----- Original Message ----- From: "Miles Jackson" <cqmv at pdx.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Capitalism & Psychoanalysis
:
:
: On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, R wrote:
:
: > erikson was a very talented guy, and interesting in his own right. his
: > stages of psychological development focused attention on a much
improved,
: > different way of viewing typology and human development although his
roots
: > were post freudian. his book on Luther was entertaining, too. but for
my
: > tastes, they just don't make it. i'd rather read history without the
psych,
: > partly because the psych is always theoretical.
:
: I don't get why many people have this misconception of psychology.
: Research psychologists test hypotheses by conducting rigorous,
: thoughtful experimental studies. Yes, psych is theoretical, but
: mainstream psychologists are just as interested in testing their
: theories--and throwing out theories inconsistent with data--as
: physicists and biologists are.
psychologists do a lot of research, as you say miles. their results are validated on the basis of statistics, by and large; and, to minor degree, anecdotal information depending on the structure of their research. how rigorous and thoughtful these studies are varies a great deal. the size of samples also varies a lot. the original motivation for testing psych theories was to put psychology on the same, or similar, "scientific" level as the "hard" sciences. now, there are research psychologists, clinical psychologists, etc.
what i find in psych lit criticism, pysch history, et al, is not rigorous, thoughtful research but opinion pieces which, to my tastes, are generally limited and boring, often spun. as i wrote, that's my subjective opinion.
:
: > what [Freud] did accomplish that stands out is to focus attention on
: > the concept
: > of the unconscious. in this, his movement was truly a revolution in
: > contemporary thought of his day, and changed all of our lives.
:
: This claim is a reflection of the incessant, diligent and effective
: hagiography of Freud by his enthusiasts. In fact, the concept of
: the unconscious was not revolutionary in Freud's era (e.g., see
: Nietzsche); Frued elaborated ideas like the repression of
: aggressive urges that had been kicking around in philosophy since
: at least Aristotle. --That said, he was a wonderful writer,
: and he was very effective at promoting (propagandizing?) his ideas.
of course.
freud did not "discover" the unconscious. he made the concept "respectable" and widely recognized. he also acted as a magnet for people of like mind and talents, such as jung, adler, et al, which in the context of his time spread a revolution in thought, medicine, and society as these men broke from freud and spread their own ideas of the unconscious -- as revolutionary as marx and lenin but without violence. quite a feat.
:
: --Did he change all our lives? Well, many people have benefited from
: psychoanalysis, and most training programs in clinical psychology
: include Freudian techniques. However, I can think of a dozen
: psychologists off the top of my head who have had more influence
: on the discipline of psychology and settings in which psychology
: is practically applied in our society--e.g., schools, the
: military, medical clinics, courtrooms.
i don't mean freud did this alone. he was a catalyst. psychology changed all our lives, which can be loosely attributed to freud as the "daddy" of them all. several people made contributions which created not only change in education, military, medical, courts (to a minor extent), but in the workplace, the way we look at society and the world, words we now commonly use to describe human behavior, and so forth.
:
: In short: Freud's no quack, but he's not as revolutionary and
: important as "lay" people assume.
:
: Miles
:
i would suggest, not as important as the "neofreudians" assume.
R
: ___________________________________
: http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk