why do you consider this homo sapiens retarded ?

why do you consider this homosexual sapiens moronic ?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I dont, I think he was pretty intelligent, but he just got btfo by Delueze and Guattari beyond recovery
    kinda feel sorry for him

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because one of his most esteemed teachers, Franz Brentano, early on asked him a very simple, one sentence question that showed how entirely farcical his entire theory was, and instead of correcting his mistake he doubled down on it.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Redpill on this?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        what was the question ?

        Not that guy, but I love posts like that.
        Read more.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        what was the question ?

        “If you have sex with your mother, is it wrong?”

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      what was the question ?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        [...]
        Not that guy, but I love posts like that.
        Read more.

        > "But what can be the value of an unrepresented representation?".

        Redpill on this?

        Read Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint then. It is not that hard of a read.
        But the general gist of the criticism is that Freud uses a representational paradigm but does not adhere to the logic of representations by insisting on reifiying them into entities which can be the subject of pseudo-materialistic forces.
        Brentano showed you do not need to posit these forces to build a coherent psychology, that all mental acts and objects can be seen as a point in the structured scale of Representations -> Judgement -> Emotion, and that all of it takes place within consciousness.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          My god you're such a tryhard pseud homosexual. Read the shit you wrote again, and tell me you're proud of what you said. You're overphilosophising psychology to a point where it becomes symbolistic circlejerking without a goal other than to seem like a smart ass without any inherent meaning.
          Brentano became an absolutely irrelevant person in history while Freud became one of the most influential thinkers in creating a clinical method that has proven itself for 100 years straight.

          >all of it takes place within consciousness.
          Besides that Brentano was a religious homosexual, of course he would believe that. You have to be a complete autist to deny the existence of the uncounscious mind, besides modern neuropsychology proving its existence by neuroimaging.

          Freud’s project was a failure but it’s still valuable to read him. As a theory of sexuality or desire it should be aborted, but there’s a great essay by Eve Sedgwick which talks about how thinkers like Freud didn’t so much reveal the unconscious as illuminate the broader mechanisms of social repression that work to restrain it. That’s essentially what D&G do with anti-Oedipus, flip Freud on his head much in the way that Marx flipped hegel on his head.

          > That’s essentially what D&G do with anti-Oedipus, flip Freud
          They failed and admitted so themselves. Fricking pseud read their works before posting. The rest of your post is also shit as expected by someone who's only read 2 works of Freud but posts in Freud threads.

          I have read two books of his. Civilization and its Discontents (he plagiarized Nietzsche here, at times lifting entire sentences verbatim) and his case study of Judge Schreber, where he attributes schizophrenia to repressed homosexuality, by means of, ironically, the sort of overinclusive and metaphor-taken-as-causality sort of thinking that schizophrenics often do. That's why he is moronic and a plagiarist hack.

          However, I primarily hate him because of this though. When I call my girlfriend mommy, it is not infantile regression, nor is it incestuous ideation, and it is quite literally insane that that would be the first interpretation of anyone. I call her mommy because she is the mommy of our (until we have kids, imaginary) family unit - same reason she calls me daddy. When she says "cum in mommy" and my dick gets so hard it nearly snaps before I coom everything even including my spinal fluid inside her, it is the procreation and creation of a family that is at stake and the cause of the monumental ejaculation, not me thinking about my own mother.
          I am lucky I have found a girlfriend who understands this. 9/10 women would do shitty Freudoanalysis on me instead, despite having the exact same dynamic themselves with the concept of daddy.

