posted
Over on Ornery, they are discussing some OSC quotes
quote:
Interviewer: "'Ender's Shadow' sounds Jungian, but Bean doesn't seem to be Ender's shadow in any sort of Jungian sense."
Orson Scott Card: "Well, since I have no respect whatsoever for Jung or any of his works, that's hardly a surprise. The beginnings of the science of psychology are filled with false prophets like Jung and Freud, people who really set back the science of psychology and had a huge and sickening influence in our culture. They are among the great frauds and evils of our time."
quote: "Carl and Sigmund stood side by side, impassively surveying the awful carnage executed at their orders. Today's work had seen the end of thousands of innocents in a scene of unmatched barbarism and horror. The twin architects of this outrage, however, remained singularly unmoved by the atrocity, or its heart-breakingly pitiful aftermath. Inside their black hearts, the will to dominate, the heineous urge to inflict pain and suffering, those black desires remained unsated. Tomorrow would bring more unspeakable horrors, as the "dark princes of psycology" secured their positions among the great frauds and evils of our time ."
No one is really quite sure what to make of these quotes since they are kind of absent any justification. Anyone know why OSC thinks these guys are so bad?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
O_o No. Even the psychology students I know don't treat them that badly. They sort of treat Freud like the crazy uncle of psychology. They've said to me that though his ideas were largely based on false or falsified information and that all of his research was case studies, which are not terribly accurate for a large percentage of people.
But without Freud and Jung and their forging into a new field, it's doubtful that psychology would have ever been created. The fact that they were wrong doesn't change what they did, and what they did has already mostly been fixed. It's important to understand the two of them as the basis of what came after them.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not the author of the second quote. It's obviously written by somebody RIDICULING my deeply contemptuous attitude toward the two pseudoscientists.
But the exaggerator isn't all THAT far off. The carnage may not be literal, but a lot of people have put a tragic amount of faith in psychological and therapeutic practices built on the made-up "science" of these two men, and distorted their lives and their relationships with others because of it.
The havoc being wrought by "recovered memory syndrome" hacks is only the latest example. Carnage? No. Misery and frustration and broken relationships and exploitation? Absolutely.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, by the way, psychology was already being strongly developed by serious scientists. Freud did not create the field - he kidnapped it.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
I didn't catch that the second quote was satire, though I guess it should have been obvious. Pardon.
As to your opinion, I do not know whether Freudian psychology has, overall, been helpful or hurtful to those who have used it. That there have been 'abuses' seems to be pretty clear. I wonder, though, if CSAAS , or recovered memories and the like, represent worst-case examples of what otherwise might, in general, be helpful to people if applied properly?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The trouble, Storm, is figuring out how to properly apply a technique that assumes a particular answer and renders that answer unfalsifiable. If a Freudian therapist doesn't like the answers he's getting, clearly he has a resistant patient, who is using one or more of a vast number of defense mechanisms to hide the truth from himself. "CSAAS" is only one of many circumstances in which this can happen.
quote:'And what is the answer to an argument turning on the proposition that two plus two equals four?'
posted
While it is true that a lot of Freud's "facts" were largely based on individual cases, and he had no real proof to back them up, his opinions opened the door to a lot of great ideas and helped shape modern psycology. If we (humans) are not allowed to make mistakes then why live? Besides, in a hundred years, people will be making fun of our "primative" sciences.
[ April 07, 2005, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan K. ]
Posts: 220 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that I'd call William James a serious scientist. He was largely interested in subjective phenomena. He was also famous for spending as little time in the lab as he could.
Helmholtz, Wundt, and (shudder) Titchner would be better choices for serious scientists but they in large part studied the physiology of psychology. Although Wundt expressed interest in wider areas, I don't know that his investigations there could be considered scientific.
You've got Pavlov and Thorndike, and later Watson. Scientistists, but studying animal processes. In Watson's case, his overextention of his findings led to the fatally flawed strict Behaviorist school, which had, in my opinion, at least as bad an effect as Freud.
