becausegoodheroesdeservekidneys:opinionatedfellow:cognitivedefusion:clementive:cognitivedefusi
becausegoodheroesdeservekidneys:opinionatedfellow: cognitivedefusion: clementive: cognitivedefusion: I want to hear someone explain what the dark purple sliver represents. Because I have yet to find that part out. Ok. Despite the countless flaws in Freud’s theory, could we please take a moment to consider that thanks to that man psychotherapy was developed? He created the first personality theory and his psychosexual stages are still considered today somehow representative of affective development in infants. (Oh, frown all you want, I’m sure you have heard at least one kid say: “I want to marry dad/mom when I grow up!) Before him, there was no one-on-one therapy. There was no “let the man/woman talk, for the love of God! I’m just saying maybe that will help!” Before him, we didn’t think that trauma in childhood could cause problems later on. So bash his theory all you want for its lack of scientific evidence, but don’t bash the man because he did contribute to the psych field. So yes, that man deserves this 1% of “the man’s genius!” because let’s face it: no theory is flawless. The general gist/process of psychotherapy has been around for centuries; he simply created the first school of thought regarding psychotherapy. But he most certainly did not introduce the psychotherapeutic process. His personality theory and psychosexual stages rely on zero evidence, despite many attempts. Kids saying they want to marry their mom/dad is not science, nor does it lend an ounce of credit to Freudian theory. We absolutely believed trauma could cause problems later on. John Locke described the importance of early childhood events on later adult life in 1690 with An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. The only contribution he made had nothing to do with his content, but rather the function he served of spawning more research. That’s all the credit I can attribute to Freud; he got people investigating more than they were previously. But that doesn’t bring an ounce of credit to the content of his ideas, just the function of spurring more studies. Though I’d argue that was bound to happen regardless as psychology had barely been a formal field before Freud, so if it wasn’t him it’d be someone else soon after. Look, here’s my ultimate point: I have no problem mentioning Freud as a footnote in history, which is about all he deserves, but can someone describe the utility in spending multiple classes/weeks memorizing psychosexual stages, or the ego/id/supergo? Can anyone sit here and explain how there’s a beneficial function to doing that, beyond what studying substantiated/validated theories could provide? Because no one has explained that. Every other field in science has moved on. For some reason it’s only psychology that says “we need to learn our history,” while chemistry skips alchemy and neuroscience skips phrenology, laughing at us as we sit and stress the importance of learning about Freud. It makes no sense. This fucking this times a fuck thousand. -A grad with a B.S. in psychology YES -- source link
#psychology