Sigmund Freud

honestrosewater

OMG! Okay, if everyone agrees he's so easy to knock, why get so offended when it happens? The first two things I said were in jest. And I actually came back to edit the James bit, but since I was too late, I will explain.

Does science go: observation-> hypothesis-> theory? Or is there testing involved? How did Freud test his theories? Contrast that with Pavlov's salivating dog. This is the reason I mentioned Freud's "scientific" method. And the reason I mentioned James is because James is known for his scientific approach to psychology and, since they worked around the same time, I thought Jake had perhaps mixed them up.

Really? You know, a wise man once said,
What exactly did I say to provoke that attack anyway? If I could have edited it in time, I would take back the bit about James being the first and explain why I don't think Freud's method was scientific, which I have now done. Otherwise, what I said is accurate as far as I know. If you disagree, you can offer something to refute it, or ask me to explain further.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

Jake

Any "testing" Freud did was probably the psycho-anylisis of his patients. Really, its not possible to test his theories in the way pavlov did, because his theories were more geared to the untestable internal workings of the brain. Remember, Einstein's theories were untested till a while after he made them, and some parts still are infact untested. You can be scientific without having rock solid tangable testing to back up your theories.

honestrosewater

If Einstein had said, "I have this very interesting idea, but it cannot be tested" what would have happened? A theory that is theoretically untestable is not a scientific theory, it is a philosophical theory.
A theory is not evidence.
Sure, Freud didn't have to test his theories himself. Sorry, that is not what I meant. Any of Freud's theories which are untestable are unscientific.
Physics was around for a long time, in a philosophical context, before Galileo. But there is a difference between 1) making observations and 2) performing experiments to test a theory.

You can develop a science to investigate the internal workings of the brain- look at the cognitive sciences. And what is Pavlov's conditioning if not an explanation of the internal workings of the brain?

How many psychologists still *practice* psychoanalysis?

I never (seriously) said that Freud's theories were crap; only that they were not scientific.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

Jake

I should have said they were not testable in the practibility sense, not that they are untestable *period*. So while its difficult to test Freuds theories directly and fully, they are testable in an indirect manner such as through psychoanylisis. So yes, Freuds theories are scientific, but they just arent built on such a solid foundation as other theories.

hitssquad

Freud's concept of ego defense mechanisms seems to be alive and well in the field of personality disorders research.

zoobyshoe

I can't speak for anyone else, but I was offended on the basis that you were knocking him in such a way that the good is dismissed with the bad.

No, I stand by what I said. Freud is still read and seriously discussed, because he was the big mover and shaker in psychology for many decades. You can't understand how we got to where we are today without understanding where we started and the path things took. For the bulk of its history the path of psychology meandered around through Freud country. The fact that most people are happy it has emerged from that land doesn't mean we can deny we were there.
This is the standard, tired, clichéd, dismissal of Freud, that ignores his large concern with the damaging effects of sexual abuse of children, and also with what happens to people when they are taught that performing and even thinking about sex carries with it an extreme shame requirement. The fact he tried to get people to question that extreme shame requirement is, really, why we don't have it anymore to the extent Freud and his contemporaries did.

Your rather dull-minded suggestion that Freud was just trying to stir up controversy to sell books was the lamest kind of dismissal of him there is. There isn't any reason for it, since, there are many authentic reasons to object to Freud.
Yes, that would be very much better than the way you actually did put it, which was to assert that he more or less just made things up in his head as he went along.
Yes, happy thoughts, honestrosewater. You know, I can help you catch him. I can help you catch Buffalo Freud. But you must give me something in return. I want a room, with a window. I want to be able to see outside, maybe to see a tree...Think about it. Poor William James doesn't have much time, Honestrosewater. Times a wastin' Tic Tock, Tick Tock.

honestrosewater

zoobyshoe, Apparently you aren't interested in having a discussion and just want to put words in my mouth. Fine, knock yourself out.

the number 42

And in other areas of psychology too. Thing is, they tend to remain only theories and fairly hard to find satisfactory evidence for. This, I suggest, is primarily because science tends to raise the threshold of proof for controversial theories, and Freud remains controversial. If the mechanisms had been proposed by Figmund Soyd, a workaday cognitive scientist, they would have a lot more chance of being taken seriously, and evidence would be less contended.

Compare all of this to Bartlett's schema theory, which has been around for nigh on 70 years now and is alive and flourishing, despite being about as loose a theory as you can get. Moral of the story: if you want to be respected, don't bring peoples' mums into your theory.

zoobyshoe

Or: someone has to bushwack out into unpaved territory and make all the dumb mistakes. I remain impressed by him, given his circumstances.

nlathers

Unfortunately even most who read Freud do not understand his theories.
For example someone stated above '[society repressed sex more in Freuds time]'.
Repression is carried out within an individual, during childhood. The child is at this age, unable to understand that society represses anything.

zoobyshoe

I think you're trying to point out I misspoke and said repress when I should have said supress.

nlathers

thank you zoobeyshoe.
I did consider that possibility. Sorry!