Originally posted by Alliance
Definately. I only know a little of his work. Its only value is a s a philosophical theory.
other than internal conflict{i.d. , ego, super ego and variants}, supression of instincts and the internal conflict causing disorders such as phobias/mood disorders etc etc. it doesnt apply to every cause any more than you can say that biological, are the only causes for psychotic behaviou, but its a viable theory. and not psuedoscience.
Originally posted by leonheartmmYes, it is unscientific. No empirical evidence = unscientific. See Popper. Hence, why it is made fun of.
untrue. there are many people in each field which ridicule the other, some cognitive ridicule the social, some social ridicule the biological , some biological ridicule the psychodynamic. you are merely picking the ones which serve your argument and presenting it as universal truth. freud's ORIGINAL theories in raw form are called counter intuitive and unscientific, but supression of biological urges and i.d., ego, superego {and their developed forms} are NOT called unscientific, it is simply a different perspective of looking at the issue.STOP, right there. you said the dsm wasnt primary literature as far as DIOGNOSING goes, {i think the phrase used was primary DIOGNOSTIC CRITERIA}. and i disagreed. any fool who has passed highschool knows the difference between primary data{primary research data} and secondary data{compiled data not researched on by yourself}. do not try to rephrase the argument to make it seem we were discussing THAT. because we were not, you were trying to discredit the DSM as the primary criteria for diagnosing mental disorders and you failed.
sum1 who has a speciality WILL still be using the dsm criteria. but ADDING ON THEM, the dsm has rather strict MINIMUM criterian which shud be present before the disorder can be diagnoses. the only thing a specialist would be able to do without referring to or complying to the dsm is diagnose things in "remission"{which again is critiqued}. i know, this because i asked two psychologists{one of them my teacher, who is going for her phd, and the other is already a harvard trained phd in psychology and beenn practicing for 18 years in his own mental hospital. just so you can not discredit ME for coming up with idiotic information with no source} and both of them told me. not to mention that they told me that the dsm is still the primary criterion for DIAGNOSING since it is the only way that uniformity of diagnostic critera{direly needed in the world of psychology}can be reached.
lmao, says the person who defends the fact that women are impure for weeks after birth and LOGICALLY impure twice as long if it is a female birth as opposed to a mel birth{yet gives NO evidence for it, which he seems to be so fond of asking the opposition}, orrr didnt you also fail miserably when i asked you to logically defend the pain of childbirth as a curse on women.
all on top of the fact that you delude yourself into beleiving the bible is not sexist.
psychodynamics is not psuedoscience. if it were then thousands of qualified psychologist wouldnt practice it, nor wd it be a part of psychology, nor wud prestigious universities offer courses in it CONSIDERING it to be psychology{consider that they do not offer courses in alchemy anymore}. only certain extreme follower of physical paradigms and schools of thought beleive it to be psuedoscience, it is simply your oppinion and it is NOT supported by evidence.
also, you have stooped to using devious debating tactics here{which i though you were above- no sarcasm intended}. initially{and any1 can see by looking up the thread}, you started out as psychodynamics being a viable schol of psychology and debated that FREUD wasnt taken seriously and said that psychodynamics was a broad term and it encompassed far more than freud who "isnt even a significant part of psychodynamics anymore".
is it just me, or are u contradicting yourself?{nicely putting it}. also, your tone is very much highheaded and condescending. please do not assume that whoever you debate with has inferior knowledge of psychology/mind/logic than your high and mighty self.
Freud maybe, though the context should be considered. In terms of history, Freud was one of the first psychologists to really develop the field so his name is mentioned a lot, although not always in a good way.
On the list of the 100 most eminent psychologists of all-time Freud was ranked third behind B.F. Skinner and Jean Piaget. Freud was the most quoted and Jung wasn't even in the top 25 most quoted.
Really? Because I reiterated many times that I was looking for primary literature which the DSM is not. I asked for a piece of primary literature that supported your assertions about sex and mental distress. You brought up the DSM out of left field. So I will continue to wait for the primary literature supporting your argument. You were stuck in the colloquial sense of the word even after I specified that you should not be. Obviously you forget how that part of the conversation started.
