Has psychoanalysis any scientific basis? It seems that Freud and Jung just keep speculating the reasons behind problems without any real proof. Why bother with them?
This is exactly why there are no practicing Freudian psychoanalysts today.
The cognitive behavioral model dominates these days.
>>1347109
Why bother reading them except for historical interest?
>>1347119
Nobody does.
The position you're arguing for is the position that essentially everyone in psychology holds.
>>1347119
Nobody does.
There's basically nobody who supports psychoanalytic theories of personality any more. The only reason anyone studies it is to understand the history of personality psychology.
>>1347107
>It seems that Freud and Jung just keep speculating the reasons behind problems without any real proof.
This.
It's just another branch of philosophy
What are some valid Psychology works?
>>1347201
I liked "Thinking fast & slow" by Daniel Kahneman. Consider stuff by Dan Ariely, maybe Steven Pinker (not too much of a fan of him). I've also read some evolutionary psychology which was a hit and miss.
Also try textbooks or books by several authors.
I recently read: "Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology and System Justification" but it was a bit disappointing.
Currently reading "Big Gods" by Ara Norenzayan.