Freud brought some vey interesting stuff to the table. He was also terribly flawed as a person and as a scientist. His method was extremely lacking. But, despite that, he yeilded some amazingly productive fruit. We still use Freudian defense mechanisms. The role of the non-conscious mind had been experimentally verified by social psychological studies, giving us explanatory tools such as cognitive dissonance. The neo-Freudians, the psychologists who broke with Freud but still based their work on his contain some of the giants in the field, Alfred Adler, Erich Fromm, Erik Erikson, Anna Freud, Henry Stack Sullivan.
The much more public face of Freudian thought, psychoanalysis, frankly holds up pretty poorly, and I get the feeling that this is what OSC is complaining about. I agree with this setiment. Psychotherapy as a whole actually became somewhat responsible during the shift from the (largely Freudian) theory driven DSM-II to the results-based, diagnostical DSM-III. (Of course, the biggest precursor to this was the declassification of homosexuality as a intrinsic psychopathology, so even among people who really don't like Freud often have problems with this.)
I don't know, it's a mixed bag. Theoretically, he opened up entire new avenues. Practically, I'm not really happy with it, but society was super-messed up before Freud came along. Blaming him for "messing up" society is sort of like blaming allowing divorce for "messing up" marriage. If society wasn't already majorly flawed, Freud wouldn't have had an impact. And, I mean, he was working when Eugenics was was one of the strongest scientific movements. It was a weird time and one in which scientific responsibility wasn't much in evidence.
By all means, read him sceptically. Criticize the relatively poor record of psychoanalysis in effecting cures, but I don't see where bearing him acutal ill-will serves any good purpose. He has a lot of important things to say. He should be read.
---
Jung, man, I don't know. The man was a nutjob. I read him because I'm particularly interested in the psychology of myth and I'm a big fan of Joseph Campbell, but it's hard to get around how crazy he was.
posted
I wish I had the exact quote, because the gist of it has stuck in my brain for a while now. It is from the Sopranos. Tony is amazed that Svetlana, who has lost a leg, is not a depressed alcoholic. How can she be so happy, he wonders?
Svetlana replies, and I paraphrase, big time:
"That is the trouble with you Americans. You feel like you have to be happy. Everyone else in the world expects to be unhappy, and they are never disappointed. You spend all this money on therapy, and it doesn't make you happier, it just costs you more money."
In general, though, I can see how someone could be down on psychology. Life is what it is. Will I be castigated in fifteen years for holding my son too closely, or not holding him tightly enough? Sometimes, you need to stop analyzing life, and just live it.
[ April 08, 2005, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Half of what I spend my time doing in sessions is trying to get my clients to quit talking to me in psychobabble.
Really. Just for the record, a lot of people in psychology are, in fact, aware of the legitimate criticism levelled against it (and many that aren't legitimate).
Posts: 99 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck, Storm, you practically titled the thread "Hey Squicky, here's a chance to talk about one of your favorite topics". If I can't manage erudition for something like this, the Society of Arrogant Pedants (SOAP) would take away my membership. Then I'd be stuck hanging out with the skanky MENSA chicks. And nobody wants to do that, 'cept those MIT nerds.
posted
Hey wow, starlooker, you're a therapist? I didn't know we had any of those around. I'm a theory guy myself.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm not quite a therapist. I'm finishing my internship for my master's in counseling, and i'll be working on my doc starting next fall in counseling psychology. I've spent the past several months doing counseling and advocacy work in an abuse/rape crisis center. It's been... beyond educational.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just talking about this research I've been doing. You can date an article by what the reference. If they use a lot of Freudian stuff, I'd say Mid 70's to early 80's.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got a friend who talked me into volunteering in one them (rape/domestic abuse counseling) back when I was in undergrad. Obviously, I didn't do any direct patient work, but it was a pretty freaky learning experience nonetheless. Are you interested in specific subpopulation counseling like that or are you more into general population stuff? If so, what treatment style(s) are you leaning towards?
posted
Right now more general. I do like working in DV/trauma... learning to leave it at internship has been one hell of a learning curve, though. I saw a newspaper headline after the police reports for last year had been compiled. A Safe City, it read.
I first thought it was sarcasm. And then I just laughed. And then I got mad. It's my "moment of zen" for the year.
Anyhoo, I'm not sure that I want to continue working in this population, although I think I'm fairly good at it. I'd like to have some experience in a college setting, actually. However, I think I'm going to end up coming back to working in trauma, more specifically with sexual assault/abuse issues.
