This'll turn your tastes sour.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You psychologist and don't take Freud ''too seriously''?! What are you 16?I hardly think you walked past the psychology book, let alone a psychologist.
People disagree with Karl Marx, but that doesn't mean sociologists and philosophers will ''not take Marx too seriously'' because he was homeless and poor for a large part of his life.
Get a grip, will you.
Freud's theories are one of the most important of our time, regardless of weather one agrees or not, and if you really WERE a psychologist you will know that sexual attraction between families is a tiny proportion of all of Freud's theories and writings.
The only reason that any Joe Bloggs knows of Freud's name is because of this particular view is considered bizarre and controversial by many.
I don't know where you studied, but every professor I've personally had considers Freud a pervert and his ideas archaic. Yes, he was one of the first. But that doesn't make his theories untouchable or in any way relevant.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I don't know where you studied, but every professor I've personally had considers Freud a pervert and his ideas archaic. Yes, he was one of the first. But that doesn't make his theories untouchable or in any way relevant.
I don't study too much psychology...but is neo-Freudism more legit than Freudism? In other words, is it more up to date and accurate?
Originally posted by Robtardthis can be observed in humans as well (see: jewz)
Using "purebreed" dogs as an example, their is a correlation between birth-defects and inbreeding/incest. It isn't a far reach that humans would/could suffer from the same problems. Odd that muts tend to have [b]much better health than dogs who's family tree is equal to a bare trunk.[/B]