Is Freud's psychoanalysis a pseudoscience? There are many people in the psychology world who say that psychoanalysis cannot be falsified, so if not pseudoscience, at least not science. Do you agree with their view?
It is well known that psychology is now divided into two camps. One is the "psychology of science" faction with experimental and statistical methods. One is a psychotherapist, this faction is applied psychology, and many of them support psychoanalysis, CBT, and other therapies. It can be said that one is for academic research and the other is for application.
The two factions are now in a divided state, academic theories are often difficult to apply, psychotherapists' therapies are often dismissed as unscientific. Freud's theory clearly belongs to the applied school, so which side do you support?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371939027_From_cognitive_psychology_to_the_theory_of_psychological_programs
Hi,
There are articles linking psychoanalysis and Neurosciences:
Cieri F, Esposito R. Psychoanalysis and Neuroscience: The Bridge Between Mind and Brain. Front Psychol. 2019 Aug 28;10:1790. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01983
Moccia L, Mazza M, Di Nicola M, Janiri L. The Experience of Pleasure: A Perspective Between Neuroscience and Psychoanalysis. Front Hum Neurosci. 2018 Sep 4;12:359. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00359
Sauvagnat F, Wiss M, Clément S. A historical perspective on the collaboration between psychoanalysis and neuroscience. J Physiol Paris. 2010 Dec;104(6):288-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2010.10.001
Brockman R. Psychoanalysis and Neuroscience - A Disclosure. Front Behav Neurosci. 2018 Nov 6;12:265. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00265
Giacolini T, Sabatello U. Psychoanalysis and Affective Neuroscience. The Motivational/Emotional System of Aggression in Human Relations. Front Psychol. 2019 Jan 14;9:2475. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02475
Rabeyron T, Massicotte C. Entropy, Free Energy, and Symbolization: Free Association at the Intersection of Psychoanalysis and Neuroscience. Front Psychol. 2020 Mar 17;11:366. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00366
Johnson B, Flores Mosri D. The Neuropsychoanalytic Approach: Using Neuroscience as the Basic Science of Psychoanalysis. Front Psychol. 2016 Oct 13;7:1459. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01459
Duan Xian Xiang Personally speaking, it is both neither and both. There have been many legitimate criticisms of Freud. Much of his work was speculative, and some completely mistaken. So no point in going over same material here. But we need to investigate our minds, and much of our behaviour is based on unconscious impulses. How does one conduct scientific research on such matters? Much depends also on one's definition of 'scientific'. While by today's standards much of Freud's work was not scientific, he did come up with some really good insights into human behaviour and such have lead to progress in humans understanding ourselves. there is still a long way to go, but dividing psychology into two discrete camps or paradigms is not helpful, in my humble opinion. Each has made a contribution to our knowledge about ourselves.
Valerie Saunders
Well said! I also think that the definition of science needs to be considered. Psychoanalysis, while seemingly difficult to prove, but it inspires psychology very much.
Actually, I think that while psychoanalysis is being accused of not being science, but its method and direction are roughly right. More reasonable than the so-called scientific psychology.
Bhogaraju Anand
It seems that psychoanalysis is also scientifically proven in some places
Valerie Saunders
I think the psychoanalytical "analytical psychology" approach is right, although Freud's theory of the stage of sexual development is too one-sided(He extended a few of the causes of mental disorders resulting from abnormal sexual development to all humans, that's not right), he was right to dig inward into the cause. On the contrary, scientific psychology uses experiments and statistics. I think there is no future. I don't think the truth is found by statistical and experimental methods.
Bhogaraju Anand
What do you think of the statistical and experimental methods of scientific psychology? Can we find the truth of psychology?
Is Newtonian Phisics a pseudo scinece? Is CBT falsifiable? To be falsifiable a therapeutic session must be judged by people who attend therapy. One of the most interesting practice is the Milan Systrmic Therapy: “do not be in love with your own hypotheses”. This is what I think, grosso modo, but we coild make a conference on it.
Sorry for mistakes in writing… this is a book about this issue
https://www.routledge.com/Ethical-and-Aesthetic-Explorations-of-Systemic-Practice-New-Critical-Reflections/Barbetta-Cavagnis-Krause-Telfener/p/book/9781138346215#
Pietro Barbetta
Newton's physics is certainly not a pseudoscience, it can be falsified. What is the "the Milan Systrmic Therapy"?
