• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's your take on psychoanalysis?

Your take on psychoanalysis?

  • I love it - it's the best thing that ever happened to me aside from oral sex!

    Votes: 4 57.1%

  • I so hate it - it's a epistemic plague invented by self-loathing Europeans!

    Votes: 4 57.1%

  • I do not care - I have my limited edition of the Anarchist Cookbook!

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • Total voters
    7
paris

paris

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
2,366
Reaction score
1,438
Location
Yop
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Pardon my shrinking that poll to only three options. If your take is not shown up there, please take the time to post a comment explaining it:)
 
Insane people talking to insane people.
 
Witch doctor mumbo-jumbo.
Imho.

Not science at all--more akin to some sort of performance art
 
It's ridiculous, pseudoscientific quack medicine.
 
paris said:
Pardon my shrinking that poll to only three options. If your take is not shown up there, please take the time to post a comment explaining it:)
Click to expand...

I'm under the impression that it's sort of passé; that the psychiatric community today is more of the opinion that the answer to one's emotional and psychological problems will not be found in plumbing the depths of one's childhood recollections, but more typically in a pill bottle.

I think a classical "psycholanalyst" could probably make a lot of money, because most people like to talk about themselves, are endlessly fascinated by the subject and never get tired of revisiting (and possibly revising) their own pasts, memories, relationships, etc... and some are willing to pay another person good money to listen.

But I don't think psychoanalysis is much in favor right now.
I don't think there was ever much evidence that it worked.
I imagine in some cases, it probably made psychologically unbalanced people even worse.
 
Last edited:
It's gobbledygook which is at best the equivalent of talking things over with a good friend, and it worst highly damaging.
 
I believe that there should be more to field of mental health than drug-pushing. There is comfort and reassurance in making intimate human connection and finding understanding in another.
When I was training as a suicide prevention counselor we were trained in only the most basic methodology of assessing the situation, expressing empathy and so forth. Yet there were, more often than not, startlingly positive results in just speaking and listening to people. In just being an objective outside observer you provide an outlet for people to vent feelings they were not comfortable sharing with those around them. And often based on this fact, people would come to startling realizations about the traumatic basis of many of their problems. So, without getting all into the Freudian basis of psychoanalysis I will assert only that in my opinion verbal counseling is often beneficial for people in states of crisis.
1069 raises a good point though about revisiting and revising one's past, as there are numerous chronic callers on the suicide line who exploit it simply because it is a place where someone will listen. There are many deeply delusional callers who nightly re-invent their past.
 
I never wanted to **** my mother.

But I did have some sexy ****ing cousins.
 
While it was a notable attempt to try to understand the Human mind, as well as correct its flaws, psychoanalysis has ultimately prove not to be based in evidence, and have little useful effect on treating psychological problems. It is best served as a footnote in history, or a parlor trick at parties. That said, drugging people on a hair trigger isn't exactly the most sterling replacement.
 
Wow, so many dismissive of psychoanalysis when it does serve a purpose not exactly like Freud used it but it does have a strong purpose.

Lets review so we are toss away the craziness of "it's worthless."

"Psychoanalysis is a body of ideas developed by Austrian Physician Sigmund Freud and continued by others. It is primarily devoted to the study of human psychological functioning and behavior, although it also can be applied to societies.

Psychoanalysis has three applications:

1. a method of investigation of the mind;
2. a systematized set of theories about human behaviour;
3. a method of treatment of psychological or emotional illness.

Under the broad umbrella of psychoanalysis there are at least twenty-two different theoretical orientations regarding the underlying theory of understanding of human mentation and human development. The various approaches in treatment called "psychoanalytic" vary as much as the different theories do. In addition, the term refers to a method of studying child development."

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis]Psychoanalysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


It's so crazy!
smiley-scared002.gif
 
I think a lot of it is narcissistic and useless.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Wow, so many dismissive of psychoanalysis when it does serve a purpose not exactly like Freud used it but it does have a strong purpose.

Lets review so we are toss away the craziness of "it's worthless."

"Psychoanalysis is a body of ideas developed by Austrian Physician Sigmund Freud and continued by others. It is primarily devoted to the study of human psychological functioning and behavior, although it also can be applied to societies.

Psychoanalysis has three applications:

1. a method of investigation of the mind;
2. a systematized set of theories about human behaviour;
3. a method of treatment of psychological or emotional illness.

Under the broad umbrella of psychoanalysis there are at least twenty-two different theoretical orientations regarding the underlying theory of understanding of human mentation and human development. The various approaches in treatment called "psychoanalytic" vary as much as the different theories do. In addition, the term refers to a method of studying child development."

Psychoanalysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It's so crazy!
smiley-scared002.gif
Click to expand...

