The problem is his theories just aren’t testicle.
I love you and want to practice hysterical paroxysm therapy with you.
Right. Even a stopped cock is right twice a day.
Well, thank you, but after seeing your post in the “most unusually located zit” thread, I should point out that neither of us have the right gonads to practice hysterical paroxysm with!
Did you mean “unreproduceable,” perhaps?
No, I mean unfalsifiable. Repression and denial, for example, aren’t falsifiable. The presence of denial “proves” denial. The absence of denial is interpreted as denial. There’s no way to get out alive. If you know you’ve repressed something, then there’s repression. If you don’t know you’ve repressed something, it’s because you’ve repressed it. Everything depends on the outside observer interpreting a shifting internal state and constantly reevaluating that internal state according to the theory. Freudian analysts move goalposts more than a grounds crew during spring training.
Or, as this guy says:
I think they’re *also *unreproducable, but as evidenced by medical charts I’ve seen in psych units with multiple, sometimes contradictory, diagnoses on a single patient, I don’t think that’s exclusive to Freud. I think that’s a big problem with the state of the art in mental health all the way around. People are inconsistent creatures, and what one doctor interprets as maladaptive, another may find an effective coping mechanism. We keep trying and trying to make them fit into convenient checklists and diagnostic criteria, but one person’s joke is another person’s suicidal ideation.
No, she means that they do not lend themselves to experiments that could determine their validity. As someone famous said about something else, his theories are so bad they’re not even wrong. (Don’t have time to google source/context right now!)
ETA - or what Whynot wrote while I was typing!
Ah, I see. Thanks. Ignorance fought.
I see your point, but must disagree. Freud did identify means by which such issues could be explored. His ideas are both reproducible and falsifiable…according to some, anyway. I believe you are oversimplifying, a little.
Alas, now we’re in an area of debate, not of factual answers, and so we shouldn’t go much farther in this forum. I’m not well enough qualified to hold up in a proper Great Debates thread; only just well enough versed to wave the flag for a difference of opinion.
D18 – a Freudian zit!
That’s not “unfalsifiable”, that’s “unverifiable”. “Unfalsifiable” has a more precise meaning of something which can be tested but cannot be falsified; please let us not purposefully make language more confusing than it needs to be. Fingerprints are almost unfalsifiable (and were considered unfalsifiable until very recently). Freud’s psychological witch trials are unverifiable.
According to Investopedia:
In the past, clearing checks between banks took extended periods of time. Individuals used to take advantage of this delay and wrote “bad” checks to deposit funds before the checks were cashed. Banks have tried to cut down on kited checks by placing holds on deposited funds and charging for returned checks.
Is kiting still an issue?
I look forward to your feedback.
davidmich
Sorry. Mistake on my part.
davidmich
That is not correct. It is pretty much backwards. Verifiability, as a criterion of being scientific, has been almost universally rejected since the collapse of the Logical Positivist movement some 50 or more years ago. The modern consensus is that no theories can be decisively verified.
Falsifiability, however, is still a quite widely accepted alternative criterion of scientificness. What it means, in this context, is that, if a theory is to be counted as “scientific” it should, in principle, be possible to conceive of (and specify) an experimental or observational result that would falsify (contradict the predictions of) the theory if the observation were made. It might be impossible to falsify a theory in practice, simply because the theory is true, but that is not what is meant by an unfalsifiable theory in this context. An unfalsifiable theory is one that can’t be tested, because it is constructed such that no one can specify any conceivable results that would contradict it. That is, it can’t be falsified in principle, not even in another world where the laws of nature (including psychology) are different. If that can be shown to be the case (so falsificationists argue) the theory has been shown to be not scientific, and that will be the case even if, by some fluke, the theory happens to be true. (Not all scientific claims are true, and not all true claims are scientific. It is a different issue.)
It is commonly (and very plausibly) claimed that Freudian theory (or most of it) is unfalsifiable (and thus unscientific) in this sense. It does not rule out any conceivable observational results , so it cannot be tested empirically. However someone might behave, the theory can come up with an explanation for it, so no conceivable observed behavior can possibly prove the theory wrong, so it cannot be tested and is not scientific. Not being scientific is not always a bad thing (claims, for instance about Middle Earth and the history of the War of the Ring are neither scientific nor true, but they are not pernicious), but when a theory is claimed to be scientific, as Freud did claim of his theories, but they in fact are not, that is bad.
I think you owe us a cite on that. These days it is pretty widely accepted that Freud’s theories, at least his major theories in their mature form, are not falsifiable (for the reasons WhyNot outlined). Those who still continue to defend Freud from this sort of critique generally do so not on the grounds that his ideas actually are falsifiable, but on the grounds that falsifiability is not the proper standard by which ideas like these should be judged. Some, I think, even accept that Freudian theory is not truly scientific (at least not in the narrow sense supposedly defined by falsifiability), but argue that it may be true, important, and useful even so.
Can anyone recommend any fair, balanced and scholarly/academically vetted books on the subject of Freud’s relevance today, giving a comprehensive overview of what can be safely said to be humbug and what may still be considered worthwhile and relevant/useful in todays treatment of mental illness?
davidmich
Fox News?
Oh, never mind.
In my psychiatric residency (at Northwestern University), we studied psychodynamic theory in detail and even read a tiny bit of Freud himself. However, I think this is now very rare in modern psychiatric training programs, and this is a real shame.
