A Century of Pyschoanalysis
May 8, 2006 11:51 AM Subscribe
I love kicking Freud as much as the next girl, but this Spengler fellow sounds off his rocker. He takes leaps that aren't logical and never gives proof of his premises--how is this exceptionally well written or researched?
posted by tula at 12:22 PM on May 8, 2006
posted by tula at 12:22 PM on May 8, 2006
Whereas Spengler is right that Freud may have been way off mark, he badmouths Freud on women and usggests that women recieve better treatment through religions(s). Nonsense. Further, he believes hooking up and sexual messiness is somehow connected to Freud and lack of religion when in fact women are participants as well as men and I suspect that both sexes, if young, have never read a bit of Freud. Try hormones, as a cause, Mr Spengler.
posted by Postroad at 12:27 PM on May 8, 2006
posted by Postroad at 12:27 PM on May 8, 2006
The Spengler article reads like just a bunch of gibberish. While I'll make no secret of my admiration for Freud, it isn't his desire to put a stake through Freud's heart that makes me say that about the Spengler, I honestly am not sure what his point is. To the extent that he seems to be lamenting a turn to psychiatry (or even just a proliferation of mental disorders), he doesn't seem to know enough to know that Freud =/= psychiatry.
The second article is a bit more useful, in that it points out all of the ways in which Freudian cribs inhabit our world, but then mistakenly suggests that Proust (whose ideas on memory, desire, dreams, art and willfullness differed in major ways from Freud's) owes some kind of debt to Freud. (Proust appears never to have read Freud.) One would hope that important anniversaries might be a time to re-examine the actual content of Freud's work, rather than rehash the received ideas about what it constitutes.
trinarian writes "it's a somewhat masochistic desire of mine to read through his exceptionally well written and researched work and provide a sound liberal responses."
Psychotherapy in general has an effect size of .80, a large effect in the social sciences, and indicating that 79% of treated patients do better than those wanting but not receiving treatment. Freud's idea that a talking cure was a way to address mental disorder should certainly be credited here, at least in part. In this case it seems like Spengler's point, whatever it was about Freud, wasn't particularly well-researched.
posted by OmieWise at 12:36 PM on May 8, 2006
The second article is a bit more useful, in that it points out all of the ways in which Freudian cribs inhabit our world, but then mistakenly suggests that Proust (whose ideas on memory, desire, dreams, art and willfullness differed in major ways from Freud's) owes some kind of debt to Freud. (Proust appears never to have read Freud.) One would hope that important anniversaries might be a time to re-examine the actual content of Freud's work, rather than rehash the received ideas about what it constitutes.
trinarian writes "it's a somewhat masochistic desire of mine to read through his exceptionally well written and researched work and provide a sound liberal responses."
Psychotherapy in general has an effect size of .80, a large effect in the social sciences, and indicating that 79% of treated patients do better than those wanting but not receiving treatment. Freud's idea that a talking cure was a way to address mental disorder should certainly be credited here, at least in part. In this case it seems like Spengler's point, whatever it was about Freud, wasn't particularly well-researched.
posted by OmieWise at 12:36 PM on May 8, 2006
I quite liked this sesquicentennial celebration of Freud, by Harold Bloom, which I just read an hour ago. I think he's largely right. But it's also a good example of Bloom just making things up as he goes along. Because life is prettier that way. "[Freud] went so far as to deny that he ever had read Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, which manifestly is unlikely." Sure, Howard. Sure.
posted by painquale at 12:40 PM on May 8, 2006
posted by painquale at 12:40 PM on May 8, 2006
I quite liked this sesquicentennial celebration of Freud, by Harold Bloom, which I just read an hour ago. I think he's largely right.
posted by painquale at 2:40 PM CST on May 8
I have a certain degree of regard for Bloom given his love of books and have really enjoyed some of his own books (and disliked others; his treatment of Job is tortured, at best). But I can't get on board with Bloom on this one. Freud was immensely important in the history of ideas. Whether he is ultimately proven to be correct or whether he was more of a writer/thinker instead of scientist is to miss the point. Like it or not, we live in a Freudian world. I appreciate many of the critiques of Freud and find that they may be more informed, but that is not a discredit to Freud or his influence.
I highly recommend Professor Daniel N. Robinson's thoughts on Freud.
posted by dios at 1:06 PM on May 8, 2006
posted by painquale at 2:40 PM CST on May 8
I have a certain degree of regard for Bloom given his love of books and have really enjoyed some of his own books (and disliked others; his treatment of Job is tortured, at best). But I can't get on board with Bloom on this one. Freud was immensely important in the history of ideas. Whether he is ultimately proven to be correct or whether he was more of a writer/thinker instead of scientist is to miss the point. Like it or not, we live in a Freudian world. I appreciate many of the critiques of Freud and find that they may be more informed, but that is not a discredit to Freud or his influence.
