I want to learn more about Psychiatry/Psychoanalysis.
Should I directly start with books from Freud, Jung or Lacan, or is there any general book I should look into beforehand?
>>8187651
>Psychiatry/Psychoanalysis
two different things
do you want to learn about either, both, or freud, or jung, or lacan?
>>8187651
Why don't you just learn phrenology whilst you're at it?
Astrology?
Reiki?
>>8187651
I would definitely start with Freud. If you pick up The Freud Reader, ed. Peter Gay (Norton), you'll find a really fabulous introduction to psychoanalysis, theory, history, and practice, from the horse's mouth, as it were. Gay's commentary isn't invasive, but provides very smart and contextual introductions to each of the texts.
I wouldn't touch Jung until you have a firm grasp on most if not all of the concepts Freud touches on in the Three Essays, included in the Reader. Jung drastically revises psychoanalysis, turning it basically into myth criticism—of which, by the way, much smarter forms can be found in American literary theory from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, if that happens to be your thing.
As for Lacan, his calculus has been introduced countless times by countless scholars, but the best of them in my opinion is that of Fred Jameson, who provides a powerful reading of the three registers in an article in Yale French Review. I can track it down for you if you like. Bear in mind, however, that like Jung, Lacan is also a revisionist; so don't expect his Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, for example, to be an introductory text by any means.
>>8187665
There you can see that my knowledge is inexistent in these fields. Is there any starting point that facilitates the entry into another field, or are these completely separate?
>>8187692
Then I will start with Freud. No need to rush over the basics. Thank you for these recommendations.
>>8187672
Even if it seems laughable, it would be interesting to know all the influence these fields had on mankind.
>>8187672
Psychoanalysis is still a prominent field of treatment in Europe, it's only in America the land where women cant breastfeed in public without being harrased where it's declined
>>8187869
>Psychoanalysis is still a prominent field of treatment in Europe
*France
Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis - siggy
>>8187651
Start with freud and jung. Take everything you read with a grain of salt.
>>8187874
No while France is the nation in which its most supported by the public health service there's a considerable amount of working Analysts in practically all of Western Europe, even Britain.
>>8187672
...or psychiatry in general?
It's a pretty anecdotally-oriented field of study, kinda making no sense at all that it has the status of a medical specialty.
Seeing as the psychiatric practices of 60 years ago have been looked upon as barbaric by the psychiatrists from 40 years ago, and the psychiatric practices of 40 years ago have been looked upon as barbaric by the psychiatrists from 20 years ago, and the psychiatric practices of 20 years ago are being looked upon as barbaric by today's psychiatrists, I see no reason why it shouldn't literally become preemtively outlawed so that history doesn't repeat itself in 20, 40, 60, 60+n*20 years?
Moral of the story being, your way of thinking is arrogant and dangerous, and professionally would lead to the same kinds of irresponsible treatments as the ones that you now consider dangerous. Ergo if you were born in an earlier era, you'd be the most vocal and adamant uncritical supporter of exactly psychoanalysis, liberal ECT prescription, phrenology, faith-healing -- just because they were contemporary and therefore automatically not bad since they were "less bad" than their predecessors, and they were "less bad" because they were contemporary. Enjoy putting the lives of your patients in the hands of someone who decides upon their treatments with circular logic.
>>8187908
Did they have anything to say about intrusive thoughts that come with OCD? And the relationship this has with ebin maymays?
>>8188031
Freud- the memes are all dicks and you are gay for your mom
Jung- Emergent memes from collective unconscious, reflections of the monomeme
>>8188037
Just speculating. You probably know better than I do what's going on
>>8187651
The Principles of Psychology by William James (Henry's big brother) is essential, especially if you want to understand what modernists understood about "stream of consciousness."
Taking notes of all propositions, thanks everyone.
>>8187692
if you are still here, could you track down that Lacan article?
Thanks mane
>>8187651
If you're actually interested in psychiatry I recommend:
General Psychopathology - Karl Jaspers (monumental text on descriptive psychopathology. Absolutely essential, still has not been superseded over a century after the publication of its first edition!)
Symptoms in the Mind - Andrew Sims (a more digestible introduction to psych phenomenology - not so densely Teutonic as Jasper's work. Very readable)
Psychoanalysis itself is fascinating - but is something of a misleading tool in clinical practice. It can confer a degree of certainty as to the psychological mechanisms underlying psychopathology that: 1) does not exist; and 2) is a gross simplification of the complexity of elements (biomedical, genetic, psychological, sociocultural and environmental) that contribute to the development of mental illness.
>>8187692
>The Freud Reader, ed. Peter Gay
>>8187981
>ECT
That's not looked down upon.
>>8187981
This has elements of truth in it - but is misleading in its conclusions. Psychiatry is undoubtedly an unrefined field of medical practice - but progress requires making the best of what tools we currently have.
Dismissing an entire field - and one which has the capacity to improve the lives of millions of people - on the basis that previous (and current) practices either have been or will be viewed as barbaric - is not just short-sighted, but cowardly. To abandon the mentally ill to their fate because one lacks the strength of will to help one's fellow man despite the spectre of failure is cowardice. progress requires bravery - and perhaps even a touch of hubris.
Start with Freud's Interpretation of Dreams, then move on to Jung's "Man and His Symbols", then read the Portable Jung. As you will learn as you get deeper into Jung an understanding of mythology will help greatly in understanding psychoanalysis so you might want to look into comparative mythology/religion. Check out the works of Joseph Campbell and Mircea Eliade
Dear god please skip Lacan, nothing of value will be lost.
>>8190837
>Dear god please skip Lacan, nothing of value will be lost.
>he was too pleb for the math
Seconding Gay's intro to Freud, though Gay whitewashes some of the cult (and occult) aspects of Freud's inner circle. I like Whyte's book on The Unconscious Before Freud but there are probably better books on that subject now.
Jung is good and a surprisingly major figure for 20th century intellectual history
Lacan can be skipped. He's a fucking joke. No one understands him because there's nothing to understand - this includes all the supposed paragons of the structuralist movement. He was a fucking fad, based on the confluence of several trendy concepts (structuralism, structural linguistics specifically, psychoanalysis) at the height of Parisian dilettantism, and no one cares about him at all anymore. Just read Dosse's blurbs in his book on structuralism or Empire of Meaning.
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/nholland/lacan.htm
>>8187869
No it isn't, unless you're confusing it with psychodynamic therapy.
>>8190853
>Jung is good and a surprisingly major figure for 20th century intellectual history
Stop being patronizing you fucking pseud
>>8187697
Was that a REEEEEEEEEE joke?
>>8187651
Freuds Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis
keep in mind that it's mostly bullshit
>>8190152
I have it as a .pdf, I'm just not sure what the best way to share it with you would be. email?
pic semi related, its jameson, my theory husbando
People shitting on Lacan, Freud, and psychoanalysis at large don't really understand its relationship to what nowadays is called "science," facticity, and the old dialectical problems between object and subject. Ricouer argues quite persuasively that psychoanalysis is basically immune to epistemological and specifically positivistic concerns, because its objects of study are much closer to those of the HISTORIAN than the SCIENTIST. What is lost in this distinction is the fact that science has, over the past century, surreptitiously dropped its necessary prefix, "natural," thereby re-situating itself as the default arbiter of metaphysical truth, eliding its essentially positivist investments, which, it should be emphasized, are quite unproblematic in their own right. My point is that there is (or rather, their used to be) a very important distinction between the natural and the historical sciences, and psychoanalysis is rigorously classed among the latter. Psychoanalysis deals not with objective fact, but with the "objectification," that is to say, the INTERPRETATION, of subjectively reported history, that being the personal history of the patient, his traumas, his childhood, etc. If historical science retains some positivistic elements, these deal usually with the verification of documents, questions of "authenticity," and the like; psychoanalysis has no use for these, as it takes the spoken testimony of the patient as its material of study. It has no relation to the pathological sciences of mental health.
>>8191631
>Ricouer argues quite persuasively
I doubt it.
>>8191631
>psychoanalysis is basically immune to epistemological and specifically positivistic concerns
and some ppl would call such thing a bullshit
>reading this thread as a psych student
>>8192093
what would you recommend for reading?
>>8187651
>>8192361
I study psychology in Vieanna, heading to becoming a psychotherapist. Psychoanalysis never was part of the curriculum, but I chose to have some classes in it anyway.
Get the "Psychology and Life" textbook by Zimbardo. It will give you the general introduction you need to pretty much everything relating to this topic. With an emphasis on psychology-fields, obviously, but still worth the read. It will give you a good basis to even know what interests you and what you want to look into more.
Don't start psychoanalysis until you have a firm understanding of how it is different from psychology.
On a personal note: You haven't lost anything by not going into psychoanalysis. Unless you want to understand related continental philosophy or some historical stuff, it's a waste of time. Learn the basic concept of Freudian psychoanalysis and you are good for pretty much any conversation with people who take that stuff seriously.(Mostly artists and pseudos desu)
I think Freud's own books are perfectly fine. Maybe read a quick biography about him beforehand. His daughter, Anna Freud also added some important stuff.
Also I agree that you should forget about Lacan. The only reason you would ever read him is to understand Zizek and then you might as well just glue your fedora to your head.
Jung, Fromm, Alice Miller and Fonagy/Target are some nice later analysts.
As for psychiatry:
First you ought to learn about the Arkham Sanitarium meme. Lovecraft (the horror author) used the Denver State Hospital clusterfuck as the basis for his version. Every horror image and misbelief about psychiatry comes from there (or psychoanalysis). (The "Lore" podcast has a nice episode on it, called "Echoes".) People started learning about it and especially the right wing factions started spreading the "no treatment, only sedation!" meme (how the fuck you would sedate someone with an SSRI is beyond me), only to be picked up by the hippies, who were anti-everything-scientific. (Ironically they liked psychoanalysis. Prolly because of the sex thing.) That plus the general stigma against anything "mental disorderly" (and horrible regulatory laws and health care in the USA) and you got yourself the modern anti-psychiatry-meme.
If you want to go into psychiatry, learn some basic neurology and clinical psychology first. Read the ICD-10 (E, F and G) before you read the DSM-V. As for books, I hear the Oxford textbooks are quite good. (I only know German textbooks.) But a quick way to look for that stuff is to just look up what the introductory courses at universities make their students buy. (But double check the quality if the teacher was the author, obviously.) And if you are too poor for that shit, go to the library or get them illegally online, like all the cool kids do. (But try not to download manuals for tests and stuff. They will fuck you up if they catch you with that.)
Or just get an older edition people are selling used.
I guess that about covers it for now.