Second, I don't care what they told you, it's marvelously incorrect. Also, you are pretending like the DSM is universally applicable. Which it isn't. It is sanctioned by the APA, but you will find that many national psychology associations use different diagnostic manuals that imo are superior to the DSM. Furthermore, of course a specialist will add onto the DSM criteria without actually using the DSM. Why? Because obviously they already know the exact same criteria through different sources.
I don't remember this being relevant. Oh yes, you are using logically fallacious ad hominem arguments... I could defend them, but I currently don't feel the need to because I could care less especially when it doesn't even apply anymore. You see I tend not to argue things I don't do my research on, something you should take a cue from.
Ad hom = fail.
Yes it is pseudoscience. See Popper again. No empirical evidence = not scientific. Provide some empirical evidence then get back to me.
I still think psychodynamic theory is viable, but it needs a lot of work. I argued Freud isn't really taken seriously in general anymore because he isn't (excluding his work on dreams), I did not argue that he wasn't taken seriously because, sadly, he was at one time.
I don't immediately assume I know more about psychology, but then again I tend to (meant in the most sincere and least cocky way possible).
Yes, it is unscientific. No empirical evidence = unscientific. See Popper. Hence, why it is made fun of.
untrue. just because u make fun of it doesnt mean the wrest of the world does too. i covered this, dont put forward your oppinion or the oppinion of your like minded group as universal truth. it simply isnt the case.
Really? Because I reiterated many times that I was looking for primary literature which the DSM is not. I asked for a piece of primary literature that supported your assertions about sex and mental distress. You brought up the DSM out of left field. So I will continue to wait for the primary literature supporting your argument. You were stuck in the colloquial sense of the word even after I specified that you should not be. Obviously you forget how that part of the conversation started.
untrue, you were continually asserting that it isnt the primary DIAGNOSTIC criteria. and dismissing it as a credible source.
Second, I don't care what they told you, it's marvelously incorrect. Also, you are pretending like the DSM is universally applicable. Which it isn't. It is sanctioned by the APA, but you will find that many national psychology associations use different diagnostic manuals that imo are superior to the DSM. Furthermore, of course a specialist will add onto the DSM criteria without actually using the DSM. Why? Because obviously they already know the exact same criteria through different sources.
no, you are just marvelously arrogant and cocky. the dsm is universally applicable as a diagnostic criteria given that it also has cultural pretext concerning breaking of taboos and disorders{not saying it cant be worked upon but its a fact}. and again, you are presenting your OPPINION as fact. the statement that there are other diagnostic manuals "superior" to the dsm is nothing more than your oppinion which many will will not agree with.
also, you are only trying to trick yourself by restating the argument in different words. i never said that specialists wudnt have used pther sources to find out the same things. the jisty of it was that reguardlss of where they know from, they will not DEVIATE from the dsm's minimal diagnostic crieteria when diagnosing, and may only add upon it, but never subtract from it. nice try.
I don't remember this being relevant. Oh yes, you are using logically fallacious ad hominem arguments... I could defend them, but I currently don't feel the need to because I could care less especially when it doesn't even apply anymore. You see I tend not to argue things I don't do my research on, something you should take a cue from.
defend what, your relegious views which i have stated??? lol, nice try, but u cant, u cudnt before and you cant now. not when they are concerned with such foolish doctrines anyhow. you conveniently choose not to reply to anything which u know every1 will see right through.
Ad hom = fail.Yes it is pseudoscience. See Popper again. No empirical evidence = not scientific. Provide some empirical evidence then get back to me.
I still think psychodynamic theory is viable, but it needs a lot of work. I argued Freud isn't really taken seriously in general anymore because he isn't (excluding his work on dreams), I did not argue that he wasn't taken seriously because, sadly, he was at one time.
I don't immediately assume I know more about psychology, but then again I tend to (meant in the most sincere and least cocky way possible).
lol, it is not psuedoscience. you have still not adressed the fact that u didnt start out referring to it as psuedo science but seem to now. infact u were saying that psychodynamic is viable{and still r in a different paragraph} and yet you say its psuedoscience. not only is this self contradictory, but it is also your OWN OPPINION. you are stating the oppinion of a few individuals as the oppinion of the whole psychological community. it simply is not true. and again, if it were, a huge percentage of psychologists would neither use it nor adhere to it. not to mention that prestigious universities would not give courses in it and degress which the government sees before giving out licenses for people to mess with other people's heads. 🙂
no, you do feal like you know more. and you stated that in our last discussion{sumthing about you being more qualified}.
As someone who is in the field of Psychology:
The major divide in psych right now is not between "social" and "cognitive" and "bio". It is between modernists and post-modernists, between scientific methodology and philosophy.
The philosophical and post modern traditions are being slowly but surely pushed out of the mainstream, given that it normally does not support the better evidence found through science based psychology and neuroscience.
Social and Cognitive psych researchers work together frequently, as do the bio. Hence why fields like social cognition, social neuroscience, and cognitive neuroscience are beginning to flourish.
Clinical psychology (also community psych and some other sections) has generally been very resistant to the new findings in neuroscience, and in the cases of stuff like community psych, has been resistant to the very idea of science. Mainly, because it is almost impossible to apply such findings to clinical treatment (although psychopharmacology is big, but that is psychiatry, and not psychology). Psychodynamics therefore has remained as a treatment, given that there are not that many other options at this point.
I wouldn't call it psudeoscience, but i would certainly relegate it to the annals of psychological history. My general opinion is that it is something that is used in place of us knowing any better. However, that is not an endorsement of psychodynamics.
i dont think its fair to call postmodernism as "philosohy". its more like idiotic complication upon complication of a matter in order to prove to average people{or people who go gaga when shown DEEP stuff} that the post modernist in question, understand the depths of the matter that modernist approaches failed to understand{furthermore, the post modernist wud go on to exactly say WHY the modernist approaches failed. often calling them too narrow minded etc etc} . plus there is the use of the insane language that post modernists{be it almost any field} use. each sentence will be filled with unreadably complicated words in order to look SMART when the actual content is infact a ximple sentence, or completely illegicble, syntactically correct hogwash.
its just a fad to impress average people with "profoundness of thought" and "grasp of difficult words". i AM a lil surprised though, that u say the main fight is between scientific methodolgy and postmodernists, i mean, i know they have their little ignorant following and all, but surely, post modernist views dont pose a significant enough opposition to the methodologists, any more than radical feminists pose a significant opposition to male physicist???????
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i dont think its fair to call postmodernism as "philosohy". its more like idiotic complication upon complication of a matter in order to prove to average people{or people who go gaga when shown DEEP stuff} that the post modernist in question, understand the depths of the matter that modernist approaches failed to understand{furthermore, the post modernist wud go on to exactly say WHY the modernist approaches failed. often calling them too narrow minded etc etc} . plus there is the use of the insane language that post modernists{be it almost any field} use. each sentence will be filled with unreadably complicated words in order to look SMART when the actual content is infact a ximple sentence, or completely illegicble, syntactically correct hogwash.its just a fad to impress average people with "profoundness of thought" and "grasp of difficult words". i AM a lil surprised though, that u say the main fight is between scientific methodolgy and postmodernists, i mean, i know they have their little ignorant following and all, but surely, post modernist views dont pose a significant enough opposition to the methodologists, any more than radical feminists pose a significant opposition to male physicist???????
I agree with your assessment of post modernism. However, in the way it pertains to psychology as a field, post modernism has infected the people who are not "neurological" psychologists.
Basically, it is the argument they use to attempt to maintain relevance in the field. So, supporters of psychodynamic theory might say something about how neurology is limited in its application to mental illness (which is somewhat valid). From there they seem to adapt a "soft" postmodernism (meaning that I don't know whether they know what they are saying is post modern) and a somewhat anti-experiment stance. The better explanation of the divide in psychology would be scientific materialism and methodological empiricism vs subjectivism, and other types of "truth seeking" that normally accompanies anti-scientific movements.
Psychology is much differnt than other sciences. It for a long time has been a bastion of psudoscience and philosophy. In reality, I'd even say the work of Skinner, while being very influential, is best looked at as an intellectual curiosity rather than as official scientific work. So, while physicists have had hundreds of years to get rid of the crazies that infest their field (or rather, delegated them to the quantum physics) psychology is still in many ways run by those people. 20 years from now it WILL be different, but it isn't right now.
I think you might be underestimating the influence of post modernism on the Western Accadamia. Pretty much, if you are being taught something in an institution that is a "liberal science/liberal art", you are being taught postmodernism. In fact, the teaching of "history" is rife in the language of postmoderism.
