STEMbros always laugh at the literature students, but what was science in the past has become literature, and without attention, degenerates into apocrypha. If Academia is like a brain, then the literature department is our collective memory. Imperfect as memory may be, we'd be a sorry species without it. The debate in the academic community that unfolds between the disciplines, regarding which path is superior is an infectious plague on our society that needs to be squashed. Every scholar has an implicit bias towards their own practice, and we shouldn't let that bias tarnish our capacity to work interdisciplinarily.
Funny how math and physics never did. What was considered good math in ancient Greece, is still a good math now - although we do have easier ways to reach it now. It's almost like STEM guys have a point.
I played a little game in my theories of personality class: every time my professor mentioned that a theorist was “friends with Freud,” I started counting the seconds until he mentioned that “Freud later cut them off due to creative differences.” The highest was around 200-some seconds.
nope, I mean Freud. Nietzsche acknowledged Schopenhauer but turned against him. Freud never acknowledged Schopenhauer's discussion of the unconscious. @@bce6936
Its because frueds opnions on the human brain fit in more line with a dissection of the fictional brain. That is to say, frueds thoughts are lack luster for psycology but A+ FOR CHARACTER PSYCHOLOGY
Back in high school, I met someone who mentioned they were writing an essay on how Anakin Skywalker’s transformation into Darth Vader was a result of an unfulfilled/disrupted Oedipus Complex.
Jung was a close friend of freud and adapt a lot of freud unconscious theory into his own theory. Joseph campbell is father of modern mythology who created the heros journey troupe, he took a lot of inspiration from jung theory of persona and widely considered to be the disciple of jung George lucas, the man behind star wars use the heros journey as big part refrence So yeah, psychoanalysis is connected to star wars Thank you
Freud got lots of things wrong, and his methods were not really all that scientific. But he created some basic psychological concepts, like repression, which are still used. And as for his writings about the Oedipus/Jocasta/ Electra complexes seem to have been confirmed by the vast amount of online incest porn.
That isn't really a confirmation of any of the complexes that Freud described. Not sure where the desire to murder ones parents fits in with that for instance and without that component it isn't really a Freudian complex.
Point me out if am wrong, but it almost feel like Freud arrived at certain ideas that he did get right in a rather aesthetic "vibes" based manner backed up by some testing rather than arriving at them in very staunch scientific ways. Is that why there is so much ruthless criticism of him in the psych world. Because like u said he got some things horribly wrong and he had some questionable methods but largely he cannot be denied as having come up with ideas that form the very core foundation of psychological study
How were Freud's methods 'not scientific'? This whole idea about Freud having been "debunked" by all the brain science-stuff is nothing but a founding myth of contemporary psychiatry and I don't think their confidence about their own success story is warranted. The Jocasta and Electra stuff is Jungian, btw. In Freudian psychoanalysis the combinatorics of the Oedipal triangle is all you need.
My first foray into psychology and analysis was during an undergrad European Literature course! I was hooked!! Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Tolstoy... To this day, I encourage colleagues and students to read Freud and to consider the impact that "most" of his work has had on all of psychotherapy, neurology, psychiatry, and; yes, literature! Excellent post. Thank you.
Thank you so much! I feel like the turn of the twentieth century produced so much excellent literature, and that the more I read it, the more I see Freud's connection to it.
Im a Psichology student from Argentina, here the psychoanalysis stills alive as the mainstream theory,but its different from the original Freudian psychoanalysis, we study the Lacanian Style.
I’m brasilian and psychoanalysis is also very active here. The theory evolved throughout the years, with different authors line Lacan, Winnicott, Klein, Andre Green, etc Very important wirk Freud has developed. He taught us that a symptom has a history and a message to the individual.
As an English major, I had to read 'Civilizations and its Discontents', and 'The Future of an Illusion' for a Literature & Culture Class. Both (short) books are not about psychoanalysis, they are brilliant expositions on modern society and religion, respectively. I still think about them often over 30 years later. You can still see the influence of those books' ideas and propositions in today's culture, and I highly recommend them to anyone. Very readable, and full of insights that are still very relevant today.
We still study Freud in Intro courses, Personality Theory and/or Dev't Psych courses, and History of Psych courses. (And even in Cognitive courses, to some extent.
his work was mostly subjective and immeasurable which deems it unscientific (role of the unconscious and tripartite personality) and one of psychology's main goals was to be a scientific discipline not a philosophical discipline such as dualism. his work was also very idiographic and based on specific case studies (little hans) that may have been slightly biased due to the father being a follower of freuds theories so it makes it ungeneralisable to a wider population, but it brings in this concept of how childhood affects behaviour as an adult (e.g fixations and psychosexual development) which is fascinating and it was very influential. definitely deserves to be talked about in psychology.
Psychoanalysis is a talking cure, not a measuring cure (like the checkbox-sheet ratrace in cbt) and measurability is a random standard of something being generalisable. The touchstone of psychoanalysis is speech in its relation to the body and it is tested in practice and in conceptual development, not in some impossible ideal laboratory which is the imagined archimedean point of view from which "scientific" psychology operates.
Well, psychology is a "Soft science." Hard sciences such as physics, astronomy, and biology change opinions too, but there are ways that things can be subjectively proven or disproven. Whereas is soft sciences, such as sociology, anthropology, economics and psychology, it is much harder to do so. There are just to many moving parts when you are talking about the behavior of human beings. Marx claimed to make economics scientific, but he didn't. B.F, Skinner tried to make psychology scientific, but he did not. The closest we have come to an objectively scientific form of psychology is neurology, but that sceince4 is still in it's infancy.
Immeasurable means very large, you want unfalsifiable. Dualism is a view or position, not a discipline; the discipline would be "philosophy of the mind" or something similar.
Ah, and Freud was totally not a mind-body dualist either. He probably would have rather liked to be a neuro-reductionist but couldn't because it led to a dead end clinically.
As a Psychology student, Freud, though is still being studied as an introductory part of our course, is largely being discussed as akin to Aristotle's Physics as to Newton's Principia Mathematica: Meaning that he is only a stepping stone for the later development of major Psychological School of Thoughts and other reknowned people such as Jung, Fromm etc. Nowadays, Psychology leans towards the scientific side of things, where only falsifiable and observable things are held up, rather than the literature side of things such as Freud, since the Ego and the Id are not falsifiable as to a Popperian Notion. His views on women also did not held up well adding for refuting and dismissing his views by most Psychologists nowadays. Even then, I think reading Freud is still essential especially if you're interested within how he influenced the whole social science department. Furthermore, there are also modified versions of his psychoanalysis which are used from therapy. I just bought a book of Freud's selections which are titled "Vintage Freud: Essentials of Psychoanalysis" and I must say I enjoy reading it with an open mind.
In Ireland, it's possible for a judge to order you to attend psychoanalysis by a Freud impersonator pretending to be a real psychologist. Pretending that Freud was secretly right and is simply unpopular has consequences. And it is hurting people.
I’m a double major in psychology and communication studies and it’s been interesting seeing how both departments interpret freud’s theories. For psychology we did learn about him in our intro course, however he’s seen as a stepping stone for later psychologists with many of his theories being seen as unfalsifiable and at worst problematic for the perception of psychology as a whole. In comm studies I’m taking a media criticism class and we’ve talked about psychoanalytic criticism which ties back to this. These theories are useful as a way to analyze stories and film, and although they’ve fallen out of fashion with the psych department (for good reason) they still are interesting to use as a lense to interpret media because certain concepts do show up a lot.
For my A-levels I chose German (I live in Germany, so it's like your English) as one of my main subjects. Last year we did Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis for a bit, and we used Freud's model of the 3 parts of a psyche to analyze a lot about Gregor and his family, it was surprisingly interesting haha
How are you doing. Iam Arabic lady subscriber to several British and American CZcams channels. We are as foreigners subscribers as overseas students want to increase our cultural level, improve our English language as well and literature lovers too . Thank you for your wonderful cultural channel. I gathered main information about topic you mentioned briefly here first of all Sigmund Freud was Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis including theories of ego , superego , Oedipus complex , repression, defence mechanism , stages of psych sexual development. Freud influence theory on literature because his theory of unconscious had most impact on modernist literature, Freud had belief that human mind had enormous unconscious as compare to conscious . This unconscious mind was responsible for many human behaviors and rules over people mental lives without them even knowing. Iam so sorry to be little long but reading and writing both are great ways to improve our English as none native speakers. Best wishes for you your loved ones .
I think it's because literature (not all) is ultimaly more complex. Since has to be reducionist in order to be safe and concrete. Whereas literature can go to places that peer reviewed science can never reach. It can be wrong, but in a interesting way, and in that way being right.
It's because it's like a crutch to actual creativity. It's like one of those Joseph Campbell hero's journey shit. Templates or archetypes to base your stories or characters off of.
@@lorenzomizushal3980 So true creativity makes no reference to the past, is that what you're saying? Or perhaps you mean that active engagement with archetypes, and genera, is inferior to intuition? If the later is true, does that mean those who depend on reason rather than intuition are merely approximating a creative process, and not truly creative, no matter how novel their ideas may seem? What about creativity applied to nominal problems like engineering, and not art, like the kind of creativity employed by Jung and Freud?
I'm not sure literature is ultimately more complex, so much as it lets us more easily engage with extremely complex ideas. But, when we do so, it's through an extremely lossy compression. Contemplating an entire human being in a loose, artistic sense is already a monumental task, but it will never be as complicated as contemplating every atom in that person individually, every cell and organ, every psychological quirk, every social and cultural relationship that person has with every other human, and all the atoms and cells in those humans. Literature lets us see the shadows cast by these unimaginably complex systems, and *that* is its strength (no human person could do the atom thing, but many people can read literature and glean something, however incomplete a glimpse it is).
Hi thanks for this wonderful video and the extension of psychoanalysis in litterature. Also I just wanted to add that even if it less common than others methods psychoanalytic concepts and ideas are still used in a clinical settings ( ie with patients.) Anyway great video !
I took AP Literature and we discussed Freud then. My teacher made a distinction of how wrong Freud was about Human Psychology and how people can not be analyzed using his methods, but his methods were practical and simplistic enough for explaining Fictional Characters.
Freud is important in the field of history, as well, since in the West, he held such sway over most people in many crucial professions (medicine, education, psychology, etc.) We can't really understand the culture of the 20th century if we don't understand Freud.