There's nothing wrong with learning about psychoanalysis from a history of psychiatry of perspective, but you should recognise that psychotherapy for mental illness has evolved beyond psychoanalysis. The most popular model now, cognitive-behavioural theory, is much simpler to understand and, according to experimental trials, more effective than psychoanalysis. I think there's a certain romanticism around psychoanalysis - you get to play the detective with someone's mind, to uncover something they'd never have found by themselves, to make wild and bold claims that will shock and astound people. Unfortunately, it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
>>8192480
This.
Learn for context only.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA OP READ THIS
If you're interested in learning about Freud, read Civilization and its Discontents.
If you're interested in learning about Lacan, read Fink's book A Clinical Introduction To Lacanian Psychoanalysis
>>8194057
No. CBT is still far more common, and DBT is used for entirely different purposes, for entirely different disorders.
They're not like an upgrade system, it's like saying (not the best analogy) that opiates are losing ground to benzodiazepines. Clinically they're both really useful, and can sometimes be used interchangeably, but they are for different things.
>>8194075
No, what I'm saying is DBT is growing popular for mode wide-spread use, other than what it as classically used for.
At my institution they offer DBT to essentially all patients, not just self-harmers or Borderliners and such.
>>8194084
From my understanding, that seems like an exception, CBT isn't interchangeable with DBT, and shouldn't be used as such, they do different things completely.
DBT is far more useful for stopping harmful behaviours, while CBT is for stopping the actual thought patterns. It's easier to stop the behaviours than thoughts in some patients, but in most, if you don't stop the thoughts, you can't really stop the behaviours associated with it.
They're very closely linked, also, and DBT was only actually even created to treat BPD patients or chronically suicidal people. It's not going to be as effective for other disorders, as it's not meant to be.
Also, there's a big difference between what it offers, and what the first line treatment is for patients.
>>8194105
It is the first-line treatmen (therapy wise).
>>8194118
That's just irresponsible then, as in most disorders, it's the thought patterns that are the issues, not the behaviours themselves.
>>8191677
epistemology is fictional anyway, but there are such a thing as negative epistemologies
>>8187651
Freud's a fine place to start after you read pic related. It'll really help you understand psychoanalysis better.
>>8194057
I only had a few undergrad modules in clinical psychology - doing a master's in another branch of psych now and, although I'm still interested in mental health, I'm not too up-to-date with current best-practice guidelines. I think that mindfulness-based CBT is the new evolution of traditional CBT, although that's still very much an emerging therapy. And as >>8194105 says, DBT is similar but has different target disorders - as the name suggests, it's more behavioural in nature.
>>8190586
Y-you do know that I wasn't actually trying to propose the complete abandonment of psychiatry?
In reality, a mental health professional can, wrongly, get away with obscurely misdiagnosing and mistreating mental health problems (even just in theory, but far more in practice) far easier than with physical health problems. That was my point, and I'm p sure it's not misleading.
Old is not inherently bad, new is not inherently good -- but this is exactly the attitude that many unconsciously have. In whole, the painful overprescription of various ""treatments"" has always throughout history fully overshadowed a simple wait-and-see approach. And since the flaws in the practices of old had been readily apparent, it always somehow automatically meant that there are no flaws in the new practices.
That is not bravery, that is arrogance. And it is not immanent or anyhow necessary to the entire field of mental health, it is immanent to douchebaggery and potentially even a sign of the particular practitioner having mental health issues himself. Which of course, is not a bad thing in itself, and it's not a very secret reason why someone would get drawn to the field of mental health in the first place, but the unawareness of one's mental health issues can make one unknowingly do dangerous things.
-----
A small example of what psychiatry today considers to be her "improving" the lives of millions of people -- just look at the liberality of Adderall prescription to kids for suspect mild ADHD. Does that not seem barbaric, even today, for anyone with half a brain?
>>8190551
Yes it is. It's now being considered an absolute ultimate last resort, when a few decades ago it was being handed out to mildly distressed people same-day, for potentially self-solvable problems, as if it were candy.
>>8194686
>Does that not seem barbaric
No.
>Yes it is.
No.
>>8194690
kys then
>>8194695
Sha'n't
>>8194697
then at least dox yourself so that we know your patients are receiving unnecessary dangerous treatments
>>8194699
>dangerous
>>8194686
>
In reality, a mental health professional can, wrongly, get away with obscurely misdiagnosing and mistreating mental health problems (even just in theory, but far more in practice) far easier than with physical health problems
This isn't really true. In both fields, misdiagnosis isn't against any rules, unless you can prove that they were neglectful. Getting shit wrong happens, and doctors are only ever able to get in trouble for it if they've just not bothered to follow proper medical procedure.
Think of it like surgery. A patient dying in surgery won't result in the surgeon getting in trouble unless it can be proven they intentionally did something fucking dumb, or neglected normal procedure.
>Old is not inherently bad, new is not inherently good -- but this is exactly the attitude that many unconsciously have. In whole, the painful overprescription of various ""treatments"" has always throughout history fully overshadowed a simple wait-and-see approach. And since the flaws in the practices of old had been readily apparent, it always somehow automatically meant that there are no flaws in the new practices
I agree with this to some degree, though I'd argue the over-prescription of stuff has always been present, as it or ECT were pretty much the only options they had in the older forms of psychiatry. Still a problem though, I agree.
>just look at the liberality of Adderall prescription to kids for suspect mild ADHD. Does that not seem barbaric, even today, for anyone with half a brain?
It is widely recognised as an issue, and many psychiatrists are very against medication as a firstline treatment as a result. There's definitely a divide in the field over it though.
> It's now being considered an absolute ultimate last resort, when a few decades ago it was being handed out to mildly distressed people same-day, for potentially self-solvable problems, as if it were candy.
From my knowledge, though you're correct that ECT was much more common then than it is now, you're exaggerating just how common it is. It was still a last resort treatment, but they just had a lot less things to resort to before doing it.
Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving is a nice introduction to what's great about psychoanalysis and gives a great job of pointing to the importance of Freud while also pointing out some of his bigger mistakes.
>>8194705
>daily use of speed isn't dangerous.
Enjoy having your brain fried from oxidative stress and not functioning properly due to long-term downregulation of monoamine receptors.
>>8194768
Are you implying that pharmaceutical quality drugs used at much lower doses than what someone would use recreationally, while also controlled by a doctor is going to have the same effects as some retard doing speed he got from the dealer who got it from the people who made it with kitchenware on their farm?
I bet you think the fact that meth amphetamine has psychiatric uses is a bad thing too.
>>8194795
What a fucking red herring lol, you're literally trying to turn this into a street vs. pharmacy issue, when it's a giving-dangerous-mind-altering-drugs-for-no-real-reason issue. You're also overestimating the actual amount of control in "being controlled by a doctor", in many cases.
>I bet you think the fact that meth amphetamine has psychiatric uses is a bad thing too.
it's methamphetamine*, and nobody said that drugs having "psychiatric uses" is a bad idea. We're (I'm, at least) talking about OVERprescription of drugs, i.e. a bad execution of that idea. And more broadly, how this is an example of the underlying bad attitude of overtreatment that is and has been surrounding the current and past practices of psychiatry.
>>8194795
No I'm not. Lay off with the assumptions.
Damage from oxidative stress starts at fairly low doses. It's not as serious as the damage from a recreational binge, but do not underestimate the dangers of cumulative effects with daily use. The long-term receptor downregulation is a greater problem in daily use, even in low doses, than sporadic recreational use, and will profoundly fuck up your brain.
Doing powerful psychoactive drugs daily isn't healthy. In some cases it's better than the alternative, but giving amphetamine to children, whose brains are still highly plastic and rapidly developing, because they can't sit still in a classroom is fucking retarded.
I don't really give a fuck what you bet I think.
>>8194839
>What a fucking red herring lol, you're literally trying to turn this into a street vs. pharmacy issue, when it's a giving-dangerous-mind-altering-drugs-for-no-real-reason issue
No, I'm simply pointing out that it's not "Speed", which is a street drug, and is used very differently.
>it's methamphetamine*
Was that really necessary? That was clearly a typo I made, and in no way made it more difficult for you to read what I was saying.
>We're (I'm, at least) talking about OVERprescription of drugs, i.e. a bad execution of that idea. And more broadly, how this is an example of the underlying bad attitude of overtreatment that is and has been surrounding the current and past practices of psychiatry.
I've agreed with this aspect already, but comparing street drugs and ones administered by a doctor is not really very fair.
>>8194841
>No I'm not
Then you absolutely shouldn't have used the word speed. It's not comparable.
>Damage from oxidative stress starts at fairly low doses. It's not as serious as the damage from a recreational binge, but do not underestimate the dangers of cumulative effects with daily use
This is true, but these medications aren't intended as a "Take daily until you die" sort of thing. You're only supposed to go on a course of the drugs, then come off them and see if symptoms persist. If they do, then yeah, you should probably go back on them, because the minor damage low doses cause isn't really comparable to the loss of function a serious mental illness can cause, and ADHD can absolutely be serious.
>The long-term receptor downregulation is a greater problem in daily use, even in low doses, than sporadic recreational use, and will profoundly fuck up your brain.
I've read about this, the different stages of amphetamine abuse, but these are low recreational dosages from what I recall, and as such tend to be like "they take it, and keep taking more over time to get the same high, which causes damage". It's still present if you take the same dosages, but much reduced, and relatively easily managed as long as it's not super chronic. Even heavy speed addicts can stop the drug without any notable damage if it's not a super long term addiction or very high in dosage.
>In some cases it's better than the alternative, but giving amphetamine to children, whose brains are still highly plastic and rapidly developing, because they can't sit still in a classroom is fucking retarded.
This is an entirely different issue, and not exactly a controversial topic in psychiatric circles. It's generally agreed that medications should be last resort for children, and that other forms of treatment should be used first.
But lets take into account other factors. If you've got a kid with what to us doesn't really present as ADHD, but their parents come in and exaggerate how bad everything is, and clearly won't do the stuff they're recommended, for whatever reason, what do you want the psychiatrist to do? There's no easy answer.
>>8194861
>It's generally agreed that medications should be last resort for children, and that other forms of treatment should be used first.
That's a false dilemma.
The real question should be whether medication should be used at all or not, and should there be a threshold of mildness before which you shouldn't ever consider giving medication. Not to children or non-children, but first and foremost in general.
When you fuck that up with children, you just also additionally go to hell after you die.
>But lets take into account other factors. If you've got a kid with what to us doesn't really present as ADHD, but their parents come in and exaggerate how bad everything is, and clearly won't do the stuff they're recommended, for whatever reason, what do you want the psychiatrist to do? There's no easy answer.
