The Father of Psychoanalysis

Even though he was fumbling in the dark, at least he was attempting to systematize behavioral phenomena instead of blindly keep on accepting any medieval concepts of "spiritual possession" or a vague catch-all vague term of "madness" that preceded him.
This all had to start somewhere, and any science isn't born in any sort of perfect final form.

Another good example is how astronomy had to arise from astrology... which by the way was also used as part of the ancient, rusty toolkit to try and make sense of the mind.

Even astronomy post-Copernicus and Newton has gone through its' false starts and dead ends:
Canals on Mars.
The Milky Way as the entire universe.
The Steady State Universe.
The list goes on...

Even now, we are fumbling to make sense of the data captured by the James Webb Space Telescope, because what is being seen does not fit predictions made by carefully crafted cosmology theories of galaxy formation and maybe the age of the universe.

Psychology is no different. Limited tools and data sets give limited snapshots of reality, but that also doesn't mean they are useless, and the good thing is that we have moved away from pointing the finger at astrology, witchcraft, "God's will" and all that.

This
The only real problem with Freud is people treating his theories like gospel, which thankfully seems to have diminished quite a lot at this point, but it does sometimes feel like the importance of those theories on the pathway to our current understanding gets dismissed or ignored
Yeah many people did that too and were killed or obscured

You can't prove Freud's ideas of Projection, Transference, Displacement and Narcissism, but that doesn't mean he had no idea what he was talking about (with these specific ideas), its not all entirely bullshit.

Yeah, I never understand when people say his ideas are "discredited" but there's never any further information as to when that supposedly happened or who was involved.
It's because they haven't been, and can't be. How do you discredit the idea that the subconscious is made up of the "sublime oceanic" that reveals its self in dreams? Or that inversions of black and white in dreams has a specific meaning?
It's like saying the Mona Lisa was discredited as good art, it's subjective.
- Well the scientific study of a subject should discard subjective ideas if they cannot be scientifically confirmed.
  Lots of the sciences came out of subjective philosophies or just plain hokum.
  Freud didn't scientifically test his theories. He just started treating people.
  He led others to study the specialism, but in reality he was a famous person during the leeches and drilling holes period of Psychiatry.
  If you look at his life he's closer to a snake oil salesman than a doctor sometimes.
  Ultimately he believed what he told people, and believed he was helping people. But what he sold was untested and unproven. No different to the old wives tales about cures there's probably something in some of it, but I wouldn't go near a Victorian book to find the remedy for anything.
- Pretty sure the part that we've moved way beyond was his somewhat central ideas that everything was sexual, relating to the penis or the lack thereof. Things like if you have a skat fetish you are into the idea of a phallic thing (poop) coming from the anus which then represents a reverse vagina, or oral sex is a man's attempt to feed their partner with the penis acting as a sort of perverse breast- crazy coked out ideas like that.
  He went much further saying everything's a penis and women want to have them and thats why they're so angry, (not because society has made life 10 times more difficult for women than it has been for men since the dawn of time). So one could see why a lot of poeple really don't like him and toss his good ideas in with the terrible ones.
  In my experience most of his ideas about the psychological processes (sub-consious motives, transference, displacement, projection etc.) that I mentioned and that you also touched on as well are still seen as valid and foundational to understanding psychological functioning.
But it's mostly bullshit, and he's still seen as this master figure when in reality he was mostly wrong. He should be a footnote, not a central focus
- Can you name something he was wrong about? As far as I can tell he was instead subjective.
  Psychology still uses most of his concepts, such as id, super ego, subconscious, persona, death drive, polymorphous perversity, ect..
- see thats the thing, you view it all as bullshit and many people do not, and it can't be quantified either way. So if a Freudian or Jungian lens helps a person understand situation in a way thats healthy and useful to them, then there you go. If they don't see things that way that's fine also.
  I wouldn't describe the person who essentially invented talking therapy from scratch a footnote when learning about psychology related to talking therapy.
  Do you think William James or Lecan should also just be considered footnotes because we've learned so much since then?
  Anyway, a Freudian analyist would have a field day with your user name, just to say
Solid proof that psychology is not a science
- psychoanalysis isn't anywhere near the whole of psychology. there is plenty of solid research in psychology thats undeniably scientifically as sound as any test in physics- the thing is counfounding variables are challenging to control in human populations, so you need absolutely massive samples and multiple double blind studies followed up with meta analysis to try to remove them, including researcher bias and plenty of other variables.
  One thing to consider is there is rarely, if ever, proifit in helping people be psychologicall healthy on an individual basis. So, chem and physics gets funded because you can make things and sell the results.
  Its not chemestry! but there is a lot of science happening in psychology, but it's woefully underfunded because you can't sell the product in a clear way, and no one wants to talk about how a healthy society has less crime, health problems, addiction, etc.

He just needs to do lines until he comes up with a new and better theory.

With blackjack and hookers!
- Fuck the blackjack I just need the blow and hours to uselessly try to push rope into an escort.

Not fun fact: 8 out of 10 shrinks in France use psychoanalysis

Only 1 university in the country excludes it from their care curriculum (history modules non-withstanding)

Only country in the world that hasn't booted that practice off along with argentina

There are more places/countries that use psychoanalysis, having it their curriculum. I study psychology and there is a main difference in psychoanalysis/humanistic psychology and behaviourist psychology. The latter is a actual science, because it studies behavior, and you can observe it. The other two, mainly focus on consciousness, thinking, individual meaning and a particular person's world. I get that psychoanalysis has a lot of strange ideas, but there is neo psychoanalysis, and as a whole, the school tries to constantly renew itself, as it's made in the the actual therapy process. The point is psychology is a vast field, behaviourist based theories are actual sciences doesn't make the other options available bad. Depending on the case, one is better than the other. Jeffrey Young saw what I am describing and combined elements from these and some other theories.
- No I strongly disagree on giving psychoanalysis that much consideration
  Besides the fact that psychoanalysis, new wave or not ; jung, freud, lacan, has only been demonstrated to work better than leaving the patient alone on a handful of illnesses and it's still unclear whether simply letting patients talk and air out their problems could be the main driver of that.
  It is fundamentally a discipline that is impermeable to science
  I've never heard a student tell me they've read Watson or Rayner or any of the founders of CBT because scientific disciplines are centered around historical results and not authors. They know about Rayner's results and it is enough, and if something better comes along later they'll switch. No one is a Raynerist.
  Psychoanalysis has gurus, and the beliefs themselves are built to be unverifiable
  I'm tired of lecturers who tell you that if you treat someone with it, it's proof that it works. And if the patient doesn't respond to treatment it's either the patient's fault or they just need more time, and nothing is ever proof that it doesn't work. And who are you to question
  <authority figure>
  anyway?
  If they suddenly start publishing reproduced results in reputable journals that do anything other than being less effective than the current state of the art, then sure, let's have them beyond history classes. Right now though? It's a load of bullshit
Freud and Jung are taught as part of most courses on psychology.

Edward bernays is the more important person to study if we are to break the stranglehold the 1%er mainstream media has over the working class.

I do not trust the entire mental Healthcare industry. They said gay people are crazy, and failed to call out the 1%'s hoarding mental illness.

Why weren't the robber Barron's institutionalized against their will like so many were back in the day in those abusive insane asylums? Cowards.

Bernays shaped the modern world perhaps more than anyone. Century of the Self was a revelation.

[off topic]

Nicholas Meyer [director of 'The Wrath Of Khan'] wrote a novel and directed a movie both called 'The 7% Solution.'

It's about the meeting between Sherlock Holmes and Sigmund Freud.

Ok that one was pun gent