View Full Version : "A funereal whiff of defeat"
jvkohl
02-22-2004, 06:28 PM
This post
follows a lengthy debate from September of last year regarding what I perceive
to be a difference between
psychological aspects of behavior and biological
(e.g., pheromonal) facts. The entire article is available
at the
URL listed. Here\'s an intro:
Psychoanalysis Is Dead ... So How Does That Make You
Feel?
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/lat-ps
ycho.html (\"http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/lat-psycho.html\")
Arguably no other notable figure in history was as wrong as Freud was about
every important
thing he had to say.
By Todd Dufresne
February 18, 2004
What an utter disappointment the 1990s were
for the fans of Freud.
Time magazine asked aloud, and on its cover no less, \"Is Freud Dead?\"
And the
former analytic stronghold, the New York Review of Books,
published lengthy feature articles debunking
Freud\'s reputation as a
man and as a thinker.
By the end of the decade, even the New Yorker was in on the
action.
Taken as a whole, these sensations of the 1990s, part of the so-called
\"Freud wars,\" capture the
gist of a cause well lost.
The year 2000 -- the centenary of \"The Interpretation of Dreams\" --
should
have been a triumph for Freudians. Instead, amid the
celebrations was a funereal whiff of defeat:
**DONOTDELETE**
02-22-2004, 06:33 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
This post follows a lengthy debate from
September of last year regarding what I perceive
to be a difference between psychological aspects of behavior and
biological
(e.g., pheromonal) facts. The entire article is available
at the URL listed. Here\'s an
intro:
Psychoanalysis Is Dead ... So How Does That Make You
Feel?
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/la
t-psycho.html (\"http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/lat-psycho.html\")
Arguably no other notable figure in history was as wrong as Freud was about
every
important thing he had to say.
By Todd Dufresne
February 18, 2004
What an utter disappointment
the 1990s were for the fans of Freud.
Time magazine asked aloud, and on its cover no less, \"Is Freud
Dead?\"
And the former analytic stronghold, the New York Review of Books,
published lengthy feature
articles debunking Freud\'s reputation as a
man and as a thinker.
By the end of the decade, even the
New Yorker was in on the action.
Taken as a whole, these sensations of the 1990s, part of the so-called
\"Freud wars,\" capture the gist of a cause well lost.
The year 2000 -- the centenary of \"The
Interpretation of Dreams\" --
should have been a triumph for Freudians. Instead, amid the
celebrations
was a funereal whiff of defeat:
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
I always thought
Freud was bullshit.
From what I could be bothered to read, he didn\'t support his fantastic theories very
convincingly.
For what it\'s worth I haven\'t read much of the Bible either.
If\'n you know what I mean.
jvkohl
02-22-2004, 06:57 PM
I
found this link to an invited review of \"The Biology of Love\" that I published in the Journal of Sex Research.
The review was submitted one week before practitioners of \"rebirthing\" therapy smothered a young girl (age 9 as
I recall) in Denver, Colorado. After the reveiw was accepted, the editor checked with me to ensure I wanted it
published, since it was the most scathing review he had ever considered for publication. I told him that it might
help other reviewers to express what might best be referred to as the dangers of
psychoanalysis.
http://www.finda
rticles.com/cf_0/m2372/4_38/84866962/p1/article.jhtml (\"http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2372/4_38/84866962/p1/article.jhtml\")
chaoticevil wrote:
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
For what it\'s worth I haven\'t read much of the Bible either. If\'n
you know what I mean.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Though I don\'t want to bring the Bible
into Forum discussion, I don\'t know what you mean. I do not equate the Bible with any other book or article,
especially those that focus on psychology.
Pancho1188
02-22-2004, 07:11 PM
I may get crap for saying this, but I feel that although everything this man says about psychoanalysis
has truth to it, the man is acting like an ignorant oaf in this article.
Yes, Freud was a little off. Yes, he
did drugs and had theories with way too much emphasis on sex and wanting to have sex with your parents.
However, to bash the man, as many, many, many psychologists do, would be to insult a revolutionary in modern
psychology. Yes, the man was wrong a million times over, but he sparked controversy in the world with his theories,
he got people thinking about how the mind might actually function, and he jumpstarted if not created fields such as
counseling and psychotherapy.
