#1
What is the Pit's opinion on psychodynamic (Freudian) theory? Do you think it has any sort of validity?

Personally, I feel that it is undeserving of the term "theory" since there is very little actual science that went into its creation. But then again, I know several Pitmonkeys know a lot more about psychology than me, so I'd like to know all your opinions as well.
I'm rgrockr and I do not approve of this message.
#2


Yeah, I think it has tons of validity. It's not very linear though. Especially if it's by Freud.
Click here to hear my BOB DYLAN (Blowing in the Wind) out right now May 2k17
#3
It mostly deals with the unconscious, and therefore can't be empirically tested, so it is rejected by many Universities that teach Psychology, who completely disregard Freud. Neo-Psychodynamic/Psychoanalytic theories and studies have been seen as slightly more relevant though.

Read up on some of the case studies Freud did; Little Hans, Dora, the 'rat man' and tell me he was a good psychologist. He made completely absurd conclusions.
#4
I don't believe that there is really any empirical evidence to support any of Freud's assertions, and it is nearly impossible to operationally define, measure, and test his theory so it's not of much value to us.

However, there was some meta-analysis (I can't recall the authors atm) showing that therapeutically it is effective, but not for the reasons Freud theorized.
#5
It's garbage. Freud was basing his theories on mentally ill women with no empirical evidence to support his theories, and there is still no empirical evidence to support. Therapeutically it works, but that's only because (big surprise) talking about your feelings makes you feel better in general.

However, Freud did a lot for psychology and made it a household science, and he was bang-on about the subconscious.

Jung is where it's at.
#6
His work is historically important as it brought a lot of issues to the attention of a lot of people. Doesn't mean that it's right though.
#7
Nope.
Quote by severed-metal
Come to think of it, my penis should've listened to more death metal.


Quote by Morphogenesis26
So my question is. Can Pre-Cum fluid pass through my underwear, my jeans, onto and through her jeans, through her underwear, and impregnate her?
#8
Honestly, I don't really agree with much, if any of it.
I like St. Anger. Ridicule me, daddy

Quote by ErikLensherr

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
#10
Quote by TenInchClock
It mostly deals with the unconscious, and therefore can't be empirically tested, so it is rejected by many Universities that teach Psychology, who completely disregard Freud. Neo-Psychodynamic/Psychoanalytic theories and studies have been seen as slightly more relevant though.

Read up on some of the case studies Freud did; Little Hans, Dora, the 'rat man' and tell me he was a good psychologist. He made completely absurd conclusions.


I still think he's a good psychologist. He came up with dumb things like 'admitting wanting to procreate with mother = having a sexual attraction to mother', sure, but he also is brave for even releasing such dribble, especially with sex being a much more fragile topic in the early 1900s, and doing so laid the basis for a lot of good, slightly more valid stuff.

EDIT: Also, TS, you're so jonsing for a dick right now.

You know.

Because you're a little girl.
Click here to hear my BOB DYLAN (Blowing in the Wind) out right now May 2k17
Last edited by laid-to-waste at May 25, 2011,
#11
I maintain that Freud wanted to bang his mom, so he tried to convince people that everyone wanted to, and he wasn't just some weirdo.
Quote by severed-metal
Come to think of it, my penis should've listened to more death metal.


Quote by Morphogenesis26
So my question is. Can Pre-Cum fluid pass through my underwear, my jeans, onto and through her jeans, through her underwear, and impregnate her?
#13
Quote by Inimical
It's garbage. Freud was basing his theories on mentally ill women with no empirical evidence to support his theories, and there is still no empirical evidence to support. Therapeutically it works, but that's only because (big surprise) talking about your feelings makes you feel better in general.

However, Freud did a lot for psychology and made it a household science, and he was bang-on about the subconscious.

Jung is where it's at.

Freud is garbage because of a lack of empirical evidence, but Jung isn't? The archetypes residing in the collective unconscious was proven when?

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#14
Quote by CG Man16
I maintain that Freud wanted to bang his mom, so he tried to convince people that everyone wanted to, and he wasn't just some weirdo.

And he would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids and that mangy puppy.
#15
On topic though, I've spent more time with Freud than I would have liked. My impressions:

Freud's theory is psychoanalytic. Psychodynamic covers the neo-Freudians like Erikson. Different.

The personality theory is pretty cool. Nothing as elegant has been proposed since without being a clone of it.

The defense mechanisms are bloody brilliant explanations of why people behave in certain ways. To discount these is a mistake.

The theory of development is laughable, but, taken as a complex, literary metaphor, is a hilarious satire of Victorian society.

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#16
Quote by SteveHouse
Freud is garbage because of a lack of empirical evidence, but Jung isn't? The archetypes residing in the collective unconscious was proven when?
Oh I think most psychodynamic theory is complete rubbish, I just find Jung more interesting than Freud. His theories are no better.

Gestalt and personality theories had the groundwork laid by psychanalytic theories, so I prefer not to discount all of it.
Last edited by Inimical at May 25, 2011,
#17
Quote by SteveHouse

The theory of development is laughable, but, taken as a complex, literary metaphor, is a hilarious satire of Victorian society.

Just like Friday is a social commentary, eh
#18
Quote by Thrashtastic15
Just like Friday is a social commentary, eh

Maybe a little bit, but far less contrivedly so.

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#19
Oh, I completely forgot about the Id, Ego and Superego. I actually like this part of his work, seems reasonable, but to be fair, trefining in cavemen seemed reasonable to that period in time. It had no research, it had no empirical studies to support or refute the claims made, but it was followed.
On this note, who is to say in a couple thousand (or hundred, the way we are advancing) years, they don't look back at Freud and think of his studies as primitive and completely unreasonable, as we do with the neanderthals?
#21
Quote by CG Man16
I maintain that Freud wanted to bang his mom, so he tried to convince people that everyone wanted to, and he wasn't just some weirdo.

Imagine if Freud was a fourteen year old UGer who made a thread about his theory.
^^The above is a Cryptic Metaphor^^


"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity." Everything is made up and the facts don't matter.


MUSIC THEORY LINK
#22
Quote by TenInchClock

On this note, who is to say in a couple thousand (or hundred, the way we are advancing) years, they don't look back at Freud and think of his studies as primitive and completely unreasonable, as we do with the neanderthals?

The same people who say you can't logically compare a chair with a platypus.

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#23
Quote by SteveHouse
The same people who say you can't logically compare a chair with a platypus.

Unintelligent plebes? Everyone knows that chairs and platypus' share many similar traits.
#25
Quote by TenInchClock

On this note, who is to say in a couple thousand (or hundred, the way we are advancing) years, they don't look back at Freud and think of his studies as primitive and completely unreasonable, as we do with the neanderthals?


1) Many already look this way at the majority of Freud's work.

2) In 100 years it'll most likely be our best current cognitive models which are laughed at as primitive.
Quote by Nosferatu Man

T-shirts are a sign of degeneration and decline.
#26
Eh, Freud is a bit iffy (massive understatement). But psychodynamics doesn't usually refer to Freud, as SteveHouse pointed out.

I think cognitive psychodynamics is an interesting concept, but it seems like the only book about it is a $145 textbook.