"A funereal whiff of defeat" [Archive] - Love-Scent Pheromones Forum

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

<blockquote>Quote:<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>

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:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
For what it\'s worth I haven\'t read much of the Bible either. If\'n

you know what I mean.

<hr /></blockquote>

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

<blockquote>Quote:<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:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
For what it\'s worth I haven\'t read

much of the Bible either. If\'n you know what I mean.

<hr /></blockquote>

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>

I meant as in a work of fiction.

Sexyredhead

02-22-2004, 07:17 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I meant as in a work of fiction.

<hr

/></blockquote>

You\'re entitled to your opinion.

**DONOTDELETE**

02-22-2004, 07:18 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I meant as in a work of fiction.

<hr /></blockquote>

You\'re entitled to your opinion.

<hr /></blockquote>

Ditto.

OCP

02-22-2004, 07:30 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<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>

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

<blockquote>Quote:<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>

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

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
It all comes down to chemicals and dumb

primates.

<hr /></blockquote>

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.

OCP

02-22-2004, 08:57 PM

**DONOTDELETE**

02-23-2004, 12:31 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
It all comes down to chemicals and dumb primates.

<hr

/></blockquote>

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>

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.

CJ01

02-23-2004, 01:22 AM

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

<blockquote>Quote:<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>

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*

CJ01

02-23-2004, 11:26 AM

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

<blockquote>Quote:<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>

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

OCP

02-23-2004, 05:14 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
...not to mention that that cocaine

probably messed with his head. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

<hr /></blockquote>

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

OCP

02-23-2004, 07:58 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<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>

It is in my brain 24/7 and

everything I do is geared towards better sex........everything! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif