What do you think about this guy and what he said? Is it wrong

>>9139371
>What do you think about this guy and what he said?
A fraud and most of his "theories" don't stand up to scrutiny since he was too much of a brainlet to use the scientific method.

BRICK IN YO FACE!
NOW WHATCHA GONNA DO WIDDIT!

...He liked blow.

>>9139371
>Is it wrong to take him seriously?
On many subjects, very.

>Why?
Most of his methods are downright subjective and simply not very scientific at all. There are better mind models nowadays.

File: Stuck On Dicks.jpg (65KB, 408x350px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 408x350px

>>9139371

It's pretty funny how he got the entire human race to buy into his dick sizing contest, when neither gender particularly cared before he hit the scene, and actually found Africans' pendulous dongs amusing and vulgar.

>>9139371
He makes for a fantastic sycophant filter, I immediately know to disregard someone if they take him seriously.

>>9139371

He did a lot of very important work, but his methodology has since been abandoned in favor of more reliable methods. His position in psychology is something like that of Aristotle in Physics, that is, he is considered the founder of the discipline but most (all?) of his actual theories have been supplanted by later work.

>>9139388
What are those better mind models that you speak of?
Also, I constantly hear that he failed to properly use the scientific method, but many philosophers don't use it either and their contributions are regarded as brilliant anyways. How is his work any different?

>>9139371
This guy is a meme, even to psychologists. Don't take him serious. None of his ideas are scientifically tested, he even concedes this.

>>9139413
>many philosophers don't use it either and their contributions are regarded as brilliant anyways.

Not by scientists they're not. Freud wasn't a philosopher, he wanted to study the mind scientifically but he didn't have the methodology to do so, instead relying upon introspection. For this reason, most of what he concluded is true only of himself, a fact he himself recognized later in life.

>>9139424
>He didn't have the methodology
Is it even possible to actually study the human mind scientifically? Can't his contributions be used to explain stuff like the development of personality ?

>>9139371
Not a science man
He did show many conclusive results in therapy

My conclusion: good person to vent to. Not so good person to discover things with.

He was right about almost everything he said, people just focus on the sex memes which he was admittedly wrong about because he himself had mother issues and projected it onto everyone.

>>9139371
The best parts of Freud are his least scientistic.

>>9139371
I don't know about his other work but there is theory that is correct: penis envy.

Penis envy perfectly explains female nature and sure, maybe it could be wrong and something more complex could be happening behind why women are so weird, but everything psychology has produced after penis envy to explain the genders has been

>gender is a social construct
>sex doesn't exist
>some women have penises
etc.

So penis envy is literally the best explanation of female nature science has produced to this day.

>>9139371
>>9139377
>>9140648

https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/133/4/1265/307446

Everyone BTFO: a validation of freud in computational neurioscience.

"The default-mode, ego-functions and free-energy: a neurobiological account of Freudian ideas

This article explores the notion that Freudian constructs may have neurobiological substrates. Specifically, we propose that Freud’s descriptions of the primary and secondary processes are consistent with self-organized activity in hierarchical cortical systems and that his descriptions of the ego are consistent with the functions of the default-mode and its reciprocal exchanges with subordinate brain systems. This neurobiological account rests on a view of the brain as a hierarchical inference or Helmholtz machine. In this view, large-scale intrinsic networks occupy supraordinate levels of hierarchical brain systems that try to optimize their representation of the sensorium. This optimization has been formulated as minimizing a free-energy; a process that is formally similar to the treatment of energy in Freudian formulations. We substantiate this synthesis by showing that Freud’s descriptions of the primary process are consistent with the phenomenology and neurophysiology of rapid eye movement sleep, the early and acute psychotic state, the aura of temporal lobe epilepsy and hallucinogenic drug states."