[scorpiomover]

Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Freud was not a scientist. He did not test his hypotheses. Not testing hypotheses is counter to science. At best what he did were observational studies, which are not usually scientific in nature. And nobody would consider Freud's views as scientific theory. Anybody with a decent understand of psychology would recognize that. Here's a couple of experimental psychologists who could be considered scientists: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Additionally, modern To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. is a scientific field.

Freud was not a scientist in the modern parlance used in the field of governmental pre-approved experimental biology.

In the conceptual view of science in his time, he was without any question, a scientist in every sense of the word, and much more than anyone like Albert Michelson and Edward Morley.

[Kisai]

	In the conceptual view of science in his time, he was without any question, a scientist in every sense of the word,

Hardly, considering he lived from 1856 to 1939, not the Renaissance. He's predated by a slew of actual scientists using empirical methods. He's a psuedo-scientific hack at best and his theories aren't considered relevant today.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hardly, considering he lived from 1856 to 1939, not the Renaissance.

Through the last thousand years, and before, the vast majority of the population of Western Europe were the working class. The middle classes, the upper classes, and the entire intelligensia, were a tiny fraction of the total population.

Over the last 100 years, the vast majority of Westerners have become middle class, and the intelligensia has exploded in size, and the working class is practically extinct in the UK.

Read:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
:

“No-one really knows who the middle class is in the 21st century,” says Lawrence James, author of The Middle Class: a History. “People talk about the middle class and they include anyone who works at a computer inputting data right up to a high court judge. The middle class is a vast mosaic of tiny tesserae, there’s no longer a collective consciousness.” When John Prescott announced in 1997 that “we’re all middle class now”, he was greeted with derision; 13 years on, he has been proved to have demonstrated a rare prescience. Social boundaries have blurred to the point where a person’s profession no longer reflects their income, status - and, crucially, their voting preferences.

Read:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The debate is already underway across Twitter and the blogosphere after David Cameron described himself as “middle class”* during his PM Direct event this afternoon. Many will be surprised by this comment given that Cameron is an old Etonian, former Oxford student, prime minister, descendant of MPs – and ultimately of William IV – and husband of an aristocrat. He admitted earlier this year that he had had a “very posh, very privileged upbringing.” Is this the final proof of the classless society? (It was John Prescott – the former ship steward turned deputy prime minister – who famously said in 1997 that “we are all middle class now“.) It was once said of Gordon Brown that he would never have understood why anyone would want to build a conservatory. Even he, as electoral defeat loomed, tried to reach out to the “squeezed middle classes” in an attempt to claim that he was one of them. The new, much broader definition of the British middle class appears to be thus: “You are neither descended from the Saxe-Coburg dynasty nor do your children work up chimneys and smoke Lambert & Butler.” * The PM referred to “sharp-elbowed middle classes like my wife and me”

The end of the working classes, and everyone being middle class, is the most radical social change in the last 1,000 years, and yet everyone in the UK has discussed it, and agreed that this is now the case, and has been so for quite a while.

Where exactly did all these millions of working-class people go? Did they all die of Spanish Flu? It killed a lot of people. But not that many. Did they all leave? They couldn't afford to leave the country.

Where did all the middle-classes come from? Did they start having 20 babies each? Not if the birth records are to be examined.

So where did the majority of the UK, who are all middle-class, come from, and where did all the millions of working class people go exactly?

	He's predated by a slew of actual scientists using empirical methods.

Boyle did his experiments in pots, by himself. They not carried out in an official scientifically authorised study. They were carried out in pots. Newton's experiments into optics were carried out with the use of some cheap prisms that he bought in a county fair, of far less quality than you could buy in a toy store. Ben Franklin used a key, a rope, and himself, for his experiments with lightning. By modern standards, these experiments are about as reliable as a Mormon doing a few basic experiments in his room in his parents' house, with stuff that he bought from a local farmer's market, and then claiming that on the basis of those experiments, that he's discovered the secret to perpetual motion.

	He's a psuedo-scientific hack at best and his theories aren't considered relevant today.