          When I call my girlfriend mommy, it is not infantile regression, nor is it incestuous ideation, and it is quite literally insane that that would be the first interpretation of anyone. I call her mommy because she is the mommy of our (until we have kids, imaginary) family unit - same reason she calls me daddy.
          HAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH kek

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >You have to be a complete autist to deny the existence of the uncounscious mind, besides modern neuropsychology proving its existence by neuroimaging.
            I just love it when the posturing-posters put a bit of effort into their haughty shitposts, because occasionally they'll let slip some claim that reveals a less than 80 IQ.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >besides modern neuropsychology proving its existence by neuroimaging.
            Jesus fricking christ you are the worst dumb dumb moron ougabouga dirty c**t I've ever laid eyes on. Kys.
            Frick why am I responding to a troon supporter?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >he was a religious homosexual
            Not an argument

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Don’t bother replying to him.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'll give you an argument:He was Brentano

            >seems
            How do you know they are accurate? Just because it "seems" so? Because you so happen to find it agreeable?

            And in any case I don't necessarily deny that psychoanalysis is effective, what I am skeptical of is his grand theory of the psyche. It's too much too soon. And even if psychoanalysis is somewhat effective--at treating a few limited disorders like depression and anxiety-- it's unclear as to the reasons why because of "clinical heterogeneity" , meaning that each psychoanalyst uses their own style and approach within the overall school of thought rather than applying a rigorous methodology.

            >meaning that each psychoanalyst uses their own style and approach within the overall school of thought rather than applying a rigorous methodology.
            Absolutely wrong. Read more into psychotherapy.

            This is a lot bigger than Freud btw. It has to do with the general difficulty of applying empirical methods to psychology, a longstanding and ongoing controversy.

            Atoms and gravity and such like are not only objective phenomena but they are also a lot simpler than brains and minds. The amount of unknowns you have to build upon to conjecture a theory of atoms is necessarily less than what you need for a theory of the brain-mind.

            Freud actually started out as a neurophysiologist . He started and later abandoned an equally ambitious theory of brain function called a Project of a Scientific Psychology, but was dissatisfied with how little was known about the brain at the time. In other words he deliberately abandoned science. It's actually a bit of a shame because he was on the right track. His project anticipated long term potentiation and the now widely accepted idea that memories are physically instantiated in synaptic connections.

            > SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENCE ONLY THAT WHICH HAS BEEN PROOOOVEN BY SCIENCE IS TRUE
            can you frick off please, and that's coming from someone with a masters degree in clinical neurpsychology. If we went by your mindset there still wouldn't exist a single effective treament for mental illness.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    .

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I have read two books of his. Civilization and its Discontents (he plagiarized Nietzsche here, at times lifting entire sentences verbatim) and his case study of Judge Schreber, where he attributes schizophrenia to repressed homosexuality, by means of, ironically, the sort of overinclusive and metaphor-taken-as-causality sort of thinking that schizophrenics often do. That's why he is moronic and a plagiarist hack.

      However, I primarily hate him because of this though. When I call my girlfriend mommy, it is not infantile regression, nor is it incestuous ideation, and it is quite literally insane that that would be the first interpretation of anyone. I call her mommy because she is the mommy of our (until we have kids, imaginary) family unit - same reason she calls me daddy. When she says "cum in mommy" and my dick gets so hard it nearly snaps before I coom everything even including my spinal fluid inside her, it is the procreation and creation of a family that is at stake and the cause of the monumental ejaculation, not me thinking about my own mother.
      I am lucky I have found a girlfriend who understands this. 9/10 women would do shitty Freudoanalysis on me instead, despite having the exact same dynamic themselves with the concept of daddy.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Basically this, there are waaay to many plebs who mistake the eternal feminine archetype of the mother with "your own specific mom, kindhearted elderly lady".

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Interesting. So I thought Freud is a pathetic moron for being such a utilitarian cuck, but holy, clearly he is just a novice in comparison to you. You like a whole and a half step beyond with all this naive generalized homosexualry.