>you're not being fair to doctors, they have it hard :((((((((
Yes there is an easy answer. "Primum non nocere." You lazy cunt.
>>8191631
>that psychoanalysis is basically immune to epistemological and specifically positivistic concerns
a.k.a. "horseshit"
>But lets take into account other factors. If you've got a kid with what to us doesn't really present as ADHD, but their parents come in and exaggerate how bad everything is, and clearly won't do the stuff they're recommended, for whatever reason, what do you want the psychiatrist to do? There's no easy answer.
I just honestly had to reply twice because I literally cannot believe my eyes that someone actually wrote this
>>8194875
>That's a false dilemma.
It's really not.
>The real question should be whether medication should be used at all or not
This is not a question at all. Medical practicioners are legally bound to treat disorders, and to balance the possible harm of any medications (side effects) compared to the symptoms of the disorder.
>nd should there be a threshold of mildness before which you shouldn't ever consider giving medication
Wow, it's almost like this is already the case, and you just completely ignored my scenario where parents exaggerate the severity of the issues, or patients do the same due to lack of any frame of reference.
>Yes there is an easy answer. "Primum non nocere." You lazy cunt.
This has to be trolling. First do no harm just raises a whole heap of extra fucking problems in this case. Such as, what's more harmful, the possible side effects of a medication, or allowing a disorder, which damages their lives (can't be diagnosed without any loss of functioning) to go unchecked. You're just refusing to actually think about what medical ethics actually are, it's not as simple as "just fix them!".
It also doesn't actually answer my question at all.
>>8194880
>literally using are you kidding me as a counter-argument
Come on mate, that's pretty pathetic.
>>8194890
what question? What do I want the psychiatrist to do?
That's easy enough. Stop being a fucking sheep and stand up for the actual benefit of your patients, which is to not be overprescribed just because their neurotic parents/their neurotic selves will try to wreak havoc on your professional life. Raise their awareness about how dangerous the drugs really are. It's not your job to listen to what the parents have "exaggerated", it's your job to make the diagnosis and estimate the severity yourself, and today that aforementioned threshold of mildness before medication has been abnormally lowered due to literal popular social memes.
Stop being black and white.
>>8194890
>>literally using are you kidding me as a counter-argument
>Come on mate, that's pretty pathetic.
>writes what he wrote about it not really being the most important whether a kid actually has ADHD or not before giving him medication
>what's more important is that whoever gives him shit about it doesn't come off as pathetic
as a self-proclaimed mental health professional, perhaps this article may be of interest to you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder
Bourgeoisie Psychology student here. This thread is such a disaster. Psychotherapy is meant to be used in conjunction with psychiatry. Psychotherapy can be used by it self, but psychiatry should never be used alone. 'Pills don't teach skills.' There are huge differences of opinion among the varying fields of Psychology. Also, the division between Psychology and psychiatry is immense. Most modern schools of Psychology take either holistic or non-pathalogy approaches. CBT is the most prominent, but it simply focuses on symptoms. Psychoanalysis is one of the most complex schools of psychology and has many derivatives, most of which are 'mentally' holistic ie. focuses on the whole mind.
The reason why it is so difficult to have a Psychology and psychiatry discussion is that psychiatry is HEAVILY pathology-centric. In fact, psychiatry is usually chosen late in med school, while psychologists chose as undergrads. This may likely be the cause of the pathology-centric view of psychiatrists: they, in med school, are already being groomed for this approach.
OP, pick a side. Either study psychology or psychiatry. If you try to study both you will likely find yourself swept away by the never-ending waves of conflict.
>>8194923
>That's easy enough. Stop being a fucking sheep and stand up for the actual benefit of your patients, which is to not be overprescribed just because their neurotic parents/their neurotic selves will try to wreak havoc on your professional life
This is just a whole heap of buzzwords, and doesn't actually answer my question anon. The psychiatrist only has access to what information he's given, and in cases where it's minors being treated, the parents story on what's going on with their kid is most important. So when they exaggerate issues, what do you want the psychiatrist to do? They have no way of knowing what's exaggerated, and have to make a decision of the information available. Going "Just fix it" isn't an answer.
>Raise their awareness about how dangerous the drugs really are.
That is required by law for them to do, they have to give you information on any possible side effects. As does a pharmacist if it's your first time filling a script for that medication.
> it's your job to make the diagnosis and estimate the severity yourself,
Which, shocker, is done by the kids presentation (assumed to be restless), and the testimony of the parents and child.
>and today that aforementioned threshold of mildness before medication has been abnormally lowered due to literal popular social memes.
This is just bullshit, the threshold hasn't changed in years now. I'd challenge you to find an official guideline that says differently.
>as a self-proclaimed mental health professional, perhaps this article may be of interest to you
>self-proclaimed mental health professional
>self-proclaimed
You're not a professional, you're literally just a layman acting like he knows better than psychiatrists that spend years of their lives getting a medical degree, then specialising in psychiatry, and getting through a residency.
Also, the implication that I have AsPD makes no fucking sense, and just supports my statement that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
Also, ignoring that blatantly fucking stupid claim, I never said either of the things you tried to quote me as saying, namely these.
>writes what he wrote about it not really being the most important whether a kid actually has ADHD or not before giving him medication
>what's more important is that whoever gives him shit about it doesn't come off as pathetic
You're putting words in my mouth and creating a strawman argument with them that's easier to attack. You've yet to actually address any of my arguments, just change them around and create your own ones with them.
>>8187651
Start (and then stop) with Karl Popper. You're welcome.
>>8194961
lol. Popper. the man who dedicated his life to discrediting Marx and Freud
>>8194973
Life well lived.
>>8194973
KEK, meanwhile. . .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychoanalysis
>>8194973
It's because he did such a good job that I'd recommend starting there. Freud is not something I would advise any psychologist to read, even in a 'see where psychology came from' way because it is so irrelevant in light of Popper's critique.
>>8195008
>implying psychology SHOULD be a science and not another branch of existentialism
>>8194939
>You're not a professional,
never claimed to be one, mr. anti-strawman being a strawman +ad hominem.
The aspd thing was supposed to be a joke, I would even refrain from saying "obviously" but then you'd say that of course I'm gonna say that it was supposed to be a joke "now that I'm busted [from something I haven't claimed]", and to be fair I really do honestly believe that it was obvious. It is not deducible that you're an aspd from what you've written, just that you're a terrible person, and that goes to prove my point.
-----------
Back to what you said:
>>But lets take into account other factors. If you've got a kid with what to us doesn't really present as ADHD, what do you want the psychiatrist to do? There's no easy answer.
>I didn't say "it not really being the most important whether a kid actually has ADHD or not before giving him medication"
>>Come on mate, that's pretty pathetic.
>I didn't say "what's more important is that whoever gives me shit about overdiagnosing kids doesn't come off as pathetic"
And ultimately:
>le my arguments maymay strawman maymay
Then I ask you, what are your actual arguments then, in plain English?
mine are p simple, exactly because I am (currently still) a layman -- you are lazy as fuck and don't care about your patients, which is just easily provable by how you talk about what's "required by law" to do, and it seems that you don't give a fuck about doing anything more than that bare minimum.
If you just want to show up at your jobs. put in your hours, do what's legally required of you and go home, I don't need a residency to know that psychiatry is THE WORST JOB you could have possibly taken.
It is purely just a question for society whether we should allow people like you to work in that field, and/or how we should prevent it.
>>8195013
It should.
>>8195016
>never claimed to be one, mr. anti-strawman being a strawman +ad hominem.
Well now you're just lying, I quoted the part of your post where you did claim to be a professional.
>just that you're a terrible person, and that goes to prove my point.
I'm a terrible person for disagreeing with you? When you're clearly incorrect? Nice.
>Then I ask you, what are your actual arguments then, in plain English?
If you're not interested in reading my posts and actually responding to what I've brought up, I have no interest in discussing this with you, as it's clearly just going to be pointless.
>mine are p simple, exactly because I am (currently still) a layman -- you are lazy as fuck and don't care about your patients, which is just easily provable by how you talk about what's "required by law" to do, and it seems that you don't give a fuck about doing anything more than that bare minimum.
I brought up what's required by law to refute you saying psychiatrists should have to do something. They literally do. Most of your argument has been arguing for things that are already the case, or arguing for things that don't make any sense. Like thinking a single latin quote is enough to completely solve a problem like "How should a psychiatrist handle false information if he has no reason to believe it's false?". It would be malpractice to assume the patient is lying and refuse treatment on that alone, and could result in loss of a medical licence if the patient were to do something criminal, which isn't unheard of for severe ADHD patients. There is no easy answer apart from treating it like you would any other case, while keeping an eye out for any contradictions of sign of malingering or factitious disorder (which can be by proxy).
>If you just want to show up at your jobs. put in your hours, do what's legally required of you and go home, I don't need a residency to know that psychiatry is THE WORST JOB you could have possibly taken.
That's a great, really reasonable point. You kind of do need to be a psychiatrist to argue that what's currently the case in psychiatry is wrong, otherwise you end up doing exactly what you're doing, and constantly making arguments based off a complete lack of knowledge or understanding of the field.
My argument isn't a statement on it's own merit, by the way, I'm simply refuting yours. I agree there is some over-diagnosis, but so does nearly everyone in the field, it's just not as easy as "Oh, better just diagnose people less", because you have to treat each patients case on its own merit. It being over-diagnosed doesn't mean we should make it harder for people to get the treatment they may need.
And particularly in cases where children have mental disorders, they or their family often aren't willing to actually do the therapy or follow the guidelines set down, leaving medication as the only real option available for treating them. You can't just go "Oh, so you won't or can't do therapy? Fuck you then, suffer".
>>8195026
i disagree
>>8195040
Also, I have to add with my last point (character limit stopped me), I don't mean patients refusing to do therapy to try to get meds, I mean ones that just aren't sticking to it. Which is likely in ADHD patients, and a lot of parents find it easier to just make their kids take pills than to actually help them with it. Afterall, they have jobs to do, they don't have time to help the kids out, they take them to their appointments and shouldn't be expected to do anymore.
I'd like to add more, but I feel like you're just going to ignore most of my post again and just make another strawman with it or insult me, maybe call some parts of it a meme, so I won't bother.
>>8195013
existentialism already exists (though how worthwhile a category it is is debatable since most of the people lumped into it would resent and deny the category in the first place). Furthermore Freud and his ilk were not professing their crap as existentialism, they were calling it science. If you think it should be considered as just more existentialist thought then by all means do so. Finally contemporary scientific psychology is a worthwhile and productive field and deserves to be continued in its own right.
>>8194981
fuck...neurology of self. that's brutal
>>8195013
What defense can you offer for this normative claim?
>>8195061
>contemporary scientific psychology is a worthwhile and productive field
never gets old
>>8195074
That's a 10/10 argument anon.
>>8195081
>that's an argument
>>8195085
Kind of my point there mate, I was being sarcastic.
>>8195093
That's a 10/10 tapestry anon.
>>8195102
Thanks, I weaved it myself.
>>8195074
Are you suggesting there's more worth in the Freudian efforts? Because I'd really love to hear you expound the virtues of Horny, Klein or whatever other other excrement has accrued in Freudian circles. Even if one thinks that psychology in it's present form in unproductive (which is demonstrably false), I cannot see any reason for supposing it's inbred cousin would fare any better.
>>8195131
>Are you suggesting there's more worth in the Freudian efforts?
No.
>which is demonstrably false
Please demonstrate.
I'm back.
Dear god, this thread is a mess.
>>8194057
DCT is part of the so called "third wave of behavioral therapy". MBCT would be another example.
Pretty much all of them are useful for very specific types of disorders and very specific versions of the disorders. MBCT for instance is very good for relapse prevention for MDD patients with strong symptoms, childhood trauma and also works well as suicide prevention. It also can function as alternative for medication is some cases. But research is ongoing and we are trying to figure out how these stuff work exactly and how it can be used during therapy, rather than post-therapy.
In Germany/Austria (and most countries to my knowledge) the "official" schools of PT are CBT, Psychoanalysis and Depth Psychology. But this is mainly attributed to insurance companies being reluctant to pay for different schools.
Nowadays it's common practice to learn one school (CBT if you aren't a pleb) and add another one later on, to smooth out any shortcomings you feel your school has.
There is also a growing feeld of research into "general therapeutic effects", which try to look at the core benefits of psychotherapy, apart from schools of thought. Many of us fully expect schools to dissapear in the near future. Which makes sense, because in the end it's more about figuring out what works for whom, rather than having competing schools.
>>8194133
Both are equally important.
>>8194686
>mental health professional can, wrongly, get away with obscurely misdiagnosing and mistreating mental health problems
Depends on the country. Diagnosis is serious business in Germany/Austria. i.e. You HAVE to do a big blood test for usual physical causes like nutritional issues or Hashimoto.
And you can't do whatever. In one case I know of, some analyst at a hospital conctantly asked new female patients about their sexual history and little more. They reported him to his boss and the ethics board and he was fired.
In another case I know about, a therapist straight up told a depressed teenage girl that there is a high chance she will never get better. She killed herself soon after. We lost his licence and last I heard he was being sued. (Also an analyst, btw.)
>Yes it is. It's now being considered an absolute ultimate last resort,
It depends. Again, the Denver State Hospital meme did a huge damage, stigma wise. Research is being done and it may or may not become a more common place tool, once we better understand how and why it works in which cases.
I took part in a tDCS study once. It was fun.
>>8194931
This. Psychotherapists do the therapy, psychiatrists do the physical exam and help with medication if need be.
At least that is how it is usually done. In any non-shit health care system at least.
I won't get into the drug debate. But I'll note that Europe usually doesn't really have the issues you guys are having over the pond.
KEK
>>8195151
>therapist straight up told a depressed teenage girl that there is a high chance she will never get better
Was he wrong?
>>8195152
Onfray's a joke mate. TV's "philosopher"
>>8195164
Seeing as she killed herself, apparently not after he was done with her.
But seriously, we don't know enough about mental illnesses to be able to say case to case whether or not someone will ever get better. And it's a huge issue to tell a patient at risk of suicide something like that, there's procedures around handling those cases.
A major thing is to not say anything provocative (which is why you get a lot of answers like "that must be hard", that don't agree or disagree with it). Giving a professional's support to their idea that they will never get better, which is a common factor in suicidality, feelings of hopelessness, is just incredibly incompetent.
>>8195183
>we don't know enough about mental illnesses to be able to say case to case whether or not someone will ever get better
Okay, then I guess it's bad.
>>8195181
I agree with you, Onfray is a fool sometime, especially when he talk about politics.
But still, this guy is a good writer, and Freud get BTFO with correct source and quote. so...
>>8195183
>Mental illness
You are part of the problem
>>8195136
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog?cmd=historysearch&querykey=1
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=TitleSrchURL&_method=submitForm&sterm=psychology&md5=888575da1e42a20e09a299085c95bb2d
A hardly comprehensive list of psychological journals, publishing peer reviewed research, openly describing and detailing their methodology for the benefit of other researchers. Advancing a field of knowledge into various sub-fields each of which gets a microscopic examination by people specialising in that area. The scientific form of modern psychology means countless studies and experiments are conducted to test theories and hypotheses against experts in their respective fields all the time. The scale and extent of this effort is enough to falsify the claim that modern psychology is unproductive, in a literal sense. Though I am sure you take productivity to mean 'well I'm not aware of any current psychological research I think is valid' which is equally falsifiable. Modern psychology has seen progress pretty much across the board, in terms of understanding mental illness' e.g. depression, schizophrenia in the numerous landmark twin studies, etc. Happiness with the hedonic treadmill and positive psychology) pain (catastrophising and the psychological moderation of pain) psychology's relation to the immune system and so on. Social psychologists have advanced our understanding of things like conformity, group dynamics, social learning and so on. Evolutionary psychologists have contribute to our understanding of sex and mating far more than Freud could ever have hoped to. Learning theorists have discovered and detailed several ways facts about how humans learn and there's much more to add and more than I could possibly even when it comes to individual theories and experiments which do attest to the fact that modern psychology is a worthwhile pursuit. If you wanted other kinds of evidence how about the fact that there are pscyhology departments in Harvard, Standford, Cambridge, Oxford and so on. The kind of worldview that holds that psychology as it stands today is unproductive requires explaining an awful lot. And also dismissing a lot of techniques which those psychologist employ to gather and interpret data, set up experiments an so on.
>>8195218
>psychologists themselves claim that they are productive
Well then.
>>8195223
What a terrible, terrible refutation. Not even him, but who else would study the field?
Using that logic, literally no field of study has any use at all.
>>8195193
I though it was mainly ad hominem to be quite honest... Not that it's not a style per se, but that's not the one I prefer.
>>8195234
So if astrologers claim astrology's real we should listen to it.
>>8195223
Nice reading comprehension. The research done speaks for itself, if you have an overriding fault with every psychological study/experiment please share, as I am dying to know. Also do you not understand the difference in 1. My telling you I am productive. and 2. My handing you a filing cabinet full of things I have produced? I understand that your disagreement is about the content of the cabinet but you have not provided any reason for thinking the methods used to derive that information warrant complete disregard. What is it about peer review and experiments that you find so distasteful? Let me guess, you introspected really hard on or during a dream?
>>8195254
That wasn't the claim made. When astrologers claim they are making sense we can assess their claims by seeing if their results can be replicated, used to make predictions, are falsifiable and are consistent with our currently held body of knowledge, just like a certain science we've been talking about. Your lack of knowledge on what makes a thing scientific is showing. Better stick to shorter responses, like "fag".
>>8195254
No, but if they can prove that they are, then yeah, we should.
Your logic has no actual argument behind it. If someone in a field can demonstrate the usefulness of their field, why does their profession mean we should go "Doesn't count"? Does this count for all fields, or just ones you don't like? Should we argue medicine in general is wrong and useless because doctors told us it's useful?
>>8190837
>Joseph Campbell
lmao my nigger
Therapy is a spook. The medicine is okay, though.
>>8195248
He mainly support his says with the Freud's correspondence with Wilhelm Fliess and some historian work too. Pretty serious work. There's a lot of asshole in history, but still, this book gather of lot of proof about several frauds, fake patients, blatant lie, in the Freud's carrier...
You should read it if you have time, to make your proper opinion about it.
To me, psychoanalysis is like homeopathy, completly discarded by serious scientific, but sometime, 'useful'.
>>8195285
I did read it, and in fact it failed to convince me. It just showed me well-known things about Freud's construction of his field (one's only got to read Roudinesco to know most of these, or even footnotes in Freud's works themselves in not so recent editions). Of course there were falsifications, etc. but that's the way fields are created. What matters to me are the heuristic and practical values, which for me are staying no matter to which point Freud was a bad guy.
The way Freud lied or made up things indeed do interest me, on a "history of sciences" point of view : how he is presenting such or such patient as cured where they are not, etc. Remember he was founding a brand new thing, that doesn't come without a very political kind of work to promote and give credit to what he's doing - otherwise his work would simply have died. However, when you read him, he is still quite honest about all of these (often "watermarked" in footnotes). By example, he admitted his neurotica was a mistake, and came back to deny it. But would he have not given any credit to his neurotica in first time, he would never have the occasion to come back on it - because his field would have disappeared. We got to consider the scientific field of the time, and the necessary struggle to emerge in it.
Besides, I think it is problematic to aboard psychoanalysis nowadays with sciences (even if Freud was in a scientist approach). It would be like saying that sciences discarded philosophy. Those are now very different fields.
>>8190837
Jung was analytic Psychology, not psychoanalysis
>>8195164
The way he phrased it and what I know about her condition: Yes.
Her depression was followed with obsessive/anxiety-related behavior. At first she went to therapy to treat her eating disorder. Apperently the dude failed to help her find appropriate alternative coping methods or resources to deal with the underlying issue. He probably also should have at least suggested some stationary treatment. But I don't know if he did this, if she kept the suicidal thoughts a secret from him or whatever other reasons there might be. It's very difficult to catch the right moment for that kind of thing.
There are some cases where relapses are very common in the statistics (chronic depression). The point being that a "relapse" isn't equivalent with "unhealed". One of the things you do in therapy with depressed patients, is to give them the tools to deal with relapses, or rather not to have a full relapse, just because you have a "bad couple of days". One of the main reasons relapses occur, is due to symptoms like depressive rumination. Which is more a problem with the clinical process of the past couple decades, rather than the disorder itself.
A good therapist would have told her that it is possible she will face some of the symptoms again (feeling jaded and lethargic and maybe even anxiety), but that the entire point is to give her the tools she needs to manage them without internalizing them.
What he did was enforcing one of the most common and dangerous thoughts suicidal patients have: That they are fundamentally damaged and unable to be happy. Even if he didn't know about suicidal symptoms, he should have known that what he said was pretty much a sure-fire way of catapulting a patient (with already existing self-destructive behavior) into that area.
Even if she would have killed herself either way, what he did was gross negligence.
I should probably mention that he was a Child/Teen-Therapist, who don't necessarily have to have a background in psychology to become a therapist around here. (For the historical reason of making it easier for schools to make a teacher become a school counselor.) Luckily this will probably change in the near future.
Either way: It is true that in the past, relapse is one of the main issues in some MDD patients. But as I have mentioned, new methods are being established as we speak. And quite successfully. i.e.: I have high hopes for MBCT.
And she didn't fall within that category anyway.
>>8195280
If it was, it wouldn't work.
But I would agree that most of psychoanalytic therapy is quite spooky.
>>8195234
>>8195255
>>8195263
Stop taking the bait.
>>8195263
>When astrologers claim they are making sense we can assess their claims
Who are we?
>results can be replicated
>psychology
>replicated
Nice one.
>Let me guess, you introspected really hard on or during a dream?
Your guess is horrible.
>if they can prove that they are, then yeah, we should
They claim to have proofs and psychologists also claim to have proofs. According to you no outside inspection is necessary.
>>8187651
Read "The Story of Psychology" by Morton Hunt. It's a long history of psychology that covers everything from the philosophy of mind to Freud to contemporary medical psychology.
The 50 Greatest Myths of Popular Psychology is also a good place to start; it'll clear up some cobwebs.
>>8195451
>symptoms like depressive rumination
>don't think about how life is horrible distract yourself by being a productive little wageslave!
>>8195342
Psych student again.
Freudian PA is pretty much disregarded or only exists as borderline-cultist thing.
Most modern analysts don't take him very seriously. As I stated before, Fonagy and Target would be two examples of PA with some sense or reality.
(They did however get bullied for doing actual research, instead of the usual anecdotal case studies.)
PA isn't all bad. But I do think it does more harm than good in todays clinical psychology.
>>8195481
Hello "student", I think you're way too much generalizing. All - and I mean all - modern analysts take Freud seriously where I come from. Then, the question of goodness or badness is up to each patient and clinician (and there sure are a lot of bad clinicians, no matter the school of thought)
>>8195490
To my knowledge, most will adopt core principles but not the overall methodology.
But I don't know where you are from. I'm in Vienna and even Lacan is more popular than Freud here.
(Apart from maybe the private Freud-University. But those would be said "cultists".)
At the very least I have yet to encounter any contemporary publication that anyone would be willing to call "Freudian".
Do you happen to come from North-Europe? I hear they are quite PA crazed up there.
>>8195502
I'm from France. Lacan is of course a big thing in psychoanalysis here. Though I don't know a single lacanian who isn't also a Freud's reader, I think that would be antithetic
>>8195519
Obviously everyone reads Freud. But that wouldn't make them Freudians.
Especially if they are Lacanians.
>>8195537
Yeah yeah I think I get what you mean, that wasn't my point.
It was that lacanians can not (and don't wish) to deny a freudian legacy, even if they claim themselves to be lacanians (and not "freudians", because people who claim to be freudians in France are generally people who disagree with Lacan). I don't mean that there aren't differences between freudians and lacanians psychoanalysts, because there obviously are.
But that doesn't mean lacanians or Lacan himself don't take Freud very seriously. That even was one of the underlying multiple causes (besides the manifest scansion's one) of Lacan's split with IPA and SPP, his wish to "come back to Freud".
>>8195481
Bourgeoisie psych student here. You are so wrong. Any psychoanalyst worth their salt studies Freud .
I know a Freudian analyst. She is highly respected and she works at a behavioral health center. She loves Freud.
Also, there are loads of psychoanalytic facilities in the US which still use Freud as a centerpiece.
Not only where his theories influential, his therapeutic techniques are still widely used, even outside of psychoanalysis.
PS. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychoanalysis
>if you're not a complete normie you're sick
What a great "science".
>>8195583
>.m.
>>8195585
>>8195459
'we' means anyone competent enough to assess empirical evidence, which unfortunately doesn't seem to include you.
There have been numerous replication studies in psychology.
>They claim to have proofs and psychologists also claim to have proofs. According to you no outside inspection is necessary.
What is their claimed proof or evidence? Psychologists are open about their methods and evidence. You are apparently just too stupid to understand that evidence.
This is the same retarded shit another anon already pointed out. The veracity of the claims are contingent on empirical standards not the people making them.
It's funny really because the thing you are purportedly worried about, "hurr durr can't trust evil psychologists they only want to make money" is the very shit Popper lambasted Freudian psychology for. Being more concerned with proving yourself right than applying scientific standards.
>>8194879
>>8191677
>>8191645
it's not so much that epistemology and positivism "can't touch" psychoanalysis, it's more that it would be a waste of time for proponents of both the natural sciences and psychoanalysis. An positivist epistemologist critiquing psychoanalysis is like a cook trying to use gravel as an ingredient. You just don't eat gravel.
>>8195659
>'we' means anyone competent enough to assess empirical evidence
Earlier I was ridiculed for implying that it wasn't enough that psychologists themselves claim they're productive.
>"hurr durr can't trust evil psychologists they only want to make money"
I never said anything like that.
>Freudian
How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not defending psychoanalysis?
>>8195659
>The veracity of the claims are contingent on empirical standards
Anon, I...
>>8195674
Exactly what I think
>>8195582
I agree. I was just being a little hyperbolic to make a point.
I guess a more accurate assertion would be that there is a LOT more to contemporary PA than Freudian PA.
>>8195583
>You are so wrong. Any psychoanalyst worth their salt studies Freud
Well, duh. Pretty impossible not to.
>She is highly respected and she works at a behavioral health center.
There are analysts who are also good therapists. I'm just of the opinion that PA has nothing to do with it.
>Also, there are loads of psychoanalytic facilities in the US which still use Freud as a centerpiece.
I am aware. I'm just of the opinion that the reason for that is more misplaced purism than actual interest in the field.
>Not only where his theories influential, his therapeutic techniques are still widely used, even outside of psychoanalysis.
Like what, exactly? The only thing I can think of is biographical case history. And I wouldn't exactly say that analysts invented the concept. Nor any other concept commonly found in contemporary non-PA-therapy. At least when we are talking CBT.
>Neuropsychoanalysis
Oh, I heard of this.
Are there more than ten people in the world who are in this field, tho?
Stuff like this:
>"Consciousness" is limited (5-9 bits of information) compared to emotional and unconscious thinking based in the limbic system.[2] Note: Solm's book showed as reference in the footnote does not provide such an information. It may be confused with the capacity of short-term memory.
>Freud's "libido" corresponds to a dopaminergic seeking system[4]:144
seems to me like a misguided attempt to apply psychoanalytic rhetoric for the sake of using it. Or rather a desperate attempt to make PA a real science retrospectively.
But I honestly don't want to have this debate right now... I'm just on the camp of those who are very sceptical of anything PA. And again: It probably won't matter anymore in the future, once we finally overcome this competing schools thing.
>>8195653
What did he mean by this?
>>8195733
that psychology is based in "well being"
>>8195785
As definwd by normies.
>>8195481
>Freudian PA is pretty much disregarded
>To my knowledge, most will adopt core principles
you don´t understand basic logic
>>8195733
>>8195061
I seem to recall nietzche publishing a bunch of tweets and calling it "the gay science"
And if popper and all those psycological researchers teach us one thing about the nature of doing "psychology" is that it is also an empirical process.
I ask you this. Is phenomenology empirical? What in existenialism isnt observed or sensed or felt?
Or how about the occult?
Also the field has to be contantly appended and revised and theres tons of schools of thought that are just as good as the others.
I mean the same way we derive psychological hypothesis is much how the "doctors" and astrologists did science in the middle ages.
Also note that ex istenial and humanistic therapy, gestalt therapy is a thing and has underlying existenial philosophy.
Life is ment to be lived literally not nessicarily healthy.
Plain and simple we shouldnt treat human nature like we treat mathematics and physics becuase it wouldnt be effective.
>>8196033
This. We need more philosophy is Psychology classes.
>>8195795
There was more to Freudian PA than the core concepts.
Core concepts being stuff like the topographic model and childhood biography being a big factor.
Stuff like dream analysis or death drive being things that are not necessary for PA and not really a big thing anymore, apart from your usual snowflakes.
>>8196135
>>8195519 >>8195582 here
I couldn't disagree more with you on these points... Death drive is really central to whoever claims to be from a psychoanalysis point of view (it differentiates it quite much from ego-psychology and all that kind of things). Dream analysis isn't systematic nor obligatory, but it's still a very big thing. It's just harder to find when you go out of classic cure in the psychoanalyst's couch...
>>8195710
"We investigated the reproducibility rate of psychology
not because there is something special
about psychology, but because it is our discipline.
Concerns about reproducibility are widespread
across disciplines (9–21)." From the paper you cited. Also this does not refute my point, which is that psychology makes use of empirical standards. Moreover the replications found similar results but smaller effect sizes. If it were replicating astrology the results would be completely random. Finally just because a sample of 100 didn't turn up a 100% success rate does not mean every study replication would fail. There are quite a few more influential studies which have been replicated numerous times in a variety of settings.
>>8196196
>Death drive is really central to whoever claims to be from a psychoanalysis point of view (it differentiates it quite much from ego-psychology and all that kind of things).
It really isn't. It wasn't even that big a thing in Freudian PA until he added it later on and only really pushed it when he was facing death himself. And even then colleagues weren't really that much on board with the idea.
And to this day there is no consensus among analysts if it is a thing or not or something else entirely.
I'm guessing the only reason you have that impression is because of Lacanians. And even then it isn't identical to Freuds version.
That or you have been memed by those odd psychoanalysts, who constantly scream "That isn't REAL psychoanalysis!" every time someone tries to move the field forward in a meaningful way.
>Dream analysis isn't systematic nor obligatory,
Which is exactly what I said.
>but it's still a very big thing. It's just harder to find when you go out of classic cure in the psychoanalyst's couch...
>it's a very big thing
>it's just hard to find
Dude...
Either way, my point still stands. Core concepts exist in pretty much all analytic (and divergent) fields, while the "add ons" are, at best, sprinkled throughout contemporary PA. But not in a "Freudian" way. At least most of the time.
>>8196033
>Also the field has to be contantly appended and revised and theres tons of schools of thought that are just as good as the others.
I mean the same way we derive psychological hypothesis is much how the "doctors" and astrologists did science in the middle ages.
wut?
>Also note that ex istenial and humanistic therapy, gestalt therapy is a thing and has underlying existenial philosophy.
'm well aware of this, but they are not attempting a holistic explanation of the mind and it's workings. And their theraputic merit is assessed in the same way as every other form of therapy.
>Plain and simple we shouldnt treat human nature like we treat mathematics and physics becuase it wouldnt be effective.
Why do you think this? Not particularly advocating the opposite I'm just wondering what makes you so sure?
