Doubts about my future profession - Please Input

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

As an end-user of the Psychiatrist's trade, i personally see them as not an exact, empirical science. Mine hasnt diagnosed me with anything beyond a psychotic illness, as o far the data seems not to point toward any classic quantifiable illness, and they change-up things like medication depending on the patient, on a very much so trial an error basis.

neurology is more interesting, and less messy as with scans and experiments you can observe what is actually going on in the brain.  I hope that in the future the psychiatric and neuroological models blend in this area, as to confirm better diagnoses.

I'm not dissing therapy here, but to get a better overview of therapy as a whole, you should probably start with Freud, but not get hung up on eating his entire menu. as you look at later methods as well.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I don't really have a lot of knowledge of psychoanalysis, other than there does seem to be a strong preoccupation with penises. However, in the interest of contributing to a conversation that I admittedly skimmed over:

A friend of mine studied psychoanalysis for grad school. Fine and dandy, and she can call herself a therapist and what not. Now, the professor that she was working with claims to be able to cure schizophrenics of their schizophrenia with psychoanalysis. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty much certain that such a claim is utter bullshit. Perhaps he was able to treat the schizophrenic and perhaps have the schizophrenic come to some understanding of what's going on with his/her mind, but since schizophrenia has a neurological component, there's no way he could have cured this person by talking about their mother and convincing themselves they wanted to bonk her at some point. Yes, perhaps this is just one guy, but a scientist wouldn't make a wild claim like that.

[Kai]

I don't really have a lot of knowledge of psychoanalysis, other than there does seem to be a strong preoccupation with penises. However, in the interest of contributing to a conversation that I admittedly skimmed over:

A friend of mine studied psychoanalysis for grad school. Fine and dandy, and she can call herself a therapist and what not. Now, the professor that she was working with claims to be able to cure schizophrenics of their schizophrenia with psychoanalysis. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty much certain that such a claim is utter bullshit. Perhaps he was able to treat the schizophrenic and perhaps have the schizophrenic come to some understanding of what's going on with his/her mind, but since schizophrenia has a neurological component, there's no way he could have cured this person by talking about their mother and convincing themselves they wanted to bonk her at some point. Yes, perhaps this is just one guy, but a scientist wouldn't make a wild claim like that.

To make it clear, all psychological states have a neurological component, if by component you mean the whole thing.

[Requia ☣]

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

I am.  Psychoanalysis is not the same thing as therapy, any more than homeopathy is the same thing as medicine.

So which studies of the mind would you call as proper science? Neurology?

There is plenty of legitimate science in psychology that have little to do with neurology.  I have a very large stack of files somewhere that are on the science behind jury psychology, Neurology is never mentioned.  Psychoanalysis is not a field of psychology anymore though, it was rejected well before I was born.  I'm trying to figure out how you even found a school that teaches it outside of the history and literature department.

[Cain]

Read R.D. Laing, The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness, Thomas Szasz's Anti-Freud: Karl Kraus and His Criticism of Psychoanalysis and Psychiatry, Foucault's Madness and Civilization, PD McGorry; C Mihalopoulos, L Henry, J Dakis, HJ Jackson, M Flaum, S Harrigan, D McKenzie, J Kulkarni and R Karoly (1995). "Spurious precision: procedural validity of diagnostic assessment in psychotic disorders", American Journal of Psychiatry 1995; 152:220-223, the House of Commons Health Committee: The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry (Fourth Report of Session 2002-2005), Niall McLaren's Humanizing Madness and Humanizing Psychiatry and The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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?

I don't need to go through an itemized list of Freud's coke-addled imaginings to categorically dismiss unfalsifiable bullshit as non-science.

I could easily get a response like yours from people who also believe in crystals, homeopathy and vaccines causing autism.

Just to be "more correct than thou"?

I'll ask again, what critieria would a critique of Freudian psychoanalysis need to adhere to in order to be considered legitimate?

Or maybe you should change your thread title to "Doubts about my future profession - Please blow agreeable smoke up my ass."

[The Johnny]

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

Ok then, lack of proper definition of terminology, that's a solid objection that i will keep in mind and look for in his works; althought im almost positive other authors have come up with definitions such as in, Brusset's "Libidinal Development" surely has something in that direction... ill have to get back to you on that.

Part of the things we are taught is what we call "transference" and "counter-transference" which is basicly the grounds where real and trascendent change/help takes place; basicly at some point, symbolically-interaction wise the patient is not the patient and the analyst is not the analyst, each one becomes the recipient of the reliving of primitive experiences, so to speak... This is what i meant when i mentioned to Sigmatic how things can get really messy, because if one doesnt have the appropiate training and a certain detachment from the emotional involvement and the cognition that is keeping track of the narration in the session one would simply react according to the counter-transference instead of maintaning its role.

Im not sure which kind of data different "freudian therapists" did "wildly varied" interpretations, would you mind sharing?

