Has psychoanalysis any scientific basis? It seems that Freud

This is exactly why there are no practicing Freudian psychoanalysts today.

The cognitive behavioral model dominates these days.

>>1347109

Why bother reading them except for historical interest?

>>1347119
Nobody does.

The position you're arguing for is the position that essentially everyone in psychology holds.

>>1347119
Nobody does.

There's basically nobody who supports psychoanalytic theories of personality any more. The only reason anyone studies it is to understand the history of personality psychology.

>>1347107
>It seems that Freud and Jung just keep speculating the reasons behind problems without any real proof.

This.

It's just another branch of philosophy

File: 1464328975460.jpg (30KB, 480x490px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x490px

What are some valid Psychology works?

>>1347201
I liked "Thinking fast & slow" by Daniel Kahneman. Consider stuff by Dan Ariely, maybe Steven Pinker (not too much of a fan of him). I've also read some evolutionary psychology which was a hit and miss.

Also try textbooks or books by several authors.
I recently read: "Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology and System Justification" but it was a bit disappointing.

Currently reading "Big Gods" by Ara Norenzayan.

>>1347201
>>1347213

>I liked "Thinking fast & slow" by Daniel Kahneman.

Seconding this, really good book.