>>8192470
>The only reason you would ever read him is to understand Zizek and then you might as well just glue your fedora to your head.
>>8196318
I stand my point about death drive. Indeed there have been psychoanalysts who "abandoned" it, but I agree with these "odd psychoanalysts" (who are they?) who think it's not psychoanalysis anymore. Then you're also right to say I come from a lacanian point of view about these things. By example, for me nowadays egopsychology isn't psychoanalysis anymore (and that doesn't mean that Anna Freud is without any interest, rather than offsprings of these "trends" loose of sight what was the discovery of psychoanalysis)
About the dream interpretation, what I mean is that it isn't because it is not as widely practised in its "purity" as before than it isn't still a thing. I doubt you'll ever find a psychoanalyst telling you he didn't ever speak about dreams during his or her own analysis. It's still a core point during one's own analysis (and of course during classic couch analysis). Every analysed psychoanalyst would have pass that way. Harder to find doesn't mean it doesn't exists : by example when you work with children in open structures (so not in one's cabinet), it's often quite easy for them to tell you their dreams, without even questioning them. The frame changes, but the background is the same. I doubt any valuable psychoanalyst would tell you : "dream interpretation is outdated" ; simply because it is a core credo in the field to consider it "the royal way to the unconscious" (I'm not even talking about the epistemic value of the statement, just about its value as a sign of reconnaissance, a signature)
>>8196339
Most psychopharmachology is
"It just works"
Medicating a psyciatric patient is throwing a bunch of pills and see which one sticks.
Psychology experminets amount to
Surveys by nieve subjects usually limited to the college undergraduate population.
Most theories cant be falsified. So we get so many different schools of thought that dont fully explain the psyche.
Psychology already has issues maintaining an appropriate scientific rigor. And the human psyche doesnt like to be put in a box.
Attitudes change. People adapt to their environments. So the "collective conscience" is nebulous already.
Why not make existenialism a bit more rigorous instead of trying to defend psychology as scientifically rigorous.
>>8187651
> wanting to learn about something devoid of any real insight
>>8196466
>but I agree with these "odd psychoanalysts"
>I doubt any VALUABLE psychoanalyst would tell you : "dream interpretation is outdated"
Then we are done here.
Because you are No-True-Scotsmaning the fuck out of this conversation.
>(who are they?)
Lacanians, for instance. Most of my PA teachers here were Lacanians and held very similar opinions to yours. Literally all the others (Neo-PA, mostly) answered this with a "lol wut?", when we told them about it.
The basic definition of ES is perfectly sufficiant for the psychoanalytic model. Death drive is literally an opinion, even by Freudian standards.
>I doubt you'll ever find a psychoanalyst telling you he didn't ever speak about dreams during his or her own analysis.
I have, actually. Lacanians, ironically. And I have never heard from any analyst actually using it in therapy. At worst, the suggest a dream diary for people with nightmares. Something anyone might do. And I most certainly haven't met anyone who had the hybris to actually think they had "unlocked the unconcious symbolism of dreams". Well, apart from some freaks from the Freud-University. But they are also the type of people who practically think they can read minds and think empiricism is "overrated".
Also I'd like to point out that the whole "to become an analyst, you have to do an analysis yourself" is one of the cultist-red-flags I mentioned earlier. That and the insane amount of money people are being charged by PA schools.
Just out of curiosity: What ARE some "real" psychoanalytic schools, in your opinion?
>>8190537
Have a PDF link to General Psychopathology? I've been looking for it for ages.
>>8196586
>empiricism is overrated
It is though.
>>8196542
>Medicating a psyciatric patient is throwing a bunch of pills and see which one sticks.
No, you start with the one most likely to work. If it does not, you stop and maybe move on. Which is literally how any medication is handled.
>Psychology experminets amount to Surveys by nieve subjects usually limited to the college undergraduate population.
Experiments and surveys are two differen things, chucklehead.
>Most theories cant be falsified.
...Yes, they can. But I am suspecting you are mainly talking about psychoanalysis, like most plebs would.
>Psychology already has issues maintaining an appropriate scientific rigor.
Psychology faces pretty much the same methodoligical issues as med science. The biggest one being that researcher tend to not publish negative results, when they came up with the idea. But this is really just a matter of slowing down research (since someone else will replicate sooner or later) and not something fundamentally wrong with it.
>And the human psyche doesnt like to be put in a box.
Yeah, humans fucking hate labels.
Get the fuck out.
>Attitudes change.
Barely. Especially on their own.
>People adapt to their environments.
And as we know, adapting to an environment means changing everything about you, to your core.
Also humans don't face monotony at all.
Gtfo
>So the "collective conscience" is nebulous already.
Do you unironically believe that every human is a special snowflake?
There are things that we all share as humans, m8. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Unless you are an edgelord, I guess.
>>8196627
They aren't talking about scientism. They are talking about checking from time to time if your therapy actually helps anyone or not.
>>8196627
How you
>>8196649
>Experiments and surveys are two differen things, chucklehead.
Still the populations of said experiments are usually examining the student body population.
>...Yes, they can. But I am suspecting you are mainly talking about psychoanalysis, like most plebs would.
Name me one school of thought in psychology that hasnt been thoroughly debunked.
The human psyche isnt static throughout time like mathematics and physics. Yet a lot of concepts used in psychology are just as abstract as numbers or magnetism.
>>8196660
Yeah I just meant the statement on it's own.
>>8196751
I wouldn't say it's overrated. I'd just say it's misunderstood by many people.
>Still the populations of said experiments are usually examining the student body population.
[Citation Needed]
Any study I know of that mainly uses students as sample, never claims to be anything but preliminary.
And based on those results, they may or may not invest on a bigger/better sampled experiment/study.
This isn't about psychology. This is uni-politics.
>Name me one school of thought in psychology that hasnt been thoroughly debunked.
...There really aren't any "schools of thought" in psychology. At least not since behaviorism was kind of criticized by Chomsky. And that wasn't really about the human psyche, but about how research ought to be done.
It's like you are asking which "school of thought" in medicine hasn't been thoroughly debunked. It's kind of meaningless.
Most psychologist would consider Wilhelm Wundt to be the father of modern psychology. And that was mostly about visual perception, reaction times, etc.
>The human psyche isnt static throughout time
Correction: The brain isn't static. That doesn't mean it's random.
>like mathematics and physics.
I'm guessing you are Always Unique, Totally Interesting and Sometimes Mysterious, huh?
The more complex the object of study, the more variables. That's all there is to it.
>Yet a lot of concepts used in psychology are just as abstract as numbers or magnetism.
Oh really?
Why don't you fill us in on these "concepts" and "schools of thought" you keep talking about. Because it sounds an awful lot like all you really know about it is what shows up on your Facebook feed and now you are trying to be edgy on the internet.
>>8196586
Calm the fuck down mate, I was all friendly until there. So take a deep breath and speak nicely to me, or I won't bother to reply. There is no need to scuffle like that, I'm not attacking you in any way, if we don't agree at the end of the day, it will not be the end of the world.
So, that being said, I can't really tell you what are "really" psychoanalytical schools "in general". I can tell you some schools in France which I think are (and they aren't all lacanians). Then I can tell you what I think is certainly not psychoanalysis (egopsychology being an example of those).
I don't find it ironical for a lacanian to never have approached dream interpretation, I find it deeply lamentable. Then again my opinion (yes, opinion) is that one is not a psychoanalyst simply because he earned a degree at university, it takes some more time and experience.
About the "royal way of unconscious", it is Freud's word, not mine. No valuable psychoanalyst would ever claim to understand someone unconscious in its "infinity", that's really basic ethics of the work there. The Traumdeutung was the very foundation of meta-psychology in Freud's work, it's not my fault! There's no hybris in that, it's a very core point of psychoanalysis ; and I wonder how or why one would claim to be a psychoanalyst without knowing about the Traumdeutung.
Then, sorry again, but "having to do an analysis yourself to become an analyst" isn't a "cultist redflag", at least not in my country. (Maybe it is in yours, the field isn't united beyond borders. It also applies to your "no true Scotsman" argument : the definition of a field is also the result of the work from its own actors). I tell you about what I know about the field in France, because that's the situation I deal with.
Here, you can be a psychotherapist or even a psychologist without an analysis ; but if you claim to be an analyst, and tell to other analysts you haven't done an analysis, they will just laugh at you. In other words, the red-flag here is to NOT have done one's analysis.
And to be quite honest (and please don't get angry again), I don't even see the point of claiming to be "psychoanalyst" without having done one's own analysis. If I paint walls I won't be calling myself a car mechanic, I'll call myself a house painter, and there will be no harm done into that.
>>8192480
Yeah, this is what I've heard. I asked a psych professor at my college about contemporary views on psychoanalysis, and he said it's not taken very seriously in contemporary clinical psychology. However, it is still a great field for understanding the arts, literature, poetry and even can be a way into religious studies (i.e. Joesph Campbell and Carl Jung). Also has had a big effect on a number of continental thinkers. Would recommend, but not as a scientific description of the mind; more an artistic analysis of the human person.
Frued loved his cocain
>>8196881
>Calm the fuck down mate
I'm not mad. I'm just "German". :^)
>I can tell you some schools in France which I think are
For instance?
>egopsychology being an example of those
You keep bringing this one up and nothing else. Which baffles me, because it's literally just extrapolated Freudianism.
>I find it deeply lamentable.
Why? There was nothing ever gained from it, other than a sense of the romantical.
>it is Freud's word, not mine.
And because Freud said so, it has to be true or significant?
Freud also had the guts to compare himself to Copernicus and Darwin. And I feel like this kind of narcissism didn't die with him, t b h
>No valuable psychoanalyst would ever claim to understand someone unconscious in its "infinity", that's really basic ethics of the work there
Many do, however, claim that they hold "the key".
>and I wonder how or why one would claim to be a psychoanalyst without knowing about the Traumdeutung.
Everybody knows about it. But most people know that it has little to no practical value. Apart form, maybe, romanticism.
>but if you claim to be an analyst, and tell to other analysts you haven't done an analysis, they will just laugh at you.
Oh, I am aware. And that is what is cultist about it.
I understand the idea behind. I'm just pointing out that it is a very strong parallel to cultists groups, who have similar concepts.
I'm not even saying that it is wrong to do it. Only that I am worried these kind of group dynamics are potentially harmful. At the very least for critical thought.
>I don't even see the point of claiming to be "psychoanalyst" without having done one's own analysis
Because someone may want to stay unbiased. I know that idea seems backwards to you, but that is the problem I see with it. Psychoanalysis sees the problem of bias, but failed to even look for an actual solution to it. Instead it tries to use it, if you will allow me to generalize it like that.
