I don't understand why a branch of psychology is called "nonsense". There are some things that human beings will never understand, and that is where the insults and the preconception that the other is wrong come from.
Giving yourself the opportunity to see things more than one way is the true "modern world"
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I totally agree. There is a tendency to deny or diminish what cannot be explained through conventional scientific methods. I myself am a pro-science person and extremely skeptical, but I can tell the difference between a spiritualistic and completely nonsensical pseudoscience and a rich and complex psychological theory that has solid pillars in human behavior.
Saying that underlines your position, and it is not enriching, it was a struggle that took place at the time of the departure from psychoanalysis with Freud, then with his daughter, and then with Lacan. Believing that if you don't like it, it's wrong, and believing it to be pseudoscience seems offensive to me, since talking about "popular ignorance" and in favor of cognitive behavioral, is to be in favor of the fact that after the industrial revolution, changes arose in favor of capitalists, and denying history is also part of ignorance. You can agree or not with the methods and the psychoanalytic or behavioral issues, but it is not correct to say that the world is tired of Freud's antiquated nonsense.
Perhaps I sounded frivolous in my thinking about this. What I mean is that, in general, the "scientific" community and the "more modern public", which has deconstructed a lot of dated social and cultural paradigms (not because Freud was wrong and he was an ignorant conservative, but because he was a product of his time), end up not agreeing with some of the main Freudian approaches (and not that I don't agree, exactly, primarily because I know VERY LITTLE about his theoretical background, I'm still a child in the study of psychoanalysis). Especially the phallocentric idea, the certainty that the absence of the phallus is the woman's ignition for the whole process that follows in her psyche seems to me to be clear and extremely masculinist/patriarchal (and I'm lazy about a lot of this gender stuff), I think the concept of the phallus as the main figure is a problem. But again, I know very little. I've only tried to reproduce what I hear culturally about Freud and his "supposedly dated" model of the conception of the sexes.
As such, it is completely sexist, but it represents a stigma in its historical context, like when there were slaves, we can use his theory to learn about the present, and give it a more current look, but without forgetting how important his theory and logic were at the time.
I thought it was a very good exchange of words, I think I will follow you because I am interested in your content.