Morty Vicar
Banned
With a POD after 1900, completely discredit Freud and his followers, destroy psychoanalysis/ Freudian analysis. What effect does this have on modern psychiatry and psychology, if indeed they even exist as we know them?
AHC: Kill Freudian analysis and psychoanalysis
- Thread starter Morty Vicar
- Start date
Ummm... isn't it already? We don't exactly use incest as a legitimate answer what's behind psychological problems.
Freud thought it was the child imagining sexual abuse. He thought actual sexual abuse of a child was very rare, even when he saw evidence to the contrary. This was one of the big intellectual failings of Freud, and also arguably a failure of moral courage on his part.
And even today, I don't know if we provide parents with a good set of examples and skills of how to talk to their children in an age-appropriate way that sometimes it's someone they know who tries to do something abusive. a parent of a friend, an uncle they love, a coach they admire, an older sibling of one of their friends, etc. Now, the chance that any particular one of these people being an abuser is slight, but there's a realistic chance that over the course of their childhood, someone will try to do something.
And even today, I don't know if we provide parents with a good set of examples and skills of how to talk to their children in an age-appropriate way that sometimes it's someone they know who tries to do something abusive. a parent of a friend, an uncle they love, a coach they admire, an older sibling of one of their friends, etc. Now, the chance that any particular one of these people being an abuser is slight, but there's a realistic chance that over the course of their childhood, someone will try to do something.
Though I think it is ridiculous, Freudian psychology has had a huge effect on history and many notions still hold sway in psychology and pop culture.
I can't see a POD to kill it. It is already baseless and weird as a whole. You just need a different system to gain prominence, the one I think that makes the most sense is a secular adoption of the Calvinist view of human nature (i.e. total depravity.) It reconciles 20th century warfare with human nature quite nicely.
I can't see a POD to kill it. It is already baseless and weird as a whole. You just need a different system to gain prominence, the one I think that makes the most sense is a secular adoption of the Calvinist view of human nature (i.e. total depravity.) It reconciles 20th century warfare with human nature quite nicely.
I tried to start a topic, what if a Myers-Briggs type of approach, for all its shortcomings, had preceded Freud?
But the topic didn't get any traction.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=320147
Myers-Briggs has 16 personality types and no one of them is in the majority. It's kind of goofy in a wonderfully complex mathematical way!
But the topic didn't get any traction.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=320147
Myers-Briggs has 16 personality types and no one of them is in the majority. It's kind of goofy in a wonderfully complex mathematical way!
In a way, Freudian psychoanalysis is sort of like homeopathy--nonsense, but less harmful nonsense than the treatments that proceeded it, and which opened the door for something effective taking over.
Morty Vicar
Banned
No, but I often see Freud classed among the great thinkers in the media, and he is still seen as the originator of psychology/ psychiatry, even if that isn't strictly true. In fact psych students still study his philosophies to some degree I think.
We still have problems in the way we look at abuse, from completely ignoring it, to the witchunts that took place with the satanic ritual abuse hoax, or 'repressed memory syndrome' that continues to destroy lives. I genuinely think Freud had severe psychological sexual problems, but instead of admitting he was damaged in some way, his ego made him certain that everyone was the same, but wouldn't admit it. In fact his 'analysis' often took the form that he came up with some outlandish theory, then wore down his patients over successive sessions to make them 'admit' he was right, or failign that they 'exhibited denial' which was proof of his claims.
Interesting, how do you think that would impact on mental health treatment over the next century? Would people continue to be institutionalised, perhaps still lobotomised etc?
I heard someone once compare him to Aristotle in the sense that he was colossally, fantastically wrong- but fascinatingly so, and at the very least he made the wider world understand how serious the study of the mind cold be as a field.
Morty Vicar
Banned
I'd heard of Myers-Briggs before in passing, that looks interesting. It's not much more scientific than Freudian analysis, it looks like an expansion of the theory of 'humours', or almost like an astrological chart, but if this was the central theory replacing Freud's it would be very interesting to see how things changed. Firstly the fact that the system relies on self-determining tests as opposed to an individual making judgements of another is a great improvement. It takes away that scary power imbalance, where one individual who is allegedly a mind expert can make the judgement that another individual is insane, dangerous or even needs to be institutionalised or heavily medicated. Perhaps it might destroy the profession of the 'shrink', or at least make it less pervasive.
Hmm, let's speculate.
It can go many ways. A secular view of "depravity as human nature" would probably be anti-psychological. People would rationalize human behavior as being driven by greed and sadism, so the response would be to defend oneself against other people and try to ignore delving to deep into the psychological (because it uncovers such dark things.)
But, perhaps there is a humanistic element to it. People are depraved, but in rational ways can redirect their negative behaviors (sort of the premise of the show Dexter, he's gonna be a serial killer, might as well kill other serial killers...) So, psychology would focus on learning the psychopathic proclivities people had and looking for a way to direct these proclivities.
The medication and lobotomy route is also possible. If people are essentially different versions of Hitler and Stalin, if they can't keep their depravity bottled up and workable, then why not drug them into submission or cut out the "aggression sector of the human mind" or whatever?
Presuming there are long term effects of this school of psychology, it definitely leads to less sympathy for the mentally ill. Lock them up, drug them up, keep them away. Ideas such as "prisoner rights" would not be so popular, we would likely still have chain gangs and such today (which is not so bad actually). I feel particularly sorry for schizophrenics and the like. Their battle within themselves would be equated to having significant malevolent intent and they would be treated quite harshly.
What was Aristotle wrong about? I always found Plato much more speculative. Then again, I actually have read Plato and the Platonists and have only seen what others have coined "Aristotelianism."
Morty Vicar
Banned
I should admit here that I have a strong personal dislike of the man and his work, I see him as little more than a pseudoscientific cult leader. I also think his work was deeply harmful in the long term, although I suppose you could argue that he was more progressive for his period than the 'Bedlam' type institutions which used mentally ill people as entertainment.
Yes, I agree. Freudianism was so widely accepted(in the sense of, accepted in many different quarters), there likely wasn't one particular thing you could jettison in order to butterfly it away. Western society in 1900 had basically been hardwired for reception to the ideas.
And those ideas were basically neither provable nor disprovable, so it's not like you could conduct an experiment to show that they don't work.
The only thing I could think of would be some sort of "Anti-Great Man" turn, specifically, Freud himself gets exposed as a Very Bad Guy. Like, maybe, shortly after the publication of Interpretation Of Dreams, there emerge credible allegations that he has been sexually abusing his patients, which prompts everyone to read his theories of sexuality in a highly suspicious light. It probably wouldn't take to long for him to become persona non grata in respectable circles, and his ideas to go with him.
Not likely to happen, though, since if there is one thing that could be said in Freud's favour, it's that he was morally beyond reproach, as far as sex went(well, maybe an affair with his sister-in-law, but that's about it as far as I know).
As well, I don't know how plausible it would be for such allegations to gain credibility in the early C20. Maybe since Freud was the guy urging everyone to talk about sex anyway, people might be more willing to break the taboo in regards to his own transgressions.
A guy named Jeffrey Masson wrote about that back in the 80s. And I think that's what he alleged, yeah. Freud originally thought the allegations were real, but suppressed the theory.
Morty Vicar
Banned
In those misogynistic times I wonder if any sexual scandal is enough to bring him down, especially considering the way he operates, ostracising anyone who criticises him or even dares to disagree with his hypotheses. I think the only thing that could do it is if he is implicated in murder, or possibly homosexual relations.
MBTI is based on Jung's work, in turn based on Freud, and so should be included under the umbrella of "Freud and his followers".
MBTI is, as I said above, based on Jung's "work", and is indeed woo. It's actually worse than astrology, because astrology is (generally) not presented as being scientific. Nor is it used by schools or HR departments.