Why do we disregard Freud?

1. 2017-04-19 at 7:04 PM UTC

   #1
   

   Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
   Academic psychology has obviously come a long way since its founding. I can't count how many times I've heard a psych major explain Freudian thought as obsolete, but I think there are more considerations to be made before his work is entirely discredited.
   
   The scientific method has undergone a paradigm shift since Freud was around. He can hardly be blamed for the shortcomings of someone in his profession, and given the times he lived in it's clear that he took about the most forward-thinking stances on matters of evolution and the brain.
   
   Freud revolutionized the way people think of their own minds. He is the author of our conception of defense mechanisms and the notion that events occurring in childhood can shape the adult personality. His fame is deserved and his contribution of psychology is beyond comparing.
2. 2017-04-19 at 7:17 PM UTC

   #2
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole
   Because he wanted to fuck his mom
3. 2017-04-19 at 7:20 PM UTC

   #3
   The Self Taught Man Black Hole
   We disregard Frued because his research methodology was a pile of lumf. Basically all of his work was tainted in one way or the other. Look up reviews of the Little Hans case. It is full of holes and you might as well make shit up at the point that that Freud got to.
   
   He wasn't categorically wrong, and his work wasn't exactly useless. But there's a reason people basically write him off nowadays as anything but a basis for the work that springboards off him. His own work was crap.
4. 2017-04-20 at 1:07 AM UTC

   #4
   

   aldra JIDF Controlled Opposition

   Originally posted by Captain Falcon We disregard Frued because his research methodology was a pile of lumf. Basically all of his work was tainted in one way or the other. Look up reviews of the Little Hans case. It is full of holes and you might as well make shit up at the point that that Freud got to.

   
   I disagree - I've read a few books about his ideas and I found that the conclusions he came to were completely logical; he did make a fair few 'leaps of faith' but the real failure was in the starting point. He based all of his ideas on what he incorrectly thought were the incontrovertible facts of psychology at the time and worked heuristically from there... it's been a long time so I can't think of any specific examples but I'll dig some out later
5. 2017-04-20 at 1:13 AM UTC

   #5
   Malice Naturally Camouflaged
   From his private letters:
   
   “In the depths of my heart I can’t help being convinced that my dear fellow-men, with a few exceptions, are worthless.”