The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Comments on Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-24-2010, 11:26 PM
Rocco Dantona Rocco Dantona is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Was Sigmund Freud a quack?

Your piece couldn't be more wrong. Any time you find yourself making grand generalizations and not citing a study at the end of it, you're doing what you're saying Freud didn't do. And you're right, HE didn't verify his results with studies, but THOUSANDS of studies since then have proven a variety of aspects of his MANY theories (lay off the sexual repression, there was a lot more going on. Hit the books, man). For example, do you ever use the word 'repression' in your day to day life? Do you ever accuse people of 'projecting'? Ever see a kid, or adult, 'act out'? You're employing essentially FREUDian concepts or offshoots that his students elaborated on when you do. There are psychoanalysis institutes and university sponsored longitudinal studies of these theories. Tons of them. How complicated do you think a species is that all has to poop every day, eat a few times, drink water, and be nursed and cared for for 10 times longer than any animal on the planet? Hit the books.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 10-25-2010, 04:48 AM
Wendell Wagner Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 11,900
This only addresses part of your post, but it's possible that we could frequently be using terms like "repression," "projection," and "acting out" without there being any good evidence for their ultimate usefulness as a description of human psychology. The only thing that their frequent use necessarily implies is that the terms and the model for human minds that they imply have seeped so far into general use that we find it hard to talk about human thought without using those terms. Consider the terms that would frequently be used for talking about human psychology in about 1800. The fact that they were common then doesn't imply that they were ultimately useful either.

Please note that I am not addressing the overall issue of whether Freudian psychology is true or not. I am only talking about one argument that you are making. Regardless of whether other arguments for or against Freudian psychology are correct, I don't think that this argument is correct.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-25-2010, 08:22 AM
Giles Giles is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 12,009
Required cite for the OP: Was Sigmund Freud a quack? (Adams, 2003).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-25-2010, 08:32 AM
StusBlues StusBlues is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco Dantona View Post
Your piece couldn't be more wrong. Any time you find yourself making grand generalizations and not citing a study at the end of it, you're doing what you're saying Freud didn't do. And you're right, HE didn't verify his results with studies, but THOUSANDS of studies since then have proven a variety of aspects of his MANY theories (lay off the sexual repression, there was a lot more going on. Hit the books, man). For example, do you ever use the word 'repression' in your day to day life? Do you ever accuse people of 'projecting'? Ever see a kid, or adult, 'act out'? You're employing essentially FREUDian concepts or offshoots that his students elaborated on when you do. There are psychoanalysis institutes and university sponsored longitudinal studies of these theories. Tons of them. How complicated do you think a species is that all has to poop every day, eat a few times, drink water, and be nursed and cared for for 10 times longer than any animal on the planet? Hit the books.
Cite?

Sigmund Freud is a cancer on the heritage of western thought. See Terence Hines, Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (Prometheus Books, several editions).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-25-2010, 11:57 AM
John W. Kennedy John W. Kennedy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chatham, NJ, USA
Posts: 4,731
Freudianism, like Method Acting, is what some people have instead of a religion; treat it gently.
__________________
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. Taliessin through Logres: Prelude
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-25-2010, 12:18 PM
42fish 42fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco Dantona View Post
For example, do you ever use the word 'repression' in your day to day life? Do you ever accuse people of 'projecting'? Ever see a kid, or adult, 'act out'? You're employing essentially FREUDian concepts or offshoots that his students elaborated on when you do. .
And have you ever described somebody as melancholic or sanguine? Clearly, the medieval concept of bodily humors is dead-on accurate as well. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off for my bloodletting.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-25-2010, 12:42 PM
StusBlues StusBlues is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42fish View Post
And have you ever described somebody as melancholic or sanguine? Clearly, the medieval concept of bodily humors is dead-on accurate as well. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off for my bloodletting.

Heh, heh.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-25-2010, 01:03 PM
Dan Norder Dan Norder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco Dantona View Post
For example, do you ever use the word 'repression' in your day to day life? Do you ever accuse people of 'projecting'? Ever see a kid, or adult, 'act out'? You're employing essentially FREUDian concepts or offshoots that his students elaborated on when you do.
I guess when they were teaching hero worship in the high school psych class you took you never stopped to think that all of those terms and ideas predate Freud? Or that Freud didn't invent psychology? And that he didn't revolutionize it in any meaningful sense, just marketed it well and advanced concepts that set the field back about 100 years? Or that thousands of studies have shown that the key concepts of psychoanalytic theory have been proven wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-25-2010, 01:56 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Back in Riderville
Posts: 17,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco Dantona
Any time you find yourself making grand generalizations and not citing a study at the end of it, you're doing what you're saying Freud didn't do. ... Hit the books, man
Except Cecil did cite studies, as you can see by reading his article:

Jeffrey Masson, The Assault on Truth, 1984.

Frederick Crews, The Memory Wars: Freud's Legacy in Dispute (1995)

Frederick Crews, Unauthorized Freud: Doubters Confront a Legend (1998)

You, on the other hand, have not cited any book or article in support of your position - shouldn't you be the one hitting the books?

Last edited by Northern Piper; 10-25-2010 at 01:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-25-2010, 02:53 PM
TSBG TSBG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
It is slightly possible the OP was referring to this article http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...of-b-f-skinner in which Cecil does casually refer to Freud as a quack, without quoting sources, because it's in the context of an article about BF Skinner.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-25-2010, 03:41 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Actually, many of the claims and treatments promoted by Freud weren't just wrong but were actively harmful, particularly his advocation of the use of cocaine and sinus surgery as treatments for relatively benign neuroses, his theory of psychosexual development, and the claim of widespread repression of memories of infant sexual molestation that led to a rash of unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse. While Frued's methodology influenced general psychotherapy, his method of psychoanalysis is widely regarded as being nearly worthless in the treatment of both neuroses and mental trauma. Freud falsified salient details of many case histories in order to substantiate his claims, and otherwise presented unfalsifiable theories that are at best non-scientific.

While Freud may have codified the theory of the psyche as id, ego, and superego, he was hardly the first to identify those as specific components. One need only read Shakespeare of the legend of Gilgamesh to see similar elements personified centuries before Freud practiced his particular brand of psychology.

Stranger
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.