Psychoanalysis makes no testable predictions (at least none that stand up to scientific scrutiny). That makes it a pseudoscience, no different than homeopathy or voodoo.
 
Kandahar said:
Psychoanalysis makes no testable predictions (at least none that stand up to scientific scrutiny). That makes it a pseudoscience, no different than homeopathy or voodoo.
Click to expand...

If your using its infancy as a basis for criticism then you'd be somewhat correct but now it has developed into an investigation therapy using methods which have been shown to work.

It is not the same as when Freud was developing the practice.
 
What I found amazing is the lack of understanding of what psychoanalysis is, what it represented, and what it reproduced. Those of you who think it was about wanting to **** your mother have little understnding of the theory and practice.

Psychoanalysis in it's purest form is not widely practiced and us far too passive, in my view, to be very effective. However, the exploration of of human behaviors based on motivations, sometimes unconscious, often based on past situations, clearly can explain one's current behaviors at times and the understanding of these motivations can help to create change. We all react to current situations based on the past, sometimes without knowing so. Freud's theories took the understanding of human behavior out if the simplistic reinforcement/punishment model and expanded it, showing connections between seemingly unrelated things.

Where Freud missed the boat was both in his ignoring of the importance of the therapuetuc relationship, wheras the therapist is seen as actual person, and not just as a representation, and in his rigidity around his theories.

His concept of transference and countertransference was brilliant, and I, myself have expanded on this concept and use my expansion widely with a good amount of sucess.

There are certainly pros and cons to psychoanalysis, but dismissing it as inconsequential is foolish and shows a lack of understanding of it's theories and how those theories have evolved.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
What I found amazing is the lack of understanding of what psychoanalysis is, what it represented, and what it reproduced. Those of you who think it was about wanting to **** your mother have little understnding of the theory and practice.

Psychoanalysis in it's purest form is not widely practiced and us far too passive, in my view, to be very effective. However, the exploration of of human behaviors based on motivations, sometimes unconscious, often based on past situations, clearly can explain one's current behaviors at times and the understanding of these motivations can help to create change. We all react to current situations based on the past, sometimes without knowing so. Freud's theories took the understanding of human behavior out if the simplistic reinforcement/punishment model and expanded it, showing connections between seemingly unrelated things.

Where Freud missed the boat was both in his ignoring of the importance of the therapuetuc relationship, wheras the therapist is seen as actual person, and not just as a representation, and in his rigidity around his theories.

His concept of transference and countertransference was brilliant, and I, myself have expanded on this concept and use my expansion widely with a good amount of sucess.

There are certainly pros and cons to psychoanalysis, but dismissing it as inconsequential is foolish and shows a lack of understanding of it's theories and how those theories have evolved.
Click to expand...

Word brother :thumbs:

I think combining the investigative theories of psychoanalysis with cognitive-behaviorist theories would yield great results, although I only have an moderate understanding of psychology, so I could be wrong.
 
Its hooey.

Unless you have taken the time and have had the opportunity to really and truely know someone, there's little if any way you can make any legitimate determination of what makes them what who are and do what they do.
 
Goobieman said:
Its hooey.

Unless you have taken the time and have had the opportunity to really and truely know someone, there's little if any way you can make any legitimate determination of what makes them what who are and do what they do.
Click to expand...

To some extent, this is precisely what psychoanalysis does, though in a far too lengthy process in my view.
 
paris said:
Pardon my shrinking that poll to only three options. If your take is not shown up there, please take the time to post a comment explaining it:)
Click to expand...

Freud opened the floodgates to the human potential movement. Psychoanalysis, however, could only have been developed by a Jewish male. Predictably, it has the greatest success rate among Jewish men. A lot of this probably has to do with the Jewish familial structure, in which the man is only the titular head of the family, but the woman runs the show. How many families of the Jewish faith are noted for the strong, guiding hand of the father, and the submissive acquiescence of the mother?

But back to the question of psychoanalysis, I think Jung's work was an improvement, Fritz Perls was a distraction, Carl Rogers is the epitome of many therapists - given that if you select a Rogerian, you will never get out of therapy.

If you want real change, and want it quickly, find a competent practitioner of Neuro Linguistic Programming.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
What I found amazing is the lack of understanding of what psychoanalysis is, what it represented, and what it reproduced. Those of you who think it was about wanting to **** your mother have little understnding of the theory and practice.

Psychoanalysis in it's purest form is not widely practiced and us far too passive, in my view, to be very effective. However, the exploration of of human behaviors based on motivations, sometimes unconscious, often based on past situations, clearly can explain one's current behaviors at times and the understanding of these motivations can help to create change. We all react to current situations based on the past, sometimes without knowing so. Freud's theories took the understanding of human behavior out if the simplistic reinforcement/punishment model and expanded it, showing connections between seemingly unrelated things.