Freud said that everything was really about sex, and as a consequence, all personal and societal problems are problems of sexual dysfunction. In the last 10-20 years, quite a number of psychologists have said that nowadays, Western culture is obsessed with sex, and so is everyone in it. So from a Freudian POV, everything you see as a problem in society, and most of the problems in your life, are down to this obsession with sex that so many of us have, and are not even aware of. As far as the laws of most Western countries go, multiple-murderers, sex offenders, and terrorists, are given far more respect of human rights than people who have at one point in their life, been suspected that they might physically attack someone due to mental illness. So is it that surprising, that no-one in Western countries wants to be called mentally ill? Is it surprising then, that since according to Freud, everyone around today is severely mentally ill, that everyone around today wants to claim Freud was talking nonsense?

[psykhe]

Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Freud was not a scientist. He did not test his hypotheses. Not testing hypotheses is counter to science. At best what he did were observational studies, which are not usually scientific in nature. And nobody would consider Freud's views as scientific theory. Anybody with a decent understand of psychology would recognize that. Here's a couple of experimental psychologists who could be considered scientists: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Additionally, modern To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. is a scientific field.

Agree that Freud fall short in testing his hypotheses (his theories even!) but I think it's unfair that you'd classify his works alongside experimental and developmental psychologists. Freud was not a psychologist, he studied humans as spiritual beings.

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hardly, considering he lived from 1856 to 1939, not the Renaissance. He's predated by a slew of actual scientists using empirical methods. He's a psuedo-scientific hack at best and his theories aren't considered relevant today.

I still have to find one person who studied human behaviour using empirical methods during Freud's time. Give me a name and I'd be happy to jot that down on my "to-study list".

Psychology is advancing, fast and furiously advancing.

[Marcus Septim]

No,a coccain addicted mother loving son of a bitch!

[Tahiti]

So he falls victim to unknown chaos of the "mind". Highest extremes of complexity. Where "real" math almost fails.

Yea, he does qualify.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Lol.

Even if he's wrong it still wouldn't change anything.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by psykhe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Psychology is advancing, fast and furiously advancing.

Hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people are waiting for psychology to advance to the point where psychologists can actually say they CAN cure people, instead of the usual "We don't really know what will make you better. We can try x, y and z. But we have no idea if it will. Even if it helps, we have no idea when you will get better. We don't even know if the drugs we are prescribing, will help you, or if they will turn you into a raving psychopath who murders an entire family." So far, psychologists take the approach that they leave it up to the patient, with them mostly watching and keeping score, by keeping in touch on an hour a week basis. The very best that they have, is CBT, which basically treats the patient with the assumption that they don't have a clue what is wrong with the patient, and simply focus on addressing the cyclically occuring symptoms. It's massively over-subscribed, far more than is provided to be used, because it really is the best that they have to offer, and it only offers a 30% improvement rate.

INTJs are very much needed in psychology to improve its efficiency.

[Tahiti]

Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people are waiting for psychology to advance to the point where psychologists can actually say they CAN cure people, instead of the usual "We don't really know what will make you better. We can try x, y and z. But we have no idea if it will. Even if it helps, we have no idea when you will get better. We don't even know if the drugs we are prescribing, will help you, or if they will turn you into a raving psychopath who murders an entire family." So far, psychologists take the approach that they leave it up to the patient, with them mostly watching and keeping score, by keeping in touch on an hour a week basis. The very best that they have, is CBT, which basically treats the patient with the assumption that they don't have a clue what is wrong with the patient, and simply focus on addressing the cyclically occuring symptoms. It's massively over-subscribed, far more than is provided to be used, because it really is the best that they have to offer, and it only offers a 30% improvement rate. INTJs are very much needed in psychology to improve its efficiency.

You mean XXXX in general to improve the complete lack of information and understanding. hard to improve efficiency without any base or consistent models.

[psykhe]

Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people are waiting for psychology to advance to the point where psychologists can actually say they CAN cure people, instead of the usual "We don't really know what will make you better. We can try x, y and z. But we have no idea if it will. Even if it helps, we have no idea when you will get better. We don't even know if the drugs we are prescribing, will help you, or if they will turn you into a raving psychopath who murders an entire family."

Taxonomy was not made overnight. I don't know if the one you quoted is a fabricated testimony or a personal observation. I don't want to assume.

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So far, psychologists take the approach that they leave it up to the patient, with them mostly watching and keeping score, by keeping in touch on an hour a week basis.

