> People disagreed, sure, but who's model of the unconscious are you familiar with? Jung's or Franz Brentano's?

None of them?

Most educated people today follow Kahneman's dual process theory if any.

But my point was more like the absolute roundabouts that researchers and therapists have to go, because "unconscious" has become an absolutely deleterious concept with no possibility of redeem.

> How often have you seen the idea of the collective unconscious pop up in pop culture?

Jesus F. Christ man. Where in the hell do you think you are? Dr. Oz's den or a somewhat professional sub?

> Remember that Freud originally said his patients were likely being molested by their parents, and was forced to walk back those comments after a large amount of public outcry.

Remember also how there's no damn standard except "anything goes" and everything and its opposite can still be true anyway.

> to renounce the his own sexual fantasy root cause theory

I think you are missing some part of the sentence there...

> Do they not teach now that Research and Psychology are different than counseling and talk therapy?

Clinical psychology is and must be based on proper research...

Nobody said that you must tell patients to evaluate their life through a chi-squared test

> Different treatments, different environments for treatments... ignorance abounds, per usual.

That's why you must be accurate.

No goddamn single case studies in a private setting, which.. uh, a single person can fake and call it a day for half a century.

> YMMV and wokism won't heal your mind, tbh.

Wtf^2

> Do we not still use the concept of the id, superego and ego?

No, not even tangentially.

> I just love how everybody has been jumping on the anti-Freud bandwagon for the last 30'40, years it's really laughable.

It's really laughable that it took so long for the cognitive revolution to spread.

> I'm so disappointed in the field that I wanted so to enter. It's obviously now driven by social trends and political party subgroups.

You meant peer-review, reproducibility and statistical rigour, dude. Wtf.

Misleading and bad beyond belief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind#Controversy_and_criticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressed_memory

There are probably thousands of people that were persecuted over this bullshit concept.

The question was legitimate, your edit sounds actually way more worrisome if any...

Anyhow, the problem is both that he was an absolutely poor scholar, if not even a liar, and that the crap he was pushing was contrivedly bigot (for as much as, I guess it wasn't particularly more than the average guy of the time).

https://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/liu10/files/2010/08/KPopper_Falsification.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Freud_Was_Wrong

Perhaps you can credit him for being enough of a successful snakeoil salesman (with all its flashy sexualized everything) to break certain taboos of the day around mental health. Which is.. mhh, kinda positive I guess?

But everything else was just psychobabble. His fame basically halved the psychological knowledge production for 70% of a century, and especially in a philosophical sub his name should be proscribed except to underline how science doesn't work and shouldn't happen.

Fairish enough.

(and now that I think to it, even in my department they actually have a dedicated track for "diehard admirers" tbhh)

Didn't realize there were psych departments still giving air to that old fraud.

> and further suggests that he was intentionally lying

Like when he was "curing" those women.

They started to sell them in east asia like today.

It's exactly because they were the big evil multinational company that this BS suit could be brought forward.

ITT people not understanding a shit of what this was even about.

You literally explicitly enabled the thing yourself.

Then I don't know why you think I denied the existence of the words themselves.

... you understand every sentence has to be interpreted, right?

> The text I quoted suggests otherwise.

He replied to a dude suggesting that with a high enough bar for asserting knowledge, then everything becomes dogma.

> Are we in the same thread?

Yes. And nobody was claiming any absolute (whatever the word may even mean in the context). Except the example where somehow "having different experiences" is supposed to be a good reason not to trust others (and not in the simple sense that you are "unsure" about what to believe, but specifically that you decide to dismiss them because they aren't you and fuck them).

I'm not suggesting you to use gloves, but to aim to begin with.

This post has absolutely no positive purpose. It's not a potshot, taking a dent on the pride of pricks or something. It is simply FUD that will deceive a lot of naive people, and irritate everybody else with half a memory on the argument.

It blows my mind it's still up and upvoted.

> I don't disagree entirely while wishing to highlight the part where there is a continuous, perpetual construction of truth that is justified by its pragmatic value.

If you'd rather walk out from a room (or worse), than be able to settle your difference with some other presumably educated people, than this "pragmatic" value sounds like very arguable.

> Like an art gallery where there is an open basis for analysis.

People aren't killing themselves over the different interpretations of quantum mechanics. Or the best music, or the best tastes of ice cream.

But over us vs them straw men dressed up as "values" by wicked individuals.

> An Aryan ideal of blondness, a football team's name become offensive.

Criminalizing "being" (let alone somehow having to discard objective reality in name of any moral consideration) sounds a lot like dogma you know.

Just like whatever use of the W-word.

> "Nothing defined" is significant, non-trivial, politically relevant.

They aren't talking about the concept of "not knowing". Like, I don't have an opinion on rocket science, so whatever NASA should do in the next decade is undefined from my pov. And I thus shut up.

They are talking about handwaving. You build your argument through a crescendo of negative rhetoric.. and then you just move on when instead you should explain the way it actually would not be possible for the original idea to make sense.

This was not what they were talking about, why can't you seem to stay on topic?

The issue was people being unable to coexist together for their dear life.

It's fine to even guess the earth is flat. Just don't make that belief part of your identity or something, so much so that you are going to reject thousands of years of evidence with a loud fart.

The original proponents literally did that, and they decided the original core belief was misplaced.

Hence such label is not used anymore because they found a wholly superior position.

I get where you are coming from, but then you should be attacking self-righteousness, smug and indeed ironically kinda some touch of dogmatism (or if not any, they are there to boast not to actually dicuss).

Counterbalancing jerks by tangentially making another wrong in the opposite direction seems just to call for more vitriol.

You seem to care in every thread with your riddles...

And STEMlord idiot balls aren't the whole there is about science.

This so much.

I get wanting to have different views, but this isn't even trying to be edgy. It's just absolute contrived bullshit for (from?) people trying to fuel the anti-scientific circlejerk.

It's not just wrong in the very typical sense of the field that of course everything is going to have more than one interpretation, it simply makes up words out of thin air. It's false, a fabrication, a lie.

It blows my mind that rationalism is somehow put in opposition to it, and that they couldn't even be arsed to follow the name of the movement till the '50s.

*philosophy of science

It's not just that "somebody" demonstrated it false.

The very same authors and original proponents agreed that it was surpassed and wrong.

The guy is probably disingenuous AF like Adorno and friends.