As for dreams, there isnt a "dream dictionary" that associates any particular symbol with a meaning, for meaning is subjective, and it being subjective, one can only decipher a dream with the help of the dreamer. For example, if i dream of spiders, is it because there's wicked-gnarly ones in my roof? Or is it a metaphor for the State? Or is it because i was traumatized by the movie "Arachnophobia" many years ago?

[The Johnny]

After some scrabbeling though my book collection, the anti pych references are in

Psychiatrists: The Men Behind Hitler: The Architects of Horrory, Freedom Publishing (CA), ISBN 0964890917
Psychiatry, the Ultimate Betrayal, Freedom Publishing, Wiseman, Bruce shit ~anything~ by Bruce Wiseman, I have about six here that are pretty much essentially the same book over and over. Also The Church of Scientology International Provides Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Scientology covers some stuff too.

Some misc essays by L Ron himself, Robot Jesus bless His amphitimine riddled bloaded alco-corpse, but sadly light on space pirates and aliens, (1969). "Crime and Psychiatry", (1980). "Criminals and Psychiatry" (August 26, 1982). "Pain and Sex" no isbn for these as they are essays, you should be able to torrent em. I have em in a bound hardprint collection, also no isbn.

If you have a strong will and think you can escape their IRL clutches, pop into your local Adjustment Center, and ask em for some printed lit

hxtp://www.antipsychiatry.org/ a relatively well know Scicon web front (has spanish menu link)

Yeah. I own most of the Scicon / Hubbard works. Bar the shockingly expensive ones. Which I've had a friend to loan me in the past.

also:

flensed

That word does not get enough usage IRL for my liking. this has to change

Im a bit scared of scientologists  , one time there were people outside of one of their centres with the hand-tubes for detection of "stress", and i played along with them for some 30 minutes and even watched a video-tape of theirs, they invited me to have a private session, but that was too far in my consideration.

Their line of questioning while messing with the stress hand-tubes is oddly familiar, surely its one-on-one and in a public space, they ask about whats bothering you in your life and similar things, and they backtrack to see where it takes them... the video seems to acknowledge that previous trauma can affect present behaviour even if one cant notice it... but they totally lost me when they started with the exposition of terms and the theory they base themselves off...

I wouldnt say that im 100% against psychiatry, i just think it has a more limited scope of usefullness than how it is applied nowadays; not everything can be solved by drugs, and not everything can be solved thru therapy.

If i venture to the recruitment center again, do you think they would give me free printed books? Because last time i was there, they were trying to sell me "Introduction to Dianetics" for like $45usa.... If not ill just torrent and print it myself.

[The Johnny]

As an end-user of the Psychiatrist's trade, i personally see them as not an exact, empirical science. Mine hasnt diagnosed me with anything beyond a psychotic illness, as o far the data seems not to point toward any classic quantifiable illness, and they change-up things like medication depending on the patient, on a very much so trial an error basis.

neurology is more interesting, and less messy as with scans and experiments you can observe what is actually going on in the brain.  I hope that in the future the psychiatric and neuroological models blend in this area, as to confirm better diagnoses.

I'm not dissing therapy here, but to get a better overview of therapy as a whole, you should probably start with Freud, but not get hung up on eating his entire menu. as you look at later methods as well.

From what ive learned, psychiatry is good for psychotic disorders to keep them from imagining things and the like, but in certain cases, the causes arent solely biological, more like a very early developmental problem revolving around a smothering mother and the failure to individuate from her... while autism tends to be the opposite mother-son interaction... The problem with psychiatry is its focus on dealing with symptoms, which requires a constant flow of medication, but then again, sometimes its the only solution.

And surely, ive read some works by Freud and i plan on eating up his whole works eventually. As i stated in some other part of the thread, ive read and im reading works from different schools, ive even spent my good share of hours reading the DSMs.

[The Johnny]

I don't really have a lot of knowledge of psychoanalysis, other than there does seem to be a strong preoccupation with penises. However, in the interest of contributing to a conversation that I admittedly skimmed over:

A friend of mine studied psychoanalysis for grad school. Fine and dandy, and she can call herself a therapist and what not. Now, the professor that she was working with claims to be able to cure schizophrenics of their schizophrenia with psychoanalysis. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty much certain that such a claim is utter bullshit. Perhaps he was able to treat the schizophrenic and perhaps have the schizophrenic come to some understanding of what's going on with his/her mind, but since schizophrenia has a neurological component, there's no way he could have cured this person by talking about their mother and convincing themselves they wanted to bonk her at some point. Yes, perhaps this is just one guy, but a scientist wouldn't make a wild claim like that.

The "strong preoccupation with penises" is what i would categorize under "mainstream notion of psycho-analysis", which we all can see there's been several thrown out already in this thread .