Some do this, some don't. But mostly yes.

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The very best that they have, is CBT, which basically treats the patient with the assumption that they don't have a clue what is wrong with the patient, and simply focus on addressing the cyclically occuring symptoms. It's massively over-subscribed, far more than is provided to be used, because it really is the best that they have to offer, and it only offers a 30% improvement rate.

I think you operate on the assumption that psychologist *should* be able to diagnose the "illness" at first glance.

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	INTJs are very much needed in psychology to improve its efficiency.

Sometimes, when dealing with people, the best thing you can do is listen. Just listen. It requires high level of interpersonal skill that most INTJs (introverts for that matter) lack. This sets psychology away from the umbrella of pure science, I believe.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	... mentally ill people are waiting for psychology to advance to the point where psychologists can actually say they CAN cure people,...

The problem here is precisely with this misconception of psychology "curing" mental illnesses. That will not be the case, and is something psychology must be very clear about when explaining itself in the public domain. We are talking about conditions that have extremely complex interacting etiological factors ranging from fundamental genetics all the way up to socio-cultural factors. In fact, the vast majority of mental health conditions are very heavily impacted by severe social stressors. These are things that are far beyond anyone's capacity to alter. So, there will always be mental illness and there will never be some kind of "cure". The push is, and will continue to be, to help people develop coping strategies to reduce their risk for mental illness and increase resiliency.

Yes, CBT and pharmacological treatments can help treat some of the more proximal influences underpinning mental illness, but the causes of mental illness extend far beyond the reach of psychologists.

---------- Post added 06-19-2012 at 12:40 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So far, psychologists take the approach that they leave it up to the patient, with them mostly watching and keeping score, by keeping in touch on an hour a week basis.

That is because there's no possible way to "cure" someone's lack of social support or the circumstances in their lives that are feeding into their problems. The goal is to help people build the skills to buffer against adversity. Because the influences going on in people's lives are so different between people, thinking that there can be a one-size-fits-all cure is completely faulty. The pscychologists job is mainly to guide people in finding effective solutions to their own problems. Seeking treatment for mental illness is not a passive process whereby people simply sit on a couch, talk for a while, and get somehow get better... it's an active process that requires an incredible amount of effort on behalf of the client.

---------- Post added 06-19-2012 at 12:43 PM ----------

Also, (and I cannot stress this enough) clinical psychology is only one small facet of psychology. This is a huge discipline dedicated studying how the mind works on many levels. It's primarily research focused.

---------- Post added 06-19-2012 at 12:47 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by psykhe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I still have to find one person who studied human behaviour using empirical methods during Freud's time. Give me a name and I'd be happy to jot that down on my "to-study list".

John Watson.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by GeniusPr0 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You mean XXXX in general to improve the complete lack of information and understanding. hard to improve efficiency without any base or consistent models.

I mean we really need some ornery people who are motivated to get things done. If things can be shaken up, so that psychologists learn to listen, INTPs have a lot to contribute.

	Originally Posted by psykhe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sometimes, when dealing with people, the best thing you can do is listen. Just listen.

What people tell you to "listen", they mean: "Pay attention. This is important. The other person is giving you facts that are vital for you to know. If you accept that, then you can talk. If you don't, then you might as well not be there."

	Originally Posted by psykhe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It requires high level of interpersonal skill that most INTJs (introverts for that matter) lack.

Only because INTJs often do not take what other people say seriously, as facts that are vital for them to know.

	Originally Posted by psykhe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This sets psychology away from the umbrella of pure science, I believe.

Only if science means "ignore the evidence". Scientists are supposed to listen, to pay attention, to nature. They are supposed to be the greatest listeners of all.

	Originally Posted by psykhe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think you operate on the assumption that psychologist *should* be able to diagnose the "illness" at first glance.

Listen. Pay attention. This is important. The other person is giving you facts that are vital for you to know. If you accept that, then your responses will make sense, and will add to understanding and the improvement of the situation.

Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The problem here is precisely with this misconception of psychology "curing" mental illnesses. That will not be the case, and is something psychology must be very clear about when explaining itself in the public domain. We are talking about conditions that have extremely complex interacting etiological factors ranging from fundamental genetics all the way up to socio-cultural factors. In fact, the vast majority of mental health conditions are very heavily impacted by severe social stressors. These are things that are far beyond anyone's capacity to alter. So, there will always be mental illness and there will never be some kind of "cure". The push is, and will continue to be, to help people develop coping strategies to reduce their risk for mental illness and increase resiliency. Yes, CBT and pharmacological treatments can help treat some of the more proximal influences underpinning mental illness, but the causes of mental illness extend far beyond the reach of psychologists. That is because there's no possible way to "cure" someone's lack of social support or the circumstances in their lives that are feeding into their problems. The goal is to help people build the skills to buffer against adversity. Because the influences going on in people's lives are so different between people, thinking that there can be a one-size-fits-all cure is completely faulty. The pscychologists job is mainly to guide people in finding effective solutions to their own problems. Seeking treatment for mental illness is not a passive process whereby people simply sit on a couch, talk for a while, and get somehow get better... it's an active process that requires an incredible amount of effort on behalf of the client. Also, (and I cannot stress this enough) clinical psychology is only one small facet of psychology. This is a huge discipline dedicated studying how the mind works on many levels. It's primarily research focused.

All of this, is how doctors used to treat physical ailments. Then they realised that this was not realistic, because the immune system already does all that you wrote. They had to do better than that, to be of ANY genuine benefit whatsoever, to an individual, or to humanity. The same situation exists with the mind. The mind already shows an incredible capacity to heal itself. People don't need psychologists to understand humans, and they don't need psychologists to give people ways to cope, because people already do that for themselves. If psychologists are to be worth having around, they have to be able to do much better than that. Doctors of physical ailments managed to up their game. Some psychologists already have shown that psychologists can easily up their game. It just remains to see if the rest actually bother or not.

If they do, they will be treated as valued members of society. At the moment, they are being given the benefit of the doubt.

If they don't, then humanity will eventually have to treat psychologists the way they treat people who don't "man up" and perform a needed contribution to society. They are treated as children, who must be controlled.

We would rather that psychologists are not treated as children, and controlled like slaves. But eventually, humanity will have to draw a line under the situation, and make a choice, because many people are already making that choice, and more and more are making that choice, every single day.

At the rate things are going with the economic future, then in a number of years, perhaps 20 or 30, we will not be able to afford psychologists who do not show they get efficient results.

LISTEN. PAY ATTENTION. THIS IS IMPORTANT. YOUR FUTURE CAREER IS ON THE LINE.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If they do, they will be treated as valued members of society. At the moment, they are being given the benefit of the doubt. If they don't, then humanity will eventually have to treat psychologists the way they treat people who don't "man up" and perform a needed contribution to society. They are treated as children, who must be controlled

oookay... where are you even getting this bizarre idea? This sounds more like you are mistaking your own ideas and misconceptions of psychology as some sort of grand idea that "humanity" shares. And... again... you are mistaking psychology as entirely treatment focused. It's a research centered field that has contributed massively to almost everything from law enforcement (forensic psych), to how to helping entire businesses operate better (industrial psych), to much of what is know about what the brain does (neuropsychology, and contemporary neuroscience). You are focusing on negligible problems that exist in an extremely tiny part of psychology (clinical, counselling, etc.). You raise a couple valid criticisms, but you are greatly overestimating things.

Again, I must stress that only a small part of the field is concerned with treatment of mental illness, just like only a small part of biology or chemistry is concerned with medicine. I don't mean to sound harsh, but you don't seem to understand what the field of psychology actually is or does.

Anyways, I'll let this thread swing back around to good ol' Sigmund.

[Kisai]

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover
	Through the last thousand years, and before, the vast majority of the population of Western Europe were the working class.

What does this have to do with the modern scientific method and the fact that Freud's psychological theories weren't scientific?

[psykhe]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	John Watson.

True, but considering John B. Watson founded behaviourism and his Little Albert was "conceived" only after (I could be wrong) getting acquainted with B.F. Skinner and Pavlov's experiments I still am not buying it. Freud's work deals with the unconscious -- something that, up to now, is still unquantifiable. They are of different school of thought.

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What people tell you to "listen", they mean: "Pay attention. This is important. The other person is giving you facts that are vital for you to know. If you accept that, then you can talk. If you don't, then you might as well not be there."

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Only because INTJs often do not take what other people say seriously, as facts that are vital for them to know.

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Only if science means "ignore the evidence". Scientists are supposed to listen, to pay attention, to nature. They are supposed to be the greatest listeners of all.

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Listen. Pay attention. This is important. The other person is giving you facts that are vital for you to know. If you accept that, then your responses will make sense, and will add to understanding and the improvement of the situation.

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	LISTEN. PAY ATTENTION. THIS IS IMPORTANT. YOUR FUTURE CAREER IS ON THE LINE.

Hmm k. What Nem said.

[Vagrant]

	Originally Posted by psykhe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I still have to find one person who studied human behaviour using empirical methods during Freud's time. Give me a name and I'd be happy to jot that down on my "to-study list".

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

	Agree that Freud fall short in testing his hypotheses (his theories even!) but I think it's unfair that you'd classify his works alongside experimental and developmental psychologists. Freud was not a psychologist, he studied humans as spiritual beings.

But Freud WAS a psychologist. He claimed that humans were obsessed with sex based on issues we had in youth. There's the oral phase, the anal phase, the penile phase... etc.

Hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people are waiting for psychology to advance to the point where psychologists can actually say they CAN cure people, instead of the usual "We don't really know what will make you better. We can try x, y and z. But we have no idea if it will. Even if it helps, we have no idea when you will get better. We don't even know if the drugs we are prescribing, will help you, or if they will turn you into a raving psychopath who murders an entire family." So far, psychologists take the approach that they leave it up to the patient, with them mostly watching and keeping score, by keeping in touch on an hour a week basis. The very best that they have, is CBT, which basically treats the patient with the assumption that they don't have a clue what is wrong with the patient, and simply focus on addressing the cyclically occuring symptoms. It's massively over-subscribed, far more than is provided to be used, because it really is the best that they have to offer, and it only offers a 30% improvement rate. INTJs are very much needed in psychology to improve its efficiency.

You do realize that even modern medicine isn't guaranteed to work, right? People are incredibly different, and their reactions to certain stimuli, chemicals, and input is also going to be radically different. The human brain is by far the most complex organ that exists, and even neurologists are having a tough time trying to piece it together -- because you can't break it down into smaller parts, it's all interconnected.

	Freud's work deals with the unconscious -- something that, up to now, is still unquantifiable.

It is actually quantifiable. There are several phenomena that we are aware of that work on an unconscious level. A lot of work with the reactions of infants, for example, indicates that infants can be racist at an unconscious level -- they prefer people who are the same skin color as their own after a certain age (I think 3 months). People in fMRI machines will have their brains light up if they see a face they recognize in an image, even if it is for a fraction of a second (before they can react).


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

[scorpiomover]

Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

oookay... where are you even getting this bizarre idea? This sounds more like you are mistaking your own ideas and misconceptions of psychology as some sort of grand idea that "humanity" shares. And... again... you are mistaking psychology as entirely treatment focused. It's a research centered field that has contributed massively to almost everything from law enforcement (forensic psych), to how to helping entire businesses operate better (industrial psych), to much of what is know about what the brain does (neuropsychology, and contemporary neuroscience). You are focusing on negligible problems that exist in an extremely tiny part of psychology (clinical, counselling, etc.). You raise a couple valid criticisms, but you are greatly overestimating things. Again, I must stress that only a small part of the field is concerned with treatment of mental illness, just like only a small part of biology or chemistry is concerned with medicine. I don't mean to sound harsh, but you don't seem to understand what the field of psychology actually is or does.

That is an extremely broad and very abstract description of psychology.

For me, that means that when someone says they are a psychologist, it's no different to an accountant calling himself a mathematician, which are very different things.

I can see that psychology is considered a much wider subject than I realised, and in an entirely different way than I thought sciences could be defined, and thusly, I am working with a completely different concept of science than is possible to be logically consistent with what you described psychology. So I can see that I will have to entirely redefine what I mean by science.

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What does this have to do with the modern scientific method and the fact that Freud's psychological theories weren't scientific?

It means that your conclusions are subjective.

I can see that biology is also a topic where the view of science that I have gleaned are not Ti-logically consistent with your descriptions of biology. So I will have to redefine science with respect to that as well.

Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You do realize that even modern medicine isn't guaranteed to work, right? People are incredibly different, and their reactions to certain stimuli, chemicals, and input is also going to be radically different. The human brain is by far the most complex organ that exists, and even neurologists are having a tough time trying to piece it together -- because you can't break it down into smaller parts, it's all interconnected.

This really pisses people off, that modern medicine is so unreliable. In the UK, it's why homeopaths and acupuncturists get so much work. Probably why so many people trust more in religion than in science. At least you can actually turn to someone religious, and expect that you should be able to get a straight answer.

I expect that more people will become religious in the future.

[Kisai]

	It means that your conclusions are subjective.

No, they aren't. Scientific method was alive and well during Freud's lifetime, however I or you choose to perceive it.

Your dependence on the social zeitgeist as a criteria likewise fails. There were early scientists, like Galileo, Kepler, and Avicenna who existed before the scientific method became wildely followed.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, they aren't. Scientific method was alive and well during Freud's lifetime, however I or you choose to perceive it. Your dependence on the social zeitgeist as a criteria likewise fails. There were early scientists, like Galileo, Kepler, and Avicenna who existed before the scientific method became wildely followed.

All of that is true. But the way I understand science, or understood science, and from my knowledge of that period of time, Freud followed their example, and Freud used the scientific method.

From the way you perceive science and the scientific method, you seem to think that Freud was in conflict with science, and all those other scientists.

Hence, I said that your conclusions were subjective.

But you are entirely correct to stick to your guns. You are a J. You are expected to stick to your views, no matter what.

[Kisai]

	But the way I understand

We don't have a separate criteria of knowledge for "the way scorpiomover understands or doesn't understand things". Educate yourself and stop giving flimsy excuses why black is actually white.

	You are a J.

I am? It says "X" right there.

[Vagrant]

	This really pisses people off, that modern medicine is so unreliable. In the UK, it's why homeopaths and acupuncturists get so much work. Probably why so many people trust more in religion than in science. At least you can actually turn to someone religious, and expect that you should be able to get a straight answer.

Because people are uncomfortable with the truth -- that nothing is perfect, nothing is absolute, except for death and taxes.

Psychology is particularly true in this regard. For example, I suffer from clinical depression. Me and my psychiatrist/psychologist figured out (together) that the cause was stress in my life. In stress-free scenarios (such as summer between school sessions), my depression dies. It peaks at finals, and then drops down again. So I take a higher dosage of anti-depressants when I forsee stress.

But if someone with the same problem as me didn't discuss these issues with their psychiatrist or psychologist, they'd never figure out the root cause. There's no way a psychiatrist can tell every situation for a patient. They can try their best, but it's not always possible. Communication between a doctor and patient is a must.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We don't have a separate criteria of knowledge for "the way scorpiomover understands or doesn't understand things". Educate yourself and stop giving flimsy excuses why black is actually white.

Well, I do try. But the problem is, that whenever I've come across a top-level guy in a subject, they keep telling me that I understand things very, very well. Can't think why.

But heck, what do I know? I'm only me. You're the guy who knows everything as black and white.

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I am? It says "X" right there.

If you weren't, then I would have expected that you'd at least have considered the other side of things.

Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Because people are uncomfortable with the truth -- that nothing is perfect, nothing is absolute, except for death and taxes. Psychology is particularly true in this regard. For example, I suffer from clinical depression. Me and my psychiatrist/psychologist figured out (together) that the cause was stress in my life. In stress-free scenarios (such as summer between school sessions), my depression dies. It peaks at finals, and then drops down again. So I take a higher dosage of anti-depressants when I forsee stress. But if someone with the same problem as me didn't discuss these issues with their psychiatrist or psychologist, they'd never figure out the root cause. There's no way a psychiatrist can tell every situation for a patient. They can try their best, but it's not always possible. Communication between a doctor and patient is a must.

Maybe in your country, people have extremely unrealistic expectations of psychologists. Not here. British people are way more patient than that, and especially when it comes to mental illness. You'd normally not get any help that works even a little bit, until you're into your 30s at the earliest. So unless you're in your mid-40s, you're way ahead of schedule. From the sounds of it, you're about 20 years ahead.