And I take issue with that core idea and I think it builds a dangerous dynamic with patients.
And again, by being analyzed to become an analyst, it is much like an indoctrination. It only "works" if you personalize with the concepts and literally invest yourself. I think that is deadly for critical thought and ultimately makes you anable to adjust to patients for whom this concept does not work.
>the definition of a field is also the result of the work from its own actors
Yes. All of them. And not in a way to discredit different opinions within their own field.
Because essentially what you are telling me is that psychoanalysis is not allowed to change or question itself. You chose random criteria for a definition and decided "Okay. This is psychoanalysis. Anyone who disgrees gets kicked out of the club."
Psychoanalysis as a field has never been very good at being critical of itself in the first place. This type of thinking doesn't exactly help that along.
But hey, if that is how you fly, you do you.
>>8196921
Oh, okay. I just do that to make things more clear.
>>8197023
Ouch, too late I guess!
Well I'll try to reply later. I think the main point of disagreement is about "who" tells who's "in or out".
>>8197017 >>8197023
So so so
If it's possible for you, I would appreciate you to reply to me in "one" text, rather than a interpolated quotations (otherwise I tend to fail to follow the reasoning, it becomes like a slingshot rather than an unwound "flow").
I think there is a misunderstanding running since the beginning. I'm not telling any psychology should be psychoanalytical. On the contrary, I think these are now quite different things. So to say it once and bluntly : yes, one can be psychologist without being an analyst or having done an analysis. Psychoanalysis and psychology are nowadays two different things, with crossed ways of course, but not recovering each other. One can be a psychologist without being a psychoanalyst, one can be a psychoanalyst without claiming to be a psychologist. (I say claiming because in France, you should have a psychologist diploma to work. That doesn't mean people don't claim differences)
Indeed, I don't think ego-psychology is still psychoanalytical, because they completely buried the unconscious part of Freud's work, keeping only the "I". Yet, it was his most important discovery. Though it's a lacanian point of view, and maybe egopsychologists will tell you otherwise. You were asking about schools in France that I consider to still be psychoanalysis while not being lacanians. One could name a few, but right now I think about the "Quatrième Groupe" or the SPP (where André Green was), where "Lacan" is a banned word.
About the Freud's prerogative on psychoanalysis, how can I say... it's his own invention! And until his death, he was the very leader of the thing, very aware about how the field was going. So I kind of think that yes, he is a well placed man to talk about what psychoanalysis should be! Can't express it better...
Then let's see what I considered was core-matter. The interpretation of dreams mainly goes hand-in-hand with the rule of free association, I don't see how any psychoanalyst would consider it "without practical value". That would be plainly antithetic, a misunderstanding of the "tool". Even if a psychoanalyst doesn't do dreams interpretation first thing in the morning or on a regular basis, he or she basically agrees with its postulates, as he or she agrees with free association (and you'll find no other answer possible from me on this point : it's the most core of the "corest" things in psychoanalysis. Anyone claiming to be a psychoanalyst, who would not agree with the fundamental rule, has nothing to do with psychoanalysis. It's not for the only sake to have a card to become a part of a secret club, it's just basic common ground between people practising psychoanalysis from all schools — yes, even those who hate Lacan).
>>8198124 (continued)
N.B. : I'm not talking about the "REAL" practical value of dream interpretation or free association, I'm talking about the value it has for psychoanalysts. So I'm not saying it's a relevant/irrelevant technique nowadays to help people, or to enlighten one's dream, or that any psychologist should use this... These are NOT my points. I'm only saying that any given psychoanalysts (note again, I said "psychoanalyst", not "psychologist") will give value to these things, because there we are talking about a true core of psychoanalysis, if there must be one.
Same thing for one's own analysis : you can't accuse quantum physicist of cultism because they don't consider Mike Tyson as one of them. He just doesn't know about Schrödinger and all these physicists' things I don't know shit about neither. That doesn't mean he is a bad person or a bad boxer, he is simply not a quantum physicist. One's own analysis is the same kind of "password" in the psychoanalysis field.
When you're talking about "psychoanalysis not wanting to change", I can only wonder myself. Does it mean to you that psychoanalysis has to abandon unconscious, or to take the cognitive turn? For me the change to have is not there, otherwise we would only call it CBT or egopsychology (or another thing, ok, ok) and that would be settled. There are strong things on which psychoanalysis could not come back, that doesn't mean psychoanalysis is reactionary or determined once and for all in all its existing aspects. The question that psychoanalysis always comes with is the very question of the praxis, and it's there that it reinvents itself beyond any schools. That's a matter of succeeding in reinventing psychoanalysis for/with each patient, not a "sticking categories and theories on one's face" contest! Psychoanalysis theory is a questioning of praxis, and always comes back to the clinical matter. Once again I think that's a core aspect : there is no theoretical psychoanalysis coming out of the blue. The needed reinvention is a perpetual adjustment to hear a little more of what's going on.
>>8198131 (end)
Then, for the churches and cults, I don't have any strong "moral" opinion on the subject. I take it on a Bourdieusian point of view : you've got people trying to close a field, around such or such core thing (he named it "illusio", in the sense that people believe in it as a core thing of the field). It's very common in absolutely all aspects of society, from cults to bridge clubs, passing by city hall or community gardens. I don't know if one could assume directly that it has a pernicious effect on critical thinking. My opinion here being quite the contrary, because of psychoanalysis being always in crisis, attacked from everywhere (what seems paradoxical in Lacan's word "there could be no crisis of psychoanalysis", and it's exactly because of this : the primal state of psychoanalysis is the crisis itself. Could there be a crisis a crisis? I would only call that normativity. But let's keep this point aside).
Psychoanalysis has no choice to always question itself, but always questioning itself doesn't mean it have to accept anything passing by! Since the beginning, psychoanalysis has always been a praxis before anything else. And that's the thing that keeps being interrogated. When you're saying that psychoanalysis failed to be critical since the beginning, I can only jump from my chair. Psychoanalysis has had no choice since the beginning that going against all odds. Even in Freud's own work : he's always coming with precaution, saying "it's an hypothesis, but let's try", then coming back on it because it didn't work...
More, it is I think the only clinical approach which nowadays claims the value of afterwardsness, and tries actively to tend to a stance of non-knowledge regarding one's psyche. Yes it does : "knowing" such or such thing about "Oedipus" or "objet a" doesn't say a single thing about what's going on in the person you've got in front of you. Hence my remark about "not sticking theory" — except if you consider épochè as a sticking of theory, but that would be quite problematic to say it gently. I doubt these are threatening stances regarding critical thinking, on the contrary I think these are "values" which are disappearing in our world (I assume the totally moralistic point of view here...)
For the bias thing, I don't know in which acceptance you're taking the term. I know the cognitive one, but as >>8195674 said earlier, I think it would be like asking someone to cook with gravels. Those are deeply heterogeneous things. Though if you want to elaborate some more, I'd read with interest.
>>8198124
I'll try to keep it short.
It's the same way here. But we can't ignore the fact that analysts will still take on a "psychologists" job. i.e.: Psychotherapy, Developmental Psychology
And there IS "psychological" research being done with a PA perspective. So I think it is fine to put PA under scrutiny from time to time.
It's been a while, but I am quite certain that it didn't cut out ES or Über-Ich, but simply looks at the ego more carefully and made additions to the topographical model of Freud. Including defense mechanisms, by Anna Freud.
A good idea needs no authority. And just because Freud had some ideas, you ought not to forget that they were, in the end of the day, opinions he held with little to no empirical data. And the little "experience" he had was heavily influenced by the clientele he had. You can appeal to his authority all you want, but he was not infallible.
So if neuropsychologists prove tomorrow that analytic dream theory and dream analysis are, beyond reasonable doubt, absolutely wrong (by for instance proving dreams are random or serve completely different functions), then psychoanalysis is dead?
I highly doubt that. It is perfectly possible to keep the PA ideas of the waking state without the dream states. And it would still be psychoanalysis.
>>8198131
A systematic method of any kind should be at least a little independent from the one who uses it. I agree that it is the people who make PA work, I'm just saying these people are good at what they do in spite of PA and would probably make better use of moder modern ideas.
I think your comparison is off. I think it is more comparable to the time when physicists disregarded quantum physics because it wasn't "real" physics.
Again, it's a no-true-scotsman. I think you are simply creating a way to ignore progress for the sake of folding on to old ideas.
I don't think psychoanalysis is very flexible to change and adjustment at all. And that become quite clear when they hold on to old phrases (which harbor a lot of baggage) in the face of new research. What Freud called "transference" is quite well understood in psychology and pretty much amounts to "stereotyping/prejudice" and simple learning theory. Yet this is either disregarded or used as "proof", not only for the phenomenon itself, its entire mechanism. Another example would be the huge backlash some analysts had, when they applied mentalization for attachment theory, because it was "too psychological". Especially from Lacanians, even though it absolutely compatible with things like the mirror stage.
Either way: Any field has to have the guts to be sceptical of its core assumptions. Especially those, since if they are wrong about any of it (even if they are just insufficiant), the deduced assumptions are automatically tarnished. And it has become common practice for many PAs to "immunize" themselves from these questions, by Kafka-trapping those who bring them up. (Your criticism validates our assumption that you are acting in accord to our theories.)
>>8198135
Psychoanalysis is "always in crisis", because it refuses to yield on big issues. And right now we are talking exclusively about what YOU call psychoanalysis, which, to your own admission, is incapable of questioning core concepts. If it does, it is not psychoanalysis.
And that is one of the reasons I am asserting that some schools have cultists tendencies. You just did one of the things. The flip-flopping on how much weight any assertion has. Saying "it's just a hypothesis" when questioned critically, but using it as a functioning theory whenever actually applying it. More even, since instead of making efforts to validate any given hypothesis, there is a lot of effort being made on extrapolating on these "hypotheses", with a seriousness and steadfastness which does not match the strength of the hypotheses at all.
Another issue I see is how empiricism is traditionall dealt with. Most of the time it is nothing but retrospective evidence, with hand picked case studies. Always an "I told you so!". Never a prediction. To me it seems like the kind of arumentation you yourself might be used to hearing from groups like Front National. (Obviously I'm not talking about politics or comparing the ideas. I'm just trying to showcase the kind of logical reasoning where I see parallels. And I'm guessing you are very familiar with how they argue.)
I'd like to repeat at this point that I wouldn't be taking this position if psychoanalysis would fully identify itself as a "continental philosophy of mind". But it doesn't do that, most of the time. And I know you will answer that "it's different from psychology" and it is. But that doesn't stop analysts trying to make practical application of all these "hypotheses", since over 100 years.
