I know a pretty good video on the subject, I could link to it if you want but it’s in French. If not I can only tell you to check “criticism” in the wikipedia article and make your mind, it at least presents quite a bit about how unchecked that discipline is.
France is very much at the heart of this, because psychoanalysis has had an almost monopoly on psychology studies for decades here. More science based, experimental approaches are almost non-existant in some French universities, a significant number only teach Freudian-Lacanian theories.
Simply put, psychoanalysis’s foundation is basically coming straight from Freud’s wild generalizations and is never meant to be proven or disproven. What can and has been disproved however (notably with a big 2004 meta-analysis from the INSERM, the French national institute of medical research) is its ability to treat most psychological troubles, despite being used primarily to do so here. Freud himself misreported the results of his famous case studies, some of which had a miserable life post-analysis. It just mostly doesn’t work, and since nothing else is being tried, instead when it fails we go straight for the chemicals.
And as for ruining lives, today psychoanalysts still deliver monstrous “diagnoses” for autism or other like rejecting all of the blame on the mother for being too affectionate toward the kid etc. Mothers being the source of all problems tends to be a big thing for Freud’s disciples, for some reason.
Thanks, that was helpful. I appreciate you expanding on that.
I’ve been increasingly interested in psychology, especially as it relates to therapy and human development. I’d definitely seen the term psychoanalysis in some places but thinking back it’s definitely been in sources that are on the more “esoteric” side.
I’ll take a better look at the wiki page, but in your opinion do you think there’s anything of substance worth looking for in old “research” done by Freud and Jung? Should it just serve as history now?
Like, is the concept of a “shadow” useful even as a kind of metaphor? Or, is it better to just read the latest research in psychology and therapy to really understand what’s going on in our heads?
But only if they also read the part about controversies and psychoanalysis being a pseudoscience that destroys lives, too.
Source?
I know a pretty good video on the subject, I could link to it if you want but it’s in French. If not I can only tell you to check “criticism” in the wikipedia article and make your mind, it at least presents quite a bit about how unchecked that discipline is.
France is very much at the heart of this, because psychoanalysis has had an almost monopoly on psychology studies for decades here. More science based, experimental approaches are almost non-existant in some French universities, a significant number only teach Freudian-Lacanian theories.
Simply put, psychoanalysis’s foundation is basically coming straight from Freud’s wild generalizations and is never meant to be proven or disproven. What can and has been disproved however (notably with a big 2004 meta-analysis from the INSERM, the French national institute of medical research) is its ability to treat most psychological troubles, despite being used primarily to do so here. Freud himself misreported the results of his famous case studies, some of which had a miserable life post-analysis. It just mostly doesn’t work, and since nothing else is being tried, instead when it fails we go straight for the chemicals.
And as for ruining lives, today psychoanalysts still deliver monstrous “diagnoses” for autism or other like rejecting all of the blame on the mother for being too affectionate toward the kid etc. Mothers being the source of all problems tends to be a big thing for Freud’s disciples, for some reason.
Thanks, that was helpful. I appreciate you expanding on that.
I’ve been increasingly interested in psychology, especially as it relates to therapy and human development. I’d definitely seen the term psychoanalysis in some places but thinking back it’s definitely been in sources that are on the more “esoteric” side.
I’ll take a better look at the wiki page, but in your opinion do you think there’s anything of substance worth looking for in old “research” done by Freud and Jung? Should it just serve as history now?
Like, is the concept of a “shadow” useful even as a kind of metaphor? Or, is it better to just read the latest research in psychology and therapy to really understand what’s going on in our heads?