Topic: Is the world too stupid for the psychoanalytic field?
Anonymous A started this discussion 7 years ago#82,310
People think that the alternative to the psychoanalytic field is neuroscience and i suppose in some ways it is but it's very disappointing that they should think so. There's hardly anything more ambitious in the world than the psychoanalytic approach to unravel the mind of humankind. The difference between neuroscience and the psychoanalytic approach is that the latter explains the process as the person is experiencing it and therefore it's infinitely more valuable.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 20 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^][v]#951,095
@previous (A)
No. Dianetics also describes itself as an ambitious attempt to unravel the human mind, and it also seeks to do so through largely hypothetical forces that act on an individual. They use funny language like "dynamics" or "engrams" to talk about urges and unconscious impulses, but the thinking is pretty similar. Why not broaden your horizons?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^][v]#951,097
You're suggesting this to me in a passive aggressive way, aren't you?
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#951,102
@previous (A)
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. If we're classifying sentiments, then me suggesting that you "Upgrade to Dianetics" is downright assertive. I am suggesting that you should explore different ideas. Some conclusions are more difficult to come to if you're limited by a single representational system. Those limitations can lead people to exclude or clumsily shoehorn in ideas and situations that don't fit their ideal construct of how a human mind should work.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#951,106
I didn't come to that conclusion, it's why I asked and I did ask because I had a suspicion that you might lack insight into how your own behavior comes across. Your suggestion might be well meaning, but to compare the two is down right silly and it shows your lack of regard for psychoanalysis, the very same thing i just showed to have high regards for.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#951,109
@previous (A)
Why would it be silly to compare the two? They seem pretty similar in a lot of ways. Why would that comparison show a lack of regard for psychoanalysis? Does the comparison to Scientology offend you? There are many people who hold Scientology in high regard. Do you you think they would similarly offended by the comparison?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#951,113
Yes they would be offended, because in case you're not aware, scientology is not so fond of psychiatry or the psychological field by large. I guess it is silly but mostly because of the the oblivious nature of your suggestion, I suppose that even if you yourself do not consider the psychoanalytic field as valid or scientific, i made it clear that i hold it valid. So in comparison, i proclaimed my love of Christianity and you respond with a suggestion for Islam.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#951,133
@previous (A)
Do you think of psychoanalysis as a religion?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 46 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#951,135
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#951,137
@previous (A)
You seem very eager to attribute thoughts and motives to my comments. It's like you desperately want me to have some kind of opinion or judgment on things. Why do you do that?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#951,140
I think you're projecting buddy. I was just answering you.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 16 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#951,147
@previous (A)
Usually just answering someone doesn't involve accusations of projecting or being passive-aggressive. You keep responding to questions with accusations instead of explanations.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#951,153
Well I'm sorry if you feel like I have mistreated you. I guess in a way you are right, I am wondering how you see psychoanalysis or rather what you consider it to be. That's justifiable for reasons I've already explained. As to the accusation of projecting? Well, as I've said, I really was just answering your question.
Anonymous B replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#951,154
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#951,190
@951,109 (C)
I don't think Dianetics is really that weird.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#951,196
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
A lot of it is pretty basic stuff that people can relate to easily. Much like you can read through psychoanalytic theory and feel that the idea of id, ego, and superego is pretty intuitive, you can read through Dianetics and pick up his system of dynamics and feel like it describes a natural system of priorities an individual would adopt. Using guided talk-therapy to get someone to face problems can be great for some people. I can't say I particularly agree with how either psychoanalysis or auditing goes about it, but both were promoted as being of some benefit. Hubbard loses me when he starts asserting that most of our ailments are psychosomatic or can be traced back to cellular memories we have to work through. Similarly, Freud loses me with his ideas about development and unconscious symbolism.
It's like they both found a way of looking at the world that really resonated as true and then felt compelled to dream up reasons (pretty fanciful reasons, in my opinion) about why it should be so. Not just those two either, there are plenty of other schools of thought that build pretty fanciful hypotheses upon a solid sounding foundation. It's like someone had a good idea and thought that every idea that built on it must also be equally brilliant.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 10 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#951,301
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 15 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#951,659
@951,301 (A) > I think the symbolism part is a stroke of genius though. What is it that you don't like about it?
The symbolism and interpretation is really better suited to story telling and literary criticism. Trying to apply it to people in general and then come up with some mental gymnastics about why it applies differently to different people just fails in my opinion. The more you read about it, the more it becomes evident that it is just an increasing silly series of post hoc rationalizations made in an attempt to keep the theory afloat while trying to tie each individual's story up in a tidy little ending. Freud's contemporaries and followers really tried to keep the trend alive by separating out symbols that could be applied universally from symbolism with personal meaning, but they still didn't add anything testable or useful. In my opinion, it's all just indulging in a needless story telling process in the end.