zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. unisha+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-01-27 01:16:29
It also implies the decline of psychoanalysis was a bad thing, when it's basically pseudoscience.
replies(1): >>mnemon+P5
2. mnemon+P5[view] [source] 2020-01-27 02:36:52
>>unisha+(OP)
If you mean Freudian psychoanalysis, you're right. Freud was a quack. The word "pseudoscience" was literally coined just to describe him.

If you mean all psychotherapy is bullshit, you're wrong. There are bad therapists just like with everything else, but good psychotherapists have saved a lot of lives over the years.

And if, on the off chance, you think all therapy is bullshit despite never having had therapy yourself... well, nobody is that stupid, right?

replies(2): >>harry8+xy >>pellip+cd1
◧◩
3. harry8+xy[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-01-27 10:56:27
>>mnemon+P5
Any citations?
replies(2): >>superh+lz >>mnemon+xM
◧◩◪
4. superh+lz[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-01-27 11:09:13
>>harry8+xy
This is a pretty strong starting point:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Comb...

◧◩◪
5. mnemon+xM[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-01-27 13:46:30
>>harry8+xy
Within the humanities there will probably always be a lot of people who love Freud because he lets them say subversive things about society.

But in the sciences he’s been debunked. Any Psych 101 book will tell you his methods are no longer used. Their most direct descendant, psychodynamics, is very different from its ancestor.

Within the sciences, check out Karl Popper’s work on falsifiability. Freud is his example of pseudoscience: it sounds smart, and it can explain lots of things in retrospect, but if you write down it’s predictions in advance they often don’t match outcomes. Practitioners don’t acknowledge this or try to correct it.

◧◩
6. pellip+cd1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-01-27 16:25:40
>>mnemon+P5
not op, but I think OP is talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis

and not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotherapy

[go to top]