AM)shemthepenman Wrote: [ -> ]read 'The Anti-Oedipus' by Deleuze

From the Wiki and other reviews, this looks a little advanced for my poor old intellect - is there a Classic ComicsTM version out?
Freud was intelligent, but he danced too much in darkness. Likely he had serious mommy issues, maybe she smacked him too hard during a thought-to-be warm moment, when he accidentally bit her with his first tooth. I believe sleep is a way we are forced to accept we are just puny mortals who are blessed with a reward of dreams, as we bow to an unavoidable weakness given to remind us of our place.

(06-07-2017, 08:43 AM)Jana Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure I'd chuck the entire field, especially considering that nearly every mental illness defined today has a measure of brain inflammation associated with it, in addition to measurable, repeatable changes in structure. So there is something there and that something appears to be connected to an inflammatory process of some kind in the brain. What triggers it is the question remaining unanswered. Is it autoimmune? Stress-induced? Dietary? Genetic? Epigenetic? Much left to unravel.

I agree! Inflammation is a huge factor to most illness.
I also believe spirituality affects many healing pathways.