@thisishowwepray in post #4, who repeated the common canard that the efficacy of psychodynamic therapy has been less rigorously demonstrated than, for example, CBT, I offer the following abstract from a Feb-Mar 2010 metaanalysis article by Shedler in American Psychologist, the official journal of the American Psychological Association:
Empirical evidence supports the efficacy of psychodynamic
therapy. Effect sizes for psychodynamic therapy are as
large as those reported for other therapies that have been
actively promoted as “empirically supported” and “evidence
based.” In addition, patients who receive psychodynamic
therapy maintain therapeutic gains and appear to
continue to improve after treatment ends. Finally, nonpsychodynamic
therapies may be effective in part because the
more skilled practitioners utilize techniques that have long
been central to psychodynamic theory and practice. The
perception that psychodynamic approaches lack empirical
support does not accord with available scientific evidence
and may reflect selective dissemination of research findings.
That was the first link to come up when I googled “evidence base for psychodynamic therapy”; there were lots of similar ones. I really wish people would stop repeating this crap.
To the OP’s request for a scholarly text on the subject, I would suggest Glen Gabbard’s Psychodynamic Psychotherapy in Clinical Practice, which illustrates the similarities and differences between Freud’s original theories and the consensus of modern-day psychoanalytic practitioners.
“Psychodynamic” does not (certainly does not necessarily) mean Freudian. The word usually used for a specifically Freudian approach (if you don’t want to say “Freudian”) is “psychoanalytic”. “Psychodynamics” means, to quote Wikipedia:
Freud’s theories certainly fall under this larger umbrella, and Freud was certainly a very important pioneer of the field, but one can be a psychodynamicist today, and use psycodynamical methods in therapy, without subscribing to one iota of Freud’s original psychoanalytic theories. They are not the same thing, no matter how much Freud himself, and his remaining admirers, might wish, and try to pretend, that they were.
Thanks for sharing this. You clearly have more authority than I do on the subject, as I am not a doctor or mental health professional of any kind. My thoughts are based on pleasure reading that is largely intended for an audience of laypeople.
I do know doctor and mental health professionals–both in person and through reading their books and articles–who believe that Freud was hugely important to the development of clinical psychology practice, but that psychoanalysis is less provable to be helpful than approaches such as CBT. I’m not sure I understand why that would be, so maybe you could explain what their reasoning is and why they are wrong? Their credentials are as impressive as yours, so I don’t want to be too quick to reject them.
I do understand that psychoanalysis consists of “looking back” into childhood, whereas CBT is goal-oriented and aims to reduce or eliminate specific active behaviors. It seems as though it should be provable that one method is more effective, or that certain conditions are better treated by one method or another. What are your thoughts on this?
njtt: To quote from the article cited above, which, to reiterate, comes from a highly regarded peer-reviewed journal, not from Wikipedia, “Psychodynamic or psychoanalytic psychotherapy refers to a range of treatments** based on psychoanalytic
concepts and methods”.** (bolding mine). In my experience, professionals in the field tend, as does this author, to use the words interchangeably, although technically “psychoanalytic” should be reserved for work done in the classic Freudian mode, with therapist and patient meeting several times per week for several years. “Psychodynamic therapy” uses techniques derived from Freud in the context of less time-intensive therapy.
I certainly don’t mean to imply that there aren’t many aspects of Freud’s original work that are now universally regarded as wrong; as the cited article goes on to say “Undergraduate textbooks too often equate psychoanalytic or psychodynamic therapies with some of the more
outlandish and inaccessible speculations made by Sigmund Freud roughly a century ago, rarely presenting mainstream psychodynamic concepts as understood and practiced today.” So it’s not that many of the concepts haven’t changed radically from those proposed by Freud, it’s that Freud started the discussion which has led to the current state of psychodynamic theory. I certainly am not aware of anyone who would identify as a psychodynamic practitioner who would deny the significance of Freud’s work to the extent that you appear to.
thisishowwepray: This belief that psychodynamic therapy hasn’t been “proven” to be effective in the same way that CBT has is indeed widespread among many mental health professionals who should know better. The facts are that many high-quality scientific studies have been done on the subject, and these have empirically demonstrated that, indeed, psychodynamic therapy works. The article I have cited above is an excellent overview of the research that has been done on the topic.
In general, studies of psychotherapy have tended to show that the experience and interpersonal skills of the therapist are much better predictors of treatment outcome than the therapist’s theoretical orientation is, though there is indeed some evidence suggesting that certain therapies may be a better fit than others for certain diagnoses or types of patients. In the real world, very few therapists actually adhere rigidly to any particular “school” of therapeutic techniques, though certainly they are all shaped to a significant degree by the culture of their training program. Any good program, however, will expose the student to a variety of therapeutic theories and techniques, and then you go on to pick and choose what works based on your own personality and the patient population you are working with.
I would venture to say that, as a general rule, the more severe and pervasive your symptoms are, the longer you will need to be in therapy. CBT, with its emphasis on completing the treatment within one or two dozen sessions, might be better suited for someone who is generally functioning well but has a few discrete symptoms (panic attacks are a classic example of a condition which often responds beautifully to CBT). On the other hand, if you are generally not functioning well in many areas of life and are in need of a complete personality overhaul, you would be better served by a treatment which is oriented towards long-term work.