For DV issues, my center uses the Power and Control wheel and Duluth model in discussing and explaining domestic violence. The PC wheel is the single most useful tool ever, by the way. As far as theoretical orientation within treatment, I work in a fairly feminist framework. (For everyone whose teeth just got set on edge by that, take a breath, step back. I do not mean man-bashing or any form thereof. Quite the contrary. I'm all for strong, kind, upstanding men because I am a feminist. Not in spite of it.)
As a theoretical orientation, it speaks mainly to my conviction that my client is the expert on her/his life. It also speaks to trying to address the power imbalances within the therapeutic relationship. Given that most of my clients have had experiences wherein power has been taken from them, it feels like a framework from which it makes most sense to work. (I'm also something of a pragmatist.)
Frankly, right now I'd pretty much consider myself eclectic/general. I am interested in narrative therapy, as well as solution-focused and interpersonal. I'm not all that big on cognitive-behavioral, although I admit it has its points and there are certain clients who I think it can benefit greatly.
I am not a Freudian or Jungian by a long shot, at any rate. Although I think they're fun as ways of analyzing literature Posts: 99 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm rather fond of Jung, myself. He tried very hard to put names on concepts that are difficult to grasp. I like the way he used stories and myths to help people think about their issues. I've used that sort of method with myself, and it works for me. However, I'm not sure it's appropriate for all types of people. And yes, Jung seemed rather crazy, but I like crazy people. I tend to be one.
Freud I don't know so much about.
But I do believe it is unkind to just write off everything they proposed. There is useful stuff to be learned from their works. I don't think they need to be idolized, but one must be cautious about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, I'm confused. If I'm trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater (carefully), why would I want to hold on to it? Wouldn't that be counterproductive?
Posts: 289 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wait, I'm confused. If I'm trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater (carefully), why would I want to hold on to it? Wouldn't that be counterproductive?
You'd think so, but actually it's not. See, if you don't have a good grip you're not going to be able to get very much distance on the baby--it'll probably just go a few feet. With a good grip during the wind up, though, you can really put some distance on your throw. That's the whole point behind setting the baby down first, too--dispose of the bathwater first, then focus your attention on the baby. The advantage of tying them up securely first is that once you've done so you can twirl the rope above your head a couple of times to add momentum to the throw.
Sure, technically it isn't throwing the baby out *with* the bathwater at that point, but the results are so impressive that people rarely complain about this fact.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC, I've seen you criticize psychologists several times. Are you speaking as an LDSer? I mean, does the LDS church as an institution take issue with psychologists?
I ask for two reasons. I haven't read Lost Boys in some time, but I remember the psychologist character in that novel being a critic of the family's LDS beliefs. The other reason I guess doens't have anything to do with you, but I know CS Lewis, speaking as a Christian, mistrusted non-Christian psychologists. Just wondering if you're in the same boat.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foust, that has nothing to do with baby flinging. Could you please try to stay on subject here?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I wish I had the exact quote, because the gist of it has stuck in my brain for a while now. It is from the Sopranos. Tony is amazed that Svetlana, who has lost a leg, is not a depressed alcoholic. How can she be so happy, he wonders?
Svetlana replies, and I paraphrase, big time:
"That is the trouble with you Americans. You feel like you have to be happy. Everyone else in the world expects to be unhappy, and they are never disappointed. You spend all this money on therapy, and it doesn't make you happier, it just costs you more money."
I would be like, totally shocked, if I heard that script was written by an american. Totally. Like.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: There's absolutely no LDS doctrine on psychologists.
Hobbes
though a lot of Christians in general don't like psychology. When I changed my major to psych as an undergrad, I heard quite a bit of grumbling from people I knew. Though, I judging from the article, I don't think OSC is really anti psychology, he is anti bad psychology.
As for Freud, I think he did some good for the field of psychology. Largely, he motivated people to do research that disproved his claims. People read his stuff, and thought he was full of crap, and worked to disprove him. I think the main problem with Freud, is that he knew almost nothing about the topic that he was trying to explain. He started out in biology, really getting into psychology because he was analyzing his own oddities. When he moved into psychology, he projected his own opinions and oddities onto his patients. I think he did them far more harm than good.
