Thread 24625938

>Freud is universally considered "discredited" and "debunked" in academic spheres
>explains the human psyche better than any modern psych-slop ever could
>Mesmer is also "debunked"
>gives you a detailed blueprint for charisma written on black and white and easy enough for a biblically accurate retard to follow
Does anyone have more examples of "debunked" and "discredited" authors that somehow, by pure coincidence cease to lose relevance?

They still serve for a starting point for study even if a lot of it is contested

>>24625938 (OP)
>Freud is universally…
Call me when they retract Zizek's doctorate.

>>24625938 (OP)
I knew a guy studying psych several years ago, and I asked him what his course content had been so far, and he told me they’d been assigned Freud; he was every student’s first encounter with a “psychologist” in that course. When I probed him about that, knowing Freud was considered outdated at that time, he replied “even though his theories were wrong, they want us to know what he thought.” I came away from the conversation with the distinct impression there was a kernel of truth buried inside Freud’s work that it is taboo to acknowledge but *everybody gets it.*

I never read him.

>>24625938 (OP)
Freud hasn't been discredited nor debunked in academia, and everyone recognizes the monumental impact of his work, rather he's been surpassed, because his work has been found not to be as accurate as later models at interpreting human words, development, experience, trauma, motivation, and so on and so forth.
The biggest example of this is his description of death instinct/death drive/thanatos, which he formulated as an opposing force to the life instinct/life drive/eros, but on one hand his description is quite vague and doesn't concern where this instinct comes from or what his purpose might be, and on the other hand it's been experimentally and anecdotally shown through all of history that humans, just as animals, have very strong self preservation instincts even in the face of traumatic and potentially hopeless situations.
In the wake of the 20th century other models emerged as a reaction to psychoanalysis that put string emphasis on scientific validity, meaning approaches that could be proven (or disproven) to be effective, namely cognitivism, and even though much of Fred's work has evolved and still informs the current practice of dynamic psychology, it most definitely doesn't explain the human psyche better than current approaches.
t. doc in psychology

>>24625938 (OP)
Freud is also full of extremely stupid shit and springs from an insipid philosophy. Plato is also a great psychologist, or Aristotle, or Saint Augustine, or Saint Maximos, etc. They say more about practical life and how to be a good person, live a good life, and attain excellence than most of modern psychology, and certainly more than Freud of Jung.

The early "psychologists" were discredited because of their wild, unsupported suppositions. The ancient and medievals because they didn't hold to modern nominalism and nihilism, although they have helped more people become sages, heros, and saints than modern psychology I think it'd be fair to say. The modern focus is "good enough to work and make money," and "what makes YOU happy," not "what ought to make you, the good version of yourself, happy."

>>24626041
Shut the fuck up stupid faggot

>>24626041
Your thoughts are worthless and you sound like a loser
>>24626026
Your thoughts are worthless and you sound like a loser. No one else will read your diarrhea but me.

>>24626041
ugh go live in athens you helenophile. plato is helpful if you are five years old and concerned about the mechanics behind a pisstream but freud and his ilk were the first to excavate (with honesty) the massive subterranean chambers that drive the totality of human consciousness.

>>24626046
>>24626049
>>24626051
I obviously struck a nerve for you to make three posts in 5 minutes. Truth hurts. No, feeling good is not being good. Sorry.

>>24626057
kek you obviously got vaporized my boy, deal with it.

>>24626026
Maybe I'm saying this because I'm a stemcel, but unless you're talking about low level brain functions, I don't think you can condense human behavior into data points accurately enough to where they could be translated back and applied to real world scenarios.
>his description is quite vague
Unless we're talking neuroscience, I don't think there is a way around esoterics when it comes to the human psyche, for now at least. Because no matter what, you're both the observer and the subject. You're probably fuming, seething, and stomping your feet at my post especially when it's juxtaposed against your years of research building a framework, but thems the breaks.
I think focusing on compartmentalizing the cognitive and behavioral symptoms of whatever you want to call the ultimate driving force of man and reducing us to the collection of those contingent patterns is an insult to how much humans are capable of and how much unused potential there is.
Call it schizobabble, dunning-kruger fagging, pseud coded, whatever, I think it's a disservice to not go the Jungian route and leverage mystic imagery and how it resonates in your mind in ways that words printed on black and white couldn't begin to explain and learn how to consistently prod the subconscious instead of scratching your head at whatever erupts from it and manifests itself in a more concrete fashion.

Neural imaging tools are cool and everything, but they're not yet at any point that allows us to draw conclusions beyond "when people hear something that contradicts their expectations, an action potential is elicited in the auditory cortex 150 to 200ms after the stimulus".
Many aspects of higher level human behavior are quite predictable instead, see for example the heuristics and biases first studied by Tversky and Kahneman, nudging, the bystander effect, the foot in the door and door in the face techniques, anchoring, and so on and so forth; all of these have been described in depth, using widely accepted technical language, and they've been validated and replicated through many experiments.
The biggest takeaway from these should be that in the vast majority of the time people's behavior is driven by context more than anything else, so in the same situation the vast majority of people will behave the same way.
>Jung
>the ultimate driving force of man
>mystic imagery
>can't be explained
These range from barely psychology to philosophy to mysticism, are impossible to test, and are outside of the interest of modern (scientific) psychology.

>>24626130
Unless you can show me tests with 100% accuracy in terms of how a subject, whose brain chemistry is known and understood, should, and in practice will respond to certain stimuli in a given context, then the entire theory that is meant to be tested is by all measures worthless as anything other than a rough guideline. Take quantum computing for example. The paradigm for quantum logic gates to accurately replicate their electronic counterparts is ridiculously expensive to sustain. And nevertheless, even in near perfect conditions there is a, albeit astronomically small, possibility of it simply not working as intended for a process that, if scaled down proportionately to binary logic gates, would be laughable.
The point being that in a field arguably far more sophisticated than psychology we still can't completely rely with a 100% accuracy, on knowledge of higher level systems without first understanding where they even come from.
However with hard sciences there is slow and steady, brute force progress towards achieving that. Can you say the same about psychology? Have you built theorems on top of phenomena you understand to the point of manipulating it with errorless precision? If so, then every replicable "effect" or thesis is useless on account of even a single outlier, if that outlier can't be accurately explained and excluded from the practical application of said theorem based on irrefutable evidence on why that is.
While mysticism stands in direct opposition to the scientific method, I think it tugs at a part of the human experience that can't and will never be able to be fully understood, barring a deus ex machina scenario, or any other fundamental change in our (physical) perception of reality. I am by no means religious, but I do think that what we are able to observe is a fraction of what is "actually" there. And while we wait for our apparatus logos to catch up to that intrinsic, primordial understanding of the world around us, why not approach it from a different angle?

>>24626177
>If so, then every replicable "effect" or thesis
If *not

>>24626177
>tests with 100% accuracy in psychology
No such thing, for a number of reasons including individual differences and the difficulty of testing a single phenomenon without any interference from others.
Hypothesis testing is done the same way in any other science, and different sciences have different thresholds for what's considered "beyond any reasonable doubt", but it's not 100% for any of them, so by your reasoning the theory of general relativity, among others, is worthless.
Or will it only be worthless until someone describes the initial conditions of the universe, why the big band occurred, and quantum gravity, with 100% accuracy?
There is a slow and steady accumulation and refinement of knowledge in psychology as much as in any other science nowadays, yes.
>why not approach things from a different angle
By all means let's approach them, the fact that that angle is uninteresting to me and that it has little to nothing to do with psychology shouldn't stop anyone from thinking about things the way they want to.

>>24626201
I agree, I coukd ask you, yes you anon, to focus on a psychological image for example your first dog and you won't be able to, cause your brain just can't focus, making a test of empathy with animals pointless

>>24626223
that anon isn't me btw, I will come back to this thread with a detailed and longwinded way of calling you retarded (lovingly of course), but I have matters to take care of for now.

>>24626177
NTA but there is no such thing as "100%" certainty in any science period. We're dealing with p-values and CIs, statistical concepts. Everyone knows that psychology has some of the worst outcome confidences and reproducibility among all sciences, but "muh 100% accuracy or it's bogus" is a massive ass pseud doodoobrain retard take.