tuco wrote:If there is heuristic, its probably quite simple. Rule #1 it cannot learn shooting from distance rule #2 it will learn decentralized youtube. Ooops I did it again... Earth to Mars lander, report status, please!

lol indecipherable gibberish I'm afraid my fellow pariah.

I dunno what iatrogenic means so I am sorry but cant comment. That is the problem with idiots like me, they do not get it.

Keep It Real wrote:

tuco wrote:If there is heuristic, its probably quite simple. Rule #1 it cannot learn shooting from distance rule #2 it will learn decentralized youtube. Ooops I did it again... Earth to Mars lander, report status, please!

lol indecipherable gibberish I'm afraid my fellow pariah.

Oh do not worry, some PhDs here do understand it.

Some argue that the latent homosexuality is a potentially iatrogenic effect (that is, it is not present until suggested by a therapist).

Get it now tuco? Call a man a thief and he becomes a thief etc.

tuco wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:

tuco wrote:If there is heuristic, its probably quite simple. Rule #1 it cannot learn shooting from distance rule #2 it will learn decentralized youtube. Ooops I did it again... Earth to Mars lander, report status, please!

lol indecipherable gibberish I'm afraid my fellow pariah.

Oh do not worry, some PhDs here do understand it.

Meh my dad's a phd and he's an ignorant cowardly fucking twat.

That is not possible ;)

Keep It Real wrote:Meh...he wasn't all that anyway imo iirc...didn't know about transference; projection; counter-transference...not posh I think.

I find that highly unlikely.

Fallible wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Meh...he wasn't all that anyway imo iirc...didn't know about transference; projection; counter-transference...not posh I think.

I find that highly unlikely.

No; really fal - he was all like "Freud hasn't contributed a single useful or truthful item of knowledge"......

You didn't say he didn't rate Freud, you said he didn't know about basic psychoanalytical concepts.

What's the difference?

Seriously? I know all about the creation and rise of One Direction, but I think they're shit. I happen to not rate Freud much either, but it can't be said I don't know about his work.

Well; imo it's not consistent to say Freud has contributed NOTHING useful/truthful and simultaneously claim knowledge of transference; projection; counter-transference etc.

Opinions are not facts.

Freud was wrong about most everything. Not absolutely everything, but pretty close. Is he still a monumental historical figure? Sure. Useful now? Not really. You won't find much in the way of professionals today utilizing Freudian psychoanalysis, and there's reasons for that.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-freud-still-matters-when-he-was-wrong-about-almost-1055800815

Freud’s legacy has transcended science, with his ideas permeating deep into Western culture. Rarely does a day go by where we don’t find ourselves uttering a term drawn from his work: Mommy and daddy issues. Arrested development. Death wishes. Freudian slips. Phallic symbols. Anal retentiveness. Defense mechanisms. Cathartic release. And on and on and on.

Siggy - "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too."

He wasn't wrong about how to treat homosexuals according to modern Western culture.

In summation, Westen says there are five broad areas in which the work of Sigmund Freud remains relevant to psychology: the existence of unconscious mental processes, the importance of conflict and ambivalence in behavior, the childhood origins of adult personality, mental representations as a mediator of social behavior, and stages of psychological development.

For example, he theorized that homosexuality was a failure to reconcile the anal phase, or the Oedipal phase. Which is nonsense. 

Hmmmmmmmm. Well, I remember Richard Prins posting that his little boy had said to his wife "I want to kill daddy" and he at least seemed to think this provided some support for the Oedipus complex. Science is about falsifiability at the end of the day (althought the way people (myself included) harp on about the need for empirical support one might well think twice). The Oedipus complex has been ditched from society imo largely because the idea that we want to have sex with our mothers is so utterly repugnant. Well I think that's the wrong way to view it - I would say it's more like we want the primary woman in our lives (our mother)'s role to be the lasting/adult primary woman's role in our lives (usually our missus). I don't actually think it's about sex at all really (well obviously it's about preserving the species but hopefully you get my drift). There're a couple of other theories as to possible causes of some homosexuality which seem plausible/likely to me; but I see no reason to call Freud's theory as to the origin of (some imo) homosexuality "nonsense".

Argument from personal credulity.

Meh; argument from personal incredulity. I mean; it's not like you've presented any evidence or rational to falsify my post - so what's your problem?

I dont need to, the only claim I've made is that I hold a certain opinion, the evidence for which is that I hold it. But since I'm here, SAM didn't say that Freud was wrong about absolutely everything, just most everything. A stopped clock is right twice a day. The guy's theories were developed through working with the narrowest subsection of society. His underlying claim, that man is inherently prone to violence ans wrongdoing, and if left to his own devices will follow a path of destruction, comes straight from religion. He has nothing to back this theory up, except what he sees going on in society, and his contact with that narrow field of patients. I mean look, just on the most superficial level of scrutiny, does that make sense to you? That given free rein, the human species would freely choose harmful and destructive behaviour towards its fellows? We are a social species, and rely on each other for survival.

I know SAM didn't say that - I would just say Feud got less than "nearly everything" wrong.....well....perhaps not. Perhaps as a proportion of his work he did get nearly everything wrong - but he did so much that still leaves a lot which he got right.

I wasn't aware that was his singular, underlying claim - and he was an atheist of course so doubt that claim was inspired by religion - maybe the religions and Freud just reached the same conclusion. Correlation does not equal causation (without meaning to sound condescending). I don't know about destruction, as in species extinction but there certainly is a lot of violence and war that has/is occurring - and the most "primitive" human societies we can accurately study today have a lot of violence/destruction.

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2012/1002-amazonian-tribal-warfare-sheds-light-on-modern-violence-says-mu-anthropologist/

“The same reasons – revenge, honor, territory and jealousy over women – that fueled deadly conflicts in the Amazon continue to drive violence in today’s world,” said Walker, lead author and assistant professor of anthropology in MU’s College of Arts and Science. “Humans’ evolutionary history of violent conflict among rival groups goes back to our primate ancestors. It takes a great deal of social training and institutional control to resist our instincts and solve disputes with words instead of weapons. Fortunately, people have developed ways to channel those instincts away from actual deadly conflict. For example, sports and video games often involve the same impulses to defeat a rival group.”

Luckily we're not given free reign; and education is guiding us toward a more peaceful/less lethal future hopefully.

Keep It Real wrote:He wasn't wrong about how to treat homosexuals according to modern Western culture.

This is the most perfect example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy I've seen in awhile. Freud isn't the guy to cite on how to treat homosexuals, unless you're desperate to venerate Freud.