On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, tully wrote:
> On Monday 11 April 2005 02:59 am, Leigh Meyers wrote:
>> but I'm stubborn.
>
> Some might call it obsession. BTW, I think psychoanalysis is mostly
> quackery. Psychology likes to think of itself as a science, but I
> see little there that qualifies. To think that we have any
> significant grasp of how the human mind works is the height of
> scientific arrogance. DSM4 is probably the best evidence of how
> deranged psychoanalysis really is.
Oops. I've been teaching and doing research in psychology for about 15 years now, and you're way, way off base. We do in fact have a mountain of scientific evidence--including well-controlled experimental studies--that give us a significant grasp of "how the mind works". To put it bluntly, your argument is based on ignorance of the facts.
Also: psychoanalysis is one form of psychotherapy, and the DSM-IV is not directly based on psychoanalytic concepts (e.g., you won't find Freud's psychosexual stages in the DSM). I have my reasoned criticisms of the DSM, but the view that it is evidence of "deranged psychoanalysis" isn't one of them.
--I don't get why people bloviate about stuff they know absolutely nothing about. At best, the misconceptions are corrected by people who know what they're talking about; at worst, charismatic people feed on each other's misinformation until you have--Fox news?
Miles