Blah, and since I'm rambling off topic anyways, postmoderism as an idea isn't that bad. The work of Foucaut and Rorty still remains relevant, and does help to ward against the totalitarianism of ideology. However, deconstructionalism can only go so far, and to steal a phrase from someone who is much more intelligent than I, "post moderism is throwing the baby away with the bathwater."
true, that is. however, in defence of non physical evidence based psychotherapy{psychodynamics etc}. i will certainly say that to an EXTENT, the mind being what it is, we can come up with corellations or cause-affect relationships of mental states/situation, using introspection, intelligently, and if it does seem to have physically evident affects{success in therapy being one of them. no1 can deny that many psychodynamic therapies to do with mood disorders/delusions/phobias etc, are very succesful[even if they fail at others things]} .
infact, the main reason psychodynamics still stands as a viable school of thought is its succes in therapy concerning many psychological conditions. otherwise, peopel wudv given it up long ago. i know therapists{not postmodernists in any way, mind you} who wud find the thought of lack of psychodynamics/hypnotism etc truly horrible. like it or not, it works in many cases, that is the main point.
also,{and this isnt just defending psychodynamics, but rather, intellignet-introspective theories of the human psyche based on common consensus and results in therapy}, i think our thought processes are far too complex to be just understood or dealt with by applying cognitive solutions or biological solution{drugs etc}. ALL good therapists/psychologists/psychiatrists, use a combination of different treatments to deal with different aspects of the problem{minusing cases which are only specific to one type of therapy like sever nuroligical imbalnces etc} . and if we reply on just cognitive, or biological, withou psychodynamic or social or humanistic, then for a certainty, we will not be able to deal wholly with the problem and will be leaving out many important components. not to mention detrimental affect on patients.
{doesnt mean u have to support postmodernism. just means you have to admit that to asses the situation of a person's mind and thought process based on cognition/biology/neurology alone is like trying to calculate the fate of a car by calculating the detrmined course of movement of all its molecuels/electron/nuclie using the equations of guantum mechanics, for a period of days{physical, accurate, testable methods of measuring components, i.e. biological/neurological/cognitive paradigm} . you have to use sumthing else which is less accurate in parts, but can see the car as a whole and make approximations and be easier to be dealt with like newtonian equations of motion {i.e. psychodynamics/social/humanistic paradigm}
just a rough representation.{perhaps a little too extreme, i admit}
Originally posted by leonheartmmI didn't say the rest of the world made fun of it. See strawman logical fallacy.
untrue. just because u make fun of it doesnt mean the wrest of the world does too. i covered this, dont put forward your oppinion or the oppinion of your like minded group as universal truth. it simply isnt the case.untrue, you were continually asserting that it isnt the primary DIAGNOSTIC criteria. and dismissing it as a credible source.
no, you are just marvelously arrogant and cocky. the dsm is universally applicable as a diagnostic criteria given that it also has cultural pretext concerning breaking of taboos and disorders{not saying it cant be worked upon but its a fact}. and again, you are presenting your OPPINION as fact. the statement that there are other diagnostic manuals "superior" to the dsm is nothing more than your oppinion which many will will not agree with.
also, you are only trying to trick yourself by restating the argument in different words. i never said that specialists wudnt have used pther sources to find out the same things. the jisty of it was that reguardlss of where they know from, they will not DEVIATE from the dsm's minimal diagnostic crieteria when diagnosing, and may only add upon it, but never subtract from it. nice try.defend what, your relegious views which i have stated??? lol, nice try, but u cant, u cudnt before and you cant now. not when they are concerned with such foolish doctrines anyhow. you conveniently choose not to reply to anything which u know every1 will see right through.
lol, it is not psuedoscience. you have still not adressed the fact that u didnt start out referring to it as psuedo science but seem to now. infact u were saying that psychodynamic is viable{and still r in a different paragraph} and yet you say its psuedoscience. not only is this self contradictory, but it is also your OWN OPPINION. you are stating the oppinion of a few individuals as the oppinion of the whole psychological community. it simply is not true. and again, if it were, a huge percentage of psychologists would neither use it nor adhere to it. not to mention that prestigious universities would not give courses in it and degress which the government sees before giving out licenses for people to mess with other people's heads. 🙂
no, you do feal like you know more. and you stated that in our last discussion{sumthing about you being more qualified}.