Any disorder that involves detachment from reality and hallucinations is complex, and him trying to cure it just thru analysis, hes just trying to show-off or be a hero, which is exactly what one is not supposed to do. Im sure an analyst-psychiatrist cooperation would be good, but not on its own, on its own id think it can even make it worse, because deep introspection can provoke psychotic episodes. Who knows, maybe he got lucky and it was the rare case where the cause is solely emotional.

And also, its not all about the mother and bonking it, there's a lot going on.

[The Johnny]

So which studies of the mind would you call as proper science? Neurology?

There is plenty of legitimate science in psychology that have little to do with neurology.  I have a very large stack of files somewhere that are on the science behind jury psychology, Neurology is never mentioned.  Psychoanalysis is not a field of psychology anymore though, it was rejected well before I was born.  I'm trying to figure out how you even found a school that teaches it outside of the history and literature department.

Is jury psychology similar to criminology? I know they use a lot of proyective test batteries.

As far as i know, its a specialization at the master's degree level.

[The Johnny]

Read R.D. Laing, The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness,
Thomas Szasz's Anti-Freud: Karl Kraus and His Criticism of Psychoanalysis and Psychiatry,
Foucault's Madness and Civilization, PD McGorry;
C Mihalopoulos, L Henry, J Dakis, HJ Jackson, M Flaum, S Harrigan, D McKenzie, J Kulkarni and R Karoly (1995). "Spurious precision: procedural validity of diagnostic assessment in psychotic disorders",
American Journal of Psychiatry 1995; 152:220-223, the House of Commons Health Committee: The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry (Fourth Report of Session 2002-2005),
Niall McLaren's Humanizing Madness and Humanizing Psychiatry and
The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper.

Szasz apparently worked along with Scientologists in the Anti-Psychiatry movement, althought not being one himself. Foucault has some auto-implication troubles, but on some subjects he is good.

I think these books might cover a lot of corners of interest, thanks.

[Requia ☣]

So which studies of the mind would you call as proper science? Neurology?

There is plenty of legitimate science in psychology that have little to do with neurology.  I have a very large stack of files somewhere that are on the science behind jury psychology, Neurology is never mentioned.  Psychoanalysis is not a field of psychology anymore though, it was rejected well before I was born.  I'm trying to figure out how you even found a school that teaches it outside of the history and literature department.

Is jury psychology similar to criminology? I know they use a lot of proyective test batteries.

As far as i know, its a specialization at the master's degree level.

No, nothing like criminology, its largely a subset of group psychology, with a lot of dry questions like whether a 9 person jury is less likely to deadlock than a 12 person jury, and whether a defendant is more likely to get a light sentence from a jury if they act like they've done nothing wrong or if they act remorseful.


What is a 'proyective test'?  I thought it was a typo at first but you keep repeating it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So which studies of the mind would you call as proper science? Neurology?

There is plenty of legitimate science in psychology that have little to do with neurology.  I have a very large stack of files somewhere that are on the science behind jury psychology, Neurology is never mentioned.  Psychoanalysis is not a field of psychology anymore though, it was rejected well before I was born.  I'm trying to figure out how you even found a school that teaches it outside of the history and literature department.

Is jury psychology similar to criminology? I know they use a lot of proyective test batteries.

As far as i know, its a specialization at the master's degree level.

No, nothing like criminology, its largely a subset of group psychology, with a lot of dry questions like whether a 9 person jury is less likely to deadlock than a 12 person jury, and whether a defendant is more likely to get a light sentence from a jury if they act like they've done nothing wrong or if they act remorseful.


What is a 'proyective test'?  I thought it was a typo at first but you keep repeating it.

I think he means "projective".

[The Johnny]

So which studies of the mind would you call as proper science? Neurology?

There is plenty of legitimate science in psychology that have little to do with neurology.  I have a very large stack of files somewhere that are on the science behind jury psychology, Neurology is never mentioned.  Psychoanalysis is not a field of psychology anymore though, it was rejected well before I was born.  I'm trying to figure out how you even found a school that teaches it outside of the history and literature department.

Is jury psychology similar to criminology? I know they use a lot of proyective test batteries.

As far as i know, its a specialization at the master's degree level.

No, nothing like criminology, its largely a subset of group psychology, with a lot of dry questions like whether a 9 person jury is less likely to deadlock than a 12 person jury, and whether a defendant is more likely to get a light sentence from a jury if they act like they've done nothing wrong or if they act remorseful.


What is a 'proyective test'?  I thought it was a typo at first but you keep repeating it.

Typo indeed, what i meant is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_test

Its basicly a "test" in which the "answers" are ambiguous, leaving a lot of margin for subjective expression.

Using the most mainstream example: Rorschach; its just inkblots, but depending on the persons inclinations, state of mind and different factors of personality, they can see anything from animals to sexual organs.

H.T.P. (House-Tree-Person) is also a popular one, and based on how one draws each figure, one can determine a lot of things. Theres also Family Drawing one, in which you can interpret interactions and feelings towards family members.