To insult Freud in such a way would be to insult one of the forefathers of the
field. Galileo, Aristotle, Capernicus, etc...they all were wrong about hundreds of things over the course of their
lives, but they\'re still geniuses and honorable figures of their time. Remember, the earth was flat, the
universe revolved around the earth, and planets and stars were gods all at some point in history as claimed by the
geniuses that we praise today.
Yes, some if not most of what Freud said was full of [censored], but so is most of
what everyone says and at least he used his BS to transform how we look at our minds today.
**DONOTDELETE**
02-22-2004, 07:13 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I found this link to an invited review
of \"The Biology of Love\" that I published in the Journal of Sex Research. The review was submitted one week
before practitioners of \"rebirthing\" therapy smothered a young girl (age 9 as I recall) in Denver, Colorado.
After the reveiw was accepted, the editor checked with me to ensure I wanted it published, since it was the most
scathing review he had ever considered for publication. I told him that it might help other reviewers to express
what might best be referred to as the dangers of
psychoanalysis.
http://www.f
indarticles.com/cf_0/m2372/4_38/84866962/p1/article.jhtml (\"http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2372/4_38/84866962/p1/article.jhtml\")
chaoticevil
wrote:
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
For what it\'s worth I haven\'t read
much of the Bible either. If\'n you know what I mean.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Though
I don\'t want to bring the Bible into Forum discussion, I don\'t know what you mean. I do not equate the Bible
with any other book or article, especially those that focus on psychology.
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
I meant as in a work of fiction.
Sexyredhead
02-22-2004, 07:17 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I meant as in a work of fiction.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
You\'re entitled to your opinion.
**DONOTDELETE**
02-22-2004, 07:18 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I meant as in a work of fiction.
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
You\'re entitled to your opinion.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Ditto.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I may get crap for saying this, but I
feel that although everything this man says about psychoanalysis has truth to it, the man is acting like an ignorant
oaf in this article.
Yes, Freud was a little off. Yes, he did drugs and had theories with way too much
emphasis on sex and wanting to have sex with your parents. However, to bash the man, as many, many, many
psychologists do, would be to insult a revolutionary in modern psychology. Yes, the man was wrong a million times
over, but he sparked controversy in the world with his theories, he got people thinking about how the mind might
actually function, and he jumpstarted if not created fields such as counseling and psychotherapy.
To insult Freud
in such a way would be to insult one of the forefathers of the field. Galileo, Aristotle, Capernicus, etc...they
all were wrong about hundreds of things over the course of their lives, but they\'re still geniuses and honorable
figures of their time. Remember, the earth was flat, the universe revolved around the earth, and planets and stars
were gods all at some point in history as claimed by the geniuses that we praise today.
Yes, some if not most of
what Freud said was full of [censored], but so is most of what everyone says and at least he used his BS to
transform how we look at our minds today.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Freud is bullshit! I
majored in Psych like a million others and everyone I talk to that majored in psych agrees with me. In fact I think
Psychoanalysis is just fairy tails. B.F. Skinner and the behaviorists are much closer to reality than any
psychoanalyst will ever be. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
**DONOTDELETE**
02-22-2004, 07:32 PM
It all comes down to chemicals and dumb primates.
jvkohl
02-22-2004, 07:49 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Yes, some if not most of what Freud
said was full of [censored], but so is most of what everyone says and at least he used his BS to transform how we
look at our minds today.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
I agree, somewhat, that Freud transformed
how we look at our minds... but not today. Today, after years of psychobabble--much of it inspired by Freud--we
finally are exploring the biology of behavior: the gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system link between the social
environment and behavior, or simply put, the pathway that links pheromones to behavior. Psychologists, for the most
part--note the qualifier--still tell stories, and present theories that often have no basis in biological fact--like
Janov, for example. What a nut case, yet still he managed to attract followers. Haven\'t heard much about
rebirthing therapy since the Denver suffocation, but suspect there are still a few practitioners out there. Perhaps
worse is that other followers/practitioners might have moved on to other ridiculous/dangerous practices. Psychology
seems like a free-for-all compared to biology.