Where Freud missed the boat was both in his ignoring of the importance of the therapuetuc relationship, wheras the therapist is seen as actual person, and not just as a representation, and in his rigidity around his theories.

His concept of transference and countertransference was brilliant, and I, myself have expanded on this concept and use my expansion widely with a good amount of sucess.

There are certainly pros and cons to psychoanalysis, but dismissing it as inconsequential is foolish and shows a lack of understanding of it's theories and how those theories have evolved.
Click to expand...


I've had 2 psychology courses

The first year was with a guy who was a classical-freudian. I've not be convinced at all by things like the oedipian complex or the theory about the "anal stage" or "genital stage", but the "freudian slip" or the defense mechanisms (rationalisation, repression...) are interesting

The second year I had a famous teacher, who was a "scientifical psychologist", a behaviorist who hates Freud and Lacan, who wrote a book criticizing psychoanalysis (he says that it is dogmatic and that it doesn't evolve: Freud called his students who disagreed "sick" or "repressed")
He says that psychoanalysis can be efficient for small problems, but not for serious behavior troubles, and that Freud has systematically lied about most of the patients he has "healed".

I loved this teacher, his books are extremely interesting and have helped me.
 
Freud's theories took the understanding of human behavior out if the simplistic reinforcement/punishment model and expanded it, showing connections between seemingly unrelated things.
Click to expand...
I agree with you very much on this. Whatever its internal merits at least Freudianism provides some sort of counterbalance in academic circles to Behaviourism, as do several other ways of looking at human nature and behaviour. I don't write off Behaviourism completely just emphasise its incompleteness and the necessity to make sure the complexities of human nature are kept in mind.
 
Last edited:
swdowning said:
Freud opened the floodgates to the human potential movement. Psychoanalysis, however, could only have been developed by a Jewish male. Predictably, it has the greatest success rate among Jewish men. A lot of this probably has to do with the Jewish familial structure, in which the man is only the titular head of the family, but the woman runs the show. How many families of the Jewish faith are noted for the strong, guiding hand of the father, and the submissive acquiescence of the mother?
Click to expand...

There is so much stereotyping and inaccurate about the above, it doesn't even deserve a response. In brief...it is has no base in reality.

But back to the question of psychoanalysis, I think Jung's work was an improvement, Fritz Perls was a distraction, Carl Rogers is the epitome of many therapists - given that if you select a Rogerian, you will never get out of therapy.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...you would not do well as a practicing therapist. Jung was definitely an improvement over Freud; he lost Freud's rigidity and considered other motivations rather than just primal instincts. Perls was a genius who died to early to see his theories mature. He was the first to look at how social relationships and interactions affect us and motivate us. Your perception of Rogers in totally wrong...and classically naive. I thought the same way in school. The premise behind Rogers' work is the formation of the therapeutic relationship to elicity change. Research shows that this is the most important component that helps someone in therapy. And no, it doesn't mean someone will be in therapy for ever.

If you want real change, and want it quickly, find a competent practitioner of Neuro Linguistic Programming.
Click to expand...

And Neuro Linguistic Programing? :lol: I'm trained in NLP...by one of the formost proponents of the theory. NLP is nothing more than a few ancillary tricks and techniques. It's good to have in your repetroire, but as the prime approach, it is very weak.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm...you would not do well as a practicing therapist. Jung was definitely an improvement over Freud; he lost Freud's rigidity and considered other motivations rather than just primal instincts.
Click to expand...

More than Jung, I'm interested in the psychosocial theories of Erik Erikson.
 
1069 said:
More than Jung, I'm interested in the psychosocial theories of Erik Erikson.
Click to expand...

I use Eriksonian theories a lot. Had a course that focused solely on him and what he believed. The whole "independence vs. dependence" stage is what a lot of my clients struggle with.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Your perception of Rogers in totally wrong...and classically naive. I thought the same way in school. The premise behind Rogers' work is the formation of the therapeutic relationship to elicity change. Research shows that this is the most important component that helps someone in therapy. And no, it doesn't mean someone will be in therapy for ever.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh, uh-huh. I hear you saying that "elicity change" in a therapeutic relationship is a relevant premise behind Rogers' work. Tell me more about that... Uh-huh, uh-huh. Mm-hmm. What is "elicity change"? How would it be different from change that is not "elicity"? Mm-hmm.

CaptainCourtesy said:
And Neuro Linguistic Programing? :lol: I'm trained in NLP...by one of the formost proponents of the theory. NLP is nothing more than a few ancillary tricks and techniques. It's good to have in your repetroire, but as the prime approach, it is very weak.
Click to expand...

Well, if an ancillary trick can help you beat a murder rap, it might be worth exploring with a tad less prejudice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom