
Freud’s Discontents - Petiver
https://www.thenation.com/article/freuds-discontents/
======
Pigo
> Instead of believing that pathologies could be described or drugged away,
> Freudians wanted us to work through them.

If this is true, then it's definitely a practice that needs to be focused on
again. I've had nothing but bad experiences with various medical professionals
throwing drugs at me the moment I mentioned personal difficulties. The anti-
depressants kept me in a bad place for a long time, when I think I mostly
needed someone to provide some insight or constructive advice. Maybe I just
had bad luck, but I definitely don't remember anyone trying to work on
anything with me.

~~~
phkahler
>> If this is true, then it's definitely a practice that needs to be focused
on again. I've had nothing but bad experiences with various medical
professionals throwing drugs at me the moment I mentioned personal
difficulties.

I've found it to be true. Understanding where my undesirable behaviors come
from is helping me correct them tremendously. It can be a painful process -
expect to get worse before you get better - but it can be effective if you're
working with the right person. For me the mental picture was less like an
onion and more like a tangled knot of yarn, but it is straightening out quite
nicely.

I personally don't like the Freudian approach. There are other non-drug based
camps.

~~~
Pigo
I eventually found help through attending a church that focuses on community
outreach and small groups, which helped me get outside my own head long enough
to make some positive steps. But I've always wanted to find a therapist who is
genuinely interested and can provide more insight than I can learn on my own
from books like The Road Less Traveled. I don't know what other people go
through, and I wish I understood Jung well enough to share with other people,
but I suspect professionals are just throwing drugs because they're
overwhelmed by the constant wave of misery and depression they're confronted
with.

~~~
digler999
> I've always wanted to find a therapist who is genuinely interested and can
> provide more insight than I can learn on my own

There are TONS of professional, licensed therapists that can help you with
this! Definitely try modern psychotherapy. google "find a therapist" and try
the site from psychologytoday.com magazine. Hopefully you live in an area they
serve. Most of them do not use meds, and even if they can prescribe them they
only go for them as a last resort (some people have such severe anxiety that
they cannot even function outside of their house, for instance).

> I suspect professionals are just throwing drugs because they're overwhelmed
> by the constant wave of misery and depression they're confronted with.

I disagree. I think your medical doctor (rather, anyone's MD) simply doesn't
have hours upon hours to listen to your life story and find the perfect
formula of lifestyle and attitude changes to help you. A psychologist does, in
fact thats (sort of) what therapy is. "sort-of" because therapists generally
dont give advice like a sage elder. They do their work by listening to you,
reflecting what you're feeling, and letting you discover the problem and
solution. I would say try it, and make it clear from the start that you will
not take any meds (simply to weed out any therapist who might lead you that
way). The only caveat is, every therapist has his/her own style and
personality. There is no formula that works for everyone, so try a few
sessions (typically one hr/week) and if it's not working for you, try another
one until you find someone you can connect with.

------
woodandsteel
Freud made many important contributions. He invented psychotherapy, and many
of his ideas about human nature, such defense mechanisms, are quite
insightful. Perhaps most important is that he was the first to try to think in
detail about the psychological development of the infant and child.

Freud has gone out of date in part because the science has just moved beyond
some of his key ideas. His theory is based on a set of ideas about the mind of
the infant that were largely speculative. In recent decades a real empirical
science of infant psychology has developed, and it turns out baby's minds are
quite a bit different than Freud thought.

Psychotherapy has also become much more effective, thanks to methods like
cognitive behavioral therapy. In addition, in America the practice of Freudian
psychoanalysis was usually restricted to psychiatrists, which made it
unavailable to most people. Non-analytic psychotherapy is practiced by
psychologists and counselors, and so is far more available.

Another factor in this country is that Freud's gloomy and rather authoritarian
Middle European philosophy just doesn't fit with the general optimism of
Americans.

------
rgejman
Outstanding essay on why Freud has faded from his ultimate cultural and
scientific pedestal -- and why and other grand theorists are not relevant
today. I agree with the author that "The grand theories of an earlier age
offered us an ability to look at the intersections between the self, society,
and history; in comparison, their replacements look not just intellectually
meek but politically unpromising."

On the other hand, the potency of well defined, minimal theories is
unarguable.

~~~
toasterlovin
On the contrary, the theories of Freud, Jung, etc. may strive to place the
study of human psychology into a larger context, but it is evolutionary
psychology that actually accomplishes this task.

Right now, the field of psychology is replacing phrenology and faith healing
with biochemistry. And, you know what, good riddance!