jvkohl
02-22-2004, 08:13 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
It all comes down to chemicals and dumb
primates.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Back on topic, so far as the chemical influence. Still,
I think we\'re sufficiently complex beings to dissagree with the \"dumb primates.\" After all, we can think
about consequences, even when we don\'t understand the basis of our actions. And, as Bruce always indicates, a
positive attitude can make a huge difference. A friend who I\'ve known for more than 30 years was, for many of
those years, intolerable. Though many others (all motorcycle enthusiasts) put up with him for different reasons, all
of us now agree that antidepressants make him a lot easier to be around. Better living through chemistry,
perhaps--as with pheromones, I suspect. He interests me particularly because he detects only a strong unpleasant
scent from SoE for men; he can\'t stand it! Wonder if his belligerant attitude is due to his natural aversion for
masculine pheromones. Was good to learn he very much likes SoE for women, but it wasn\'t at all surprising.
He\'s always done well with the ladies--a gentleman, bad ass, super macho guy who you want with you in case
there\'s any trouble that he doesn\'t start. One of the \"bad boys\" that some women really go for. I\'m
tempted to psychoanalyze his behavior, but would rather look at brain imagery studies to figure such people out.
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
It all comes down to chemicals and dumb primates.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Back on topic, so far as the chemical influence. Still, I think we\'re
sufficiently complex beings to dissagree with the \"dumb primates.\" After all, we can think about consequences,
even when we don\'t understand the basis of our actions. And, as Bruce always indicates, a positive attitude can
make a huge difference. A friend who I\'ve known for more than 30 years was, for many of those years, intolerable.
Though many others (all motorcycle enthusiasts) put up with him for different reasons, all of us now agree that
antidepressants make him a lot easier to be around. Better living through chemistry, perhaps--as with pheromones, I
suspect. He interests me particularly because he detects only a strong unpleasant scent from SoE for men; he
can\'t stand it! Wonder if his belligerant attitude is due to his natural aversion for masculine pheromones. Was
good to learn he very much likes SoE for women, but it wasn\'t at all surprising. He\'s always done well with
the ladies--a gentleman, bad ass, super macho guy who you want with you in case there\'s any trouble that he
doesn\'t start. One of the \"bad boys\" that some women really go for. I\'m tempted to psychoanalyze his
behavior, but would rather look at brain imagery studies to figure such people out.
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
Do not waste your time on psychoanalysis, Check his chemicals......
**DONOTDELETE**
02-23-2004, 12:31 AM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font
class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
It all comes down to chemicals and dumb primates.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Back on topic, so far as the chemical influence. Still, I think
we\'re sufficiently complex beings to dissagree with the \"dumb primates.\" After all, we can think about
consequences, even when we don\'t understand the basis of our actions. And, as Bruce always indicates, a positive
attitude can make a huge difference. A friend who I\'ve known for more than 30 years was, for many of those years,
intolerable. Though many others (all motorcycle enthusiasts) put up with him for different reasons, all of us now
agree that antidepressants make him a lot easier to be around. Better living through chemistry, perhaps--as with
pheromones, I suspect. He interests me particularly because he detects only a strong unpleasant scent from SoE for
men; he can\'t stand it! Wonder if his belligerant attitude is due to his natural aversion for masculine
pheromones. Was good to learn he very much likes SoE for women, but it wasn\'t at all surprising. He\'s always
done well with the ladies--a gentleman, bad ass, super macho guy who you want with you in case there\'s any
trouble that he doesn\'t start. One of the \"bad boys\" that some women really go for. I\'m tempted to
psychoanalyze his behavior, but would rather look at brain imagery studies to figure such people out.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
I will agree that there is some complex machinery at work here.
However on a slight tangent, it just baffles me when humanity in general does not apply the same rigorous scrutiny
to ALL of it\'s beliefs (not just religious).
We like to fool ourselves.
On topic though, I have to say that
from an evolutionary standpoint, we may be driving Ferrari\'s now, but it\'s still a monkey at the wheel. And
that in my opinion is much more dangerous than a more congruous combination.
Ie. We are really following the same
basic dominance/submission alpha beta hierarchal script that was bequeathed us by our animal brethren.
Reason
still gasps in thin air.
At risk of running my point into the ground, I don\'t think we can humanely advance
until we have done away with this more or less.
this is a little OT (but it´s too early for me to say much else, yawn) they made a 2 part film/TV
series about Freud which will be shown in some european countries in the near future.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Pancho1188
02-23-2004, 09:43 AM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
this is a little OT (but it´s too early
for me to say much else, yawn) they made a 2 part film/TV series about Freud which will be shown in some european
countries in the near future. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
I heard it was a risque piece mixing Benny Hill with American inner city relations...
