(May 12, 2021 at 12:23 pm)Interaktive Wrote: When will psychology finally be recognized as a pseudoscience?

I don't know what passes for psychology/psychologists in your country.

Quote:I'm sane

A questionable claim if this is your position on something that is a science.

Quote:psychologists don't need religion

What the hell does this even mean? 

Quote:Freudianism is a drug addict's tales

Psychology moved beyond Sigmund Freud ages ago.

(May 12, 2021 at 3:47 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:

Quote:I'm sane

A questionable claim if this is your position on something that is a science.

Quote:psychologists don't need religion

What the hell does this even mean? 

Quote:Freudianism is a drug addict's tales

Psychology moved beyond Sigmund Freud ages ago.

a psychologist advised me to read Yalom Irwin. He's no better than Freud

You should have lead with that.

(May 12, 2021 at 12:54 pm)Interaktive Wrote:

(May 12, 2021 at 12:38 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: You are babbling...and not sounding all that sane.

WTF does religion have to do your original question?  Nothing...that's what.

Not all Psychologist follow Freud.

Are you high?

psychologists need a psychiatrist

I’m having a hard time taking you seriously.

(May 12, 2021 at 12:23 pm)Interaktive Wrote: When will psychology finally be recognized as a pseudoscience?

I’ve told my therapist about this thread. She’d like to see you.

Boru

(May 12, 2021 at 3:56 pm)Interaktive Wrote:

(May 12, 2021 at 3:47 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: A questionable claim if this is your position on something that is a science.


What the hell does this even mean? 


Psychology moved beyond Sigmund Freud ages ago.

a psychologist advised me to read Yalom Irwin. He's no better than Freud

There is no comparison between the two

I actually like Freud. (Although I recognize his methods are highly problematic.)

Freud is mostly bunk, but some of his basic ideas are pretty interesting and on point.

I disagree that a commitment to the truth is religious at all. Maybe you meant something else?

(May 12, 2021 at 7:08 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I actually like Freud. (Although I recognize his methods are highly problematic.)

There was a certain depth to the early psychologists that has since been lost. They were philosophers of sorts; and viewed the mind rather like a cosmos. Psychology today is often dry and technical in comparison. And it has completely sacrificed the individual at the alter of statistical analysis.

(May 12, 2021 at 8:42 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 12, 2021 at 7:08 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I actually like Freud. (Although I recognize his methods are highly problematic.)

There was a certain depth to the early psychologists that has since been lost. They were philosophers of sorts; and viewed the mind rather like a cosmos. Psychology today is often dry and technical in comparison. And it has completely sacrificed the individual at the alter of statistical analysis.

Agreed. But improvements have also been made.

I like Jung more than Freud. But much of Jung's theory belongs in the rubbish bin.... if you are going to be realistic about how the mind works, anyway. 

Maybe it would be best if analytic theory returned to psychotherapy in some regard. I think the problem is: analytic theory dominated psychology for so long, and it really had no right to. I think this eventually lead the academic community to kind of "push it away." But now, since it has been pushed away, maybe some day it can be picked up and re-observed. This time, not as a complete theory of mind, but as a method to achieve things other therapeutic approaches cannot.