I’m in a PsyD program and we read and study Freud constantly, no idea what they are talking about. Even if you disregard some of his conclusions, he is the foundation of psychology
As someone who Triple majored in Psychology, Biology, and Creative Writing, this is something I had always wondered but no one was ever able to give me a clear answer to.
I did a very lightly academic and mostly practical 3D animation Bachelor's degree, but to my surprise we had a very nice Cultural Studies class where we learned about Freud, Lacan, Zizek...
This is something that a famous Italian writer named Svevo said “grande uomo, ma piu per i romanzieri che per gli ammalati" “great man, but more for the writer than for the sick”
What's Uncanny (& pardon the pun here) is that when I studied Literature, my professors hated Freud but always included him in the Theories. Nice video, by the way ...
People hate Freud for, ahem, FREUDIAN reasons. He was by all accounts a successful physician, a groundbreaking scholar. Like the man who invents and designs sewers, the repulsive associations of his work diminishes the contributions he makes to societies.
@OxfordCommaEducation psychology abandoned Freud because selling drugs makes alot more money than healing people. Notice how every psych drug doesn't work on its own. I'm not exaggerating. Any psych drug is intended to be taken and monitored by a psychologist and regular therapist. Even if you wanna blind yourself to the necessity of freuds work, by implying the regime change to psych meds. The meds don't work without cbt and having a psychiatrist change the meds when they inevitably disrupt your already SICK brain chemistry. The meds don't work by themselves. In my non medical opinion they don't work at all, in practice it's the placebo of cbt and having a "DoCToR" prescribed you a "MedIcINE" for a "dISeaSe".
@@John_Malka-tits it really is sad to see how bad of a reputation he's gotten due to the immoral use of his theories. but people who blame him for it fail to consider that the state of psychology was even worse before him. it would be like trying to blame Darwin for racism and social Darwinism.
Psychoanalysis is not a science, it is an interpretative grid. But that does not make it less interesting. That's why you cannot really "debunk" or "disprove" many elements of it. It always lands back on its feet. For instance, in Woody Allen's Alice, the titular character meets her lover. She tells him: "Sorry, I can't do that, I'm scared, I'm scared of lying to my husband, of meeting you in secret!" Her lover replies:"But maybe you are *not* afraid of doing such things. Maybe you are afraid because you realise that you are, in fact, capable of such things?" How can you prove or disprove that? You can't. The Freudian theory is not right or wrong. That's just an interpretation. And sure, Freud is heavily criticised today, but the fact is... his theories were already heavily criticised in his time! Freud's theories have always been, from the start, controversial.
Unfounded, unfalsifiable accusations of incestuous desire ended up hurting his clients. What a surprise. Keep him for literary purposes, but please, do not present him as a secret source of old practical knowledge that is simply unpopular. It is extremely irresponsible.
Thank you for this video, after finally reading about and listening of Carl Jung. I became so unbelievably confused on why we talk about Freud in high school so much. I'm excited for us to change that in schools for our children, grandchildren, and their descendants.
Psychologist here. It is disgraceful we no longer read Freud. I went through analysis but am more in the existential-phenomenological camp now, but his insights are still valuable and the basics of psychoanalysis such as the couch and free association are important. Compare him with shallow nonsense like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy today and it is clear we need more Freud and less psychological "science."
Literature cares about Freud because they care about having many lenses of interpretation. Psychology doesn't care about Freud because they care about testable truths.
It wasn’t until the end of the video that I realized just jow little views this has, it deserves a lot more! Hope it gets pushed in the algorithm for a lot more people like it did for me
I was in hard science and actually did some in the emerging field of computational neuroscience. Psych focused on Skinner and the behaviorism movement and I concluded psych suffered from physics envy. They wanted to look like they were a real science. Did not want to touch consciousness. What I saw was the class was teaching students to be able to become dog trainers. I read Freud in HS and really liked it and saw more science in terms of Mind than I saw in teaching rats to do tricks. Yeh. Partial reinforcement. Not too deep. Now they cling to a new title of cognitive neuroscience. That is just computational neuroscience and not psych
That’s basically the heart of the problem. Psychology as field suffers from an inferiority complex. You can even find in this comment section people being basically embarrassed that Freud is the quintessential psychologist in the public consciousness. They want to be taken serious and unquestionable but the irony is that Freud had that same mindset for the standards of his time. This serious mindset of today has also not helped to avoid the replication crisis
All of the social sciences suffer from this inferiority complex. Last time I looked at any contemporary literary criticism, the essays were obsessed with becoming a "science", NOT with appreciating the art.
Well, Freud himself written about how venturing into the unconscious wouldn't be a scientific in nature and can't be falsifiable but nonetheless important. Freud is much more honest than most scientists right now tbh, he understood that himself as neuroscientist can't fulfill his interest of the unconscious and the psych so he switched disciplines. Freud trying to indulge with his ideas to its fullest have created branches of intrigue that expand to many disciplines, his curiosity really create a movement of influence that effect many school of thoughts. Most Freud ideas aren't accurate right now, but this isn't significant tbh, since disagreement with theories can be also type of learning.
@@OxfordCommaEducationit heavily influenced the performing arts at the university i went to. theater students referenced psychology and philosophy. i was in viual arts and i remember studying john bergers way of seeing, which featured subliminal messaging.
In Argentina Freud IS psychology lol I’m not a psychologist myself, but I’m pretty sure that to this day, psychoanalysis is by far the most common type of therapy. Everyone loves him. Psy students and therapy goers alike.
I'd like to ask John Greene how Oedipus being obsessed with avoiding to do the Oedipal thing isn't Oedipal? And I'd like to ask you what gave you the idea that Freud would have been "debunked" by the brain science and all of that. I could just as well say that the naivetes of psychopharmacology, neuro-reductionism and behavioral therapy have been largely debunked by psychoanalytic critique. It is just that the latter techniques have more institutional backing due to their better manageability.
Well I'm not sure John Greene will respond, but my statement about Freud being debunked by modern scientific methods is meant as an observation, not a declaration. I'm not a psychologist, but the vast majority of modern psychologists seem to suggest that fMRIs show that the brain does not store repressed memories in the way that Freud thought. Obviously, the modern scientific community has its own agenda and motivations, but I would be willing to bet that most researchers are operating in good faith. Freud had a lot of great ideas and I really respect his work as an essayist, but sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.
@@OxfordCommaEducation Yeah, you got me there - I'll ask John next time myself! I appreciate your response though. Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing anyone of bad faith - it's just about the structural blindness that encompasses any set of beliefs and operating principles. And the working assumptions of what you call "modern psychology" - which I'd rather call something like psychological positivism, since psychoanalysis is profoundly modern in a lot of ways - by definition and mission statement exclude a lot of the questions that are elementary to psychoanalysis (e.g. the question of the efficacy of speech). Apart from that, the claim about memory storage you made is very specific, but based on a representationalist assumption about there being a directly translateable neurological substratum to psychic phenomena. But Freud never claimed such a thing - he just systematized his observations about the hypermnestic characteristics of the unconscious in his clinic and in his self-analysis. I could go further into this if you would like to, but since you made it clear that you don't claim to be an expert this stuff, I just hope to interest you in diving a little deeper into what contemporary psychoanalysis itself has to say, rather than what the cbt- and neuro-reductionist types of psychologists have to say *about* it. (I'd really recommend Jamieson Webster's article on "The Psychopharmacology of Everyday Life" in the NY Review of Books for a start).
@@PoetOfNoise Thank you for bringing in such an informed perspective! I would love to dive deeper into this subject, and I will certainly check out Webster's article. You would probably find the podcast I linked in the description very interesting. The guest is a great defender of Freud and the host is quick to point out that we need to be careful not live in a world where we only accept truths if they match our readings on brain scans.
@@OxfordCommaEducation Thanks, I'll check out the podcast! Just in case, I'd also be really interested in what you think about the article, should you have read it some time.
Quite right. Freud's not a psychologist. He's a philosopher. His works are not scientific when measured by Popper's falsifiability criterion, but the man clearly changed the way we perceive the world and how we understand human behaviour. His concepts pepper our language almost as much as Shakespeare's. We inhabit a Freudian universe.....
The final short essay in Civilisation and its discontents is a monumental stride forward in conceptualising the modern human predicament. I don't know why modern psychiatry or psychologists consider themselves more advanced. I haven't seen a single person ever regain emotional and mental well-being through SSRIs or CBT - not one person. I know a lot of people who discovered mental and emotional well-being in diverse ways - from dance, to sex, to religion, to friendships, to EFT or bodywork, art therapy or even just spending time in nature. People do actually make improvements when they connect back into their more basic primal selves. While Freud advocated so-called therapy - also ineffective, he did at least provide some kind of diagnosis about one or two significant causes of people's internal problems. I don't really know how anyone can even consider modern psychology or psychiatry sciences, much less effective treatment paradigms. Neither have a strong record of actually getting people better. Beyond this human psychology cannot be rigorously studied because there simply is no way to achieve a double bind study in psychological or psychiatric studies. There is also no way to only vary one variable with human beings. In reality every imaginable and unimiginable variable will be different across the sample. You would have to be very, very simple minded to believe otherwise.
Fully agree with the last part about the experimental variables being far too diverse, but… I think you’re not only giving Freud enough credit, but not giving SSRIs enough credit. I’m one person who definitely benefitted from them!
I just got the dreaded 'iceberg' metaphor in psych today. as far as I understand, our prof offered a very tepid interpretation of Parapaxis and Unconcious--drives or otherwise. I think contemporary psychology denies Freud at its own loss--if not by overlooking contemporary Psychodynamic/Psychoanalysis. that being said, y'know, there was a cognitive revolution...
The premise of this video is incredibly bizarre to me, there are multiple psychologists in my family and all of them, including the youngest one that graduated less than 5 years ago own Freud books that they had to read for college. At least here in Argentina where we have the most psychologists per capita of any country he still seems to be considered important.
I attended graduate school in clinical psychology in the 1980s and we read original works of Freud: “the interpretation of dreams,“ “civilization and its discontents,“ and others. They were dense reads, but I’m glad I read them. I think Freud still holds a lot of influence, especially among practicing psychotherapists. A lot of his theories are at this point laughable, but basic premises are not. That there is an unconscious, that the personality and the psychology of a person develops over the childhood years and is affected by experiences during that time etc. . Many psychoanalytic theorists following Freud, added onto his groundwork and groundbreaking theories and concepts. these would include John Bowlby, and others related to mother Child interactions, and primitive drives and internal conflict manifesting in adult behavior, ala Klein. . For me, my immersion into psychoanalytic theory, especially freud, set a framework and outlook that I’ve retained through the 30 years of being a psychologist, despite the empirical insistence that we have today in the field.
i'm reading "The interperation of dreams" (translated to english) at the moment, and can't really place my finger on why it feels so different from the million other books i have read. It feels hard and heavy to read, and like he rambles a lot, trying to provide proof and evidence, that simply isn't there. i find myself reading pages, understanding the individual words, but realise i have no idea what i have been reading, or what he is trying to say/ proof by it. i was wondering if you felt the same way? or if i should maybe try a different copy from a different translator/ more modern translation, etc.
Our snowmen souls remember Valley Forge. Our breath the canon smoke of winter’s past. Our frozen fingers bend the taffy torn and share the pieces on this frigid path. Were poorer humans really meant to freeze? Thy cheeks inspired macarons to pink; thy face reminds the rich we need some heat! but pleads for fire’s chatter on the bricks. We all deserve a palace fireplace, a hall to dance beneath their chandeliers. Our snowflake faces blizzard at their gates, the guiIIotine in the distance blurs. Oh but for now you’re pretty in thy rags because there’s plenty that thy face can ask.
Freud isn't studied in psychology because it is a science, and sciences move on. Physicists don't obsess about Newton or Einstein, they learn the current science. It is a weakness of the humanities that scholarship remains focused for centuries or even millenia on a few superstars instead of making progress. Why haven't philosophers figured out all they need to know from Plato by now?
And yet you are obsessed with Freud? It was funny how much psychology lecturers wasted time to mock Freud. He is living rent free in our heads. Similarly western philosophy has been anti-platonistic for 2000 years. Philosophy and psychology has their own symptoms (platonism and psychoanalysis) and you have to find the right medicine
@@markbranham7355 "Eppur si muove". And still we are fascinated how lightsabers and time travel work in fiction. Have you seen how mad Star Wars fans are after the writers break some commonly understood "laws of nature" like teleportation?
How we think about the world and ourselves (as humans) constantly chances (psychological, societal and cultural). There are alot interpretations and assumptions to make and referring back to old texts and knowledge helps us contextualise and categories our thoughts. Physics on the other hand do not change. We just discover more accurate methods and models.
@@grunertee3930 Also good to remember that science and physics research doesn't happen in a vacuum. Your surroundings make you itchy and simultaneously makes you able to scratch the itch. University (or a teacher) is often the entity that makes you itchy and you can scratch that by doing research or studying
I had a professor of theory of literature whose research revolved around applying Freud's theory on feminist literature. He said the first thing he looked for in a therapist was whether he was Freudian, for he would not consult with anyone who wasn't. Even at the time knowing the little I knew about Freud I found it funny how he did not see the irony.
I read Freud in a philosophy seminar class. I also took an intro level psychology class where they touched on him quickly, but didnt say a lot. After that, I didnt take any more psych.
not an expert here. but i have taken a few college psychology classes. My question for those who know more about psychology is, if Freudian and Neofreudian psychodynamic don’t count as psychology because they are not scientific enough, I don’t think we should count cognitivist models of semantic memory as scientific either. Many theories of semantic memory uses machine learning and borrows heavily from information processing theory. If my knowledge is correct, they are merely theoretical models that don’t have enough empirical validation either. So why invalidate psychoanalysis, especially the more interesting developments in the field like Lacan and Klein.
This is funny, but doing English at Oxford in 1972 I quickly found that my teenage reading in Freud and Jung was laughably out of date! Not surprising that Psych students don't read them.
I believe the reason why psychology majors in some first-world countries don't study Freud is similar to the reason why economics majors don't study Marx. The objects addressed by both authors are not prioritized in those sciences in those countries. For example, here in Brazil, psychoanalysis is still the primary theory in psychology courses and research. This is not because we are some scientifically outdated latins (that is the racist explanation some people use to explain why psychoanalisis is still studied in latin america and france), but because it aligns with our societal needs as a country that recently emerged from a military dictatorship and is working on establishing a universal healthcare system. Expanding on the topic of psychoanalysis being scientifically debunked by MRI and peer-reviewed research, this is not accurate. In psychology, there have been no such findings yet. This misconception reminds me of an article on Wikipedia where, in the discussion section, someone claimed that Chomsky's Language Acquisition Device was never observed via MRI, so it's debunked. This is a clear misinterpretation of what Chomsky was saying and the subject he was addressing. I believe Freud and the authors who developed psychoanalysis face similar misinterpretations
I think Freud is read by literature students mainlt because one of his biggest critics was C.S. Lewis, and therefore, literature students read both Lewis and Freud together in considering their arguments, setting the two men up in a kind of debate.
@@OxfordCommaEducation In The Pilgrim's Regress, Lewis parodied Freud in the character of the giant in the cave in that whatever he looks upon becomes transparent, creating horrors, showing that when one deconstructs everything one is left with nothing. The University of California also posted a video on CZcams of Dr. Armand Nicholi discussing both Lewis and Freud.
There is one more reason to read him as a literary scholar: While Freud's views on human psychology are nonsense, a lot of authors until today do employ his ideas into creating their stories because they actually believe his ideas to be correct. We should never forget that stories do not actually reflect reality, they reflect a given author's impression and view of reality. So, any major movement in worldview that was employed by authors on some scale (like Freud's psychoanalysis) ought to be known by literary scholars.
That's a good point. Works like Kafka on the Shore come to mind. Though I don't know if authors subscribe to Freud's ideas as truth or just find them interesting.
It's so sad how americans despise Psychoanalysis. I've seen it success in the clinic for years now, where cognitive therapies wont touch cause it's not scientific. What the hell. Humans dont function scientifically. We are too complicated. I hope it reborns to be part of the cultural and health enviromental overthere as it is in other countries strong and going.
IMO one the the reasons literary critics like Freud is because of his claim that the psychoanalyst can know the patient's mind better than the patient does. So they figure that means that they can know an author's mind better than the author does. Northrop Frye said as much. I'm skeptical.
That's a very thought provoking point. Also, I love that Northrop Frye has entered the conversation. I kind of feel dumb for overlooking his work when researching this video. For me, I think Freud was a great scholar of literature. But I don't think his scholarship of literature proves his psychoanalytic theories.
I don’t think anyone can know the author’s mind better than themself, especially if they’re dead (literally). BUT. I think the text, as an autonomous open object, can hold meaning and possibilities that the author did not envision, that can however be adequately sustained by the text itself
Harold Bloom - for whatever else he's said - is right the literature's representation of human affairs, impulses, motivations, etc. predates psychological theories.
In South American and iirc France he still is widely taught. I am myself a psychoanalyst, and tough we have made several advances and changes in the psychoanalytical technique, Freud is one of the less understood geniuses I've ever seen. Of course, he made mistakes and was a rather difficult person if we take how often he cut others off, but his books are highly sensible, and his method much deeper than his critics make them up to be.
What do you mean “the psychoanalytical approach to literature they spawned were not [“debunked”]”? Like in what sense? If the claims are not scientifically supported in psychology, they wouldn’t be in literature either. Maybe you can get away with using a tool that doesn’t work if you’re displaying it in art. In art you probably should mock as much as you can. And if there are popular beliefs about psychology, even if they’re wrong, maybe you should play on those tropes. In stories you can also have supernatural elements. That doesn’t mean there are good reasons to think that there are actual supernatural events in reality. So in what sense is it “not debunked”. Clearly not in the sense of psychoanalysis being the currently best description of our minds… Btw, you can try to write literature using the best of modern psychology. It’s a hassle to stay up to date as a writer. And you still have to make it into a compelling narrative. And many people might not understand themselves and others well enough for it to fully resonate. But still.
I'll answer your question "What are we to do with (Freud's) views today?" Read the original text, or re read it. In "Civilization And Its Discontents" Freud wrote that woman "caused" both civilization and something else (that I'll divulge in Part 2 if anyone's interested). If they were satisfied with a nice mud hut, and would pass out bedroom rewards to any man who built them one, or found 'em a nice cave, we'd still be living in huts and caves. But woman were not satisfied. So we men built better and better homes for our families. What happened? Eventually skyscrapers did. Thanks woman. You laid down the law, and we all get to enjoy civilization as a result. If Freud would have left it there, he'd still be considered one of the great minds. But Part 2 is the other half of what Freud said woman "caused" or brought about. Just type "What is Part 2?" and I'll respond.
Fundamentally, science and liberal arts are completely different in the ways they work as fields of knowledge. Psychology is a soft science, which means that it relies on the scientific method, falsifiability/provability, in order to build knowledge. It orients itself around objective information, that is, information about the world that we can prove. Literature is a liberal art or one of the humanities, meaning that it relies on close-reading, textual evidence, context, and literary analysis to build knowledge. It orients itself around subjective information, meaning knowledge about culture, history, human stories, narratives, our thoughts and feelings about who we are and what we do. The reason why Freud is still used in literature and not in modern psychology is because psychologists no longer need to depend on what they see as outdated and unhelpful information whereas literary scholars still find Freud useful for exploring the complex and sometimes self-deceptive ways in which culture, identity, and narrative intertwine and interact.
Because of therapeutic practice I think the distance between literature and psychology is overinflated. This is the only or main reason I still see Freud as relevant, not as a psychological model per se but a framework through which to look at the "talk" part of talk therapy, or as some philosophers would have it a way to "bring back the subject" into psychology given as psychology has gotten more scientific it has ironically elided the subject, which seems like a non-trivial aspect of mental life. It puzzles me how psychologists are so hostile to psychoanalysis when they roughly have similar reasons to discard folk psychology, i.e. popular cultural descriptions of metaphysically posited mental states like "emotions." Basically, I don't see how psychologists don't just become psychiatrists aside from smuggling in metaphysics.