Freud:
Tell me about your mother...
Patient: Don\'t you be talkin\' \'bout my mama, biaaatch!!!
*Hilarious chase
scene ensues at an increased frame rate*
pancho, stop sniffing your pheros straight, it´s not good for you
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Rakesh
02-23-2004, 03:43 PM
Well the article is pure bovine excrementum...
Rather than accepting a \"dark side\" of the mind (IE
the unsconcious) and the various mesmerisms and exorcisms as different manifestation, it discards it whatsover as a
money hoarding construct. Pull the other one, mr. Expert.
Freud was damn right about one thing: just about
everything we do is based on sex. Our jobs, our looks, every time you hold the door for someone. There is sex behind
it, more or less obviously. Basically people who can\'t cope with themselves being much less civilised and
sophisticated than they would like to be naturally discard those theories.
You cant kill the beast. You can pretend
it doesnt exist and hide from it (resulting in a breakdown much later, the pressure accumulates...thus clerical
rapists etc), or you can friggin learn to live with it and accept yourself as you are.
Rakesh
02-23-2004, 03:50 PM
One of the best quotes this forum has seen was \"we are all monkeys in denial\". Trying to
\"overcome\" our animal side is just as reasonable as pretending it doesnt exist. You are trying to remove the
motor from the ferrari and you hope it will go better afterwards.
**DONOTDELETE**
02-23-2004, 05:10 PM
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
One of the best quotes this forum
has seen was \"we are all monkeys in denial\". Trying to \"overcome\" our animal side is just as reasonable as
pretending it doesnt exist. You are trying to remove the motor from the ferrari and you hope it will go better
afterwards.
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Wouldn\'t you say that in general, the advancement
of human civilization has been more or less AWAY from our theoretical animal roots? (I say theoretical because I am
NOT interested in a religious debate.)
And that as general educational levels rise, humaneness toward other living
creatures increases?
Where would you feel safer and more productive, in a cage with hungry lions that are not
likely capable of reflection much less empathy?
I guess what I am trying to say, is that, I believe that in order
for humanity to advance technologically and ethically, we must strive to maitain a vector AWAY from base animal
behavior.
Pancho1188
02-23-2004, 05:12 PM
That\'s a good point, Rakesh. People seem to forget the time period in which Freud lived.
The Victorian era was full of sexual oppression/suppression, and people really did have sex on the brain because
they were so damn horny from not being allowed any sexual freedom!
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif That\'s why everyone thinks he went overboard now because
we\'re a little more accepting of sex as a part of human nature and don\'t have as much bottled up sexual
tension to get released through other means such as dreams, etc. The common theme that Freud found in his patients
were that they were molested as children or had other sexual problems. I do agree that a lot of his stuff was
outlandish, but I again reiterate that everyone makes 1,000 mistakes for every brilliant idea they\'ve ever
had...not to mention that that cocaine probably messed with his head.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
PS: Sure, I have a lot of bottled up sexual tension, but
that\'s a whole different story... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
...not to mention that that cocaine
probably messed with his head. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
Do ya think so? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
apple
02-23-2004, 05:27 PM
yeah sexuality today changes everything. sure we do think about sex alot, but now its not towards
everyone and everything. people can have one partner and think of sex only with them, instead of everyone else they
see \"I wanna do that person and that person\" etc. ok so this seems to be rare still, but it does happen. we can
express ourselves alot better in bed, we can do it more often, we can talk openly to our friends about sex. we get
it out and so dont have it bottled up that its stuck on our brain 24/7 imo
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
yeah sexuality today changes
everything. sure we do think about sex alot, but now its not towards everyone and everything. people can have one
partner and think of sex only with them, instead of everyone else they see \"I wanna do that person and that
person\" etc. ok so this seems to be rare still, but it does happen. we can express ourselves alot better in bed,
we can do it more often, we can talk openly to our friends about sex. we get it out and so dont have it bottled up
that its stuck on our brain 24/7 imo
<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
It is in my brain 24/7 and
everything I do is geared towards better sex........everything! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.