------
pococo
Excuse my ignorance, but why does everyone seem to hate on Freud, considering
he has had a tremendous influence on modern psychology? Honest question.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Because most of his theories are nonsense. He got the idea of the unconscious
right and understood transference eventually, but the rest of his theories are
mostly bunk.

Worse, some are harmful bunk. He denied the existence of child sex abuse and
invented a set of complex rationalisations which blamed the victims and shamed
them for inventing fantasies.

We know now that at least some of their stories were correct, and not
fantasies and delusions at all.

Pure Freudian psychoanalysis is incredibly expensive and time consuming and
never scores well when tested objectively. It's not an exaggeration to say
that in terms of value for time and money it's more of a scam than astrology
and homeopathy are, but it never seems to get the same attention from
debunkers.

Modern approaches that score much better (e.g. ACT and other MBTs) have almost
no baggage imported from Freudian beliefs.

------
lukeasrodgers
My one quibble with this article, which I think is otherwise spot on in many
regards, concerns this claim: "It is more common now to regard humanity as
lucid about its interests, and rational in its fulfillment of them (a few
behavioral foibles aside)."

There is a strong trend in psychology (both pop and scientific) at the moment
to focus on all the ways in which we (or, by an odd synecdoche, "our brains")
are irrational (e.g. Dan Ariely).

If you contrast this viewpoint, which I think is increasingly common if not
already quite prevalent, with say the viewpoint of intellectuals in the 18th
century on "man's nature" I'd say we have a comparatively strong belief in the
deep and wide-ranging irrationality of humanity, both when it comes to ends
and means.

~~~
nicops
The irrationality studied by Dan Ariely et al it's not comparable _at all_
with the freudian irrationality. The former brings to the forefront our fauly
heuristics and biases. The later is about how culture and our psyche actively
makes us ignorant of parts of ourselves that are inconvenient, and that can
come out in bursts of irrational, unstable, "crazy" behavior.

~~~
lukeasrodgers
You're right that they are very different takes on irrationality. Whether they
are a comparable "at all" is obviously just a matter of context. If I'm
interested in research on loss aversion, looking at Freud and Ariely together
would be silly. If I'm interested in the history of ideas (which my point was
addressing) then looking at them alongside each other makes perfect sense.

You're saying "apples vs oranges" and I'm saying, "sure, but I'm talking about
fruits."

~~~
nicops
But maybe bringing fruits up it's irrelevant in some context, depending on
what we're talking about. This is one of these contexts. The very same phrase
you quoted from the article clarifies it's not talking about "perfect"
rationality.

In the history of psychology/sociology, Freud and Ariely don't make sense with
each other.

------
tehwalrus
I've heard that Freud's methods were poor and his brain science was junk; but
I can't actually name any particular bad theory or experiment. This article
did not enlighten me, at least in the first ten minutes reading it.

Anyone know of a good guide? And, since it's Freud, one that won't turn my
stomach?

~~~
tboyd47
It wasn't his methods. His idea of curing by talking is now standard practice,
but was revolutionary for that time. The problem was that it put him on the
path to exposing the widespread incest and rape that was going on in his
society. Freud initially believed his patients, but wasn't prepared to face
the consequences, so he changed his tune, and this reversal led him to come up
with the far-out psychosexual theories he's so famous for.

Freud is still regarded as the father of modern psychology, perhaps because he
was the first to actually sit down with his patients and take them seriously.

Here's an article that tells the story in detail:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1984/02/freud-
an...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1984/02/freud-and-the-
seduction-theory/376313/)

------
lolc
I have on my bookshelf "Unauthorized Freud". The book is not favorable to his
work. Rather, he is described as a fraud.

Now where he was right for the wrong reasons, we could see him like we see
Galilei today: As a popularizer of new ideas. There is no need to go further
than that.

------
mpweiher
>he was “no more a person now but a whole climate of opinion.”

>it is rather shocking how swiftly, [..] Freud’s relevance has waned in the
past two decades

I think the first quote answers the second: it was just a climate of opinion,
with very little of substance to back it up. And so it has _rightly_ been
discarded. Not that we don't have new fashionable opinions to take its place,
many no more substantial.

>It is more common now to regard humanity as lucid about its interests, and
rational in its fulfillment of them

Wut? The opposite is true. We are more and more aware of the foibles of human
perception and thinking, but nowadays based on a solid scientific foundation,
not the fantasies of a ... well, imaginative person.