        Having a problem with seeming "over inclusive" analysis, do not recognize facts of metaphoric symbolism AND do not recognize mother complex as, not even major, but at least partial influence on individuals, giving most blatant subjective projection... It's either a troll, or a decelerate of the highest degree.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >I call her mommy because she is the mommy of our (until we have kids, imaginary
        Cope, you want to frick your mom and are in denial. Subject also exhibits repressed homosexual tendencies, a result of clear regression to an anal stage of development.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's easier to pretend he was completely wrong and a moron than it is to deal with all the good insights he had because this makes me feel powerless.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't. I actually like him quite a bit and enjoy his books

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Freud’s project was a failure but it’s still valuable to read him. As a theory of sexuality or desire it should be aborted, but there’s a great essay by Eve Sedgwick which talks about how thinkers like Freud didn’t so much reveal the unconscious as illuminate the broader mechanisms of social repression that work to restrain it. That’s essentially what D&G do with anti-Oedipus, flip Freud on his head much in the way that Marx flipped hegel on his head.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    because he didn't appreciate Jung's improvements on his theories

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Those were not improvements but corrections of an intentionally flawed dialectic.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I went looking for your pic’s thread on the archives and ended up reading about a redneck methead anon who fantasizes about committing incest and becoming the patriarch of some The Hills Have Eyes tier family.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Overly emotional pseuds take him too personally and feel personally attacked by his theories. But them not having schizophrenia doesn't stop it from existing in others. Same goes for Freuds theories on degenerate sexual deviants. People like that will exist, even if the reader starts having a meltdown of complete denial about it.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I take issue with his postulate of the unconscious mind. There are many empirical and philosophical problems with it.

    The unconscious mind is by definition unobservable and unintrospectable, otherwise it would be the conscious mind. Do you know what else is unobservable? Ghosts, fairies, angels, things that don't exist. Freud postulated this entire theoretical structure without any means of verifying it. His evidence for the efficacy of his pep talks was anecdotal and not subject to the scientific method--it couldn't be because it is unfalsifiable. Anything can be attributed to an entity that doesn't exist. If the unconscious mind exists, explicating its nature is far more difficult than he assumes, as if to say "aha I solved it!" He built his theory without any regard for objective constraints .

    If you've ever seen a psychotherapist in action, you can see this folly on full display. "You are unhappy because you won't allow yourself to be happy because your mom disapproved of you as a child. And if you deny it, then that's because of this same unconscious force of self-repression." Oh really?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      To clarify, it's not that I necessarily deny the existence of the unconscious. Brain research has shown that a lot of processing is unconscious. What I deny is the extent to which it is knowable, and whether that low-level information processing really manifests as a "psyche" or sense of self as Freud assumes. I deny that he has grounds to infer everything about what makes people tick on the basis of his conjectures. Certainly the extent to which his theories drifted grew quite extreme when he was postulating all these farfetched ideas like a biologically paradoxical "death drive" or attempts to explain personality development in terms of a person's childhood pooping style (anal retentiveness/expletiveness).

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >The unconscious mind is by definition unobservable and unintrospectable, otherwise it would be the conscious mind. Do you know what else is unobservable? Ghosts, fairies, angels, things that don't exist

      plenty of things cannot be observed and yet we are aware of their existence by establishing the effects that they have on external stimuli. one example would be Atoms. a different example would be black holes.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        in other words just because they cannot be directly observed as you would observe something as simple as a coffee pot, it does not mean that thing doesn't exist. we observe things indirectly all the time. a very popular way by which we establish the existence of the unconscious mind is trauma and trauma bonding

