Maybe he was a fraud because all his ideas are bullshiat?

Maybe it was all the blow he did. (new window)

That Boobies is about as eloquent and well argued as the article itself.

Subby sounds like he wants to have sex with his mother.

Sometimes a corndog is just a corndog.

\can't find the exact screencap

Thorndyke Barnhard: That Boobies is about as eloquent and well argued as the article itself.

I'm a psych major, I'm tired of arguing about Freud.

TFComments: deconstruction of the relativistic space-time construct.

Bad idea

Because he just made a bunch of crap up and tried to invent a science basically over night, without understanding the scientific method?

Cargo cult science sucks.

that without the Freud legend the "identity and radical difference [of psychoanalysis] from other forms of psychotherapy collapse".



Looking for any farks given over this tragedy......nope, don't see any.......

People at the start of a discipline don't get everything 100% right, particularly when they lack the tools (in this case, brain imaging and advanced pharmacology) necessary to study it completely. An amazing insight, though the article here fails to even make that point, instead simply implying that because patients offered different explanations at some point Freud was obviously a complete hack.

Well, we've started the thread pretending he made stuff up whole-cloth, wasn't concerned about his patients' actual experiences or thoughts on the subject, and wasn't working from a robust grounding in his age's understanding of neuroscience, so I guess we'll be continuing on into trashing Freud for the first version of every theory he ever came up with, and entirely ignoring how his theories changed over time in the face of new evidence. But will we see anyone willing to put forward the "there's no such thing as developmental trauma, and no one does anything for reasons they aren't entirely cognizant of" argument made most popular by the Scientologists? Why the idea of applying the dialectic to individual human behavior and intention offends people so much I'll never understand.

Alchemist aren't molecular biologist either so we shouldn't even try.

Could it have been the cocaine?

The authors sound kind of Anal to me.

/me? just indulging my Oral side, IMHO

because he stole every idea.

Was it because apparently everything revolved around either wanting to fark your mother or wishing you had a penis?

I take gleeful pleasure every morning in refuting the Viennese quack by recalling and explaining the details of my dreams without using one single reference to sexual symbols or mythical complexes. I urge my potential patients to do likewise.

-Vladimir Nabokov, Strong Opinions

The cocaine argument is so dumb, is like people attacking Carl Sagan because he did weed, how stupid can people be? really?

Heron: People at the start of a discipline don't get everything 100% right, particularly when they lack the tools (in this case, brain imaging and advanced pharmacology) necessary to study it completely. An amazing insight, though the article here fails to even make that point, instead simply implying that because patients offered different explanations at some point Freud was obviously a complete hack.

I've heard the same defense for Crystal Therapy.

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Because he just made a bunch of crap up and tried to invent a science basically over night, without understanding the scientific method?

Cargo cult science sucks.

Especially when all these supposed universals, Oedipus, Electra, Etcetera complexes are from the specific neuroses of a handful of rich Viennese society women. Not the most inclusive of focus groups.

/I like his theories on humor better

Heron: People at the start of a discipline don't get everything 100% right, particularly when they lack the tools (in this case, brain imaging and advanced pharmacology) necessary to study it completely. An amazing insight, though the article here fails to even make that point, instead simply implying that because patients offered different explanations at some point Freud was obviously a complete hack.

Well, we've started the thread pretending he made stuff up whole-cloth, wasn't concerned about his patients' actual experiences or thoughts on the subject, and wasn't working from a robust grounding in his age's understanding of neuroscience, so I guess we'll be continuing on into trashing Freud for the first version of every theory he ever came up with, and entirely ignoring how his theories changed over time in the face of new evidence. But will we see anyone willing to put forward the "there's no such thing as developmental trauma, and no one does anything for reasons they aren't entirely cognizant of" argument made most popular by the Scientologists? Why the idea of applying the dialectic to individual human behavior and intention offends people so much I'll never understand.


Sounds like you have Mommy problems.

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Because he just made a bunch of crap up and tried to invent a science basically over night, without understanding the scientific method?

Cargo cult science sucks.

So he was the model for L. Ron Hubbard?

Ahhh Freud, I read civilization and it's discontents, very good read but like all books/ideas, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Actually, I read that the whole reason he and his buddies suffered from the Oedipus complex was because they we're raised by wet nurses and nannies with little interaction with parents*. It caused their brains to believe that the wet nurse/nanny was their "real" mother, which is why they had a weird attraction with their biological mother.

I think Fromm summarized Freud best: "He was wrong in many aspects. But he did bring us to the volcano and made us look inside."

*The King's speech was an example of this, nannies abusing the princes w/o the King and Queen catching on because they only interacted with their kids at dinner. I could see this causing a complex with anyone.