The final chapter of book 1 of the psychology course and this was the week that had me rolling my eyes the most as we looked at psychoanalysis and humanistic psychology. I’d a hard science sort of a person, so this aspect of psychology with all of the associated subjectivity and fuzziness is not for me, especially since it involved Freud (who I thought had been thoroughly debunked). Dream interpretations, self-actualization and encounter groups. I’ve read my fair share of self-help books but can’t take most of this stuff seriously. I’ll study it all in case it comes up in the exam, but this level of subjectivity makes the empiricist in me shudder.
A bonus chapter on consciousness which isn’t being examined but is just provided for fun, and that’s my kind of fun.
Yeah, I am not a huge fan of psychoanalysis or Freud either. But it’s all part of the history of psychology so worth learning a little bit.
I’m surprised he’s being taught as more than just an interesting historical aside given how far he’s been debunked, but at least it’s only one half of one chapter.
That’s the plan 😉 or rather there are severe flaws since it relies so much on subjectivity and interpretation.
I had similarly scathing views of Freud, however, doing the Clin Psy and looking into psychoanalytic theory a bit more has meant that I am now far less scathing.
His impact on therapy was incredible, (i.e. he invented it!) and he was the first person to come up with the ideas of the unconscious mind. The fact that terms such as denial, freudian slip, projection, and displacement activity, all of which are freudian in their roots, are in everyday use, at least gives some credence to his ideas.
He also was one of the first (possibly the first) to highlight the importance of early years and attachment to parental figures as well as traumas in early childhood affecting adulthood, which has been backed up by many studies since.
So, dodgy scientifically, yes, (small n case studies. horrendously biased reporting and dubious ethical practice for some of his patients), but that does not mean it is all bollocks.
The fact that they don’t mention any of the ethical concerns with the way Freud developed his theories, his obsession with sexuality being the root of all problems, or the small sample size is worrying to me. I only know about it from other studying I have done.