I think psychology can be a good thing, and it has gotten a lot more scientific than in the days of Freud (though it still needs to make progress). A lot of early medicine did more harm than good...but over time it was able to develop. I think the same is true of psychology.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So now I get to add Jung to the long list of things that OSC and I don't agree on.
I'm very fond of Jung. Freud was screwed up, no doubt. He was trying to create a method of psychology that was tainted by his own neurosis. Jung saw the brilliance in some of his ideas and cleaned them up.
I studied Jung from a philosophical standpoint. His ideas are primarily metaphysical and can't really be put to the test outside of patient and therapist remarks.
Jung's dream work is amazing and I still use his methods in my personal life.
They're not the modern conception of psychology but that doesn't mean their ideas aren't valid.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is, psychology aims to be a science. Before you try something on a patient, it needs to be scientifically validated as something that will truly help.
Thats also my problem with many homeopathic 'medical' remedies. People spend lots of money on them, and may think that they work...but they have never been medically validated. Sure, many of them don't have an intrinsic nature. At first glance, you might say there is nothing wrong with it, if it makes people feel better. However, they might keep people from using scientifically validated treatments that would work better than a simple placebo.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods* But they also prevent anxious young Moms to ask antibiotics for their babies each time they sneeze, which could do damage, for exemple. I don't see what's wrong in "curing" inofensive pathologies with homeopathy. Of course, trying to cure cancer with is is homicide.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said before, psychological theory and therapy still use a lot of ideas that are grounded in Freud's concepts. It's popular but wrong to say that he has been completely discredited or that he didn't know what he was talking about. He looked at a side of the psyche that no one had before and came away with concepts we still find useful. His methodology was largely unsound and he had highly conspicous character flaws, but for all of that, he's still respected as a thinker.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The problem is, psychology aims to be a science. Before you try something on a patient, it needs to be scientifically validated as something that will truly help."
You can't compare psychological illness with the common cold though. Yeah, we can say "this bacteria will go away if you put this chemical in the body." While there are common methods and basic procedures in psychology, you can't just prescribe a cure for "irrational guilt." Suffers can have multiple neurosis of varying degrees and every is going to react differently to different treatments. Using Freud may work for one patient and not for another.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The havoc being wrought by "recovered memory syndrome" hacks is only the latest example. Carnage? No. Misery and frustration and broken relationships and exploitation? Absolutely.
Mentalistic mystical claptrap didn't become in vogue because of Freud or Jung.
And, really, it's the popular (shall we say gullible) conception of psychology (even Freud's and Jung's) that is so terribly damaging, not their practice in the hands of trained psychologists, even in the early days of psychoanalysis.
One might as well be angry at Martin Luther because he paved the way for televangelists by breaking the stranglehold that the Catholic church had on Christian theology.
The human condition is such that people who are seeking answers will sometimes find them in superstition and unfounded quackery. The fact that mind can often heal itself (and that belief in a cure is sometimes part of the cure) means that personal (case study) results will almost always show positive benefit to just about any therapeutic approach.
Given that there are no practicing psychologists who adhere to a single historical approach (Freudian or Jungian or whatever), but often work within teams, consider the health of the individual overall, and believe strongly in the brain basis for mental phenomenon means that the real question is whether general education on these issues had kept up with practice.
My high school psych class still taught Freud. Admittedly, that was a long time ago.
My college and grad school classes mentioned them in a greater context -- the philosophical underpinnings and setting the stage for what questions are "the province" of psychological thought.
As has been mentioned, there's a much more scientific approach. In America, the Viennese school was never all that ascendant. We had our own school(s) and they were much more along empiricist lines right from the beginning.
The cultural understanding (and misunderstanding) of various psychological philosophies is not the fault of the people who thought them up, but the fault of a long history of half-assed education on matters related to psychology in general.
Heck, there are still people who are embarrassed if a family member suffers from a mental illness.
Rather than attack the field, why not attack the ignorance that truly is to blame for the attitudes one sees?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Think of today's lessons taught to bright 13-15 y.o. kids... With the very critical thought that we're being overwhelmed with (until we get it), the lessons become a joke.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
