Doubts about my future profession - Please Input

[The Johnny]

Well, acknowledging that psychiatry, psycho-analysis and mental health therapy are supposed to be methods for making a person functional in society, rather than an accurate model of the mind, is a good first start.

Being functional and being sane overlap somewhat, but they arent the same thing.

The model of the mind part is a bit sketchy, because one cant, lets say, do a vivisection of the untouchable mind; but as far as ive seen, libidinal development is useful, the psychic apparatus too along with the pleasure and reality principles, but theres things like the death pulsion that im not so sure about.

Come again? All I heard was gibberish interspaced with conjunctions, pronouns and the verb "to be".

Maybe because you dont know the terminology its the reason why it sounds like gibberish.

If you can't explain yourself to a layman, either

1.  You don't understand the work, or

2.  It's crap.

I didnt explain it for economic reasons, since i assumed that if one has the energy to invest in a response or reading, theyd have the energy to look up a term, anyhow:

What i meant is that since you cannot cut open a brain to see immaterial processes its hard to deduce a structure; libidinal development, which is the stages of development in humans seems to work, theres thoughts, processes and feelings associated with different ages that can be verified empirically, and when it doesnt happen that way, one can notice the pathology afterwards. The pleasure principle is a fundamental primitive drive, when we are still animal like and havent internalized a conscience (so to speak; superego) and have the ability to repress and only look after ourselves and our needs without regards to others, while after the fifth year the reality principle sets in, which is the ability to delay gratification in order to get more benefits from a given situation. Death drive is the attraction to destruction, which is a complex concept that im not sure i agree with.

[The Johnny]

And the only "terminology" you've used is "death pulsion".  Which is termed "death drive", since pulsion isn't properly a word.

Yeah, i wanna see you trying to have a serious discussion on a second language; if you look at previous post, you will see which terminology i speak of.

[The Johnny]

Are you saying psycho-analysis is just speculation? What about all the case studies that have been made?

Well, acknowledging that psychiatry, psycho-analysis and mental health therapy are supposed to be methods for making a person functional in society, rather than an accurate model of the mind, is a good first start.

IOW, yes I am. It's an art, not a science. Not that it's not USEFUL. I definitely wouldn't say that therapy isn't useful. It's just not science. There's no replication, the experiments are completely flawed in their design, and the conclusions and inferences are often based on completely made up evidence based in the cognitive biases of the therapist. If it is science, it's really really REALLY bad science. So no, it's not science. I don't think you actually have the balls to back up your claims in the manner that even social science demands.

Proyective tests and interviews are the methods we have used to test hypothesis based on theory.

I dont see what balls have to do with what we speak of (symbol of masculinity and integrity perhaps?), but, just because the evidence cant be measured, it doesnt make it untrue, we might not be able to count the number of appendages of guilt under a microscope, but with methodology we can notice if somebody has a fixation.

[The Johnny]

Also, if I ever had a therapist "psychoanalyze" me in a way I could tell that he was using Freudian bullshit or jungian archetypes or any of that old mystical silliness to tell me what was wrong with me and try to help me function better, I would walk out.

Might as well take snake oil and bleed myself with leeches, if we're going that route. It's like psychological medicine haddn't advanced in the last 100 years.

According to you, how would a freudian psycho-analysis go? You do realize that freud and jung parted ways and they developed very different notions on theory and practice?

[The Johnny]

I'm not dismissing psychoanalysis out of hand as completely useless.  Talk therapy helps a lot of people.

I just come from the exact opposite philosophical end of the spectrum, in my psych studies, and it rankles me deeply when Freudians, Jungians, and their ilk call their methods science.

Can you share what things you have learned of? Was it more of a psychiatrical approach?

[The Johnny]

Don't get too agitated or defensive about this, Joh'Nyx. You've stumbled upon a subject which has many and varied facets to it, and there's a LOT to be learned about it. That doesn't mean that what you've learned thus far is invalid or worthless; it just means there's a lot more to it than you may have realized when you started this thread.

Psychology is a fascinating subject, and it's worth understanding Freud so as to understand the influence he had on the study of the human mind over the past century. But it's also important to find out what's been learned since then; this is true even in the "hard" sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, etc).



Remember:
"A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads"

Yes, its a very complicated subject, i knew it while i was writing OP, its just that i want to run into someone that has good arguments, not just cheap shots, so that i might actually learn and notice the flaws it has.

Right now im reading a book about personality disorders co-written by a psychiatrist, a clinician and a psycho-therapist, and it contains interesting things that make sense while at the same time things that don't.

[Jasper]

My side of things is more toward the reductionistic, empirical side of the mind.  I'm more interested in cognitions and perceptions and memories.  I regard your end of psychology as too messy, asystematic, and subjective to be terribly worth while.  I'm only interested in what is measurable, repeatable, and concordant with physical sciences.

[The Johnny]

again, honestly, your pretty much asking the wrong crowd here.

Scientologists will have TONNES of information about the evils of head-shrinkage for you. Not a leg pull, go ask some, they will be MORE than happy to lay you on with more info than you ever wanted. Also in perfect Mexican Spanish.

It would indeed be an interesting novelty read, any specific one you recommend?

[The Johnny]

My side of things is more toward the reductionistic, empirical side of the mind.  I'm more interested in cognitions and perceptions and memories.  I regard your end of psychology as too messy, asystematic, and subjective to be terribly worth while.  I'm only interested in what is measurable, repeatable, and concordant with physical sciences.

The clean approach  . Yeah, things get really messy within transference.

[Jasper]

Clean doesn't really describe neuroscience. 

Lord Markram once flensed thousands of rat brains just to get a map of where various DNA tags showed up. 

Awesome?  Yes.  Clean?  Hardly.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Some of Freud's theories are supported by contemporary scientific inquiry (the existence of the unconscious mind, for example), but most of his theories are either patently false, not falsifiable, or not able to be put into operational terms—and therefore not of interest to scientists.

You seem more than comfortable to leave the realm of empiricism, falsifiability and operational terms and still call it "valid." This suggests to me that this "ideological difference" you're talking about is a matter of legitimate science and blowing shit out your ass while proclaiming it fact.

Psycho-analysis is more than Freud, but a lot of the criticisms are indeed targeted at him, for he's the only author the mainstream culture knows about. As i stated in the OP, i have heard a lot of cheap-shot criticisms, but nothing substantial.

What criteria is necessary to constitute a "substantial critique" of psychoanalysis, then? I'm curious because scientific methods make such criteria glaringly obvious, however, you seem to want to play by a different set of game rules.

[Triple Zero]

If you're interested in doing psychological therapy, but unwilling to believe what a pervert from Vienna essentially fabricated a century ago, you might be interested in another branch of psychotherapy such as humanistic or cognitive behavioral therapy. 

Im not sure if i expressed myself clearly, i think these "fabrications from a Viennese pervert" are mostly valid.

So i ask you: Why is he a pervert? Why would being a pervert invalidate his ideas? And, what did he fabricate?

Eh, say what?

Most psychologists (e.g., my father, a neuropsychologist) agree to not really put much value to Freud, except for laying some conceptual foundations of psychological theory and the like. He created a framework but pretty much all of his concrete stuff has been disproven, dismissed or surpassed by better theories.

This up to the point that, in a discussion with my father (diehard skeptic with slight christian leanings--confusing? he manages by sort of avoiding the subject) anyway he once told me that there is in fact very little scientific basis for the [freudian concept of] subconscious, and doesn't really believe in it. Before that, I always thought the subconscious was in fact very real, as a sort of "hidden brain" thinking all sorts of crazy shit unknown to you, but bubbling up in your emotions every once in a while, affecting you. It's not. Or whatever it is, it is not as hidden, if you have a thought, you can be aware of it. There's no thoughts occurring that are really hidden from you (you can ignore them or just not pay attention, but that's different. they're not shrouded by anything)

[The Johnny]

Some of Freud's theories are supported by contemporary scientific inquiry (the existence of the unconscious mind, for example), but most of his theories are either patently false, not falsifiable, or not able to be put into operational terms—and therefore not of interest to scientists.

You seem more than comfortable to leave the realm of empiricism, falsifiability and operational terms and still call it "valid." This suggests to me that this "ideological difference" you're talking about is a matter of legitimate science and blowing shit out your ass while proclaiming it fact.

Psycho-analysis is more than Freud, but a lot of the criticisms are indeed targeted at him, for he's the only author the mainstream culture knows about. As i stated in the OP, i have heard a lot of cheap-shot criticisms, but nothing substantial.

What criteria is necessary to constitute a "substantial critique" of psychoanalysis, then? I'm curious because scientific methods make such criteria glaringly obvious, however, you seem to want to play by a different set of game rules.

At least Kai specificaly pointed out his angle, which is the "ascientific nature" of it, and i understand that in this branch of psychology its not what could be called 100% accurate or expressable in graphs and numbers and our disagreement lies in what constitutes science.

But you, as well as several others, call ambiguous shit like "most of his theories are either patently false, not falsifiable, or not able to be put into operational terms—and therefore not of interest to scientists." i can practically get that response from a bum with a 3rd grade education. Either state specifically which theories, or why bother responding? Just to be "more correct than thou"?

[The Johnny]

If you're interested in doing psychological therapy, but unwilling to believe what a pervert from Vienna essentially fabricated a century ago, you might be interested in another branch of psychotherapy such as humanistic or cognitive behavioral therapy. 

Im not sure if i expressed myself clearly, i think these "fabrications from a Viennese pervert" are mostly valid.

So i ask you: Why is he a pervert? Why would being a pervert invalidate his ideas? And, what did he fabricate?

Eh, say what?

Most psychologists (e.g., my father, a neuropsychologist) agree to not really put much value to Freud, except for laying some conceptual foundations of psychological theory and the like. He created a framework but pretty much all of his concrete stuff has been disproven, dismissed or surpassed by better theories.

This up to the point that, in a discussion with my father (diehard skeptic with slight christian leanings--confusing? he manages by sort of avoiding the subject) anyway he once told me that there is in fact very little scientific basis for the [freudian concept of] subconscious, and doesn't really believe in it. Before that, I always thought the subconscious was in fact very real, as a sort of "hidden brain" thinking all sorts of crazy shit unknown to you, but bubbling up in your emotions every once in a while, affecting you. It's not. Or whatever it is, it is not as hidden, if you have a thought, you can be aware of it. There's no thoughts occurring that are really hidden from you (you can ignore them or just not pay attention, but that's different. they're not shrouded by anything)

Very well, he indeed created the framework, and i would think that a lot of his ideas have been refined, but, can you give any specific example?

As for the unconscious (i think thats the correct term, rather than subconscious). And tell me, how did you come to the conclusion that its not too far from the concious part of mind? Perhaps you have great insight and a strong ego that your mind need not repress anything?  I have personally seen several times how in interviews ideas that seem foreign to the persons surface, ive had several occasions where ive seen the unconscious betray someones intentions and the like.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

I didn't bother to read all of this thread, but I'm going to do my best to summarize the various reasons why Freud is often considered incorrect.  I think it basically boils down to two things:

The one that first springs to mind (and I can give a good example of) is the unscientific nature of Freudian theory, despite Freud's wish for it to be thought of as a contribution to science, it isn't.  The best example I can think of is the use of the term "libido", which can refer to anything from a "sexual energy" to a universal "life force".  This term, which is rather central to a lot of Freud, lacks any proper definition, or accurate form of measurement.

Now I briefly glimpsed a mention of psychoanalysis as qualitative not quantitative, but you still can't qualify if you don't have a definition of the quality.

Secondly:  The interpreter.  This is my main quarrel with Freud.  He and his followers have no way of accounting for the "unconscious" projections of the person who is doing the analysing.  There have also been a number of studies showing how wildly varied Freudian therapists can be in their interpretation of exactly the same data.  Related to this, as Freud said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", well, how does the therapist know? exactly what method does the analyst use to differentiate between parts of a dream that are important details, and those which are meaningless?

Simply put, Freudian analysis is not an analysis of the patient.

x

edd