I highly recommend Professor Daniel N. Robinson's thoughts on Freud.
posted by dios at 1:06 PM on May 8, 2006
Freud is great and all, but truly the main push for psychoanalysis in America at least comes mainly through the machinations and work of his daughter, Anna Freud. The moved with him from Vienna to London, just prior to the Nazi bombing attacks in 1939. Freud died shortly afterwards. His writings were first introduced to the Americas through his nephew, Bernays, who "invented" public relations. It's all very interesting.
Century of the Self.
A crash course in psychoanalysis and it's history and progeny.
Can't recommend it enough.
posted by daq at 1:39 PM on May 8, 2006
Century of the Self.
A crash course in psychoanalysis and it's history and progeny.
Can't recommend it enough.
posted by daq at 1:39 PM on May 8, 2006
Frederick Crews is essential reading, IMO, in understanding not only what a crock Freud was, but his followers in the humanities as well. Actually, Freud was pretty interesting in his own light, but the ensuing "Freud industry" was annoying, and now thankfully irrelevant.
posted by bardic at 1:52 PM on May 8, 2006
posted by bardic at 1:52 PM on May 8, 2006
(What daq said as well. The whole 1950's American fascination with Freud was pretty amazing, and led to some good books being written, but c'mon--the guy says straight up that women want penises so they can pee on fires and put them out. And mentally tortured women to get the results he wanted. Actually, he usually made them up completely. Interesting in the way any mad scientist is interesting.)
posted by bardic at 1:54 PM on May 8, 2006
posted by bardic at 1:54 PM on May 8, 2006
Freud was a world-historical genius. This pseudo-Spengler is an ass.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 1:56 PM on May 8, 2006
posted by Crabby Appleton at 1:56 PM on May 8, 2006
Leaps off the rails in the opening line of the second paragraph and just boldly goes on from there. People are wacky.
As the great sport of Freud-kicking goes, I enjoyed Madness on the Couch--which actually doesn't spend much time at all actually trying to get all Buffy on Freud's vampiric heart, in favor of repeatedly kicking the crap out of Freud[i]ian[/i] therapy in its 40s-50s heyday. There's not much babble about Freud inventing anorexia and self-mutilation and probably being responsible for Carrie White's psychokinetic powers, though.
posted by Drastic at 2:28 PM on May 8, 2006
As the great sport of Freud-kicking goes, I enjoyed Madness on the Couch--which actually doesn't spend much time at all actually trying to get all Buffy on Freud's vampiric heart, in favor of repeatedly kicking the crap out of Freud[i]ian[/i] therapy in its 40s-50s heyday. There's not much babble about Freud inventing anorexia and self-mutilation and probably being responsible for Carrie White's psychokinetic powers, though.
posted by Drastic at 2:28 PM on May 8, 2006
Curse you, conflation of html with phpbb tags. (Freud's responsible for that, too.)
posted by Drastic at 2:29 PM on May 8, 2006
posted by Drastic at 2:29 PM on May 8, 2006
In a highly relative sense, Freud deserves credit for treating homosexuality as something treatable, as opposed to an unwashable mark of taint and sin. Of course, this has led to problems in the current day. So I should reserve my contempt, again, for the Freud industry. The man himself was pretty insightful--I just wish he'd gotten a degree in the social sciences rather than medicine. As soft science, he's an entertaining and provocative guy (especially on dreams). As a medical authority? A nut-job and a quack.
posted by bardic at 3:02 PM on May 8, 2006
posted by bardic at 3:02 PM on May 8, 2006
Freud deserves credit for treating homosexuality as something treatable.
As Freud writes in "The Psychogenesis of a Case of Homosexuality in a Woman" (1920):
"[T]he ideal situation for analysis is when someone who is otherwise master of himself is suffering from an inner conflict which he is unable to resolve alone, so that he brings his trouble to the analyst and begs for his help....
[I]n general, to undertake to convert a fully developed homosexual into a heterosexual is not much more promising than to do the reverse...."
posted by anotherpanacea at 3:14 PM on May 8, 2006
As Freud writes in "The Psychogenesis of a Case of Homosexuality in a Woman" (1920):
"[T]he ideal situation for analysis is when someone who is otherwise master of himself is suffering from an inner conflict which he is unable to resolve alone, so that he brings his trouble to the analyst and begs for his help....