Pietro Barbetta
Are you familiar with CBT? How is it compared to psychoanalysis?
I know CBT enough to say that, in general, with few exception, is a way of treatemet supposed to be statistically evident within the public domion. As far as I had the occasion to supervise CBT colleagues, I found a lot of prjudices and bias about how a subjiect should be and behave. I also seen ex CBT patients after treatment. The majority of the told me that they did not felt welcomed, sometimes scolded for their behaviour. CBT do not consider the context Or the relationships. As I said before, we need a long seminar on this topic.
“In many cognitive psychology textbooks mental systems or processes were often depicted by means of diagrams that looked a lot like flow charts. In principle the arrow-connected boxes could be further broken down into subroutines. Successive deconstructions would look more and more like programs or Turing Machine representations. So I think the difference between old and new functionalism is largely one of descriptive levels. However, some of the older functionalism also tended more towards the teleological in regards to the underlying physiological elements.”
Pietro Barbetta
What do you think of this paragraph? This is what a professor in Australia has said.
The professor is mentioning Cognitive Psychology, not CBT. At the beginning of my training in Psychology, among 70s an 80s I studied Piaget and post-Piagetian School. I think it is very interesting, paricularly what Piaget calls “genetic epistemology”. It is a theory of complexity, nothing to do with CBT, which is reductionism. What the Prof you mentioned sais, I agree completely. This is not CBT, this is Constructivist Therapy, quite near to Systemic, indeed.
Pietro Barbetta
CBT is different from cognitive psychology, but CBT is cognitive behavioral therapy
“It is a theory of complexity, ”Does it mean complex systems science?
I know about constructivism, and this school of theory is somewhat outdated. Is it mainly a learning theory, which can be used to treat?
Pietro Barbetta
In my opinion, psychoanalysis is not a complete therapy. It is a tool used to find Psychological programs. Even Freud did not know about this. The "psychological program" is the flow chart of the Australian professor's cognitive psychology textbook above.
In my opinion psychoanalysis is not scientifically grounded but more intuitively applied. There is no falsification and hardly the possibility of evaluation, which can be seen in the fake evaluations Freud and Breuer did themselves in their famous Anna O. case.
Bu all other therapies which are mostly evaluatet in big metastudies (for example the effects of CBT compared to systemic therapie) are just theory in all-day-therapist-life because they treat clients also mostly very intuitive and use a mix of all kinds of techniques.
So Freud has great merrits and still true and undoubted are: psyche is mostly formed in childhood, there is a lot subconscious things going on, we are a product of the system we are raised in. The last point is one core of systemic therapy.
Roman Stöppler
What do you think is how the CBT works? Why is CBT useful? There are some flowcharts in CBT that describe the program. What do you think they mean?
Duan Xian Xiang I think CBT is quicker and works by influencing thinking (perspective, glass is half full) and reprogramming (Konditionierung) behavior. Thats why it is quick, it goes directly to the symptomatic point and tries to change him without understanding the roots of the Behaviour. Studies show that systemic therapy is more sustainable and the effect-sizes converge after 6 Month.
I only have this german Book where you can find detailed List of studies about effect-sizes comparing mostly CBT and Systemic T.:
von Sydow, K., Beher, S., Retzlaff, R., & Schweitzer, J. (2006). Die Wirksamkeit der Systemischen Therapie/Familientherapie. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
What Flowcharts are you talking about, can you send them?
Roman Stöppler
The block diagram in this article is a flow chart, which is writing about a psychological program.
Preprint Psychological Program
therapy indeed works however its hard to assess therapists. therefore, a lot of pseudo-therapist do therapy.
Kadir Uludağ
How is the efficacy compared to CBT? Do you treat patients with the theory of the sexual psychological development stage?
There are two separate meanings to the word psychoanalysis. One is a theory of the mind and consists of a series of models that Freud developed over decades.
The other is a method of treatment. Nowadays many authors differentiate and use the word only for the treatment and the more general term “psychodynamic” is used for the theory of psychological development and functioning.