I didn't say it wasn't credible. And I didn't say it wasn't the "primary" diagnostic manual (at least in America). Your memory and/or assumptions are incorrect.
So you don't actually disagree with what I said, so... I wasn't generalizing for everyone, but you seem to think I was.
No, I don't bother because I don't have time to research everything in the Bible because there is a big difference between knowing the Bible and living the Bible. My focus is on the latter. You can make blanket assumptions that come from prejudice or you can simply accept the truth that I don't really care about the parts you brought up because they do not even apply anymore.
Yes, it is pseudoscience because it does not rely on empirical evidence like biological and behavioural psychology. However I'm not contradicting myself. To contradict myself I would have to believe that all pseudoscience is automatically false. Apparently you never considered that I don't necessarily think that pseudosciences are entirely invalid, but generally they need a lot of work. Then you are using an argumentum ad populum to support psychodynamics. That simply does not work. It would be no different than if I argued that Christianity must be valid because a lot of people follow it. Such would be a logical fallacy.
I never said I wasn't more qualified. I said I don't immediately assume I am.
Social and Cognitive psych researchers work together frequently, as do the bio. Hence why fields like social cognition, social neuroscience, and cognitive neuroscience are beginning to flourish.They are flourishing because they are combining science with working methods of treatment. They are highly successful and are where we need to continue going.
In reality, I'd even say the work of Skinner, while being very influential, is best looked at as an intellectual curiosity rather than as official scientific work. 20 years from now it WILL be different, but it isn't right now.I'm not sure I entirely agree, but I see what you are saying. Skinner's influence in pushing science into treatment at the very least is great accomplishment. We can only hope it takes twenty years, sadly I think it will be longer.
Imo, psychodynamics needs to be gone forever. It's been proven harmful in the treating of certain mental disorders, especially schizophrenia and cognitive, humanistic and behavioural therapies are proving more effective at pretty much everything, even though they need some cleaning up as well.
Originally posted by MarchelloFail.
[B]*["You can't buy your way into Heaven, ya know...Well, unless you're Catholic."]***You are correct in your assertion. Those who say that Roman Catholics don't believe that fall in three classes: (1) Roman Catholics, (2) Roman Catholic apologists, and (3) outright LIARS.
Marchello [/B]
Originally posted by Nellinator
They are flourishing because they are combining science with working methods of treatment. They are highly successful and are where we need to continue going.
You are preaching at the choir sir.
Originally posted by Nellinator
I'm not sure I entirely agree, but I see what you are saying. Skinner's influence in pushing science into treatment at the very least is great accomplishment. We can only hope it takes twenty years, sadly I think it will be longer.
LOL, like little old RA me has any grounds to critize Skinner 😛. I do agree, Skinner was so important when it comes to moving away from subjective types of experiements (lets be honest, the psychophyscists were on top of this as well).
In 20 years I don't necessarily see the "field" of psychology being as "unified" under such an umbrella term. I see the linguists going one way, the neuroscientists another, and finally the philosophers another. I feel there is lots that can be gained by all of these fields working together (language and neuroscience does frequently) but untimatly, I don't think "psychology" is going to mean a whole heck of a lot when refering to a field of study as these subfields start to come into their own.
But ya, 20 years for all the unscientific stuff to be routed out? Ya, maybe I'm being optimistic.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Imo, psychodynamics needs to be gone forever. It's been proven harmful in the treating of certain mental disorders, especially schizophrenia and cognitive, humanistic and behavioural therapies are proving more effective at pretty much everything, even though they need some cleaning up as well.
co-sign x 1000000
Originally posted by chickenlover98
bumpity bump bump
http://www.jdm.org/jdmDefault.aspx?tabindex=-1&tabID=50
Bumpity bump bump? What meaneth this my neighbor?
😊
Originally posted by Marchello
[B]*["You can't buy your way into Heaven, ya know...Well, unless you're Catholic."]***You are correct in your assertion. Those who say that Roman Catholics don't believe that fall in three classes: (1) Roman Catholics, (2) Roman Catholic apologists, and (3) outright LIARS.
Marchello [/B]
Shut the **** up