[I]n general, to undertake to convert a fully developed homosexual into a heterosexual is not much more promising than to do the reverse...."
posted by anotherpanacea at 3:14 PM on May 8, 2006
Hence my use of the phrase "highly relative." Compared to other diagnoses and treatments out there at the time (electroshock, for one), he deserves some credit.
posted by bardic at 3:17 PM on May 8, 2006
posted by bardic at 3:17 PM on May 8, 2006
but where are the studies comparing the effectiveness of real psychology to sham psychology in a double-blind setting?
posted by jepler at 5:13 PM on May 8, 2006
posted by jepler at 5:13 PM on May 8, 2006
i liked it. i've been reading this guy for years. the jumps he makes aren't that far fetched... i just think people are used to being pounced over the head over and over with an idea. i think he's expects more from readers.
the connections are this: Freud's belief in the repression of sexuality as the basis for neurosis had a large part in the pop amatuer pyschology of sexual liberation, which in turn had the effect of objectification of the female body... which in turn to self-hate to those who buy into the shallowness.
pretty damn creative in my book. he's my favorite conservative... he does what i like to do in reverse: he uses liberal values to justify a conservative cause. i think he does this stuff for an intellectual work-out, but I dig it.
cowers.
posted by trinarian at 7:24 PM on May 8, 2006
the connections are this: Freud's belief in the repression of sexuality as the basis for neurosis had a large part in the pop amatuer pyschology of sexual liberation, which in turn had the effect of objectification of the female body... which in turn to self-hate to those who buy into the shallowness.
pretty damn creative in my book. he's my favorite conservative... he does what i like to do in reverse: he uses liberal values to justify a conservative cause. i think he does this stuff for an intellectual work-out, but I dig it.
cowers.
posted by trinarian at 7:24 PM on May 8, 2006
the connections are this: Freud's belief in the repression of sexuality as the basis for neurosis had a large part in the pop amatuer pyschology of sexual liberation, which in turn had the effect of objectification of the female body... which in turn to self-hate to those who buy into the shallowness.
When criticism involves more convolution and leaps of faith than the thing it is criticizing, it kinda falls flat.
Plus this "Spengler" guy is a well known "shock jock" type writer at the Asia Times. (He praised for idea of nuking Iran, for instance.)
posted by telstar at 12:27 AM on May 9, 2006
When criticism involves more convolution and leaps of faith than the thing it is criticizing, it kinda falls flat.
Plus this "Spengler" guy is a well known "shock jock" type writer at the Asia Times. (He praised for idea of nuking Iran, for instance.)
posted by telstar at 12:27 AM on May 9, 2006
Freud didn't see homosexuality as something treatable, he saw it as something natural. There's a big difference. He says again and again that homosexuality isn't something best understood as sin but as part of the spectrum of human sexuality. He's not even equivocal about this. Sure, there are a couple of places where he suggests otherwise, that being homosexual is something to be treated, but, for the most part, he was way way ahead of his time.
posted by OmieWise at 5:17 AM on May 9, 2006
posted by OmieWise at 5:17 AM on May 9, 2006
jepler writes "but where are the studies comparing the effectiveness of real psychology to sham psychology in a double-blind setting?"
You can't double blind a psychotherapy study, you can only compare a treated group to a non-treated group, because belief in the therapy by the therapist is one of the constituent parts of therapy. But, then, check out some of the research on Dr. guesses about which arm there patients are in in double-blind studies. They almost always guess right, because inactive placebos are too often used. When you've got a list of side-effects as long as your arm for a drug, but the patient has none at all, it can be a big give away.
posted by OmieWise at 5:20 AM on May 9, 2006
You can't double blind a psychotherapy study, you can only compare a treated group to a non-treated group, because belief in the therapy by the therapist is one of the constituent parts of therapy. But, then, check out some of the research on Dr. guesses about which arm there patients are in in double-blind studies. They almost always guess right, because inactive placebos are too often used. When you've got a list of side-effects as long as your arm for a drug, but the patient has none at all, it can be a big give away.
posted by OmieWise at 5:20 AM on May 9, 2006
Sure you can do a double-blind psychotherapy study. Simply bring a set of "psychologists" through "school" while teaching them arbitrary techniques (perhaps that foot-odor and childhood experiences of urinating outdoors are large factors in whatever adult psychological disorder the patient suffers from). These "doctors" administer the sham psychology treatment, while "real doctors" administor the "real" psychology treatment. Then we can finally find out the truth about the effectiveness of psychology.
posted by jepler at 6:54 AM on May 10, 2006
posted by jepler at 6:54 AM on May 10, 2006
« Older Things to look forward to. | The Anti-Pepsiblue Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
anyway, I love the irony of a writer taking the pseudonym of a early 20th century academic critiques one of his own. Asia Time's Spengler is well worth the read... it's a somewhat masochistic desire of mine to read through his exceptionally well written and researched work and provide a sound liberal responses. His writing on demographics are particularly sharp.
posted by trinarian at 11:57 AM on May 8, 2006