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >a very popular way by which we establish the existence of the unconscious mind is trauma and trauma bonding
          Entirely explainable without recourse to the unconscious.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's much easier to point at the unconscious in the process of ordinary speech. You mostly do not consciously choose your word but you just utter them. So where do your sentences come from? There is a reservoir of all the language and speech that you assimilated (or rather were forced to assimilate) and that is your unconscious.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >It's much easier to point at the unconscious in the process of ordinary speech.
            Once again, unnecessary. The cognitive is not the freudian unconscious. The freudian unconscious is not "everything I'm not conscious of at the moment". It is not the psycho pop definition of subconscious that permeates our individual Theory of Psychology. My left testicle or the "sun-cells" in my skin is not part of the unconscious because I am not conscious of them. Our cognitive processes are not the freudian unconscious. The freudian unconscious is defined by Freud as the field where conscious ideas and emotions are pushed outside of the bounds of possible awareness through various mental processes of repression.
            The unconscious is NOT what can come into mind but must be excavated first, that is the preconscious. The unconscious is further defined as illogical (ideas that are contradictory can be simultaneously held), inherently hazy (doesn't have truth value or certainty) and atemporal (do not have a chronological order or even an applicable temporality).
            Your cognitive pathfinding is not part of the freudian unconscious. You subvocalisation is not part of the freudian unconscious. The fact (or not) that our consciousness is cognitively built on a nervous system enacting a looped top-to-bottom-bottom-to-top PPM algorithm is not part of the Freudian unconscious.

            >The unconscious mind is by definition unobservable and unintrospectable
            The unconscious mind as defined by Freud and Jung is merely unaccessible to the psychological function of active recall, it IS observable by putting you into CT or any other elctromagnetic means of blood stream observation and making you solve tasks on a screen. What do we observe? That while trying to remember certain life events primed by sentences provoking active recall of said events certain parts of the brain get co-activated that MUST contain associated memories (that also should be recallable according to neuroscience), but the test subject can not remember them for the life of it. This is only one example of many, google the rest if you have the time, the unconscious mind is a research field in neuroscience and I had two professors on my uni alone researching that field.
            Even the fricking Libet Experiment is a massive hint at the existence of the unconscious mind and it's one of the most simple neuropsychological experiments ever conducted. You learn that in fricking high school.

            >His evidence for the efficacy of his pep talks was anecdotal and not subject to the scientific method--it couldn't be because it is unfalsifiable.
            Stuff your Popper bullshit up your ass, pseud. The scientific method was not nearly as defined 100 years ago as it is now and even now 99% of things in the universe are not quantifiable and you can not rely on the scientific method or empiricism to explain the complex nature of the human mind. Freud makes up with 50 years of clinical practice and by coining psychoanalysis as a discipline that provided 100 years of insights and data about the inner workings of the human psyche, not to mention that it spawned every other branch of depth psychology.

            >If the unconscious mind exists, explicating its nature is far more difficult than he assumes, as if to say "aha I solved it!"
            Freud never said that and never even closely expressed the thought that he somehow solved or figured out the unconscious mind. I'm calling you a moron for not having read the author that you're trying to discuss. Typical IQfyard.

            >If you've ever seen a psychotherapist in action, you can see this folly on full display.
            This is not how psychotherapy, which is a science in itself, works. You really have no clue what you're talking out of your pretentious ass.

            [...]
            It's not and even the most known trauma therapists refer to the unconscious as an important factor in trauma therapy, though more than a mystery factor X than a clear concept like Freud or Jung. You would know if you ever dabbled into clinical psychology.

            >It's not and even the most known trauma therapists refer to the unconscious as an important factor in trauma therapy,
            > The cause of trauma can be effectively used to diagnose and understand the trauma.
            Lol. Imagine being a virologist, inventing a virus from the ground up, releasing it in the wild, seeing it infect the entire population, getting asked for a cure, responding that you'll have to charge them multiple hours studying the case by probing every ackward moment of their lifetime and intimate thoughts, and then claiming that your below 50% success rate is an indication that you are doing good and was using the right methodology all along.
            Imagine being a modern psychologist.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            And where did you get this Freud interpretation from? Maybe grab a book once in a while instead of chucking down youtube videos.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, according to precise measurable criteria. Measurement is a type of observation. We can infer the existence of atoms via calculations of their masses, atomic weights, and various testable, repeatable experiments. And our knowledge of what constitutes an atom has changed over the centuries to fit what we discover. No such work was being done by Freud. It was all confirmation bias that he devised sitting in a room talking to sad people.