Freud was revolutionary in his thinking starting nearly 150 years ago. At that time and moment ”science” and general intellectual life thought themselves free of superstition and religion, leaving rational thinking as supreme ruler. Up came Freud with theories about humans having an unconscious which unknowingly exerted great influence over their thoughts, feelings and actions. That was a huge shock and a blow to the collective ego. No-one denies now that a large part of the brain’s functioning remains is inaccessible to an individual. Neuro-brain science confirms this.
Freud also discovered, through observation of his patients, that many of his patients’ problems came from their childhood experiences. No-one in science denies that now, and many other scientists/practitioners/theoreticians have developed that part of his work much further.
What has changed in science is that at the end of the 19th century scientists believed they were discovering or uncovering natural ”laws”, fixed relationships that were unshakeable and nowadays we tend to think in terms of models, limited pieces of theory that can explain observed phenomena.
A scientific method is observation - pattern recognition - hypothesis formulation and testing - model construction. Freud followed that pattern by listening to his patients, whom he saw 4 or 5 times a week, hearing commonalities and seeing patterns emerge and from that he developed models (in words) that he continually refined over the course of 60 years of work.
Much of the antipathy against his work came not out of theoretical or scientific opposition but economic-political in the USA. There, psychoanalysis was designated a medical specialisation and only medical doctors were allowed to practice it, making it illegal for any other professional to treat patients with “the talking cure”. Therefore, psychologists had to proclaim loudly that thèir talking cure was something different altogether, even in the courts of law if they had been accused of illegal medical practices. So much of psychoanalysis work was re-packaged using different terms. In the 1980’s universities challenged the medical society claiming an illegal monopoly and won the right to teach psychoanalysis to any academic they deemed suitable.
Additionally practitioners took up earlier work of Freud that he himself had discarded. Such as hypnosis which became hypnotherapy and “galvanisation” using electric currents became electro-convulsive therapy that we now know does actually re-set the brain and neural pathways.
Much of the discussion around Freud uses the “strawman” argumentary style. First you set up a caricature of someone using elements out of context added to some wild interpretations, then your arguments attack the strawman after which you claim to have proved that the person is a fraud, a faker, or a non-scientist etcetc.
Lilian Hupkens
Why do you think Freud's "Science Psychology project" failed?
Lilian Hupkens
I didn't attack Freud, and I actually appreciated him. I think he is the greatest psychologist. But he was not the Newton of psychology and failed to find a general theory
Lilian Hupkens
But Freud did make a mistake, and he should not generalize the individual conclusions to the whole human race. For example, he uses the "sexual mental development stage" theory to explain all mental disorders. This is a mistake in generalize individual conclusions to groups. Specific individuals should be specific analysis, can not be casually promoted to the group.
Newton did not find a general theory of everything either. I am both a physicist and psychoanalytically trained, so I like your reply!
The great difference I find in the appreciation of the founding scientists in physics and psychology is that physicists appreciate the contributions of the founders like Newton or Bohr, accept their quirks like strange political beliefs, and accept that the field of work has made tremendous developments later on. Not so psychologists and psychoanalysts, as I have experienced at symposia and conferences. They can murderously attack a paragraph that Freud wrote in 1890 saying he was wrong there and thus he deserves to be demolished, or others who take a paragraph of Freud from 1890 and by re-interpreting and expanding it claim that Freud pre-saw a discovery made in 2020. Freud is seen as the Bible, so every word must be true.
I agree with you, Freud drew up a foundation of psychological theory that few can compete with and it helped to develop a vast field of thought and work.
Lilian Hupkens
Newton's theory is certainly not a grand unification theory (such theories do not exist), but his theory is general and the first to limited unify physics. But there is no such theory in psychology. What do you think is why?Is psychology should not have such a theory, or the psychologists be incompetent? Personally, I think it is because nowadays psychologists go in the wrong direction and use the wrong way (statistics and experiments)
Re Freuds “mistake”. Read my first entry again. The philosophy of science at that time was that science was uncovering geneneral and all-encompassing laws. He kept refining and adding to his own work. His theories only became dogmas when others, who often could not read German, started explaining and teaching his work. Freud‘s books were translated into English in the 1960s, 80 years after his first work. The absolutionist stance comes from individuals who have limited knowledge: if your only tool is a hammer, then every problem is a nail.
Lilian Hupkens
I think Freud's work is actually incomplete. His theory is looking for "psychological programs," and that's what his analysis is looking for. So he started a "scientific psychology project" but failed. So, his work is only half done, and the theory of "psychological program" is not established.
Lilian Hupkens I liked your profound answer an am waiting you to answer the last question of Duan Xian Xiang. Personally I think Newton saw a general mechanism which is founding his las, like Einstein found a general mechanism leading him to relativity. Both where thinking out of the box and from there went back to inductive generalization. Psychology is still to fuzzy to many-sided so we are blind for the general laws. This could be because of our complexity (Neuropsychology shows) or our blindness that we do not seem to be what we would like to be.
There are three indignities of man where Freud contributed.
1. The sun is not in the middle of the universe (Galilei)
2. Man are on a side-branch of evolution close to ape (Darwin)
3. Humans as they identify themselfes are not the master in their own Body /Brain (Freud)
Neuropsychology confirms the last.
Anyway I dont think that psychology is using the wrong way. It will be a lot of data and we need statistics an experiments to produce and process these. It is like the prework Newton and Einstein needed to get their thinking out of the box. We are just not right at this point.
Roman Stöppler
Do you think the "Newton theory" of psychology has been found?
Roman Stöppler
I think that the "Newtonian theory" of psychology is the theory of the "the psychological process", and that "the psychological process is the cause of psychosis". I'm not saying that psychology doesn't use statistics at all, just saying that it can't be a mainstream approach.
Duan Xian Xiang
I don’t recognize the two terms that you use, namely “psychological programs," and ”scientific psychology project". Where do they come from? From his own writings or someone else writing about Freud?
Answering my own question about the terminology I found some information on their origin. The idea of a “project for a scientific psychology” was added by the editors when in 1950 Freud had work published that he started in 1895 as a discussion with a colleague. His thinking at that moment was to try to distinguish between what is neurology and what is psychological. That dichotomy and shifting boundary is still present today, what is neurological i.e. physical, to do with the brain and body, and what belongs to psychiatry, i.e. feelings, thoughts and behaviour.
Up till the late 1960s in the Netherlands, there was no distinction between them and the doctors were called “nerve doctors”. Then they had to choose between working either a ps a neurologist or a psychiatrist.
That boundary between them is still a field of science and research, amongst others neuro-imaging etc. Seeing as it is still being worked on today, Freud’s attempt to bridge the two or to link the brain to psychological phenomena in 1895 is a useful thought exercise worthy of admiration, but no-one can expect theories from 1895 to explain 100% of one of the most complex questions of science, how do brains work and what is the link between body and mind. You can’t really say he failed, just as no-one can say that Bohr’s model of an atom is a failure because it doesn’t explain interstellar matter and energy phenomena. Is that an answer?
Lilian Hupkens
Freud's project can not be said to be reductive, although he is trying to explain it by neurophysiology. He was like he was studying computer programs (I too, of course). He is not studying the hardware of computers, he is studying the computer software, this is different from current neuroscience, which is a reductionist direction. But his views are mostly imaginary and not based on the observation of things. He did not abstract these concepts directly from the case, it simply assumes many concepts.
In fact, Freud does not have to assume that these concepts, his psychoanalysis is originally looking for psychological programs, ah, his "defense mechanism" is psychological programs. It's a bit like someone looking for a mobile phone, he lost his mobile phone, but it took him for a long time to find out that his mobile phone is always in his hand.
Freud did seem to be looking for "programs." But the framework of this "program" he built is too abstract, no case demonstration,, so that's not much useful. Freud's time had no computer science in place, neuroscience is also underdeveloped, otherwise he might have thought of computer programs.
Lilian Hupkens
I think Freud's project really failed, because his theory or framework was not linked to the case, thus making his concept seem somewhat "metaphysical" and "imaginative." He does not abstract these concepts from real psychological phenomena, but by imagination, which is useless.
António José Rodrigues Rebelo
But most of Freud's cases had not been effectively treated, and Freud did not find the truth. But he did take a big step forward.
Lilian Hupkens
Actually, I think my theory did what Freud did not do. Freud was only half the way to the door of the truth, and I followed his way, and at last I saw the gate of the truth.
António José Rodrigues Rebelo
Do you think he has solved the psychological problem? So why do psychologists now think that his theory is not a science?
