I'm new in psychology and when I study from my textbook usually I encounter with Freudian or Neo-Freudian ideas. However how can I know if their ideas are accepted or not?

As an example Freud's types of anxieties. Reality anxiety, moral anxiety, neurotic anxiety. I want to know if psychologists currently accept this classification or not.

Like I sad i'm new in psychology. My question may show lack of understanding in some points, I would be even happier if you point those out so that I can learn more.

Care to tell us your textbook's title and author(s)? If you usually encounter Freudian or Neo-Freudian ideas in it you probably got the wrong one.

ogger wrote:I'm new in psychology and when I study from my textbook usually I encounter with Freudian or Neo-Freudian ideas. However how can I know if their ideas are accepted or not?

As an example Freud's types of anxieties. Reality anxiety, moral anxiety, neurotic anxiety. I want to know if psychologists currently accept this classification or not.

Like I sad i'm new in psychology. My question may show lack of understanding in some points, I would be even happier if you point those out so that I can learn more.

If I may ask a question to answer your question: are you studying just for personal interest, or for an academic institute?

If it's for the latter, I should hope you'd be given insight into the history of psychology that would essentially walk you through the changing ideas up until the present. I may be wrong on a global level, but typically in the West, Freud isn't taught in Psychology degrees, although it may be talked about, but some other disciplines seem to still continue using some of his ideas as if they weren't outdated.

If it's for the former, I think it really comes down to what you're trying to achieve and ultimately it's whatever titillates you. If it's a comprehensive understanding of Psychology, then perhaps a text book that covers a broad sweep of Psychology as they will usually explain what's fallen out of favour and why.

If you're really committed, then I'd suggest simply suspending any committal of belief until you've done enough leg work to get a better picture.

That bigger picture could start with something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_psychology

For my part, I'd personally suggest moving more towards Cognitive Neuroscience than Psychology as I personally think the general methodology is far sounder and the topic more fertile.

But overall, I'd say that pretty much everything Freudian is going to be very suspect if contemporary ideas are the objective.

Understand Freud as Freud. He mattered a lot at the time because we simply hadn't thought to try to diagram the subconscious. It is all outdated but in lots of ways he asked the right questions.

Edit: double post

BWE wrote:Understand Freud as Freud. He mattered a lot at the time because we simply hadn't thought to try to diagram the subconscious. It is all outdated but in lots of ways he asked the right questions.

In a way, Freud is the Leatherman tool of behavioral studies. Freudians use the Phillips screwdriver to try to bore holes and the pliers to try to cure constipation. It's really a do-everything tool.

ogger wrote:I'm new in psychology and when I study from my textbook usually I encounter with Freudian or Neo-Freudian ideas. However how can I know if their ideas are accepted or not?

As an example Freud's types of anxieties. Reality anxiety, moral anxiety, neurotic anxiety. I want to know if psychologists currently accept this classification or not.

Like I sad i'm new in psychology. My question may show lack of understanding in some points, I would be even happier if you point those out so that I can learn more.

The key to psychoanalytic theory, as with other forms of literature, is learning how to hide your sources. Think of new names for different kinds of anxiety and Bob's your uncle. Re-name your specialty to something with the prefix trans-. Then you'll rope in all the differently-oriented, to use another popular hyphenation.

Popular-hyphenation

Freud made some good headway but also scampered down many fictional blind alleys, is my current understanding. Valuable contributions he made include the whole idea of a "talking cure" and was the progenitor of virtually all forms of psychotherapy in that regard. Within the therapist/client interaction he also identified several very important factors which are at play, including but not limited to projection, transference and countertransference. I also personally find his model of personality to be quite relevant in modelling the human mental condition and have basically no problem with it

Freud VS Bowlby = first round knockout - Bowlby the champion! Long time no see Fal

Indeed..

Hermit wrote:Care to tell us your textbook's title and author(s)? If you usually encounter Freudian or Neo-Freudian ideas in it you probably got the wrong one.

The textbook I use is: Personality by Jerry M. Burger. This is the amazon link: https://www.amazon.com/Personality-Jerr ... 128574022X

Basically author covers different approaches such as cognitive, trait, psychoanalytic etc. to human personality. When covering psychoanalytic approach he introduces Freud's ideas too.

Spearthrower wrote:

ogger wrote:I'm new in psychology and when I study from my textbook usually I encounter with Freudian or Neo-Freudian ideas. However how can I know if their ideas are accepted or not?

As an example Freud's types of anxieties. Reality anxiety, moral anxiety, neurotic anxiety. I want to know if psychologists currently accept this classification or not.

Like I sad i'm new in psychology. My question may show lack of understanding in some points, I would be even happier if you point those out so that I can learn more.

If I may ask a question to answer your question: are you studying just for personal interest, or for an academic institute?

If it's for the latter, I should hope you'd be given insight into the history of psychology that would essentially walk you through the changing ideas up until the present. I may be wrong on a global level, but typically in the West, Freud isn't taught in Psychology degrees, although it may be talked about, but some other disciplines seem to still continue using some of his ideas as if they weren't outdated.

If it's for the former, I think it really comes down to what you're trying to achieve and ultimately it's whatever titillates you. If it's a comprehensive understanding of Psychology, then perhaps a text book that covers a broad sweep of Psychology as they will usually explain what's fallen out of favour and why.

If you're really committed, then I'd suggest simply suspending any committal of belief until you've done enough leg work to get a better picture.

That bigger picture could start with something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_psychology

For my part, I'd personally suggest moving more towards Cognitive Neuroscience than Psychology as I personally think the general methodology is far sounder and the topic more fertile.

But overall, I'd say that pretty much everything Freudian is going to be very suspect if contemporary ideas are the objective.

I study out of personal interest in personality theory. I am covering different approaches and I could cover psychoanalytic approach so far.

What I want to be able to predict ones behavior in a given situation. But I can't grasp the psychology field like I do grasp math or physics. Considering what outcome I want to have from my studies what would you recommend me to do? Should I go with cognitive neuroscience?

ogger wrote:
What I want to be able to predict ones behavior in a given situation.

It rather depends on that 'given situation' because unless it's very particular and very controlled, there are simply too many ways people can respond to be able to make such predictions.

I mean, you can stab someone with a fork and they'll say 'ouch', jump away from the pain and probably become partly bemused partly angry with you - I guess that kind of thing is predictable, but I sense that's not the kind of thing you're talking about.

ogger wrote: But I can't grasp the psychology field like I do grasp math or physics.

I don't think you ever would be able to: there's a reason why the sciences are divided into quantitative and qualitative: quantities always add up, they have a right answer, there's a tangible, objective component to them. Qualitative is all feely stuff - it can be quantified to some degree, but even the categories of quantification are themselves essentially feely things.

If it's math and physics type satisfaction you're after, then I think you're going to need to consider neurosciences.

ogger wrote: Considering what outcome I want to have from my studies what would you recommend me to do? Should I go with cognitive neuroscience?

Different people like different things, and I can't really decree what might float your particular boat. However, if math and physics are your bag, then I can only imagine you'd get more out of neuroscience than psychology.

freudian analysis got hitler right, don't underestimate godwin though.

aufbahrung wrote:freudian analysis got hitler right, don't underestimate godwin though.

That only points to the uselessness of Freudian analysis, because the above suggestion depends on the anonymity of everyone the Freudian analysis did not get right. That's what we inherit from a collection of anecdotes.

Another way to see that there is no system is the famous joke:

How many Freudians does it take to change a light bulb? One, but the bulb really has to want to change.

The only folks who really love Freudianism are the folks who like to theorize; the data themselves are unkind. Freudians always win, at least in their own minds.

ogger wrote:I want to be able to predict ones behavior in a given situation.

This always works, if you know how to pick your given situations.