        It's much harder to infer falsehoods in the first case rather than the second case, because in the first case, objective parameters constrain the scope of what the theory asserts. In the second case, there are no such constraints, so Freud let his imagination run wild.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >It was all confirmation bias that he devised sitting in a room talking to sad people.

          sure, his theory seems to hold up though. you can infer accurate things using invalid methods.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >seems
            How do you know they are accurate? Just because it "seems" so? Because you so happen to find it agreeable?

            And in any case I don't necessarily deny that psychoanalysis is effective, what I am skeptical of is his grand theory of the psyche. It's too much too soon. And even if psychoanalysis is somewhat effective--at treating a few limited disorders like depression and anxiety-- it's unclear as to the reasons why because of "clinical heterogeneity" , meaning that each psychoanalyst uses their own style and approach within the overall school of thought rather than applying a rigorous methodology.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Just because it "seems" so? Because you so happen to find it agreeable?
            we happen to see phenomena all around us that just so happens to be perfectly explainable using Freuds theories and his theories only.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          This is a lot bigger than Freud btw. It has to do with the general difficulty of applying empirical methods to psychology, a longstanding and ongoing controversy.

          Atoms and gravity and such like are not only objective phenomena but they are also a lot simpler than brains and minds. The amount of unknowns you have to build upon to conjecture a theory of atoms is necessarily less than what you need for a theory of the brain-mind.

          Freud actually started out as a neurophysiologist . He started and later abandoned an equally ambitious theory of brain function called a Project of a Scientific Psychology, but was dissatisfied with how little was known about the brain at the time. In other words he deliberately abandoned science. It's actually a bit of a shame because he was on the right track. His project anticipated long term potentiation and the now widely accepted idea that memories are physically instantiated in synaptic connections.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      To clarify, it's not that I necessarily deny the existence of the unconscious. Brain research has shown that a lot of processing is unconscious. What I deny is the extent to which it is knowable, and whether that low-level information processing really manifests as a "psyche" or sense of self as Freud assumes. I deny that he has grounds to infer everything about what makes people tick on the basis of his conjectures. Certainly the extent to which his theories drifted grew quite extreme when he was postulating all these farfetched ideas like a biologically paradoxical "death drive" or attempts to explain personality development in terms of a person's childhood pooping style (anal retentiveness/expletiveness).

      Jung was right here. He reintegrates the idea of the unconscious with his take on symbols, expressions and dreams--and the forging of this "active imagination" through meditation and dream analysis. Those in the middle ages thought dreams were prophetic, nowadays even neuroscience agrees that REM sleep is a layer of information processing that completes the self, one which you can personally interpret and reconcile with your conscious self with just the slightest amount of effort. The words and methods just failed Freud, but his legacy shows that in many ways he was right even if he just stumbled awkwardly upon the knowledge and expressed it just as poorly.
      It gets scary when you realize just how sensitive our subconscious is to patterns and sensory stimuli.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >The unconscious mind is by definition unobservable
      idiot

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >The unconscious mind is by definition unobservable and unintrospectable
      The unconscious mind as defined by Freud and Jung is merely unaccessible to the psychological function of active recall, it IS observable by putting you into CT or any other elctromagnetic means of blood stream observation and making you solve tasks on a screen. What do we observe? That while trying to remember certain life events primed by sentences provoking active recall of said events certain parts of the brain get co-activated that MUST contain associated memories (that also should be recallable according to neuroscience), but the test subject can not remember them for the life of it. This is only one example of many, google the rest if you have the time, the unconscious mind is a research field in neuroscience and I had two professors on my uni alone researching that field.
      Even the fricking Libet Experiment is a massive hint at the existence of the unconscious mind and it's one of the most simple neuropsychological experiments ever conducted. You learn that in fricking high school.