António José Rodrigues Rebelo
I also think Freud's theory is based on practice, and therefore more reliable than those of academic psychology.
Lilian Hupkens
I think what I said is the truth, there is no need to be modest
Freud's early theorizing, while very ambitious, was also flawed in many ways because he relied on 19th century models of science. Your question could be more aptly phrased as is psychoanalysis a pseduo science? The answer to that question is most certainly no. I attach a few papers that might be of interest and also recommend Morris Eagle's recent book, "Toward a unified psychoanalytic theory".
Research from a medical perspective attempts to adhere to the gold standard of a double-blind study wishing to approach as close as possible some empirical causality. Freud's psychoanalytic theory will never be able to withstand a robust scrutinization by evidence-based criteria. As was mentioned by other commentors, many of the inferences and attempts to understand psychological phenomena of Freud was based on current understanding of biology-pre-DNA and other rudimentary perceptions of science at that time. Medical science was not that sophisticated itself bloodletting and drilling cranial holes believing this was going to be a therapeutic effort. No ethics board will ever be able to approve any research on some of these crude medical interventions that were purported to help people at that time.
The contribution of Freud has to do with his being a harbinger of looking at ways we could understand people's behavior establishing some type of theoretical classification and exploring different modalities. Most of his insights about people still relevant if they were not based on the rudimentary science of his time.
Ok EBM is reliable in connection with medical
bodies via statistics and medical experiments. As for example fo diabetes. Nonetheless, in psychotherapy it is not just the medical
body what is important. Psyche, or, roughly, Mind has a reflective element, absolutely distinci form other organs. The issue is to be concerned by literature, philosophy or anthropolgy. I have seen some MD able to do a decent Psychotherapy, they are acquaimted with Kafka, Joyce, and all the modernist literature and art, acquainted with linguistcs and anthopology. The only evidemce in
psychotherapy is going and see what happens. Today, thanks to technoloy, it is possible. So come amd see the way we do rigourous investigation in detail for falsofing our hypotheses,
Dr Russell Scabbo
But statistical methods can only study groups, and the conclusions obtained are based on groups. How can they be applied to individuals?
Pietro Barbetta
Yes, psychology is to study specific individuals, each individual is new, should be treated specifically, not like medicine and those who all the people take the same medicine.
Dr Russell Scabbo
I don't agree with psychology right now:
1. The conclusions of case studies need not be generalized to other individuals because people are different.
2. There is no need to look for "general things beyond the individual" because it does not exist.
Each individual is treated as a new research pair image, and the research conclusions about this individual need not be generalized to other individuals or even the whole human being. Nor is it necessary to look for something based on statistical generalization to cover the whole human race(Of course, it is probabilistic, and some individuals are not covered).
In other words, you don't have to study all humans, only specific individuals.
I recommend reading this essay Article FREUD’S LINE OF REASONING - A note about the epistemic and c...
Duan Xian Xiang
Pietro Barbetta esattamente! Consiglio la lettura di questo saggio Article Nuove considerazioni sul metodo psicanalitico freudiano e in...
Duan Xian Xiang I recommend the article because it answers the question and contains interesting reflections on falsifiability and method
Pamela Cagna
I can't read this article. Is it talking about Freud's "Science Psychology project"?
Pamela Cagna
My theory, I note that this article mentions the words "program" and "process"
Duan Xian Xiang The article talks about the epistemic value of the psychoanalytic approach. We must not forget that for Freud it was a necessity to found psychoanalysis as a science. Over the years, psychoanalytic drifts have lost this approach, neglecting internal method and epistemology. They have only carried out psychoanalytic treatment, now distorted and devoid of any scientificity. I don't want to force you to read it, it was just a suggestion to know the opinion of those who have already faced these doubts. (I apologize for my bad english)
Pamela Cagna
Your English is perfectly fine. No worries. “You can take a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink”, and this applies to questions and answers or suggestions also.
Psychoanalysis is not a pseudoscience, to be honest I think it’s one of the greatest contributions our world has yet been given. I published an essay on psychoanalysis titled, “Contesting the Conscience: An interview with The Ego.” (On my profile too) i assert there has been a case of “identity theft” where the ID makes an accusation that the “Superego“ stole its good name based on the lineage & origin of the conscience/superego. The biblical text found in the book of Genesis names a “Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil” which I also think has a striking similarity to psychoanalysis specifically the conscience. I also believe psychoanalysis can very well be the main foundation to advancements in parapsychology specifically psychokinesis and I also think it plays an important role in military research specifically analyzing certain criterion including but not limited to works by Nikolai Khokhlov, former defector and KGB spy who authored, “In the Name of Conscience.”
Lilian Hupkens thanks for the encouragement, ma'am. I help with the translator but I know it's not the same thing. I smiled reading the proverb about horses. very incisive.
Lilian Hupkens
Thanks, and I also think it is not pseudoscience. But Freud's psychoanalysis does not really treat patients, one because it is incomplete, and the other because it explains everything with "sex," which is clearly not right and cannot explain all individuals with one reason.
I am not sure what you mean, I wasnt implying that you are a student or have bad English. I’m only noting my thoughts and observations.
Duan Xian Xiang
Pamela Cagna
My browser translation of Italian is terrible and this post you recommend really seems to be important. But I still don't really understand it. I have a few questions:
Did the author of this article say that Freud studied psychology in the science of complex systems? He uses system theory?
What does the author's "costruzione" mean? Is it something like a "program," and a "psychological process."?
thanks.
Pamela Cagna
Dear Miss Pamela Cagna, I sincerely apologize for my rude attitude yesterday. The article you recommend is really thoughtful, seems very similar to what I think. I almost missed it.
Pamela Cagna
This article seems to be saying that Freud's psychoanalysis is looking for a psychological "costruzione", and that the uncertainty principle proof of quantum mechanics is that psychoanalysis is not a pseudoscience. And he mentioned that psychoanalysis is described in "natural language" (the same as my opinion), while physics and chemistry use mathematical language. If the author's "costruzione" is as I think, the article makes the same point as mine. Several other people in psychology used the word "process," and one complex system scientist used the word "computation." I use the "program". Although we all use different words, we all want to describe the same thing.
Duan Xian Xiang
Freud does not explain everything with sex. That was one of his early writings, one and a half centuries ago. He wrote many books and developed many more models, each explaining a few facets of the psyche. After his pioneering work, many more theorists developed syntheses and new insights. Read “The wisdom of the ego”.
No-one in their right mind would judge physics today by hammering on Bohr’s model of the atom and keep repeating that it is incomplete. It takes some 6 years of training to become a psychoanalyst, to learn the theory, to apply it in diagnosing a patient and to perform therapy based on PA insights. When you have a limited knowledge of any subject, it is confusing. Learning more is the solution.
Lilian Hupkens
But I don't want to be a psychoanalyst, I have my own way of analysis.
Dear Duan Xian Xiang, I appreciated the courtesy of your answers and the interest shown in my suggestions. I try to answer your questions and comments.
It is not possible to say that Freud used systems theory, because it did not yet exist, but in a certain sense he anticipated it. The author of this article is responding to Grünbaum’s criticism of the Freudian psychoanalytic method. (Let's not forget that the method is not the technique, the method serves to validate theoretical hypotheses: in our specific case, it serves to discriminate suggestion.) To do this, it uses an experimental logical model, which he calls MES, based on the indications that Freud has written in natural language, and realizes that the most appropriate is the “black boxes” model, a model used in systems theory.
The "costruzione" is the theoretical hypothesis in psychoanalysis, or rather in psychoanalytic treatment, which is the experimental plan of psychoanalysis. It is the theoretical hypothesis that is communicated to the patient (which is the black box) and that must be checked - experimentally confirmed, as is done in all sciences - because it could be a vehicle for suggestion, a vehicle for placebo (and this would make the "costruzione" non-objective).
I don't think I can dwell on it without boring my interlocutor, but I hope I have given you some elements to understand this interesting essay. An essay that I care very much because I believe that it paves a way to restore dignity to a discipline that has been abused for too long time.
Pamela Cagna
This article is also what I really care about."Structure" theory assumptions? What I call a "costruzione" is also an assumption in the analysis, because the therapist has prior assumptions before analyzing the psychology to the patient,suppose that the patient's psychological activity is what kind of, what causes it, and then, ask the patient or through other clues insight into whether he (she) has such psychological activity.Do you think this "costruzione" means close to the "psychological process"?
What you say is so true, Lilian Hupkens! Many scholars accuse Freud of being "pansexual", but the truth is that they just cannot "distract themselves" from the idea of sexuality! Ahaha! Actually Freud studies sexuality to understand psychoneuroses, but then builds the model of the drive. A model that certainly must also be able to explain the dynamics of sexuality, because it is a part of living beings, but it reveals most of all above the functioning of human structures (and also of animals maybe). The drive model devised by Freud would fit very well in ethology, in biology, even in medicine! But this is an - almost - impossible mission!
I am interested in, is the author saying "costruzione" the same thing I call "program" the same thing? Because I thought from the article that he was probably the same thing I talked about. Are you looking for this psychological "costruzione" in doing your psychoanalysis? Or is some "costruzione" assumed in advance? Because I saw the article with "a, b, c" as the serial number of the content, is it you assumed in advance? Do you think everyone's psychology is like this?
Pamela Cagna
Like this one, what is this? And those charts
a) -rimanere invaria ta；
b)-peggiorare；
c)-migliorare。
And this:
(α) – non suggestiva e falsa;
(β) – non suggestiva e vera;
(γ) – suggestiva e falsa;
(δ) – suggestiva e vera.
Do you see these things like the "beliefs" of cognitive behavioral therapy? the "beliefs" in cognitive behavioral therapy are written in flow charts. Do they look like "programs"?
Duan Xian Xiang I correct my previous message:
The "costruzione" (provided it is correct) reveals precisely the unconscious thought processes, if that is what you meant. However, do not confuse the theoretical level with the experimental level, the epistemological level with the clinical one. It is very difficult to think about these issues.
Experimentally, to objectify a hypothesis we cannot "ask the patient". The hypothesis, therefore the "costruzione", must go through a control process experiment to be validated and become theory.
On the theoretical level, a theory (already validated) is indeed a general presupposition, it applies to everyone in a certain sense, but it does not say anything about the subjective dynamics of thought of patients. The uniform rectilinear motion explains many things in physics, but on the real plane it does not exist.
On the clinical level, subjective dynamics of thought of patients (which we call associations) must be brought to consciousness in order to become an analytical tool. You therefore understand that the "costruzione" cannot be a prerequisite because it must be built from time to time and it is different for each patient.
You ask me what graphs are: they are the model that shows the epistemological consistency of psychoanalysis. Do not be in a hurry, take your time and think about it, you will see that with the study we will clear up many doubts.
Pamela Cagna
I quite agree, “ it must be built from time to time and it is different for each patient.” that is very close to what I mean. Have you ever seen the "process-based" theory? This therapeutic theory says that "the process is the cause of psychosis" was mentioned by several Australian scholars and American former behaviorist Xi Hayes and others. The "process" in the theory seems to be close to the "structure" that you suggest.
Pamela Cagna
But I make an important point that this "costruzione" is not found by experiments, but by the psychoanalysis that you are good at This "costruzione" is obtained through psychoanalysis, and the first method of analysis is: inquiry. Obtain the psychological "costruzione" of the patient through the inquiry.
Duan Xian Xiang I don't know this theory, sorry. The "process" that behaviorists generally talk about is called the unconscious in psychoanalysis. The structure was not created by me, nor by the author of the article, but Freud had discovered it more than a hundred years ago. :)
Pamela Cagna
Article “Third‐wave” cognitive and behavioral therapies and the emer...
Their "process" refers to the "mental process". It is a psychological process inside the human body, not an external behavioral process.
However, their definition of this "process" is capricious, which cannot be equated with the psychological process in psychological textbooks. They define it as a "sequence about what".
Go through the pain of 7 years of orthodox psychoanalysis and then see how or if you mentally and behaviorally change. After that you yourself can decide if it is a pseudoscience.
S. Béatrice Marianne Ewalds-Kvist
What theory does your current psychoanalysis use to explain the cause of a patient's psychological problems?
It takes so long now (previously it was about 3 years) because people know so much more and can put in defences that makes the process longer.
Psychoanalysis is not an explanation of problems, rather an explanation of childhood misunderstandings. Freud's base is still valid in orthodox psychoanalysis.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology