Tell me about Freud /his/, is he just a hack or was he legitimate?

>>2292999
Blimey, it's quite obviously he was a hack, not everybody wants to secretly fuck their own mother.

>>2293011
Let me rephrase my question, should he be disregarded completely or do his theories have some merit to them?

>>2293011

>not everybody wants to secretly fuck their own mother.

Not everybody knew that. You can't fucking have a go at someone who invents a field because they got some shit wrong.

>>2293011

>secretly

sum ppl wana do it openly. that was his only fault.

>>2293011
strawman. freud never said everyone wants to fuck their mother. women want to fuck their fathers

>>2293011
Yes they do, that's why people get so buttmad at the idea of the Oedipus complex, it's a defense mechanism

>>2293087
I am NOT defensive

>>2293098
It's okay, Anon. We all had sex with your mom too.

essentially everything he said is useless on a practical level but he was an important figure for the nascent study of psychology

>everything is about sex and cocks
>except when I suck on a big brown cock that makes me feel good, then I don't mean EVERYTHING

Many of his ideas were refined and iterated upon, so no, he wasn't a hack...Unless you consider modern Psychology as bullshit which is a fare accusation.

His ideas mostly revolved around sex because most of his patents were Victorian age women who had their sexuality "repressed".

He was certainly right that families can be very pathological.

>>2293370

>essentially everything he said is useless on a practical level

Then how did he help is patients? He did see some success stories.

>>2293011
>>2293022
There was some merit to his theories

Think about it genetically. Your father fucked your mother because he found her to be the most suitable mate at the time. This is because your grandfather fucked someone that he found attractive - your grandmother - and passed those turn-on genes to your father, who in turn was attracted to your - or his - mother.

>>2293022

All his good ideas were stolen from Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. All his bad ideas were original.

>>2292999
His theory are outdated, but you have to read him as an darwinist to understand him. Why would a baby want to suck a tit unless there was some urge for boobs? They don't understand they're glorified food dispensers, so something else has to be triggered.

>>2292999
He postulated things that are a priori not falsifiable with the scientific method.

Trying to make psychology into a scientific field is hard enough, and and his whacky theories don't make it any easier.

>>2293395

A baby latches onto a breast because of animal instinct. It's not some obscure psychological impetus rooted in the unconscious.

>>2292999
He was a Jew. Enough said.

>>2293415

>He postulated things that are a priori not falsifiable with the scientific method.

Jesus dude, the human mind is really really hard to quantify or measure. If a theory helps people(and his certainly did) then why attack it solely on its inability to be falsified?

>>2293389
I agree. I find general drive psychology to be a very illuminating interpretive model for how the mind works.

>>2292999
He's an important figure for the history of psychology. Some of his ideas have stuck but the idea of repressed memories has largely been denied.

>>2293450
>why attack it solely on its inability to be falsified?

Because that is the one condition that postulates need to fulfil, if they are to play any role in the scientific process. Psychology is a science, Freud's theories are not. His method works, but trying to develop a coherent view of the human psyche out of it, and then claiming that "this is how the human mind works" is ignorant at best.

>>2293508

>His method works, but trying to develop a coherent view of the human psyche out of it, and then claiming that "this is how the human mind works" is ignorant at best.

Great, nobody said this. His theories are part of a greater picture, and they're helpful in reaching it.

Science is a tool and psychology is the most "tool like" of all the sciences. People get their panties knotted up about the scientific method but in social sciences its incredibly hard to produce a repeatable experiment. Humans are complicated, similar in a few ways, vastly different in many others.

File: the end is nye.png (68KB, 268x306px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 268x306px

>>2293450
>If a theory helps people(and his certainly did) then why attack it solely on its inability to be falsified?
this is painful to read

>>2293373
jeez, could you stop seeing penises everywhere? it's just a fucking cigar m8.

>>2293617

Answer my question.

>>2293553
>Great, nobody said this. His theories are part of a greater picture, and they're helpful in reaching it.
His theories were all wrong, with the exception of the glaringly obvious and those necessarily true. Freudian psychology did more harm than good to the psychological sciences. We still haven't done away with the damage he has done -- retard psych students continue to quote his garbage nonsense in essays like they know what they're talking about. Freud is to psychology as Pliny the Elder is to medicine.

>Science is a tool and psychology is the most "tool like" of all the sciences.
Psychology is the least tool-like of the sciences because it is not a consistent, reliable, cause-and-effect branch of "science." You're thinking of physics. Physics and physical science are the "tools" of the other sciences, like biology.

>People get their panties knotted up about the scientific method but in social sciences its incredibly hard to produce a repeatable experiment.
Yes, they would, considering an unrepeatable result is scientifically invalid, and when a discipline is riddled with unreproducible studies the entire discipline's authority is undermined.

>Humans are complicated, similar in a few ways, vastly different in many others.
Literally everything is complicated if you bother to study it in-depth. The problem psychology is not that humans are complicated, it's that psychology is badly studied, frequently researched by rushed researchers with low standards, and plagued by irrelevant references to nonsense publications by blow-hards from a century ago who never bothered to fact-check their work. Psychology has only started to clean up its act in the last forty or so years, and even then, the attempt thus far has been lackluster.

>>2293696

>His theories were all wrong, with the exception of the glaringly obvious and those necessarily true.

They weren't completely wrong, many of them were reworked/tweaked by later psychologists. The unconscious, pathologies originating in the family, and Defense Mechanisms are all accepted by mainstream psychology, albeit in a different from from when he originally articulated. You think his "glaringly obvious ideas" were only "glarily obvious" because they've become so idiosyncratic in today's culture, before then that was not necessarily the case.

>Freudian psychology did more harm than good to the psychological sciences

There wasn't much of a psychiatric field before him, so this is complete nonsense. You think thats the case because some of his later ideas were extremely controversial and outright rejected by modern Psychology, but his early work is still very relevant.

>We still haven't done away with the damage he has done -- retard psych students continue to quote his garbage nonsense in essays like they know what they're talking about. Freud is to psychology as Pliny the Elder is to medicine.

How many Psyche student papers have you read, again?

>>2293696

>Psychology is the least tool-like of the sciences because it is not a consistent, reliable, cause-and-effect branch of "science." You're thinking of physics. Physics and physical science are the "tools" of the other sciences, like biology.

Psychology is more of a tool than Physics because Physics is the body of knowledge on how the universe on the smallest level works. The human applications of Physics is unrelated to the core understanding. Psychology is ALWAYS looking at solving the problem of human pathology and disease and only that. And for that reason alone, it functions far more like a tool than any other science.

>Yes, they would, considering an unrepeatable result is scientifically invalid, and when a discipline is riddled with unreproducible studies the entire discipline's authority is undermined.

Alright, so you have people can suffer from crippling mental problems, you have a theory(that's not falsifiable) that has a proven record of helping people, yet you don't implement it because it's not falsifiable?

>Literally everything is complicated if you bother to study it in-depth. The problem psychology is not that humans are complicated, it's that psychology is badly studied, frequently researched by rushed researchers with low standards, and plagued by irrelevant references to nonsense publications by blow-hards from a century ago who never bothered to fact-check their work. Psychology has only started to clean up its act in the last forty or so years, and even then, the attempt thus far has been lackluster.

I would argue that Psychology has gotten worse over the last 30 years because the over abundance of drugs and the huge surge in self reported tests. There's also a huge problem of value judgement in the Psychological field that i find a bit short sighted. Should the Psychiatrist cause pain now in order to get a better return later? Modern Psychology drugs people because it's the more acceptable, lawsuit preventing thing to do.