How accurate was Sigmund Frued?

[nilecroc]

We just got done talking about Frued's model of the ego, superego, and id. I googled it and all I got was samries of it. I couldn't find any criticisms or modern acceptance on it. My psychology teacher seemef to favor it over the other schop's we talked about.

[MrBogosity]

There seems to be a dearth in psychology of studies that replicate the findings of other studies. It's basically ended up being a matter of whatever the particular psychologist believes at the time.

[Travis Retriever]

There seems to be a dearth in psychology of studies that replicate the findings of other studies. It's basically ended up being a matter of whatever the particular psychologist believes at the time.

In other words, Psychology as a science is dead it sounds like.  I guess TJ was right on the money when he said that then.  Damn.  It be all about neuroscience these days.  Good riddance.

[Travis Retriever]

Also, could you delete the other thread of the same name?

[MrBogosity]

Also, could you delete the other thread of the same name?

Done.

[Travis Retriever]

Done.

I was actually asking nilecroc, but ok.  That works too.

[nilecroc]

There seems to be a dearth in psychology of studies that replicate the findings of other studies. It's basically ended up being a matter of whatever the particular psychologist believes at the time.

So would you say that I'm wasting my time with this class? Or is there anything useful that I can learn here that would be easier than learning on my own.

[evensgrey]

So would you say that I'm wasting my time with this class? Or is there anything useful that I can learn here that would be easier than learning on my own.

That depends.  If the credit will fulfill a degree requirement and there's nothing else that will be useful for you that does, then you can call it useful in that sense, and you might as well continue with it.

Psychologists seem to have something of an inhibition about doing actual science, in that they seem to strongly dislike retesting things other people have reported.  This means that you could potentially get away with publishing almost anything.  It also means that we've had some really outrageous stuff that goes on and on for years, like that whole 'recovered memory therapy' fiasco that caused so much harm back in the late 80s and through much of the 90s and the associated claims of satanic ritual abuse of children (which bear an uncanny resemblance to previous claims about biker gangs, and earlier claims about both witches and Jews going back centuries).

[MrBogosity]

Psychologists seem to have something of an inhibition about doing actual science, in that they seem to strongly dislike retesting things other people have reported.  This means that you could potentially get away with publishing almost anything.  It also means that we've had some really outrageous stuff that goes on and on for years, like that whole 'recovered memory therapy' fiasco that caused so much harm back in the late 80s and through much of the 90s and the associated claims of satanic ritual abuse of children (which bear an uncanny resemblance to previous claims about biker gangs, and earlier claims about both witches and Jews going back centuries).

And those things had to be disproved by neuroscience, not by psychologists re-testing the ideas.

[dallen68]

And those things had to be disproved by neuroscience, not by psychologists re-testing the ideas.

It's interesting to note that the neuroscience staff at UCLA includes psychologists, so apparently the academic community isn't dismissing psychology all together.
http://www.neurosci.ucla.edu/

As for the question whether it's useful. Nile might want to check with a faculty advisor to see if it's a required course for his degree (it was for mine).

[Ibrahim90]

That depends.  If the credit will fulfill a degree requirement and there's nothing else that will be useful for you that does, then you can call it useful in that sense, and you might as well continue with it.

Psychologists seem to have something of an inhibition about doing actual science, in that they seem to strongly dislike retesting things other people have reported.  This means that you could potentially get away with publishing almost anything.  It also means that we've had some really outrageous stuff that goes on and on for years, like that whole 'recovered memory therapy' fiasco that caused so much harm back in the late 80s and through much of the 90s and the associated claims of satanic ritual abuse of children (which bear an uncanny resemblance to previous claims about biker gangs, and earlier claims about both witches and Jews going back centuries).

OK, so did they claim that they actually worshiped a severed head, a rock, or some weird candarian demon--you know, like people used to say about us in the Middle ages?


jokes aside, Psychology: the thing with it (and why retesting is not widely done), is that it is really an external affair: you're trying to figure out what is going on inside a person's head by observing what they do on the outside, or what they went through in their lives--the physical expression (e.g. in Sigmund Frued's Model, a difficult Toilet training in Childhood could lead to coprophilic or urophilic tendencies). This of course implies that there is no direct measurement of the brains response--no measurement of electrical signals and so forth. It does however, have scientific value--at least conceptually, since you can learn what makes people do certain things, or act in a certain way (like how a difficult toilet training makes people lean towards coprophilia). Neuroscience on the other hand explains the mechanics of the brain and how they relate to the person's thinking.

One thing though about Frued's model: it has been tested, in a way. I'll leave you to judge what to think, based on your wits:

[yt]v1W8I8uoVPo[/yt]

(though for the record, I have no real opinion).

[nilecroc]

It's interesting to note that the neuroscience staff at UCLA includes psychologists, so apparently the academic community isn't dismissing psychology all together.
http://www.neurosci.ucla.edu/

As for the question whether it's useful. Nile might want to check with a faculty advisor to see if it's a required course for his degree (it was for mine).

I chose it because I had to take a science and that was the best option on the list. It's one of the basics you're forced to take even if you have no interest in it. My degree is economics in business, although I want to change it.

[dallen68]

I chose it because I had to take a science and that was the best option on the list. It's one of the basics you're forced to take even if you have no interest in it. My degree is economics in business, although I want to change it.

On mine, psych was separate from the science requirement.