Literature is unconstrained by the inconveniences of empirical assessment. It is constrained only by our imaginations and thrives in ambiguity. Psychology, as it is presently practiced, aims at being scientific and robust, so the fact that Freud lacked any clear empirical grounding for his psychoanalytical theories explains why he is ignored in psychology today. It does not surprise me that Freud, like postmodernists and post-structuralists, are nevertheless lionized in literature departments. They play with ideas unconstrained by empirical reality -- in other words, they inhabit the realm of imagination -- and often provide little more than wordplay disguised so as to give the air of truth and profundity.
@@filip1261 Lol as a joke, maybe. In my Psyche 101 and 102 both profs despised Freud and only 101 covered him as historically relevant. Even after I graduated, they still talk about 'Freudian' Psychologists in groans, disbelief and disgust.
Dealing with the humans psyche of a individual is very much dealing with the subjective. Also what a human being ultimately is is dependent on ones world view (psyche is about a human being as a whole including what we not can see). Reducing all this to what scientifically can be observed and tested one will end up with little and one will practice psychology based upon black & white views on what a human is (for which there is no proof also). Anyway Freud discovered the unconscious which is one of the biggest achievements in psychology ever. Leaving this guy out that is idiotic at best.
You can understand Freud more as an renascence scientist that was prolific in different subject and in so beeing was an absurd observer with an aesthetical sensitivity and an sistemática and methodological rigor. That's something rare. There is no reason not to study Freud as I'm really suspicious about people who say "he got it wrong" and don't understand his epistemology. They don't know what they are talking about. As for anglo Saxon universities it look like that Freud got out of favor far more because of power and dispute of prestige than for validity and effectiveness, that because a lot of meta-analysis point out that in the mid to long term effect range psychoanalys exceed of the more so called "evidence based" approach (that with a enough deep research don't have that much of an hard science evidence as they claim). Of course where psychoanalysis was not ostracized from college courses, psychoanalysis kept evolving, specially in France, Latin America, india and places like California and the English school. Countries as Sweden are backing off of their disastrous desission to base their public psychology offerings exclusively on so called "evidence based" psychology because it didn't show any difference and in some cases it got even worse. This ostracizing of psychoanalysis has far more to do with power games in the Anglo-Saxon domain, the interest from the ensurence companies and really intelectual dumbness from the pragmatical epistemology from the American culture.
Nono, Freud is still used, just, not as a theory. Their work is fuckin riddled with holes, but while it itself is not particularly useful, using it as a metatheory (Which is to say, looking at how people iterated and added onto these ideas) is still fairly useful to this date, as there were some crumb of interesting theories to explore among all the nonsense. Kinda what Vigotsky is to Constructivism in Pedagogy and Didactics, just, a fairly useless piece of theory in it of itself that many other academics on the field looked at and iterated upon to build a lot of modern theory
People really tend to undermine how much of Freud’s concepts were derived from direct contact with “patients” and reviews of case studies. Even the more famous case studies were only the most famous of what was a daily practice of interacting with what they would call “analysands.” This is why a lot of his ‘concepts’ remain very relevant in clinical practice - which is also devalued by psychology programs rooted in the idea that research psychology > clinical psychology. So when people say that Freud’s method wasn’t scientific or that it was just based on “vibes,” it misrepresents the intellectual labor that actually went into constructing his concepts. Not all scientific methods look exactly the same: what Darwin did to discover evolution is not the same as what Lavoisier did to bring about a revolution in chemistry. But it is without a doubt the case that at the very least one can argue that Freud was definitely implementing and practicing a form of research that we today might consider a qualitative approach to the study of the human psyche and subject.
It’s also funny how all the critiques of Freud as pseudoscience go back to Karl Poppers critique of psychoanalysis as not falsifiable when there have been generations of philosophers of science since Popper who have criticized the idea of science as being synonymous with falsifiability. This is why the history of ideas is always important to know: no matter your discipline, no matter what else you have to understand, because you will begin to believe or discredit or misrepresent ideas that are still constitutive of your world’s worldview without completely and truly understanding why.
Freud's theories aren't all debunked - it's just that 90% of them are so foundational now that we take them for granted, the only ones we still attribute to him are the ones that are still debated
For sure, the video is meant to address the general academic trend; it won't reflect everyone's specific experiences. But, it could also be that the academic winds are changing. If you don't mind sharing, what works of Freud did they have you read?
Never underestimate the power of a hack fraud to do damage the pursuit of knowledge. One thing for Freud to shit on the arts, that’s what art is for. But another for old Sigy to interfere with actual science.
I always hated people using the term "Freudian slip" at every fucking occasion. Which is why I inherently hate Freud. So the fact that his works are considered pseudoscience just brings joy to me.
I hate Freud. He's like Plato. He reasons about things, but thats the only thing he does. So, he's almost entirely wrong. The difference between these two and their contemporaries was that their ideas became well accepted and were influential.
@@OxfordCommaEducation That explains something of how he got to his position. It certainly doesn't make his views valuable or accurate. He goes beyond making subjective observations - he makes real claims as to the psychology of the writers he analyses which we now know are probably wrong. Unfortunately, there is no empirical process in literature analysis to purge him in the same way the sciences were able to.
I was speaking in generalizations, it certainly doesn't apply to every course. If you don't mind sharing, I'd be interested to know what about Freud your Psych 101 focused on.
If you look at reality and insist it other than a layers of reality, you are seeing it as a religion. For all I know, whatever this analysis or diagnostic is just an attempt to parade rationality inorder to compensate. It's hard to find distinction in such practices, it's unanimously carved into a desk work. But the problem of Freud, that it tries to beguile or edge in a fictional narrative. Freud's has always being widely used as some sort of "secret narrative." There's no problem with Freud, it's those who lack the capacity to create their own perspective. "Even things out" or "nuance" is rare to majority.
Fair enough! The short version is that there are different academical politics and histories. The "truth" is what the syllabus says is true. That is, what the people who made it say is true. And the people who made the last one were students of the people who made the previous one and so forth "libertad de cátedra" has it's downsides.
La psicología es hija del Psicoanálisis. Todas las corrientes son deudoras de Freud@@Siroitin . Tu observación es anacrónica a lo que se entendía como ciencia en el momento que Freud escribió. Y está cesgada por una comprensión actual, tecnocrática, de lo que lo que es o no ciencia.
The MRIs and peer-reviewed articles have debunked nothing - quite the contrary, the only moments when neurology or psychiatry manage to explain something or to achieve something, anything is... when they use Freud (without quoting him. And now you know why some psy libs do not have Freud at all... ). Also, psychological profiling of killers or politicians makes extensive use of Freud (of course, again, without quotes nor references). Freud is banned from psichology because his method is the only one that actually works, while all the others fail miserably by falling in the medieval; rabbit hole of believing in tooth fairies, aka as genes and genetics. And every time a neurologist or a psychiatrist attempts to debunk something using the tooh fairy aka gene & genetics... his/her peer reviewed reserach gets quickly debunked. But fortunately, eveyone else keep repeating, like parits, that freud has been ... debunked. I take it as a testimony of stupidity, and also, as a testimony on how stupidity perpetuates and reproduces itself. Meanwhile, the big money keep flowing into a science that preeces the infailibility of the tooth-fairy-gene, while freud is out of the shelves and of the mindframes. if freud is out, why even bother to ask whether Kernberg or Kohut are present...
STEMbros always laugh at the literature students, but what was science in the past has become literature, and without attention, degenerates into apocrypha. If Academia is like a brain, then the literature department is our collective memory. Imperfect as memory may be, we'd be a sorry species without it. The debate in the academic community that unfolds between the disciplines, regarding which path is superior is an infectious plague on our society that needs to be squashed. Every scholar has an implicit bias towards their own practice, and we shouldn't let that bias tarnish our capacity to work interdisciplinarily.
I like this so much
Bro wrote the most profound analysis of the academic world in a CZcams comment 😂
Beautifully put.
Funny how math and physics never did. What was considered good math in ancient Greece, is still a good math now - although we do have easier ways to reach it now. It's almost like STEM guys have a point.
@@migmit astrology was essentially science back when science was just looking at stars and telling stories. It’s obviously not science now
I played a little game in my theories of personality class: every time my professor mentioned that a theorist was “friends with Freud,” I started counting the seconds until he mentioned that “Freud later cut them off due to creative differences.” The highest was around 200-some seconds.
Freud owed so much to Schopenhauer yet denied reading him.
@@smkh2890wasn't that Nietzsche
nope, I mean Freud. Nietzsche acknowledged Schopenhauer but turned against him. Freud never acknowledged Schopenhauer's discussion of the unconscious. @@bce6936
@@smkh2890 like what
Wasn't Carl Jung the same way?
Its because frueds opnions on the human brain fit in more line with a dissection of the fictional brain. That is to say, frueds thoughts are lack luster for psycology but A+ FOR CHARACTER PSYCHOLOGY
Back in high school, I met someone who mentioned they were writing an essay on how Anakin Skywalker’s transformation into Darth Vader was a result of an unfulfilled/disrupted Oedipus Complex.
Jung was a close friend of freud and adapt a lot of freud unconscious theory into his own theory.
Joseph campbell is father of modern mythology who created the heros journey troupe, he took a lot of inspiration from jung theory of persona and widely considered to be the disciple of jung
George lucas, the man behind star wars use the heros journey as big part refrence
So yeah, psychoanalysis is connected to star wars
Thank you
So if Anakin had fucked his mother he wouldn't have turned to The Dark Side?
@@niko-ni6ps Love the mental gymnastics in connecting the hero's journey with psychoanalysis.
@ultimaxkom8728 it's not so much mental gymnastics as it is a literary 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon
@@ultimaxkom8728I wouldn’t call this mental gymnastics. This is a direct chain of people who massively influenced one another, from Freud to Lucas
Freud got lots of things wrong, and his methods were not really all that scientific. But he created some basic psychological concepts, like repression, which are still used. And as for his writings about the Oedipus/Jocasta/ Electra complexes seem to have been confirmed by the vast amount of online incest porn.
That isn't really a confirmation of any of the complexes that Freud described. Not sure where the desire to murder ones parents fits in with that for instance and without that component it isn't really a Freudian complex.
Lacan has a reasonable extrapolation of the Freudian theory of sexual development.
Point me out if am wrong, but it almost feel like Freud arrived at certain ideas that he did get right in a rather aesthetic "vibes" based manner backed up by some testing rather than arriving at them in very staunch scientific ways. Is that why there is so much ruthless criticism of him in the psych world. Because like u said he got some things horribly wrong and he had some questionable methods but largely he cannot be denied as having come up with ideas that form the very core foundation of psychological study
@@ayushisharma162 Sounds right to me.
How were Freud's methods 'not scientific'? This whole idea about Freud having been "debunked" by all the brain science-stuff is nothing but a founding myth of contemporary psychiatry and I don't think their confidence about their own success story is warranted.
The Jocasta and Electra stuff is Jungian, btw. In Freudian psychoanalysis the combinatorics of the Oedipal triangle is all you need.
My first foray into psychology and analysis was during an undergrad European Literature course! I was hooked!! Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Tolstoy... To this day, I encourage colleagues and students to read Freud and to consider the impact that "most" of his work has had on all of psychotherapy, neurology, psychiatry, and; yes, literature! Excellent post. Thank you.
Thank you so much! I feel like the turn of the twentieth century produced so much excellent literature, and that the more I read it, the more I see Freud's connection to it.
Im a Psichology student from Argentina, here the psychoanalysis stills alive as the mainstream theory,but its different from the original Freudian psychoanalysis, we study the Lacanian Style.
I’m brasilian and psychoanalysis is also very active here. The theory evolved throughout the years, with different authors line Lacan, Winnicott, Klein, Andre Green, etc
Very important wirk Freud has developed. He taught us that a symptom has a history and a message to the individual.
@@cytata5359Seems like outdated methodology is more popular in the Global South?
As an English major, I had to read 'Civilizations and its Discontents', and 'The Future of an Illusion' for a Literature & Culture Class. Both (short) books are not about psychoanalysis, they are brilliant expositions on modern society and religion, respectively. I still think about them often over 30 years later. You can still see the influence of those books' ideas and propositions in today's culture, and I highly recommend them to anyone. Very readable, and full of insights that are still very relevant today.
We still study Freud in Intro courses, Personality Theory and/or Dev't Psych courses, and History of Psych courses. (And even in Cognitive courses, to some extent.
his work was mostly subjective and immeasurable which deems it unscientific (role of the unconscious and tripartite personality) and one of psychology's main goals was to be a scientific discipline not a philosophical discipline such as dualism. his work was also very idiographic and based on specific case studies (little hans) that may have been slightly biased due to the father being a follower of freuds theories so it makes it ungeneralisable to a wider population, but it brings in this concept of how childhood affects behaviour as an adult (e.g fixations and psychosexual development) which is fascinating and it was very influential. definitely deserves to be talked about in psychology.
Thank you for this very insightful comment!
Psychoanalysis is a talking cure, not a measuring cure (like the checkbox-sheet ratrace in cbt) and measurability is a random standard of something being generalisable. The touchstone of psychoanalysis is speech in its relation to the body and it is tested in practice and in conceptual development, not in some impossible ideal laboratory which is the imagined archimedean point of view from which "scientific" psychology operates.
Well, psychology is a "Soft science." Hard sciences such as physics, astronomy, and biology change opinions too, but there are ways that things can be subjectively proven or disproven.
Whereas is soft sciences, such as sociology, anthropology, economics and psychology, it is much harder to do so. There are just to many moving parts when you are talking about the behavior of human beings. Marx claimed to make economics scientific, but he didn't. B.F, Skinner tried to make psychology scientific, but he did not. The closest we have come to an objectively scientific form of psychology is neurology, but that sceince4 is still in it's infancy.
Immeasurable means very large, you want unfalsifiable. Dualism is a view or position, not a discipline; the discipline would be "philosophy of the mind" or something similar.
Ah, and Freud was totally not a mind-body dualist either. He probably would have rather liked to be a neuro-reductionist but couldn't because it led to a dead end clinically.
I would've guessed Freud's importance for literature studies stems mainly from Lacan (and generally Freud reception in post-structuralism)
As a Psychology student, Freud, though is still being studied as an introductory part of our course, is largely being discussed as akin to Aristotle's Physics as to Newton's Principia Mathematica: Meaning that he is only a stepping stone for the later development of major Psychological School of Thoughts and other reknowned people such as Jung, Fromm etc. Nowadays, Psychology leans towards the scientific side of things, where only falsifiable and observable things are held up, rather than the literature side of things such as Freud, since the Ego and the Id are not falsifiable as to a Popperian Notion. His views on women also did not held up well adding for refuting and dismissing his views by most Psychologists nowadays.
Even then, I think reading Freud is still essential especially if you're interested within how he influenced the whole social science department. Furthermore, there are also modified versions of his psychoanalysis which are used from therapy. I just bought a book of Freud's selections which are titled "Vintage Freud: Essentials of Psychoanalysis" and I must say I enjoy reading it with an open mind.
No psychology theory is falsifiable, NONE of them is scientific in the Popperian sense. That's the big flaw in the so called "Freud debunking".
In Ireland, it's possible for a judge to order you to attend psychoanalysis by a Freud impersonator pretending to be a real psychologist.
Pretending that Freud was secretly right and is simply unpopular has consequences.
And it is hurting people.
We actually do read Freud a lot in Psychology courses in Brazil. I think he's also still widely read in France and Argentina.
I’m a double major in psychology and communication studies and it’s been interesting seeing how both departments interpret freud’s theories.
For psychology we did learn about him in our intro course, however he’s seen as a stepping stone for later psychologists with many of his theories being seen as unfalsifiable and at worst problematic for the perception of psychology as a whole.
In comm studies I’m taking a media criticism class and we’ve talked about psychoanalytic criticism which ties back to this. These theories are useful as a way to analyze stories and film, and although they’ve fallen out of fashion with the psych department (for good reason) they still are interesting to use as a lense to interpret media because certain concepts do show up a lot.
For my A-levels I chose German (I live in Germany, so it's like your English) as one of my main subjects. Last year we did Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis for a bit, and we used Freud's model of the 3 parts of a psyche to analyze a lot about Gregor and his family, it was surprisingly interesting haha
Sounds like a really interesting class. I imagine Kafka and Freud make quite a pairing.
How are you doing. Iam Arabic lady subscriber to several British and American CZcams channels. We are as foreigners subscribers as overseas students want to increase our cultural level, improve our English language as well and literature lovers too . Thank you for your wonderful cultural channel. I gathered main information about topic you mentioned briefly here first of all Sigmund Freud was Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis including theories of ego , superego , Oedipus complex , repression, defence mechanism , stages of psych sexual development. Freud influence theory on literature because his theory of unconscious had most impact on modernist literature, Freud had belief that human mind had enormous unconscious as compare to conscious . This unconscious mind was responsible for many human behaviors and rules over people mental lives without them even knowing. Iam so sorry to be little long but reading and writing both are great ways to improve our English as none native speakers. Best wishes for you your loved ones .
Thank you so much for the wonderfully kind comment! I really admire your dedication to learning. Best wishes in your studies!
Good luck with Learning the Language you Talk good already!🔥
I think it's because literature (not all) is ultimaly more complex. Since has to be reducionist in order to be safe and concrete. Whereas literature can go to places that peer reviewed science can never reach. It can be wrong, but in a interesting way, and in that way being right.
It's because it's like a crutch to actual creativity. It's like one of those Joseph Campbell hero's journey shit. Templates or archetypes to base your stories or characters off of.
@@lorenzomizushal3980 So true creativity makes no reference to the past, is that what you're saying? Or perhaps you mean that active engagement with archetypes, and genera, is inferior to intuition? If the later is true, does that mean those who depend on reason rather than intuition are merely approximating a creative process, and not truly creative, no matter how novel their ideas may seem? What about creativity applied to nominal problems like engineering, and not art, like the kind of creativity employed by Jung and Freud?
I'm not sure literature is ultimately more complex, so much as it lets us more easily engage with extremely complex ideas. But, when we do so, it's through an extremely lossy compression. Contemplating an entire human being in a loose, artistic sense is already a monumental task, but it will never be as complicated as contemplating every atom in that person individually, every cell and organ, every psychological quirk, every social and cultural relationship that person has with every other human, and all the atoms and cells in those humans.
Literature lets us see the shadows cast by these unimaginably complex systems, and *that* is its strength (no human person could do the atom thing, but many people can read literature and glean something, however incomplete a glimpse it is).
Hi thanks for this wonderful video and the extension of psychoanalysis in litterature. Also I just wanted to add that even if it less common than others methods psychoanalytic concepts and ideas are still used in a clinical settings ( ie with patients.) Anyway great video !
Thank you so much! I appreciate the insight you were able to add about the modern role of psychoanalytic concepts.
I took AP Literature and we discussed Freud then. My teacher made a distinction of how wrong Freud was about Human Psychology and how people can not be analyzed using his methods, but his methods were practical and simplistic enough for explaining Fictional Characters.
Freud is important in the field of history, as well, since in the West, he held such sway over most people in many crucial professions (medicine, education, psychology, etc.) We can't really understand the culture of the 20th century if we don't understand Freud.
I’m in a PsyD program and we read and study Freud constantly, no idea what they are talking about. Even if you disregard some of his conclusions, he is the foundation of psychology
As someone who Triple majored in Psychology, Biology, and Creative Writing, this is something I had always wondered but no one was ever able to give me a clear answer to.
I did a very lightly academic and mostly practical 3D animation Bachelor's degree, but to my surprise we had a very nice Cultural Studies class where we learned about Freud, Lacan, Zizek...
This is something that a famous Italian writer named Svevo said “grande uomo, ma piu per i romanzieri che per gli ammalati" “great man, but more for the writer than for the sick”
What's Uncanny (& pardon the pun here) is that when I studied Literature, my professors hated Freud but always included him in the Theories. Nice video, by the way ...
Hey, we celebrate all puns here. Thank you for the kind words.
@@OxfordCommaEducation Sure thing ... And thanks for the great insight with another fine video!
People hate Freud for, ahem, FREUDIAN reasons.
He was by all accounts a successful physician, a groundbreaking scholar.
Like the man who invents and designs sewers, the repulsive associations of his work diminishes the contributions he makes to societies.
@OxfordCommaEducation psychology abandoned Freud because selling drugs makes alot more money than healing people.
Notice how every psych drug doesn't work on its own.
I'm not exaggerating. Any psych drug is intended to be taken and monitored by a psychologist and regular therapist.
Even if you wanna blind yourself to the necessity of freuds work, by implying the regime change to psych meds.
The meds don't work without cbt and having a psychiatrist change the meds when they inevitably disrupt your already SICK brain chemistry.
The meds don't work by themselves.
In my non medical opinion they don't work at all, in practice it's the placebo of cbt and having a "DoCToR" prescribed you a "MedIcINE" for a "dISeaSe".
@@John_Malka-tits it really is sad to see how bad of a reputation he's gotten due to the immoral use of his theories. but people who blame him for it fail to consider that the state of psychology was even worse before him. it would be like trying to blame Darwin for racism and social Darwinism.
Psychoanalysis is not a science, it is an interpretative grid. But that does not make it less interesting.
That's why you cannot really "debunk" or "disprove" many elements of it. It always lands back on its feet.
For instance, in Woody Allen's Alice, the titular character meets her lover. She tells him: "Sorry, I can't do that, I'm scared, I'm scared of lying to my husband, of meeting you in secret!" Her lover replies:"But maybe you are *not* afraid of doing such things. Maybe you are afraid because you realise that you are, in fact, capable of such things?" How can you prove or disprove that? You can't. The Freudian theory is not right or wrong. That's just an interpretation.
And sure, Freud is heavily criticised today, but the fact is... his theories were already heavily criticised in his time! Freud's theories have always been, from the start, controversial.
😊A
Unfounded, unfalsifiable accusations of incestuous desire ended up hurting his clients.
What a surprise.
Keep him for literary purposes, but please, do not present him as a secret source of old practical knowledge that is simply unpopular.
It is extremely irresponsible.
The more you learn about the man, the less you can actively disapprove of him.
Thank you for this video, after finally reading about and listening of Carl Jung. I became so unbelievably confused on why we talk about Freud in high school so much. I'm excited for us to change that in schools for our children, grandchildren, and their descendants.
Thank you so much for watching!
Psychologist here. It is disgraceful we no longer read Freud. I went through analysis but am more in the existential-phenomenological camp now, but his insights are still valuable and the basics of psychoanalysis such as the couch and free association are important. Compare him with shallow nonsense like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy today and it is clear we need more Freud and less psychological "science."
Literature cares about Freud because they care about having many lenses of interpretation.
Psychology doesn't care about Freud because they care about testable truths.
We actually do read Freud a lot in Psychology courses in Brazil
It wasn’t until the end of the video that I realized just jow little views this has, it deserves a lot more!
Hope it gets pushed in the algorithm for a lot more people like it did for me
Thank you so much for the incredibly kind comment! I, too, hope the algorithm likes this one :)
I was in hard science and actually did some in the emerging field of computational neuroscience. Psych focused on Skinner and the behaviorism movement and I concluded psych suffered from physics envy. They wanted to look like they were a real science. Did not want to touch consciousness. What I saw was the class was teaching students to be able to become dog trainers. I read Freud in HS and really liked it and saw more science in terms of Mind than I saw in teaching rats to do tricks. Yeh. Partial reinforcement. Not too deep. Now they cling to a new title of cognitive neuroscience. That is just computational neuroscience and not psych
That’s basically the heart of the problem. Psychology as field suffers from an inferiority complex.
You can even find in this comment section people being basically embarrassed that Freud is the quintessential psychologist in the public consciousness.
They want to be taken serious and unquestionable but the irony is that Freud had that same mindset for the standards of his time. This serious mindset of today has also not helped to avoid the replication crisis
All of the social sciences suffer from this inferiority complex. Last time I looked at any contemporary literary criticism, the essays were obsessed with becoming a "science", NOT with appreciating the art.
Well, Freud himself written about how venturing into the unconscious wouldn't be a scientific in nature and can't be falsifiable but nonetheless important. Freud is much more honest than most scientists right now tbh, he understood that himself as neuroscientist can't fulfill his interest of the unconscious and the psych so he switched disciplines. Freud trying to indulge with his ideas to its fullest have created branches of intrigue that expand to many disciplines, his curiosity really create a movement of influence that effect many school of thoughts. Most Freud ideas aren't accurate right now, but this isn't significant tbh, since disagreement with theories can be also type of learning.
i went to artschool in the late 70's, early 80's and both freud and jung were heavily discussed among the students and staff alike.
That's super interesting! I'd be curious to learn how his views influenced more visual mediums such as film, paint, sculpture, etc...
@@OxfordCommaEducationit heavily influenced the performing arts at the university i went to. theater students referenced psychology and philosophy. i was in viual arts and i remember studying john bergers way of seeing, which featured subliminal messaging.
@@archeewaters That makes a lot of sense. I'm a huge fan of interdisciplinary approaches, especially in the arts.
6:41 Funny that Freud’s discussion of Exodus hasn’t made an appearance.
In Argentina Freud IS psychology lol I’m not a psychologist myself, but I’m pretty sure that to this day, psychoanalysis is by far the most common type of therapy. Everyone loves him. Psy students and therapy goers alike.
I had never heard about this before, but I've read a couple comments mentioning how revered he is there. Super interesting!
I'd like to ask John Greene how Oedipus being obsessed with avoiding to do the Oedipal thing isn't Oedipal?
And I'd like to ask you what gave you the idea that Freud would have been "debunked" by the brain science and all of that. I could just as well say that the naivetes of psychopharmacology, neuro-reductionism and behavioral therapy have been largely debunked by psychoanalytic critique. It is just that the latter techniques have more institutional backing due to their better manageability.
Well I'm not sure John Greene will respond, but my statement about Freud being debunked by modern scientific methods is meant as an observation, not a declaration. I'm not a psychologist, but the vast majority of modern psychologists seem to suggest that fMRIs show that the brain does not store repressed memories in the way that Freud thought. Obviously, the modern scientific community has its own agenda and motivations, but I would be willing to bet that most researchers are operating in good faith.
Freud had a lot of great ideas and I really respect his work as an essayist, but sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.
@@OxfordCommaEducation Yeah, you got me there - I'll ask John next time myself!
I appreciate your response though.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing anyone of bad faith - it's just about the structural blindness that encompasses any set of beliefs and operating principles. And the working assumptions of what you call "modern psychology" - which I'd rather call something like psychological positivism, since psychoanalysis is profoundly modern in a lot of ways - by definition and mission statement exclude a lot of the questions that are elementary to psychoanalysis (e.g. the question of the efficacy of speech).
Apart from that, the claim about memory storage you made is very specific, but based on a representationalist assumption about there being a directly translateable neurological substratum to psychic phenomena. But Freud never claimed such a thing - he just systematized his observations about the hypermnestic characteristics of the unconscious in his clinic and in his self-analysis.
I could go further into this if you would like to, but since you made it clear that you don't claim to be an expert this stuff, I just hope to interest you in diving a little deeper into what contemporary psychoanalysis itself has to say, rather than what the cbt- and neuro-reductionist types of psychologists have to say *about* it. (I'd really recommend Jamieson Webster's article on "The Psychopharmacology of Everyday Life" in the NY Review of Books for a start).
@@PoetOfNoise Thank you for bringing in such an informed perspective! I would love to dive deeper into this subject, and I will certainly check out Webster's article.
You would probably find the podcast I linked in the description very interesting. The guest is a great defender of Freud and the host is quick to point out that we need to be careful not live in a world where we only accept truths if they match our readings on brain scans.
@@PoetOfNoise this is a very good comment. expressed my thoughts better than I could have myself
@@OxfordCommaEducation Thanks, I'll check out the podcast!
Just in case, I'd also be really interested in what you think about the article, should you have read it some time.
Quite right. Freud's not a psychologist. He's a philosopher. His works are not scientific when measured by Popper's falsifiability criterion, but the man clearly changed the way we perceive the world and how we understand human behaviour. His concepts pepper our language almost as much as Shakespeare's. We inhabit a Freudian universe.....
The final short essay in Civilisation and its discontents is a monumental stride forward in conceptualising the modern human predicament. I don't know why modern psychiatry or psychologists consider themselves more advanced. I haven't seen a single person ever regain emotional and mental well-being through SSRIs or CBT - not one person.
I know a lot of people who discovered mental and emotional well-being in diverse ways - from dance, to sex, to religion, to friendships, to EFT or bodywork, art therapy or even just spending time in nature. People do actually make improvements when they connect back into their more basic primal selves. While Freud advocated so-called therapy - also ineffective, he did at least provide some kind of diagnosis about one or two significant causes of people's internal problems.
I don't really know how anyone can even consider modern psychology or psychiatry sciences, much less effective treatment paradigms. Neither have a strong record of actually getting people better. Beyond this human psychology cannot be rigorously studied because there simply is no way to achieve a double bind study in psychological or psychiatric studies. There is also no way to only vary one variable with human beings. In reality every imaginable and unimiginable variable will be different across the sample. You would have to be very, very simple minded to believe otherwise.
Fully agree with the last part about the experimental variables being far too diverse, but… I think you’re not only giving Freud enough credit, but not giving SSRIs enough credit. I’m one person who definitely benefitted from them!
just because you haven't seen it, it's not real. that's the reasoning of an infant.
I just got the dreaded 'iceberg' metaphor in psych today. as far as I understand, our prof offered a very tepid interpretation of Parapaxis and Unconcious--drives or otherwise. I think contemporary psychology denies Freud at its own loss--if not by overlooking contemporary Psychodynamic/Psychoanalysis. that being said, y'know, there was a cognitive revolution...
The premise of this video is incredibly bizarre to me, there are multiple psychologists in my family and all of them, including the youngest one that graduated less than 5 years ago own Freud books that they had to read for college. At least here in Argentina where we have the most psychologists per capita of any country he still seems to be considered important.
I attended graduate school in clinical psychology in the 1980s and we read original works of Freud: “the interpretation of dreams,“ “civilization and its discontents,“ and others. They were dense reads, but I’m glad I read them. I think Freud still holds a lot of influence, especially among practicing psychotherapists. A lot of his theories are at this point laughable, but basic premises are not. That there is an unconscious, that the personality and the psychology of a person develops over the childhood years and is affected by experiences during that time etc. . Many psychoanalytic theorists following Freud, added onto his groundwork and groundbreaking theories and concepts. these would include John Bowlby, and others related to mother Child interactions, and primitive drives and internal conflict manifesting in adult behavior, ala Klein. . For me, my immersion into psychoanalytic theory, especially freud, set a framework and outlook that I’ve retained through the 30 years of being a psychologist, despite the empirical insistence that we have today in the field.
i'm reading "The interperation of dreams" (translated to english) at the moment, and can't really place my finger on why it feels so different from the million other books i have read.
It feels hard and heavy to read, and like he rambles a lot, trying to provide proof and evidence, that simply isn't there.
i find myself reading pages, understanding the individual words, but realise i have no idea what i have been reading, or what he is trying to say/ proof by it.
i was wondering if you felt the same way? or if i should maybe try a different copy from a different translator/ more modern translation, etc.
Ive used his essays and theories in the majority of my term papers both in englisch studies and german studies 😂
The class where I first studied The Uncanny had a native German speaker in it. We were all very grateful he was there.
Our snowmen souls remember Valley Forge.
Our breath the canon smoke of winter’s past.
Our frozen fingers bend the taffy torn
and share the pieces on this frigid path.
Were poorer humans really meant to freeze?
Thy cheeks inspired macarons to pink;
thy face reminds the rich we need some heat!
but pleads for fire’s chatter on the bricks.
We all deserve a palace fireplace,
a hall to dance beneath their chandeliers.
Our snowflake faces blizzard at their gates,
the guiIIotine in the distance blurs.
Oh but for now you’re pretty in thy rags
because there’s plenty that thy face can ask.
Freud isn't studied in psychology because it is a science, and sciences move on. Physicists don't obsess about Newton or Einstein, they learn the current science. It is a weakness of the humanities that scholarship remains focused for centuries or even millenia on a few superstars instead of making progress. Why haven't philosophers figured out all they need to know from Plato by now?
And yet you are obsessed with Freud? It was funny how much psychology lecturers wasted time to mock Freud. He is living rent free in our heads.
Similarly western philosophy has been anti-platonistic for 2000 years. Philosophy and psychology has their own symptoms (platonism and psychoanalysis) and you have to find the right medicine
@@markbranham7355 "Eppur si muove". And still we are fascinated how lightsabers and time travel work in fiction. Have you seen how mad Star Wars fans are after the writers break some commonly understood "laws of nature" like teleportation?
How we think about the world and ourselves (as humans) constantly chances (psychological, societal and cultural). There are alot interpretations and assumptions to make and referring back to old texts and knowledge helps us contextualise and categories our thoughts. Physics on the other hand do not change. We just discover more accurate methods and models.
@@grunertee3930 Also good to remember that science and physics research doesn't happen in a vacuum. Your surroundings make you itchy and simultaneously makes you able to scratch the itch. University (or a teacher) is often the entity that makes you itchy and you can scratch that by doing research or studying
I had a professor of theory of literature whose research revolved around applying Freud's theory on feminist literature. He said the first thing he looked for in a therapist was whether he was Freudian, for he would not consult with anyone who wasn't. Even at the time knowing the little I knew about Freud I found it funny how he did not see the irony.
I read Freud in a philosophy seminar class. I also took an intro level psychology class where they touched on him quickly, but didnt say a lot. After that, I didnt take any more psych.
not an expert here. but i have taken a few college psychology classes. My question for those who know more about psychology is, if Freudian and Neofreudian psychodynamic don’t count as psychology because they are not scientific enough, I don’t think we should count cognitivist models of semantic memory as scientific either. Many theories of semantic memory uses machine learning and borrows heavily from information processing theory. If my knowledge is correct, they are merely theoretical models that don’t have enough empirical validation either. So why invalidate psychoanalysis, especially the more interesting developments in the field like Lacan and Klein.
This is funny, but doing English at Oxford in 1972 I quickly found that my teenage reading
in Freud and Jung was laughably out of date! Not surprising that Psych students don't read them.
Because Freud's ideas about psychology have no scientific basis and are utterly ridiculous
Shout out the stock photo of polski books!
One question: how is Freud debunked by MRIs?
I believe the reason why psychology majors in some first-world countries don't study Freud is similar to the reason why economics majors don't study Marx. The objects addressed by both authors are not prioritized in those sciences in those countries.
For example, here in Brazil, psychoanalysis is still the primary theory in psychology courses and research. This is not because we are some scientifically outdated latins (that is the racist explanation some people use to explain why psychoanalisis is still studied in latin america and france), but because it aligns with our societal needs as a country that recently emerged from a military dictatorship and is working on establishing a universal healthcare system.
Expanding on the topic of psychoanalysis being scientifically debunked by MRI and peer-reviewed research, this is not accurate. In psychology, there have been no such findings yet. This misconception reminds me of an article on Wikipedia where, in the discussion section, someone claimed that Chomsky's Language Acquisition Device was never observed via MRI, so it's debunked. This is a clear misinterpretation of what Chomsky was saying and the subject he was addressing. I believe Freud and the authors who developed psychoanalysis face similar misinterpretations
I think Freud is read by literature students mainlt because one of his biggest critics was C.S. Lewis, and therefore, literature students read both Lewis and Freud together in considering their arguments, setting the two men up in a kind of debate.
I was not aware of that debate, but I will absolutely look into it!
@@OxfordCommaEducation There's not an actual debate. I was using debate figuratively to refer to Freud's writings and Lewis's criticism.
@@michaelkelleypoetry Oh sorry, I realized that. I can see how my comment suggested otherwise. Thank you for clarifying though!
@@OxfordCommaEducation In The Pilgrim's Regress, Lewis parodied Freud in the character of the giant in the cave in that whatever he looks upon becomes transparent, creating horrors, showing that when one deconstructs everything one is left with nothing. The University of California also posted a video on CZcams of Dr. Armand Nicholi discussing both Lewis and Freud.
I will absolutely check those out! Thank you!
My psychiatrist aunt have read something from him on psychoanalysis.
There is one more reason to read him as a literary scholar: While Freud's views on human psychology are nonsense, a lot of authors until today do employ his ideas into creating their stories because they actually believe his ideas to be correct. We should never forget that stories do not actually reflect reality, they reflect a given author's impression and view of reality. So, any major movement in worldview that was employed by authors on some scale (like Freud's psychoanalysis) ought to be known by literary scholars.
That's a good point. Works like Kafka on the Shore come to mind. Though I don't know if authors subscribe to Freud's ideas as truth or just find them interesting.
It's so sad how americans despise Psychoanalysis. I've seen it success in the clinic for years now, where cognitive therapies wont touch cause it's not scientific.
What the hell. Humans dont function scientifically. We are too complicated.
I hope it reborns to be part of the cultural and health enviromental overthere as it is in other countries strong and going.
"Yes, we have a fiction section".
Interesting! I'm reminded of how psychology has adoptedBakhtin, in a kind of reverse effect.
IMO one the the reasons literary critics like Freud is because of his claim that the psychoanalyst can know the patient's mind better than the patient does. So they figure that means that they can know an author's mind better than the author does. Northrop Frye said as much. I'm skeptical.
That's a very thought provoking point. Also, I love that Northrop Frye has entered the conversation. I kind of feel dumb for overlooking his work when researching this video.
For me, I think Freud was a great scholar of literature. But I don't think his scholarship of literature proves his psychoanalytic theories.
I don’t think anyone can know the author’s mind better than themself, especially if they’re dead (literally). BUT. I think the text, as an autonomous open object, can hold meaning and possibilities that the author did not envision, that can however be adequately sustained by the text itself
Harold Bloom - for whatever else he's said - is right the literature's representation of human affairs, impulses, motivations, etc. predates psychological theories.
In South American and iirc France he still is widely taught. I am myself a psychoanalyst, and tough we have made several advances and changes in the psychoanalytical technique, Freud is one of the less understood geniuses I've ever seen. Of course, he made mistakes and was a rather difficult person if we take how often he cut others off, but his books are highly sensible, and his method much deeper than his critics make them up to be.
What do you mean “the psychoanalytical approach to literature they spawned were not [“debunked”]”? Like in what sense? If the claims are not scientifically supported in psychology, they wouldn’t be in literature either.
Maybe you can get away with using a tool that doesn’t work if you’re displaying it in art. In art you probably should mock as much as you can. And if there are popular beliefs about psychology, even if they’re wrong, maybe you should play on those tropes.
In stories you can also have supernatural elements. That doesn’t mean there are good reasons to think that there are actual supernatural events in reality.
So in what sense is it “not debunked”. Clearly not in the sense of psychoanalysis being the currently best description of our minds…
Btw, you can try to write literature using the best of modern psychology.
It’s a hassle to stay up to date as a writer. And you still have to make it into a compelling narrative. And many people might not understand themselves and others well enough for it to fully resonate. But still.
No lo usan porque les cuesta trabajo entenderlo. La moda académica es dar Reader’s Digest…
Psych (& literature) students should read Freud and Beyond.
I'll answer your question "What are we to do with (Freud's) views today?" Read the original text, or re read it. In "Civilization And Its Discontents" Freud wrote that woman "caused" both civilization and something else (that I'll divulge in Part 2 if anyone's interested). If they were satisfied with a nice mud hut, and would pass out bedroom rewards to any man who built them one, or found 'em a nice cave, we'd still be living in huts and caves. But woman were not satisfied. So we men built better and better homes for our families. What happened? Eventually skyscrapers did.
Thanks woman. You laid down the law, and we all get to enjoy civilization as a result.
If Freud would have left it there, he'd still be considered one of the great minds.
But Part 2 is the other half of what Freud said woman "caused" or brought about. Just type "What is Part 2?" and I'll respond.
Fundamentally, science and liberal arts are completely different in the ways they work as fields of knowledge. Psychology is a soft science, which means that it relies on the scientific method, falsifiability/provability, in order to build knowledge. It orients itself around objective information, that is, information about the world that we can prove. Literature is a liberal art or one of the humanities, meaning that it relies on close-reading, textual evidence, context, and literary analysis to build knowledge. It orients itself around subjective information, meaning knowledge about culture, history, human stories, narratives, our thoughts and feelings about who we are and what we do. The reason why Freud is still used in literature and not in modern psychology is because psychologists no longer need to depend on what they see as outdated and unhelpful information whereas literary scholars still find Freud useful for exploring the complex and sometimes self-deceptive ways in which culture, identity, and narrative intertwine and interact.
"Lacan" that all I got to say!
im a psych undergrad and ive read a huge amount of freud for my classes
Perhaps the academic winds are changing again. Do you read his primary works? If so, would you mind sharing which ones?
Because of therapeutic practice I think the distance between literature and psychology is overinflated. This is the only or main reason I still see Freud as relevant, not as a psychological model per se but a framework through which to look at the "talk" part of talk therapy, or as some philosophers would have it a way to "bring back the subject" into psychology given as psychology has gotten more scientific it has ironically elided the subject, which seems like a non-trivial aspect of mental life. It puzzles me how psychologists are so hostile to psychoanalysis when they roughly have similar reasons to discard folk psychology, i.e. popular cultural descriptions of metaphysically posited mental states like "emotions." Basically, I don't see how psychologists don't just become psychiatrists aside from smuggling in metaphysics.
Literature is unconstrained by the inconveniences of empirical assessment. It is constrained only by our imaginations and thrives in ambiguity. Psychology, as it is presently practiced, aims at being scientific and robust, so the fact that Freud lacked any clear empirical grounding for his psychoanalytical theories explains why he is ignored in psychology today. It does not surprise me that Freud, like postmodernists and post-structuralists, are nevertheless lionized in literature departments. They play with ideas unconstrained by empirical reality -- in other words, they inhabit the realm of imagination -- and often provide little more than wordplay disguised so as to give the air of truth and profundity.
It takes longer for the public to get over bad ideas than experts. Sometimes aeons.
I'd say the public mostly dislikes freud while it's the more academic types that understand and like freud
@@filip1261 Lol as a joke, maybe. In my Psyche 101 and 102 both profs despised Freud and only 101 covered him as historically relevant. Even after I graduated, they still talk about 'Freudian' Psychologists in groans, disbelief and disgust.
Dealing with the humans psyche of a individual is very much dealing with the subjective. Also what a human being ultimately is is dependent on ones world view (psyche is about a human being as a whole including what we not can see). Reducing all this to what scientifically can be observed and tested one will end up with little and one will practice psychology based upon black & white views on what a human is (for which there is no proof also). Anyway Freud discovered the unconscious which is one of the biggest achievements in psychology ever. Leaving this guy out that is idiotic at best.
Bro was yapping, and got called out by his daughter 😂
His daughter was an ardent defender of freudian psychoanalysis, how was he called out?
You can understand Freud more as an renascence scientist that was prolific in different subject and in so beeing was an absurd observer with an aesthetical sensitivity and an sistemática and methodological rigor. That's something rare. There is no reason not to study Freud as I'm really suspicious about people who say "he got it wrong" and don't understand his epistemology. They don't know what they are talking about. As for anglo Saxon universities it look like that Freud got out of favor far more because of power and dispute of prestige than for validity and effectiveness, that because a lot of meta-analysis point out that in the mid to long term effect range psychoanalys exceed of the more so called "evidence based" approach (that with a enough deep research don't have that much of an hard science evidence as they claim). Of course where psychoanalysis was not ostracized from college courses, psychoanalysis kept evolving, specially in France, Latin America, india and places like California and the English school. Countries as Sweden are backing off of their disastrous desission to base their public psychology offerings exclusively on so called "evidence based" psychology because it didn't show any difference and in some cases it got even worse. This ostracizing of psychoanalysis has far more to do with power games in the Anglo-Saxon domain, the interest from the ensurence companies and really intelectual dumbness from the pragmatical epistemology from the American culture.
“Rilky” ;)
I read some Freud in gen psych. He’s a quack. I said so in my exam. I got a 98. The man did so much damage to women and the whole branch of psych.
If memory serves Psych 1 was kind of the history of psychology and Psych 2 was the actual learning about psychology.
A man's trash is another man's treasure.
Freud, the Enron of psychology.
Just how in complex math there is an imaginary component, i think complex psychology must be an imaginary component as well, which frued captured
Nono, Freud is still used, just, not as a theory. Their work is fuckin riddled with holes, but while it itself is not particularly useful, using it as a metatheory (Which is to say, looking at how people iterated and added onto these ideas) is still fairly useful to this date, as there were some crumb of interesting theories to explore among all the nonsense. Kinda what Vigotsky is to Constructivism in Pedagogy and Didactics, just, a fairly useless piece of theory in it of itself that many other academics on the field looked at and iterated upon to build a lot of modern theory
People really tend to undermine how much of Freud’s concepts were derived from direct contact with “patients” and reviews of case studies. Even the more famous case studies were only the most famous of what was a daily practice of interacting with what they would call “analysands.” This is why a lot of his ‘concepts’ remain very relevant in clinical practice - which is also devalued by psychology programs rooted in the idea that research psychology > clinical psychology. So when people say that Freud’s method wasn’t scientific or that it was just based on “vibes,” it misrepresents the intellectual labor that actually went into constructing his concepts. Not all scientific methods look exactly the same: what Darwin did to discover evolution is not the same as what Lavoisier did to bring about a revolution in chemistry. But it is without a doubt the case that at the very least one can argue that Freud was definitely implementing and practicing a form of research that we today might consider a qualitative approach to the study of the human psyche and subject.
It’s also funny how all the critiques of Freud as pseudoscience go back to Karl Poppers critique of psychoanalysis as not falsifiable when there have been generations of philosophers of science since Popper who have criticized the idea of science as being synonymous with falsifiability. This is why the history of ideas is always important to know: no matter your discipline, no matter what else you have to understand, because you will begin to believe or discredit or misrepresent ideas that are still constitutive of your world’s worldview without completely and truly understanding why.
This is the comment that actually adds something that you are looking for, people.
Freud's theories aren't all debunked - it's just that 90% of them are so foundational now that we take them for granted, the only ones we still attribute to him are the ones that are still debated
im a psychology student, and i did
For sure, the video is meant to address the general academic trend; it won't reflect everyone's specific experiences. But, it could also be that the academic winds are changing. If you don't mind sharing, what works of Freud did they have you read?
Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, mostly @@OxfordCommaEducation
Never underestimate the power of a hack fraud to do damage the pursuit of knowledge. One thing for Freud to shit on the arts, that’s what art is for. But another for old Sigy to interfere with actual science.
I always hated people using the term "Freudian slip" at every fucking occasion. Which is why I inherently hate Freud. So the fact that his works are considered pseudoscience just brings joy to me.
his works are only considered psuedoscience by people who have never studied him. In academia he is still taken seriously
Studying psychology currently and VERY annoyed they don't teach any Freud or Jung
Because going to Freud for psychological science is like going to Hitler for racial science?
Literature students can read both Freud and Mein Kampf.
Freud projected his Oedipus complex onto the whole of psychology and dealt god knows how much damage.
Because it is literature and should stay like that, just philosophy interesting maybe, but science? Cmon
I hate Freud. He's like Plato. He reasons about things, but thats the only thing he does. So, he's almost entirely wrong. The difference between these two and their contemporaries was that their ideas became well accepted and were influential.
Sadly, Psychology students still read too much Freud and Freud informed cranks.
Doesn't really answer why Freud's opinions on literature are any more valuable than the guy next door's.
I think the simplest answer, which I hope the video got across, is that Freud was a great essayist, and he wrote a lot about literature.
@@OxfordCommaEducation That explains something of how he got to his position. It certainly doesn't make his views valuable or accurate. He goes beyond making subjective observations - he makes real claims as to the psychology of the writers he analyses which we now know are probably wrong. Unfortunately, there is no empirical process in literature analysis to purge him in the same way the sciences were able to.
I read Freud in Psych 101... not sure where you got your information from but it's wrong
I was speaking in generalizations, it certainly doesn't apply to every course. If you don't mind sharing, I'd be interested to know what about Freud your Psych 101 focused on.
If you look at reality and insist it other than a layers of reality, you are seeing it as a religion. For all I know, whatever this analysis or diagnostic is just an attempt to parade rationality inorder to compensate. It's hard to find distinction in such practices, it's unanimously carved into a desk work. But the problem of Freud, that it tries to beguile or edge in a fictional narrative. Freud's has always being widely used as some sort of "secret narrative." There's no problem with Freud, it's those who lack the capacity to create their own perspective. "Even things out" or "nuance" is rare to majority.
That's not really globally true. There are lots of places where psychoanalysis is alive and well in psych classes.
Numerous comments have supported this. I'd love to see a video on why that is, but I'm not the person to make it.
Fair enough! The short version is that there are different academical politics and histories. The "truth" is what the syllabus says is true. That is, what the people who made it say is true. And the people who made the last one were students of the people who made the previous one and so forth "libertad de cátedra" has it's downsides.
"Oh Dexter, say it again..."
"Dotzyetzee" 😂
Dostiwetzee 😂
How could you miss the opportunity to use a picture of Zuck800 when talking about a figure that must be 🎉human but looks off. That guy is an android.
Good. Guy had no scientific methodology, never did any decent research. Psychoanalysis is not psychology.
Psychoanalysis is more like showing why 2+2=4. Of course you can show empirically why 2+2=4 but that is just one methodology
Esto era exactamente lo que Freud criticaba y en contra de lo que trabajó.
@@donutopo22 ¿Freud criticó qué?
La psicología es hija del Psicoanálisis. Todas las corrientes son deudoras de Freud@@Siroitin . Tu observación es anacrónica a lo que se entendía como ciencia en el momento que Freud escribió. Y está cesgada por una comprensión actual, tecnocrática, de lo que lo que es o no ciencia.
The MRIs and peer-reviewed articles have debunked nothing - quite the contrary, the only moments when neurology or psychiatry manage to explain something or to achieve something, anything is... when they use Freud (without quoting him. And now you know why some psy libs do not have Freud at all... ). Also, psychological profiling of killers or politicians makes extensive use of Freud (of course, again, without quotes nor references). Freud is banned from psichology because his method is the only one that actually works, while all the others fail miserably by falling in the medieval; rabbit hole of believing in tooth fairies, aka as genes and genetics. And every time a neurologist or a psychiatrist attempts to debunk something using the tooh fairy aka gene & genetics... his/her peer reviewed reserach gets quickly debunked. But fortunately, eveyone else keep repeating, like parits, that freud has been ... debunked. I take it as a testimony of stupidity, and also, as a testimony on how stupidity perpetuates and reproduces itself. Meanwhile, the big money keep flowing into a science that preeces the infailibility of the tooth-fairy-gene, while freud is out of the shelves and of the mindframes. if freud is out, why even bother to ask whether Kernberg or Kohut are present...