[Merle]

Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Maybe in your country, people have extremely unrealistic expectations of psychologists. Not here. British people are way more patient than that, and especially when it comes to mental illness. You'd normally not get any help that works even a little bit, until you're into your 30s at the earliest. So unless you're in your mid-40s, you're way ahead of schedule. From the sounds of it, you're about 20 years ahead.

WTF? There is so much wrong with this. Firstly, you phrase this delay of effective treatment as a positive thing because it allows British people to exhibit their 'patience' - if it were true, it would not be a 'realistic' expectation of psychologists, it would be something to complain about. Secondly, I know plenty of people who have received timely and effective treatment for mental health conditions in the U.K. - on what are you basing this bizarre claim? It's my understanding that British mental health professionals are more likely to try a variety of treatments (particularly talking therapies) whereas US doctors tend to prescribe drugs perhaps before or instead of talking treatments. That doesn't mean you aren't being treated effectively...

[psykhe]

	Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

Nah, Pavlov was a physiologist who cemented "conditioned reflex" by studying dogs. His theory was later on advocated by John B. Watson and Bertrand Russell in psychology and philosophy, respectively.

	Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But Freud WAS a psychologist. He claimed that humans were obsessed with sex based on issues we had in youth. There's the oral phase, the anal phase, the penile phase... etc.

	Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie certain cognitive functions and behaviors.

He was a psychoanalyst alright, using symbolic interpretation. That is why clinical psychology evolve from Freudian to Neo-Freudian to Clinical. Theorists later on extended Freud's work with research and case studies. There's Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, Erich Fromm, Carl Rogers, Jean Piaget..to name a few. Let's ask someone from APA if they recognise Freud as one, lol.

Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is actually quantifiable. There are several phenomena that we are aware of that work on an unconscious level. A lot of work with the reactions of infants, for example, indicates that infants can be racist at an unconscious level -- they prefer people who are the same skin color as their own after a certain age (I think 3 months). People in fMRI machines will have their brains light up if they see a face they recognize in an image, even if it is for a fraction of a second (before they can react).

Okay, I understated that and therefore stand corrected. But psychologists are TRYING to quantify the unconscious, in small doses, hence the birth of Evolutionary Psychology. Re racism in infants -- infants are still in their sensorimotor stage, they recognise people they are familiar with (skin colour is given).

	Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

Fun, true.

[Vagrant]

	Nah, Pavlov was a physiologist who cemented "conditioned reflex" by studying dogs. His theory was later on advocated by John B. Watson and Bertrand Russell in psychology and philosophy, respectively.

Yes, but conditioned responses still apply to humans. Not as significantly as they might for animals, but they do apply.

	He was a psychoanalyst alright, using symbolic interpretation. That is why clinical psychology evolve from Freudian to Neo-Freudian to Clinical. Theorists later on extended Freud's work with research and case studies. There's Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, Erich Fromm, Carl Rogers, Jean Piaget..to name a few. Let's ask someone from APA if they recognise Freud as one, lol.

Freud's suppositions were largely rejected. Psychoanalysis was about the only useful thing he produced, and even then it needed some work.

	Okay, I understated that and therefore stand corrected. But psychologists are TRYING to quantify the unconscious, in small doses, hence the birth of Evolutionary Psychology. Re racism in infants -- infants are still in their sensorimotor stage, they recognise people they are familiar with (skin colour is given).

Evolutionary psychology is more about trying to figure out where a lot of our behaviors came from -- like OCDs for example. Neurology is closer to attempting to understand the subconscious.

And yes, infants aren't really racist. But they clearly more attention to people who look similar to them (and there is an evolutionary psychology reason behind that).

[titi monkey]

Freud's great discovery was that dreams are the "royal road to the unconscious" -- and a great discovery it was. However, what he found there, and how he interpreted it, led to him constructing a system that didn't always jibe with the evidence.

In fact, as more discoveries were made pertaining to this symbolic language of the human mind, Freud insisted even more strongly that his approach was right and proper and all that was needed. It was this uncompromising stance that led to the falling-out first with Adler and then later with Jung.

Freud was a doctor, psychologist, psychiatrist, pioneer, and a brilliant researcher. But his unwillingness to abandon defunct models as newer evidence became known sadly leaves him short of the designation "scientist".