Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Freud’s Discontents

thenation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: Freud’s Discontents

#31

Post by bbctol »

pococo wrote: post #5

Excuse my ignorance, but why does everyone seem to hate on Freud, considering he has had a tremendous influence on modern psychology? Honest question.

Freud's impact on psychology is sort of like Aristotle's impact on science. He laid the foundations of the field, had indisputably profound insights into the mind and without him, psychology would hardly exist in its current form. However, basically all of his specific conclusions are... wrong. They reflect a lot of personal biases and are pretty off-base; worse, they were taken as fact by a lot of early researchers, which bogged down the field for a long time. Depending on who you ask, Freud is either absurdly underrated or overrated; he's such a fundamental figure in the field that it's really hard to look at his impact "objectively," or even understand what that means.

Re: Freud’s Discontents

#32

Post by hx87 »

pococo wrote: post #5

Excuse my ignorance, but why does everyone seem to hate on Freud, considering he has had a tremendous influence on modern psychology? Honest question.

It's not just that a lot of his theories were wrong (something he had in common with Galileo and Newton), but that his wrong theories were taken far too seriously for far too long by certain sectors of the humanities (cough critical theory cough) as well as writers of film and television whose sole exposure to psychology was Freud in History of Psychology 101.

Re: Freud’s Discontents

#33

Post by bryondowd »

Pigo wrote: post #4

> Instead of believing that pathologies could be described or drugged away, Freudians wanted us to work through them. If this is true, then it's definitely a practice that needs to be focused on again. I've had nothing but bad experiences with various medical professionals throwing drugs at me the moment I mentioned personal difficulties. The anti-depressants kept me in a bad place for a long time, when I think I mos…

The difference seems to be in the type of degree. People who want to prescribe drugs to treat their patients need a medical degree, so that is what they get. People who want to help their patients work things out through other forms of therapy or counseling don't need the medical degree, so they generally go for a non-medical degree like a Ph.D. in Psychology. Then they can help people without having a prescription pad, and just refer patients who need drugs to someone with a medical degree.

So, choosing a provider based on their degree is probably the best way to get the help you want.

PS: This applies to the US, not sure how it compares to other countries.

Re: Freud’s Discontents

#34

Post by digler999 »

Pigo wrote: post #17
phkahler wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> If this is true, then it's definitely a practice that needs to be focused on again. I've had nothing but bad experiences with various medical professionals throwing drugs at me the moment I mentioned personal difficulties. I've found it to be true. Understanding where my undesirable behaviors come from is helping me correct them tremendously. It can be a painful process - expect to get worse before you get better…

I eventually found help through attending a church that focuses on community outreach and small groups, which helped me get outside my own head long enough to make some positive steps. But I've always wanted to find a therapist who is genuinely interested and can provide more insight than I can learn on my own from books like The Road Less Traveled. I don't know what other people go through, and I wish I understood J…

> I've always wanted to find a therapist who is genuinely interested and can provide more insight than I can learn on my own

There are TONS of professional, licensed therapists that can help you with this! Definitely try modern psychotherapy. google "find a therapist" and try the site from psychologytoday.com magazine. Hopefully you live in an area they serve. Most of them do not use meds, and even if they can prescribe them they only go for them as a last resort (some people have such severe anxiety that they cannot even function outside of their house, for instance).

> I suspect professionals are just throwing drugs because they're overwhelmed by the constant wave of misery and depression they're confronted with.

I disagree. I think your medical doctor (rather, anyone's MD) simply doesn't have hours upon hours to listen to your life story and find the perfect formula of lifestyle and attitude changes to help you. A psychologist does, in fact thats (sort of) what therapy is. "sort-of" because therapists generally dont give advice like a sage elder. They do their work by listening to you, reflecting what you're feeling, and letting you discover the problem and solution. I would say try it, and make it clear from the start that you will not take any meds (simply to weed out any therapist who might lead you that way). The only caveat is, every therapist has his/her own style and personality. There is no formula that works for everyone, so try a few sessions (typically one hr/week) and if it's not working for you, try another one until you find someone you can connect with.

Re: Freud’s Discontents

#35

Post by digler999 »

tehwalrus wrote: post #7

I've heard that Freud's methods were poor and his brain science was junk; but I can't actually name any particular bad theory or experiment. This article did not enlighten me, at least in the first ten minutes reading it. Anyone know of a good guide? And, since it's Freud, one that won't turn my stomach?

> And, since it's Freud, one that won't turn my stomach?

Ah, a primitive emotion - fear - protecting you from the psychosomatic response (nausea) emanating from the id, the reptilian section responsible for protecting you from primal dangers (attack/rape).

That was a lame attempt to be meta, but I think one of his junk theories was the oedipus complex[1], the theory that children sexually lust for a parent. I think that one has mainly been discounted, but as another poster said, Freud sort of blew the lid off all the rapey things that were going on (people came to him with "hysteria", which was probably PTSD and anxiety, he asked them about their history, most of them were raped/molested/traumatized, and decided these rape victims needed a clean, palatable theoretical explanation instead of condemning their attackers).

Not all of his stuff was junk, though. His drive-defense model is still partially in use today (just google psychological defenses, see the list of them on wikipedia). What bugs me about Freud critics is they appear to bash him as if he's out there now, still practicing. He came up with this stuff 100 years ago, and just like pioneering medical doctors from 100 years ago (who aren't criticized even a fraction of Freud), his research is obsolete and has been replaced by more refined and sophisticated models. I dont know why so many people wont accept that: we dont remove an appendix the way we did in 1912, just as we dont treat depression the way Freud did. And we dont condemn 1912's surgeons as fools for not knowing what we know today.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex

Re: Freud’s Discontents

#36

Post by OpenDrapery »

bryondowd wrote: post #33
Pigo wrote: post #4

> Instead of believing that pathologies could be described or drugged away, Freudians wanted us to work through them. If this is true, then it's definitely a practice that needs to be focused on again. I've had nothing but bad experiences with various medical professionals throwing drugs at me the moment I mentioned personal difficulties. The anti-depressants kept me in a bad place for a long time, when I think I mos…

The difference seems to be in the type of degree. People who want to prescribe drugs to treat their patients need a medical degree, so that is what they get. People who want to help their patients work things out through other forms of therapy or counseling don't need the medical degree, so they generally go for a non-medical degree like a Ph.D. in Psychology. Then they can help people without having a prescription p…

what about people who just want to make money and don't care about the patient?

Re: Freud’s Discontents

#37

Post by lukeasrodgers »

nicops wrote: post #28
lukeasrodgers wrote: post #27

My one quibble with this article, which I think is otherwise spot on in many regards, concerns this claim: "It is more common now to regard humanity as lucid about its interests, and rational in its fulfillment of them (a few behavioral foibles aside)." There is a strong trend in psychology (both pop and scientific) at the moment to focus on all the ways in which we (or, by an odd synecdoche, "our brains") are irrati…

The irrationality studied by Dan Ariely et al it's not comparable _at all_ with the freudian irrationality. The former brings to the forefront our fauly heuristics and biases. The later is about how culture and our psyche actively makes us ignorant of parts of ourselves that are inconvenient, and that can come out in bursts of irrational, unstable, "crazy" behavior.

You're right that they are very different takes on irrationality. Whether they are a comparable "at all" is obviously just a matter of context. If I'm interested in research on loss aversion, looking at Freud and Ariely together would be silly. If I'm interested in the history of ideas (which my point was addressing) then looking at them alongside each other makes perfect sense.

You're saying "apples vs oranges" and I'm saying, "sure, but I'm talking about fruits."

Re: Freud’s Discontents

#38

Post by jhanschoo »

rgejman wrote: post #3

Outstanding essay on why Freud has faded from his ultimate cultural and scientific pedestal -- and why and other grand theorists are not relevant today. I agree with the author that "The grand theories of an earlier age offered us an ability to look at the intersections between the self, society, and history; in comparison, their replacements look not just intellectually meek but politically unpromising." On the othe…

In some sense, the lack of grandeur in present research comes from academia realizing just how complex psychological nature is.

Freud's era was one that underestimated the complexities of analysing, well, complex systems, where phenomena arise not out of the interactions of more-or-less pure entities like in Newtonian physics, but as the chaotic aggregation of heterogeneous subsystems, like what we now understand many biological processes to be.

I think the field today is doing what mathematics had been doing a couple ago; back then mathematicians realized that calculus was on shaky foundation, and developed tools to set mathematics on a firm logical and set theory foundation. Likewise, psychology is investigating neurology and trying to find a firm foundation in it.

Re: Freud’s Discontents

#39

Post by nicops »

lukeasrodgers wrote: post #37
nicops wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irrationality studied by Dan Ariely et al it's not comparable _at all_ with the freudian irrationality. The former brings to the forefront our fauly heuristics and biases. The later is about how culture and our psyche actively makes us ignorant of parts of ourselves that are inconvenient, and that can come out in bursts of irrational, unstable, "crazy" behavior.

You're right that they are very different takes on irrationality. Whether they are a comparable "at all" is obviously just a matter of context. If I'm interested in research on loss aversion, looking at Freud and Ariely together would be silly. If I'm interested in the history of ideas (which my point was addressing) then looking at them alongside each other makes perfect sense. You're saying "apples vs oranges" and…

But maybe bringing fruits up it's irrelevant in some context, depending on what we're talking about. This is one of these contexts. The very same phrase you quoted from the article clarifies it's not talking about "perfect" rationality.

In the history of psychology/sociology, Freud and Ariely don't make sense with each other.

Re: Freud’s Discontents

#40

Post by woodandsteel »

digler999 wrote: post #35
tehwalrus wrote: post #7

I've heard that Freud's methods were poor and his brain science was junk; but I can't actually name any particular bad theory or experiment. This article did not enlighten me, at least in the first ten minutes reading it. Anyone know of a good guide? And, since it's Freud, one that won't turn my stomach?

> And, since it's Freud, one that won't turn my stomach? Ah, a primitive emotion - fear - protecting you from the psychosomatic response (nausea) emanating from the id, the reptilian section responsible for protecting you from primal dangers (attack/rape). That was a lame attempt to be meta, but I think one of his junk theories was the oedipus complex[1], the theory that children sexually lust for a parent. I think t…

The reason people keep beating up on Freud is that a great many intellectuals and people in the humanities still worship him.
Post reply on HN