Again, I think the clinical value that analysts bring to the table have nothing to do with psychoanalysis. As I said earlier in the thread, they have more to do with "general therapeutic effects" found among all schools. And my opinion that we should strive for an intelligent unification of clinical schools, based on what actually works, is closely related to my beef with PA as a therapeutic tool. It has very clear weaknesses and I have seen little to no effort in engaging or even acknowledging these. (Stuff like therapy duration, relapses, problem orientation, etc.)
Me talking about bias was me simply putting transference and countertransference into psychological terms. I think it was a failure of Freud ans subsequent analysts to even consider solving the issue (or rather taking the half-measure of knowing ones own transference better) or taking a closer look, rather than just rolling with it and even constructing a methodology around it.
>>8201548
I wasn't hoping for a conclusion, because I'm the French one. I wanted the time to read on what the other person told, and maybe reply.
Note that I'm in no way psychoanalyst, that's merely a sensibility of mine. I don't think a former psychoanalyst would have the same opinions on the question.
>>8187651
Start with the Greeks.
>>8201661
>He's not wrong.
>>8201548
>This dude perfectly answered the question
aka
>This dude told what I think is true
>>8201763
>textbook
>opinion
Anon pls
>>8201778
Sure, "psychoanalysis and Lacan are for pseuds" isn't a polemical statement at all. Better come back to my "textbook"
>>8201794
He didn't say that at all. He said there is no reason OP should read it, in his personal opinion. And then he did a Zizek meme. And then he suggested analysts.
Stop being so defensive.
>>8201835
I agree with you, it's his personal opinion, he reports it as such, and he has any right to hold it. He could be right or wrong for what I care.
My reply was to >>8201778 post who seems to think this opinion is a biblical revelation of truth because "textbook" (which it isn't, not revelation nor textbook). So, just a reminder that there is no consensus on the subject, and that >>8187651 could hear other voices.
>>8201893
That Anon clearly stated what was the most sensible point to start from (the textbook, which outlines everything OP should be interested in, including psychoanalysis), has some other scientific stuff and then added some opinions, which he explained shouldn't bother OP until he even understands what he is talking about. Which he is right about.
And then the rest of the thread is filled with a bunch of other opinions, most of which obviously know nothing about psychology or psychiatry and keep telling OP to read what they read based on uneducated choices.
Let's just let the psychoanalysis debate run out and leave it at that.
I doubt OP is even around anymore.
>>8187651
Thomas Szasz, for good critique of psychology
>>8201926
His post was honest and very complete, I agree with this.
Though there are other people who may advise to read Lacan, and give what they think to be the better intro or path for this. There was some threads about this in the past. The "forgetting" of Lacan isn't a small thing, it's a choice and it's ok as long as it is assumed (which it was). I was just bitching about seeing this as a "broadly and commonly accepted thing" without any polemic (a "neutral" textbook).
>>8201970
>I was just bitching
Okay then.
>>8199556
Hi again,
I won't say any much more than I did, we've indeed come to a limit here...
Concerning the Freud authority, once again, it's a matter of field closure. It's not me wanting at all costs people to consider Freud a holiness, it's a matter of who weights in the field. It doesn't depend on me ! I'm talking from a social point of view, and the influence Freud has on the definition of the psychoanalytical field. Ideas don't float in the ether, waiting to be "taken" : they're grounded on a social field which promote them or not, and this field is crossed by many power and ideological struggles. My statement here is that Freud's influence was and is decisive on the field. I doubt you could argue otherwise. I don't know if it's good or bad, if it's a mistake or good fortune ; once again that's not my point. All I'm saying, is that for one to claim to be of psychoanalytic inspiration, one must stick to such or such thing (like free association, unconscious existence, etc.). That's the rules of the field, and if you change of field there would be other rules. You're saying : "a good idea doesn't need authority" ; that's in ideas' land, yet we're on Earth ! (Please, please, read what follows : )
It's not an authority appeal argument from me : I'm not telling you "it's true because Freud said so". I'm telling you : "it's structural in the field because Freud's words are powerful in said field". The epistemic value of Freud doesn't interest me at this point, concerning this statement : my question is who/what is dominating the field, and what is sustaining it.
From what I understand of yours posts, that's a point we're not agreeing with.
>>8202340 (continued)
And in other words : yes, if "free association" and "Traumdeutung" were abandoned, that wouldn't be psychoanalysis as we know it anymore, plain and simple. That would be another thing. That isn't me praying for my Church, this isn't me putting my special secret hood of cultist ! It's calling a spade a spade. You don't call gardening "cooking", that's not the same thing, not the same world. If "green plants" and "soils" are replaced by "knives" and "pans" this isn't gardening anymore. You could still call it gardening, you're "free" to do so and call it open-minded ; but there would be a lot of people telling you it isn't, and their words weight in the social definition of what gardening is. I'm not telling anything else.
So these are what I called core concepts. I doubt you could argue without any deceit that nowadays psychoanalysis could abandon these kinds of core : psychoanalysis would cease to exist, falling flat-dead. Thinking otherwise would be lying to oneself, even more given you read psychoanalysis ! These are not "old ideas", these are structural axis. If you remove structural axis, you found something else (and please don't tell me that "free association" or "unconscious existence" aren't structural axis in psychoanalysis, because that would be a plain lie ! )
What we think about it, it being a good or bad thing, doesn't matter : it's a question of field underground and structure, of "illusio" to resume Bourdieu again. I'm not saying what would follow a change of illusio would be worst or better : it just wouldn't be psychoanalysis anymore as we know it. I don't know how psychoanalysis will change in the future, or if in one hundred years, we will call neurobiology "psychoanalysis" : my point is that would simply not be the same thing, the same field, even if it was still called "psychoanalysis".
Let's try it another way, returning it : do you accuse cognitive theory of bigotry because it doesn't acknowledge any value to free-association? No, because it is none of its matter ! (you don't expect a writer to have marvellous green leaves, you don't expect a pineapple to write a book). This desire of syncretism you're showing really surprises me !
I don't come back on "the no true Scotsman", I think I made it clear it's not a matter of me thinking it's better or worse. I'm not trying to close the field, this is not my act, I'm not even a part of it. It's just honestly about taking the temperature of the field, seeing what matters in it, what weights in it.
>>8202344 (continued)
In >>8199563 you talk about systematic method, I of course see links with what you tell about "bias". These things, to say it badly, don't go well with psychoanalysis. These are deeply strangers to each-others, the paradigms are not the same and not applicable on each others. (This doesn't have good reputation, but psychoanalysis is, by example, deeply alien to quantitative evaluation, and there's nothing to do about it. The only valuable evaluation, by ethics, is the one coming from the patient, and not a measuring of a reduction of symptoms). These are not the same regimes. So when you talk about psychoanalysis refusal of taking transference as an issue, I'm astonished : psychoanalysis is practically talking about that since the "discovery" of transference.
Then for the transference, if you think it's "stereotyping/prejudice", in all honesty that is a deep misunderstanding. The only link between these notions are coming from pale resonance, just like the Descarte's cogito isn't the Kant's one. They don't work the same and are not on the same plan. Once again, that's a syncretism which is not allowed by the concepts themselves.
At last, in >>8199568 , this was a little rhetorical, you know I wasn't talking about this "crisis"... The one I was talking about is a meliorative word, coming from the critique lexical field.
About Freud using "just theory" on clinics, I can't understand what you would except from someone founding a brand new field. Before him, nothing in the field : it wasn't existing. That seems like a very bad trial to me. Theory and practice go hand in hand, and both always proceed following a heuristic. You don't know subjects of study before studying them, which comes (depending of the epistemological frame) with errors, inductions, adjusting, and whatsoever one can invent to try to understand something in the mist.
Then, if you don't think the abandon of neurotica was cataclysmic for Freud, I invite you to re-read his correspondence and the evolution of his work. This wasn't just : "I put a bandage and that's ok".
About the "I told you so" / "never a prediction", I never heard seriously of it except in TV-series psychoanalysis. Let's not mix everything up. I've never heard any psychoanalyst actively trying to predict what a person will do next year regarding his or her "sickness", nobody cares about that.
>>8202346 (end, at last)
A psychoanalyst is not a fortune teller, his or her role isn't to predict in how many weeks such patient will go better. That doesn't mean clinicians have obligatory zero clue about a person about to off him/herself. But there are no books for that, no handbook telling you how to deal in all cases with the very unique person you got in front of you ; it only comes with experience — and this is not specific to psychoanalysis. The psychoanalyst helps people to encounter other things about themselves, to achieve a more subjectal position. He or she can make such or such hypothesis depending on his or her experience and intuition, without it saying anything about the ultimate veracity of these hypothesis — and nobody cares about this "ultimate veracity" ! For one simple reason : these hypothesis are WORK hypothesis, and act as an heuristic to deploy other things in the efficiency of the transference. These hypothesis are use-and-throw-away, soon to be outdated during the work : that's their very purpose. The "truth" of the subject (the patient), only the subject knows. And of course it have clinical appliances, why wouldn't it?
And I perfectly agree with you about the fact that what you call a "general therapeutic effect" isn't the property of psychoanalysis, there are good clinicians from all boards and schools. The discourse of psychoanalysis is simply to attribute it to the efficiency of the transference. Neurobiology may say it's because there are such level of oxytocin which increase, etc.
Well, well, well, that's all I think I've had to say about the matter.
Thank you for having replied to me in one text, it's very much more enjoyable for me.
I realize there's no agreement between us in the horizon, but it was stimulating to talk with you nonetheless. Thanks for the discussion.
>>8196845
I was gonna reply to this
But im not since you're being so mean.
Have fun with your degrees of freedom , your standard deviations and p values.
psychoanalysis is bad stuff, makes you obsessed with sex & makes you live as a hungry ghost who never ever ever stops thinking about sex (which you may already be). it was outdated years ago, don't spiritually devolve or become bland out of boredom, there is a love that can change your world and free you from your animal slavery. just be patient, live your life, be at peace, and it will come to you.
>>8202527
Please don't bait like that
>>8202652
what makes you think I'm baiting?
>>8202658
First of all what you said is completely untrue unless you are an absolute devotee of Freud, and if you are you deserve everything that befalls you.
Second, you contradicted yourself in the same post. You are suggesting that analyzing your psyche is damaging then you turn around and suggest integration and individuation (Jung I'm looking at you).
It appears that you are either baiting or are ignorant of what psychoanalysis truly is.
Oneword: psychology is shit. Better have a conversation with your dog.
>>8202789
>Oneword: psychology is shit.
>Oneword
