Post: #26

(09-16-2017 09:56 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  You have it on point MajorStyles. I always felt research based on Freud was missing half of the picture.

Thank you, Beast1.

Post: #27

With AB here, never really get the hate for Freud, even when I was a blue-pill Sociology major. In fact, the fact that all liberals and feminists hate him makes me like the dude even more. All I hear against Freud is: he is mysoginist, has mommy issues, society was dumb at the time (like it's not dumb now) etc. Haven't seen a good breakdown of why his theories are wrong.

(The irony is that the term "mommy/daddy issues" itself comes from Freud's work)

There's no point in discussing something as complex as this on the internet. But the guy invented the best troll line in history: tell me about your mother.

Use this against male feminist, or replace mother with daddy against feminist and record the hilarity.

Post: #28

The present day sensitivity ideology can be traced back to the 1960s and was basically started by Freudian psychiatrists, like Fritz Perls who was trained by Wilhelm Reich. Janov (another Freudian) developed Primal Therapy , better know as Scream Therapy. The 60s "encounter groups" continued the trend adopting psychodrama techniques developed by Freudians. Freud is the father of all snowflakes.

Post: #29

(09-17-2017 07:52 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Albert Ellis was an experienced Freudian Psychoanalyst who gave up psychoanalysis for one simple reason: it didn't work. He went on to develop rational emotive behavior therapy which was based on the philosophy of ancient Rome and Greece. If the philosophy of ancient Greece is more effective than psychoanalysis that should tell you something.

Psychoanalysis isn't taken seriously by psychology. It isn't science. It is actually better classified as a genre of literary fiction. It is used by some subjectivist writers to explain the behavior of characters in fiction and movies. That's why artsy fartsy types love it but scientists don't take it seriously.

Also, the idea of "repression" has been used in some legal cases to falsely accuse people of crimes, where therapists trained in Freudianism induced false memories of abuse in children. So pseudo-science can really hurt people. Repression has not been proven by science. Pseudo-science is dangerous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

The McMartin preschool was likely a real case of child abuse covered up (literally so, when it comes to the underground tunnels), "false memory syndrome" can often be a sciento-hoax used to cover up pedo rings. Many members of the False Memory Syndrome Foundations have been linked with MK Ultra and dubious backgrounds.

Though it could be possible that in some cases they have knowingly convicted innocent parents accused of child molestation in order to generate a backlash that would flip public opinion on the side of the perpetrators.

Post: #30

(09-18-2017 07:28 PM)911 Wrote:  The McMartin preschool was likely a real case of child abuse covered up (literally so, when it comes to the underground tunnels), "false memory syndrome" can often be a sciento-hoax used to cover up pedo rings. Many members of the False Memory Syndrome Foundations have been linked with MK Ultra and dubious backgrounds.

Leaving aside repressed memory syndrome, there's a heap of problems with that "archaeological" investigation which supposedly revealed the existence of tunnels.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #31

(09-18-2017 10:12 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  With AB here, never really get the hate for Freud, even when I was a blue-pill Sociology major. In fact, the fact that all liberals and feminists hate him makes me like the dude even more. All I hear against Freud is: he is mysoginist, has mommy issues, society was dumb at the time (like it's not dumb now) etc. Haven't seen a good breakdown of why his theories are wrong.

(The irony is that the term "mommy/daddy issues" itself comes from Freud's work)

There's no point in discussing something as complex as this on the internet. But the guy invented the best troll line in history: tell me about your mother.

Use this against male feminist, or replace mother with daddy against feminist and record the hilarity.

Freud was a jew who like other jews had a sick motivation to destroy bourgeois morality. He deliberately chose Jung as his student because he needed a non-jew to be the front for his jewish subversive movement.

Freud and the Politics of Psychoanalysis - Doron Avraham

Quote:In this article he argued that a more permissive sexual morality, or the courage to feel and recognize - if not enact - seemingly illegitimate sexual desires, may keep women from falling ill. He even mentioned extra-marital affairs for women as an unlikely but potentially efficient safeguard against neurosis.

A Dark Trace: Sigmund Freud on the Sense of Guilt - Herman Westerink

Quote:Until then Freud had regularly taken a critical view of strict bourgeois morality.

http://jewishcurrents.org/carl-jung-and-...-semitism/

Quote:The fact that Jung was not Jewish was important to Freud, who placed him in what Sanford Drob calls an “unenviable position” as Gentile guarantor that Freud’s work would not be dismissed as “a Jewish national affair.

Freud was a typical subversive jew who sought to corrupt gentile women.

The end.

Post: #32

If Freud proposed some sort of universal truth.
Would it not be correct to say the universal truth should be able to stand on it's own merits?
That it does not require the soapbox of Freud?

IE, the message is more important than the messenger.

Post: #33

Did any of the "Freud supporters" actually read this book? You claim there's nothing in it about the actual validity of his ideas, yet the review says, "[Freud] in fact never cured anyone, who promoted cocaine as a miracle drug capable of curing a wide range of diseases, and who advanced his career through falsifying case histories."

You list his theories you like, and the review says he was "betraying the mentors who had helped him to rise...Crews has emphasized here and in his earlier writings that what is seen as valuable in Freud’s ideas was developed by people before him, and Freud added almost nothing except a bunch of specious and now-discredited hypotheses."

As in, did he even develop your cherished theories? If not, what did he add to those concepts? Wouldn't those additions be the very things that make Freud "Freudian?"