      >His evidence for the efficacy of his pep talks was anecdotal and not subject to the scientific method--it couldn't be because it is unfalsifiable.
      Stuff your Popper bullshit up your ass, pseud. The scientific method was not nearly as defined 100 years ago as it is now and even now 99% of things in the universe are not quantifiable and you can not rely on the scientific method or empiricism to explain the complex nature of the human mind. Freud makes up with 50 years of clinical practice and by coining psychoanalysis as a discipline that provided 100 years of insights and data about the inner workings of the human psyche, not to mention that it spawned every other branch of depth psychology.

      >If the unconscious mind exists, explicating its nature is far more difficult than he assumes, as if to say "aha I solved it!"
      Freud never said that and never even closely expressed the thought that he somehow solved or figured out the unconscious mind. I'm calling you a moron for not having read the author that you're trying to discuss. Typical IQfyard.

      >If you've ever seen a psychotherapist in action, you can see this folly on full display.
      This is not how psychotherapy, which is a science in itself, works. You really have no clue what you're talking out of your pretentious ass.

      >a very popular way by which we establish the existence of the unconscious mind is trauma and trauma bonding
      Entirely explainable without recourse to the unconscious.

      It's not and even the most known trauma therapists refer to the unconscious as an important factor in trauma therapy, though more than a mystery factor X than a clear concept like Freud or Jung. You would know if you ever dabbled into clinical psychology.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >and you can not rely on the scientific method or empiricism to explain the complex nature of the human mind.
        deliciously wicked. now you just have to shout it up to all psychology patients, you go and say it out loud every single time. "we dont use scientific method or empiricism" "no we dont".
        it would be fantastic to see how many of them still choose to stay.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          All of them would stay. Why? Because half of them doesn't know what empiricism is and how science works, the other half knows exactly there's no other alternative besides taking drugs that might or might not work and have a ton of side effects. I tell you something: modern cognitive behavioural therapy, that's supposed to be firmly grounded in scientifc discovery, is just as vague and unpredictable as any other, half-scientific method to treat mental illness. Clinical psychology is in its baby shoes, don't expect it to be as sophisticated as physiological medicine that had thousands of years to develop.

          >It's much easier to point at the unconscious in the process of ordinary speech.
          Once again, unnecessary. The cognitive is not the freudian unconscious. The freudian unconscious is not "everything I'm not conscious of at the moment". It is not the psycho pop definition of subconscious that permeates our individual Theory of Psychology. My left testicle or the "sun-cells" in my skin is not part of the unconscious because I am not conscious of them. Our cognitive processes are not the freudian unconscious. The freudian unconscious is defined by Freud as the field where conscious ideas and emotions are pushed outside of the bounds of possible awareness through various mental processes of repression.
          The unconscious is NOT what can come into mind but must be excavated first, that is the preconscious. The unconscious is further defined as illogical (ideas that are contradictory can be simultaneously held), inherently hazy (doesn't have truth value or certainty) and atemporal (do not have a chronological order or even an applicable temporality).
          Your cognitive pathfinding is not part of the freudian unconscious. You subvocalisation is not part of the freudian unconscious. The fact (or not) that our consciousness is cognitively built on a nervous system enacting a looped top-to-bottom-bottom-to-top PPM algorithm is not part of the Freudian unconscious.
          [...]
          >It's not and even the most known trauma therapists refer to the unconscious as an important factor in trauma therapy,
          > The cause of trauma can be effectively used to diagnose and understand the trauma.
          Lol. Imagine being a virologist, inventing a virus from the ground up, releasing it in the wild, seeing it infect the entire population, getting asked for a cure, responding that you'll have to charge them multiple hours studying the case by probing every ackward moment of their lifetime and intimate thoughts, and then claiming that your below 50% success rate is an indication that you are doing good and was using the right methodology all along.
          Imagine being a modern psychologist.

          Do you have a better idea how to treat people? Serious question.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you have a better idea how to treat people? Serious question.
            Existential psychotherapy.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >half of them doesn't know what empiricism is and how science works,
            still is the only reason they are in the room.
            if you tell a patient "everything i told you is not about science or empiricism" they simply will not believe you. psychology and psychiatry live over the shoulders of empiricism and "psychology is the scientific arm of human behaviour". it would be a truth like a hammer blow to everyone if they really and completely understand thats not the case. they will be in shock and many would deny it. now, once the shock goes and they really understand it with all the consequences i would say very few would choose to stay.
            psychology literally need to shoot it out to patients they are not empiricist because the lie is of a magnitude that they dont believe you even if you shoot it out to them. thats were we are. (anyway, no psychologist gonna lose the little power they have because an autistic honesty ...)

            >Do you have a better idea how to treat people? Serious question.
            im not the guy, but he is saying that psychologist invent the virus first. there is nothing to cure.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >That while trying to remember certain life events primed by sentences provoking active recall of said events certain parts of the brain get co-activated that MUST contain associated memories (that also should be recallable according to neuroscience),
        > Hypothesis 1 : When asked to re-present a percept, the cognitive system in place will search other memory stacks in order to "fill up" the representation, so that the experience of the memory comes off as a reliving of the experience rather than the presentation of a picture. The experience of memory as an reliving of the recalled moment is consciously different from the experience of being presented with a picture, it is very easily accessible, and therefore not unconscious as per Freud's theory itself. For example, being asked to recall my childhood house will very likely "summon" a single experience or field regarding that house that is built from various instances of being around that house, so that I can interact with it in an almost virtual environment.
        > Hypothesis 2 : When asked to recall about your childhood home you will necessarily build that idea around whatever was the most traumatic events that happened in that house, why, because daddy Freud says so, and your opinion of your childhood house will necessarily be tainted by the fact that it was the site of many years of seething over the sexual unavailability of your own mother. Not that you will realize any of that, btw.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    He isn’t. Just ignore IQfy

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    He predicted stepmom porn and step sibling porn so he's goated. The greatest mind to have ever lived, rivaling even Nietzsche who I think is the greatest thinker to touch on this planet earth

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Alright, to all the pro-Freud homosexuals ITT. Please defend this for me:

    Judge Schreber is schizophrenic. A common feature of schizophrenia are delusions of reference, which consists of taking ordinary and innocuous objects and events to be specifically referring to oneself in an ineffable and often ominous manner. Schreber has these. Freud takes these delusions of reference to actually be cloaked narcissism, because you must be a narcissist to think that everything is about you. Hence, we have analytically reduced the delusional atmosphere of schizophrenia to narcissism. But what then of this narcissism? What is that about? Well, according to Freud, narcissism entails that you like things that are just like you - but this is merely a defense mechanism for another way that you like things that are just like you, namely, liking wiener if you have a wiener.
    We have now analytically reduced schizophrenia to narcissism, and narcissism to closeted homosexuality, and thus arrive at the Freudian conclusion that Schreber, the most paradigmatic example of schizophrenia of all time, was actually a closeted homo.
    Freud tries to cover his ass by saying it is not every schizophrenic who is actually just a repressed homosexual, but given that delusions of reference are extremely common, and that they can thus be used in the same reasoning that "proved" Schreber to just be a closeted homo, the vast majority of clinical schizophrenia is, according to the tenets of Freudianism, just repressed homosexuality.

    How do you defend this, as a Freudogay? This is a charitable and intellectually reconstruction of his entire argument concerning Schreber - I swear to God - yet it reads like a caricature. You cannot reconstruct his thoughts without it coming off like it is completely deranged.

    Perhaps Freud just isn't clinically relevant anymore - and I can sort of accept that, and it would fit neatly with the fact that he is more popular among queer theoreticians with problem-glasses than psychiatrists. But if that is the case, please stop pretending Freudianism is anything but an overengineered tool for literary analysis.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Do you want to tell us that you are a homosexual?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Schreiber's delusions are about him becoming a wife for his idealized male lover, and you think it's crazy to say that it's about his wanting dick?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *