Freud and Psychology

Studies of mental functions, behaviors and the nervous system.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Freud and Psychology

#141  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 21, 2017 2:42 pm

nunnington wrote:I...Tavistock... Winnicott, Bowlby, and Fairbairn... post-Freudian psychoanalysis ... object relations... work on mourning... Horney... Freud's emphasis on ...

...a number of fusions in psychotherapy...the phenomenon of 'Kleinian Jungians', and many training courses have some psychoanalytic component. ...neat Freud, or the post-Freudians, probably both.


Well. At least we can name names and cite citations.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29549
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Freud and Psychology

#142  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 21, 2017 3:19 pm

nunnington wrote:Keep It Real wrote:

I don't know if you know this fal but my mother is a retired child psychoanalytical psychotherapist working for the NHS. Her training involved the compulsory in-depth study Sigmund's work; as well as the more recent advances in the field by Anna and Melanie Klein; amongst others (and I bet they too got loads wrong but still...). AFAIK psychoanalytical psychotherapy is still the first line NHS treatment for psychologically troubled children in England.


I think this is true of the Tavistock, but the 'recent advances' also include figures such as Winnicott, Bowlby, and Fairbairn.

She definitely studied Winnicott; and of course Bowlby; but I don't remember her mentioning Fairbairn - I'll ask her over the goose and sprouts.

Was it you who mentioned Horney, as I think she started to correct Freud's emphasis on female envy, and pointed out for example, that some men envy women, including their bodies.

She said males envied females' ability to bare children. That doesn't make sense to me personally - I pity women deeply for having to endure the physical pain of delivery - and yet my ex who had 9 wanted another 1 still so :dunno:

If my memory is correct, Freud basically blanked this out.

I think I'm with him on that - the male's genes are represented 50% and he can rear from birth so pfffff.

But there have been a number of fusions in psychotherapy, so that we get for example the phenomenon of 'Kleinian Jungians', and many training courses have some psychoanalytic component. However, I couldn't say whether that means neat Freud, or the post-Freudians, probably both.

The article I quoted a few posts ago speaks of this fusion - saying that other therapeutic modalities which incorporate some psychodynamic techniques are indeed superior in efficacy; and that's all good.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch as analogies go to compare Freud to Newton actually...yes they made fundamental errors/oversights but their contribution is very substantial and valid nevertheless.
Last edited by Keep It Real on Dec 21, 2017 3:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
You're only conscious when you're thinking about consciousness.
User avatar
Keep It Real
 
Posts: 9196
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Freud and Psychology

#143  Postby Fallible » Dec 21, 2017 3:21 pm

Lol ok.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Freud and Psychology

#144  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 21, 2017 3:30 pm

nunnington wrote:Was it you who mentioned Horney, as I think she started to correct Freud's emphasis on female envy, and pointed out for example, that some men envy women, including their bodies.


She said males envied females' ability to bare children. That doesn't make sense to me personally - I pity women deeply for having to endure the physical pain of delivery - and yet my ex who had 9 wanted another 1 still so :dunno:


If my memory is correct, Freud basically blanked this out.


I think I'm with him on that - the male's genes are represented 50% and he can rear from birth so pfffff.


Then again there is the issue of ambiguous paternity; which of course females do not have to endure (their id (hehehe it feels bizarre to rep that word lol) knows their genes are getting propagated).
You're only conscious when you're thinking about consciousness.
User avatar
Keep It Real
 
Posts: 9196
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Freud and Psychology

#145  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 21, 2017 3:39 pm

Fallible wrote:Lol ok.


They're both seminal in their fields, no?
You're only conscious when you're thinking about consciousness.
User avatar
Keep It Real
 
Posts: 9196
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Freud and Psychology

#146  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 21, 2017 3:42 pm

And TBH I'm sure about Newton's errors/oversights but I can't say the same about Freud's.....
You're only conscious when you're thinking about consciousness.
User avatar
Keep It Real
 
Posts: 9196
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Freud and Psychology

#147  Postby nunnington » Dec 21, 2017 4:01 pm

Keep It Real - Bowlby is particularly interesting historically, as some psychoanalysts were hostile to his work, as they were working a lot with unconscious fantasy stuff (or phantasy). But B in effect retorted that the kids he was working with were real people, and they experienced real deprivation. And of course, eventually attachment theory has been incorporated into some psychoanalytic accounts. But in addition, Bowlby expressed dissatisfaction with Freud's notions of energy and drives, and replaced it with notions of relational needs - in effect, this made object relations paramount within psychoanalysis. At the same time, you can see the kernel of object relations in Freud's work, e.g. 'the shadow of the object falls upon the ego', (Mourning and Melancholia).

Wasn't the notion of envy of childbirth partly derived from the couvade? Now breast envy - well, one could speak volumes.
Last edited by nunnington on Dec 21, 2017 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.
nunnington
 
Posts: 3980

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Freud and Psychology

#148  Postby surreptitious57 » Dec 21, 2017 4:03 pm

You cannot compare Newton with Freud because physics and psycho analysis are entirely different disciplines
One deals with observable phenomena while the other deals with mental experiences that are not observable
One is acknowledged as a genius and one of the greatest minds ever while the the other is largely discredited
Comparisons should be within the respective discipline so Jung is a far better example for Freud than Newton
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10195

Print view this post

Re: Freud and Psychology

#149  Postby nunnington » Dec 21, 2017 4:10 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:You cannot compare Newton with Freud because physics and psycho analysis are entirely different disciplines
One deals with observable phenomena while the other deals with mental experiences that are not observable
One is acknowledged as a genius and one of the greatest minds ever while the the other is largely discredited
Comparisons should be within the respective discipline so Jung is a far better example for Freud than Newton


I thought that the analogy with Newton was as a progenitor, hence Jung not a good parallel. For depth psychology as a whole, one might cite Nietzsche and Hegel?
je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.
nunnington
 
Posts: 3980

Print view this post

Re: Freud and Psychology

#150  Postby surreptitious57 » Dec 21, 2017 4:17 pm

Nietzsche and Hegel were philosophers so the comparison is not valid
But Jung is better any way since him and Freud were contemporaries
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10195

Print view this post

Re: Freud and Psychology

#151  Postby nunnington » Dec 21, 2017 4:26 pm

So a contemporary of Freud's is his progenitor? Yeah, that makes sense.
je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.
nunnington
 
Posts: 3980

Print view this post

Re: Freud and Psychology

#152  Postby nunnington » Dec 21, 2017 4:40 pm

Keep It Real wrote:And TBH I'm sure about Newton's errors/oversights but I can't say the same about Freud's.....


I thought the plus side is that Freud systematized various ideas which had been floating around in the 19th century, e.g. the unconscious, repression, transference, repetition. The negative is that he bullshitted about being scientific, his actual therapy work was sketchy and tendentious, and he was vainglorious.

I find him a very fertile thinker - for example, just before his death, he was writing about splitting of the psyche, and this spurred people on to develop ideas about splitting. His ideas on repetition are also interesting, although probably derived from Nietzsche. Also story-telling as a therapy. Oh well, I could go on. I am a fan.
je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.
nunnington
 
Posts: 3980

Print view this post

Re: Freud and Psychology

#153  Postby nunnington » Dec 22, 2017 5:01 pm

I was chatting to my wife about this stuff, and she was practically shouting, 'counter-transference'. Indeed, this was seen at first as an obstacle to therapy, since either the therapist's feelings about the client, or the client's projected feelings, seemed to scramble everything. But gradually, it began to be seen as useful, and in fact, in recent decades, is seen by some as one of the key tools in therapy. At the same time, it is a very tough experience to go through.
je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.
nunnington
 
Posts: 3980

Print view this post

Re: Freud and Psychology

#154  Postby Keep It Real » Jan 03, 2018 10:50 pm

I'm going to start investigating the necessary steps to become a qualified and competent psychodynamic psychotherapist tomorrow. That's the plan Stan.
You're only conscious when you're thinking about consciousness.
User avatar
Keep It Real
 
Posts: 9196
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Freud and Psychology

#155  Postby BlackBart » Jan 04, 2018 10:27 am

Keep It Real wrote:I'm going to start investigating the necessary steps to become a qualified and competent psychodynamic psychotherapist tomorrow. That's the plan Stan.



1. Entry requirements
You’ll usually need:

a relevant degree or professional qualification in social work, psychology, medicine or mental health
experience of working with vulnerable adults or children
training at postgraduate level
registration with a professional body like the UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) or the British Psychoanalytic Council (BPC)
Training can take up to 4 years to complete.

The UKCP and the BPC have more information on how to train as a psychotherapist.

If you’re applying for a child psychotherapy training post, you may be able to get financial support from the NHS Trust you’re applying to.
2. Skills required
You’ll need

excellent communication and listening skills
observation and questioning skills
the ability to build trust and rapport with a wide range of people
the ability to separate your own feelings from those of your clients
the confidence and skill to explore painful issues with clients
3. What you'll do
Your work with clients could involve:

encouraging them to talk about emotional or relationship problems
analysing past events and behaviours so that changes can be made
assessing their way of thinking and their feelings
helping them develop new strategies for coping
You could work with adults or children, individually or in groups. You may also be involved in training non-client groups like social workers.

There are different types of psychotherapy, like cognitive behavioural therapy, psychoanalysis and hypnotherapy. The approach you use will depend on your specialism and your clients’ needs.


https://nationalcareersservice.direct.g ... otherapist

You'll also probably need an enhanced DBS check.

Good luck.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12235
Age: 58
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Freud and Psychology

#156  Postby dreamland1119 » Apr 26, 2018 4:07 pm

He is a very good psychologist
User avatar
dreamland1119
 
Posts: 23
Age: 38
Male

China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Freud and Psychology

#157  Postby Fallible » Apr 26, 2018 5:27 pm

lol
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Freud and Psychology

#158  Postby lpetrich » Aug 16, 2018 8:26 am

It has been hard for me to find any detailed histories of the rise and fall of the reputations of Sigmund Freud and Freudianism.

I suspect that a good part of the attractiveness of Freudianism is its colorful stories, something that mainstream psychology tends to lack. Colorful stories like the Oedipus complex and penis envy.

Returning to the question of the rise and fall of Freudianism, I have found a little bit on that subject. It's about 16 - 17 years old, but Freudianism has not exactly been revived since then.

The impending death of psychoanalysis
The impending death of psychoanalysis.
Bornstein, Robert F.
Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol 18(1), 2001, 3-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0736-9735.18.1.2

Although psychoanalysis once dominated psychology, evidence now points to the waning influence of psychoanalytic theory in psychological science, psychiatric diagnosis, undergraduate instruction, and graduate training. In this article I describe 7 self-destructive behaviors exhibited by psychoanalysts that contributed to the precipitous decline of psychoanalytic theory in recent years. I then outline three strategies for retaining those features of psychoanalysis that are scientifically and clinically useful while jettisoning those that are dated and inaccurate. These strategies might enable scientific psychologists and research-minded practitioners to reinvigorate psychoanalytic theory during the 21st century. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

The impending death of psychoanalysis: From destructive obfuscation to constructive dialogue
The impending death of psychoanalysis: From destructive obfuscation to constructive dialogue.
Bornstein, Robert F.
Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol 19(3), 2002, 580-590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0736-9735.19.3.580

The disconnection between psychoanalysis and mainstream psychology has reached the point that the long-term health of psychoanalytic theory is in serious jeopardy. "The Impending Death of Psychoanalysis" (Bornstein, 2001) was intended as a wake-up call to the author's psychoanalytic colleagues who choose not to use relevant research findings from within and outside the discipline in their theoretical and clinical work. However, some of those who responded to the article misperceived it as an attack on psychoanalysis. This article points out factual errors in the responses of these critics, corrects some of the distortions and misrepresentations that characterize their critiques, and places the debate within an appropriate historical context. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
lpetrich
 
Posts: 750
Age: 60
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Freud and Psychology

#159  Postby lpetrich » Aug 16, 2018 8:30 am

I've succeeded in getting a hold of the first, one, though not of the second one. It makes some very interesting points.

Robert Bornstein starts off with "Psychoanalysis is dying, and maybe it should." He noted that it is dying in its home turf -- clinical practice -- as well as in academia.

Starting with Sigmund Freud's 1909 Clark University lectures, psychoanalysis became enormously influential in North America, especially between World Wars I and II. Then it collapsed. In part because of the growth of biological, behavioral, and cognitive perspectives in the 1960's and 1970's. But RB proposes that the collapse has happened too fast to be explained by that. Something like the collapse of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European empire.

He considers four fields:
  1. Psychology Research. Psychoanalysis had been prominent in big-name journals in the 1940's and 1950's, but afterward, it almost completely disappeared.
  2. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). DSM-I (1952) had lots of psychoanalytic stuff in it, but DSM-II (1968) had much less, and DSM-III (1980) hardly any at all. Versions of 1987 and 1994 continue to lack psychoanalysis.
  3. Undergraduate Textbooks. Introductory, personality, developmental, abnormal: negative terms; others like cognitive, biological, industrial-organizational: rarely if ever. From a 1996 textbook: "Rather than directing observation or providing a tentative theory that can be modified on the basis of observation, psychoanalytic metapsychology seems immune to change, and it serves as a theoretical justification for beliefs not empirically derived." From a 1999 one: "A major criticism of psychoanalysis is that it is basically unscientific... There is no way to prove or disprove the basic hypotheses of psychoanalysis." From a 1991 one: "Currently, psychoanalytic theory is no longer in the mainstream of child development research."
  4. Graduate School. Hardly any graduate students are involved with it. Less than 1% of doctoral dissertations over roughly 1970 - 2000 have involved psychoanalysis-related keywords.
How the mighty have fallen. From being a central paradigm to dismissed as crackpottery and "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" jokes.

RB then notes that this field has not been looking forward (to new research) or outward (to other areas), but backward (to founders) and inward (to their colleagues). Then his Seven Deadly Sins of self-destructive behavior:
  1. Insularity. Only interacting with each other.
  2. Inaccuracy. Continuing to advocate notions discredited by experiment.
  3. Indifference. To external evidence and many of their colleagues.
  4. Irrelevance. To other psychologists. Even worse, psychoanalysts seem unwilling to try to correct that situation and to set the record straight.
  5. Inefficiency. Theoretical baggage, length and expense of therapy.
  6. Indeterminacy. Many key concepts lack good operational definitions. Likewise for therapies.
  7. Insolence. Feeling too certain about one's theories and practices.
Can psychoanalysis be saved? RB then uses some medical metaphors for various strategies.
  1. Implement Heroic Measures to Save the Patient
  2. Let Psychoanalysis Die and Then Donate Its Organs
  3. Bury the Corpse and Pray for Reincarnation
Scenarios 2 and 3 seem to have happened with the more worthwhile ideas in psychoanalysis, like the notion of self-deception. Like the well-known stereotype of an alcoholic or drug addict who says "I can quit anytime I want to".

Then some criticisms of his criticisms.
  1. These criticisms reflect a nomothetic-positivistic bias that does not capture the true spirit of psychoanalysis. That is, it's about insights about oneself and not about general principles. But it's also presented as a useful therapy, thus making general principles important.
  2. The lively scholarly debates within the psychoanalytic community stand as evidence of psychoanalysts' intellectual openness. However, those debates are too insular.
  3. It's not a case of theory "mismanagement" -- these are difficult times for all insight-oriented practitioners. That does not excuse it from having to be scientifically rigorous.
Last edited by lpetrich on Aug 16, 2018 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
lpetrich
 
Posts: 750
Age: 60
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Freud and Psychology

#160  Postby Cito di Pense » Aug 16, 2018 8:42 am

lpetrich wrote:Scenarios 2 and 3 seem to have happened with the more worthwhile ideas in psychoanalysis, like the notion of self-deception. Like the well-known stereotype of an alcoholic or drug addict who says "I can quit anytime I want to".


You wrote another dissertation, but could you quit writing these dissertations any time you wanted to? Or would we conclude after the fact of your having quit that you really wanted to? How long would we have to wait to conclude you'd quit? Would you be dead by then?
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29549
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology & Neuroscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest