Was Freud a fraud?

[Svipdag]

IMO, Freud's methodology was flawed in that he tended to jump to conclusions based on inadequate evidence.

[Atsushi Otani]

Yes, because he was a jew.

[LaNoblesse]

Says the guy who wants to call himself "bad ass". You're coping m8.
Fact is, Freud is not as relevant as people make him to be and if you know anything about psychology, you know that.
People who talk about Freud are the same kind of people who like "I love science" pages on facebook, posers. His contribution is minor and is more comparable to philosophy than to real psychology.

Americans are mentally retarded at math , due to a shitty education system, so they cannot distinquish between pseudo-science and real science. All science is either physics or stamp collecting. All real sciences have to follow the laws of physics. The mind cannot follow the laws of physics, that is nonsensical, so the mind is a metaphysical concept and belongs to philosophy and no the mind and brain are not synonymous hence the false fake or pseudo-scientific diseases or disorders of psychiatry have a seperate nosology from real neurological brain diseases.

Blowback
Why psychology isn't science

July 13, 2012|By Alex B. Berezow
A graduate student at UC Irvine conducts an organic chemistry experiment. Many scientists believe fields such as psychology and sociology aren't sciences at all.
A graduate student at UC Irvine conducts an organic chemistry experiment.… (Los Angeles Times )

Psychologist Timothy D. Wilson, a professor at the University of Virginia, expressed resentment in his Times Op-Ed article on Thursday over the fact that most scientists don't consider his field a real science. He casts scientists as condescending bullies:

"Once, during a meeting at my university, a biologist mentioned that he was the only faculty member present from a science department. When I corrected him, noting that I was from the Department of Psychology, he waved his hand dismissively, as if I were a Little Leaguer telling a member of the New York Yankees that I too played baseball.

"There has long been snobbery in the sciences, with the 'hard' ones (physics, chemistry, biology) considering themselves to be more legitimate than the 'soft' ones (psychology, sociology)."

The dismissive attitude scientists have toward psychologists isn't rooted in snobbery; it's rooted in intellectual frustration. It's rooted in the failure of psychologists to acknowledge that they don't have the same claim on secular truth that the hard sciences do. It's rooted in the tired exasperation that scientists feel when non-scientists try to pretend they are scientists.

That's right. Psychology isn't science.

Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn't science. How exactly should "happiness" be defined? The meaning of that word differs from person to person and especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn't necessarily make Chinese people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can't use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I'm feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you?

The failure to meet the first two requirements of scientific rigor (clear terminology and quantifiability) makes it almost impossible for happiness research to meet the other three. How can an experiment be consistently reproducible or provide any useful predictions if the basic terms are vague and unquantifiable? And when exactly has there ever been a reliable prediction made about human behavior? Making useful predictions is a vital part of the scientific process, but psychology has a dismal record in this regard. Just ask a foreign policy or intelligence analyst.

To be fair, not all psychology research is equally wishy-washy. Some research is far more scientifically rigorous. And the field often yields interesting and important insights.

But to claim it is "science" is inaccurate. Actually, it's worse than that. It's an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth.

That's why scientists dismiss psychologists. They're rightfully defending their intellectual turf.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul...ience-20120713

Also, psychiatry is not psychology, but related, and psychiatric diagnoses propositions are non-false-iable . hence, not scientific. When you have cancer or some real disease a doctor does a physical lab test to prove you have the disease. There is no physical test or any physical proof whatsoever the mental illnesses exist or there is a 'chemical imblance'. The chemical imbalance proposition was an urban myth promulgated by psychiatrists to make 'patients feel better about their problems as if it wasn't societies or their fault but bad wiring of their brain' etc...

[Atsushi Otani]

Americans are mentally retarded at math , due to a shitty education system, so they cannot distinquish between pseudo-science and real science. All science is either physics or stamp collecting. All real sciences have to follow the laws of physics. The mind cannot follow the laws of physics, that is nonsensical, so the mind is a metaphysical concept and belongs to philosophy and no the mind and brain are not synonymous hence the false fake or pseudo-scientific diseases or disorders of psychiatry have a seperate nosology from real neurological brain diseases.

Blowback
Why psychology isn't science

July 13, 2012|By Alex B. Berezow
A graduate student at UC Irvine conducts an organic chemistry experiment. Many scientists believe fields such as psychology and sociology aren't sciences at all.
A graduate student at UC Irvine conducts an organic chemistry experiment.… (Los Angeles Times )

Psychologist Timothy D. Wilson, a professor at the University of Virginia, expressed resentment in his Times Op-Ed article on Thursday over the fact that most scientists don't consider his field a real science. He casts scientists as condescending bullies:

"Once, during a meeting at my university, a biologist mentioned that he was the only faculty member present from a science department. When I corrected him, noting that I was from the Department of Psychology, he waved his hand dismissively, as if I were a Little Leaguer telling a member of the New York Yankees that I too played baseball.

"There has long been snobbery in the sciences, with the 'hard' ones (physics, chemistry, biology) considering themselves to be more legitimate than the 'soft' ones (psychology, sociology)."

The dismissive attitude scientists have toward psychologists isn't rooted in snobbery; it's rooted in intellectual frustration. It's rooted in the failure of psychologists to acknowledge that they don't have the same claim on secular truth that the hard sciences do. It's rooted in the tired exasperation that scientists feel when non-scientists try to pretend they are scientists.

That's right. Psychology isn't science.

Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn't science. How exactly should "happiness" be defined? The meaning of that word differs from person to person and especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn't necessarily make Chinese people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can't use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I'm feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you?

The failure to meet the first two requirements of scientific rigor (clear terminology and quantifiability) makes it almost impossible for happiness research to meet the other three. How can an experiment be consistently reproducible or provide any useful predictions if the basic terms are vague and unquantifiable? And when exactly has there ever been a reliable prediction made about human behavior? Making useful predictions is a vital part of the scientific process, but psychology has a dismal record in this regard. Just ask a foreign policy or intelligence analyst.

To be fair, not all psychology research is equally wishy-washy. Some research is far more scientifically rigorous. And the field often yields interesting and important insights.

But to claim it is "science" is inaccurate. Actually, it's worse than that. It's an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth.

That's why scientists dismiss psychologists. They're rightfully defending their intellectual turf.

Also, psychiatry is not psychology, but related, and psychiatric diagnoses propositions are non-false-iable . hence, not scientific. When you have cancer or some real disease a doctor does a physical lab test to prove you have the disease. There is no physical test or any physical prove whatsoever the mental illnesses exist or there is a 'chemical imblance'. The chemical imbalance proposition was an urban myth promulgated by psychiatrists to make 'patients feel better about their problems as if it wasn't societies or their fault but bad wiring of their brain' etc...

Cool, i agree 100%

[Atsushi Otani]

Americans are mentally retarded at math , due to a shitty education system, so they cannot distinquish between pseudo-science and real science. All science is either physics or stamp collecting. All real sciences have to follow the laws of physics. The mind cannot follow the laws of physics, that is nonsensical, so the mind is a metaphysical concept and belongs to philosophy and no the mind and brain are not synonymous hence the false fake or pseudo-scientific diseases or disorders of psychiatry have a seperate nosology from real neurological brain diseases.

Blowback
Why psychology isn't science

July 13, 2012|By Alex B. Berezow
A graduate student at UC Irvine conducts an organic chemistry experiment. Many scientists believe fields such as psychology and sociology aren't sciences at all.
A graduate student at UC Irvine conducts an organic chemistry experiment.… (Los Angeles Times )

Psychologist Timothy D. Wilson, a professor at the University of Virginia, expressed resentment in his Times Op-Ed article on Thursday over the fact that most scientists don't consider his field a real science. He casts scientists as condescending bullies:

"Once, during a meeting at my university, a biologist mentioned that he was the only faculty member present from a science department. When I corrected him, noting that I was from the Department of Psychology, he waved his hand dismissively, as if I were a Little Leaguer telling a member of the New York Yankees that I too played baseball.

"There has long been snobbery in the sciences, with the 'hard' ones (physics, chemistry, biology) considering themselves to be more legitimate than the 'soft' ones (psychology, sociology)."

The dismissive attitude scientists have toward psychologists isn't rooted in snobbery; it's rooted in intellectual frustration. It's rooted in the failure of psychologists to acknowledge that they don't have the same claim on secular truth that the hard sciences do. It's rooted in the tired exasperation that scientists feel when non-scientists try to pretend they are scientists.

That's right. Psychology isn't science.

Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn't science. How exactly should "happiness" be defined? The meaning of that word differs from person to person and especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn't necessarily make Chinese people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can't use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I'm feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you?

The failure to meet the first two requirements of scientific rigor (clear terminology and quantifiability) makes it almost impossible for happiness research to meet the other three. How can an experiment be consistently reproducible or provide any useful predictions if the basic terms are vague and unquantifiable? And when exactly has there ever been a reliable prediction made about human behavior? Making useful predictions is a vital part of the scientific process, but psychology has a dismal record in this regard. Just ask a foreign policy or intelligence analyst.

To be fair, not all psychology research is equally wishy-washy. Some research is far more scientifically rigorous. And the field often yields interesting and important insights.

But to claim it is "science" is inaccurate. Actually, it's worse than that. It's an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth.

That's why scientists dismiss psychologists. They're rightfully defending their intellectual turf.

Also, psychiatry is not psychology, but related, and psychiatric diagnoses propositions are non-false-iable . hence, not scientific. When you have cancer or some real disease a doctor does a physical lab test to prove you have the disease. There is no physical test or any physical prove whatsoever the mental illnesses exist or there is a 'chemical imblance'. The chemical imbalance proposition was an urban myth promulgated by psychiatrists to make 'patients feel better about their problems as if it wasn't societies or their fault but bad wiring of their brain' etc...

I envied you a friend request, accept that pls

[sean]

He invented the pseudoscience of psychoanalysis which was and is used to critique all Western institutions as producing neuroses. He tirelessly undermined monogamous sexuality and with it, stable pair bonding and high-investment parenting strategies that traditionally characterised Western populace.

He created a fucked up fake way of seeing the world as being obsessed with maternal and paternal repressed memories and it lead to quackery like rebirthing therapy that murdered that girl Candace Newmaker.

They suffocated that girl while she begged for her life and they thought they were doing a good thing the whole time.

[Adamastor]

Yes, he was.

[luc2112]

No. I agree with a lot of what Freud says, but I think he gets too deep into solipsistic navel-gazing when he posits that cavemen engaged in competition with one another by pissing into campfires. His ideas about the Oedipus complex, and the idea that preoccupation with smoking and drinking originating from a primordial subconscious desire to suck breasts (the "oral character"), I think, are entirely logical.

His disciple, and later opponent, Carl Jung, stated that the main problem with Freud was that he reduced the entirety of the human being to the mere "glands of the penis" and there may be truth to that, but I think people vastly underestimate the role of the sex-drive in human motivations.

Interesting your post, but I think Freud spoke with metaphors (should interpret the sentences). Yes many human actions are sexual, but many of them indirect to achieve their goal (sex). Freud confused many people with his direct phrases.

[coolfrenchguy]

carl gustav jung ,his panpsychism and his analytic psychology (in contact with albert einstein) even he had a huge chaotic path is certainly the richier,certainly not sigmund,maybe freud have put some bases,but his pseudoscience "anal retention" or "anal stage",indeed create staight men pegged by there female lover,creating submissive man-ginas ending doggystyle, the same psycho-rigids men who gave castrative lessons of morale to us after there little "bdsm" sessions between two evangelist prayers,no thanks sigmund keep your shit with you,especially ego-psychology the main shrink movement in USA,now you know what it's going wrong if you are american
jung let behind him a huge work than i really can't resume here

what is behind,the voluntee to erase and anihilate muladhara and svadhishtana,especially,svadhishtana the 2nd chakra or the sacral chakra



Chakra Psychology

Chakras should, long ago, have been studied and examined as a scientific system with the same attention that many other observable layers of the human body and mind have received. It is quite unclear how it is possible that a physiological system, which so many millions of people throughout history have reported about and which is perceived as an obvious direct experience of numerous people, has remained confined within the boundaries of the esoteric.

Chakras are completely within the reach of the common human. Indeed, in the human language they are hidden behind so-called metaphors such as “broken-heartedness” (as opposed to an “open heart”), “cold feet,” “weak at the knees,” “standing on one’s own feet,” “butterflies in the stomach,” a “strong stomach” (as opposed to “having no stomach for something”), a “lump in one’s throat” and the “mind’s eye.”

In the same breath, it is no wonder that Chakras have remained bound to the esoteric field alone. This is because instead of documenting them in a direct language, they have remained tied to traditional names, symbols, colors, mantras and Hindu and Buddhist mythology. This has greatly inhibited our ability as a human culture to observe them as a general human phenomenon that is relevant to far more familiar phenomena, such as the psyche’s structure, psychic development and the unconscious in Psychology, body-mind connection, human relationships, education, and above all – the understanding of the human existence with all its multi-dimensional complexity.

As a psycho-physiological phenomenon, Chakras are directly experienced as sensory centers which clearly come alive in response to stimulating situations and experiences in life. These seven centers are probably the most unmediated interactions of the human system with life:

The instinctive center designed for physical survival and tribal self-protection.
The sensual center of pleasure and feeling developed to enable a heightened experience of body and senses.
A center of individual power, will, competition and ambition formed to empower one in positioning oneself as a strong individual within society.
A center of emotion and sensitivity, environmental awareness, dependency and compassion to support more complex human relationships.
A center of higher communication, language and interaction of mutual influence for the sake of spreading information as well as cultural ideas.
A center of higher intelligence, inquiry, thought and contemplation, designed for understanding life inside and outside us.
A center of meditation and a direct connection with the phenomenon of consciousness and the infinitely unknowable nature of the universe.

The integral approach of the chakras

The Chakras bring to fulfillment the complexity of human existence – an existence which embraces philosophy and action, willfulness and sacrifice, aloneness and belonging, eternal existence and simple mortal life, instinctive and physiological needs and a transcending human spirit.

Chakras are a system through which one could look at the entire spectrum of human experience and its obvious and subtle relations with the world and the cosmos at large. Enabled by such a vision, we could fully grasp the human system, from the rather puzzling and multi-layered structure of the psyche to cultural phenomena, as a dialogue between the different Chakras.

All worldviews, perspectives and interpretations originate, in this sense, from the Chakras. Each worldview or perspective comes into being as soon as one watches the world and oneself through the eyes of a specific Chakra. With these lenses or eyes, a whole range of values, feelings and meaning follows. This is because Chakras are truly devices which connect us to what I call the “Seven Dimensions of Life.”

This super-concept is the ultimate integral approach, which holds within it an integrative answer to major questions in psychology, health, human intelligence, human needs, education, happiness, meaning, and the entire range of life skills. In this, the Chakras prove to be a highly effective system which enables a full vision of complex structures very quickly, thus making it possible to avoid mental contradiction and to harmoniously perceive each and every situation and challenge, from problems in our individual lives to political and social crises.

Chakras, as such, explain the different spiritual paths as complementary parts of one holistic path, just as they show how nationalities, cultures, philosophies and even types of personalities become much more meaningful and sensible when they appear to serve a greater whole.
The psychology of chakras

The most impressive contribution of Chakras is as a psychological breakthrough: an effective comprehension of the psychic structure that could promote supreme wellbeing, happiness and meaning. In this sense, all the various psychological schools do not contradict each other at all but, really, beautifully complement one another. In reality, each one explores and treats one aspect of the psyche which can be easily reflected in the Chakra system.

When the Chakras are understood as the structure of human psyche, they can quickly teach us the nature of complete psychic health, which necessarily embraces all the possible components of our psyche: from its most instinctive foundations, which include primordial traumas, to the most refined needs of our emotional, mental and spiritual wellbeing, such as emotional fulfillment, meaning, clarity of knowing and self-transcendence.