Sigmund Freud

[MoeAlza]

Does anyone know if Freud gave away any evidence to help prove psychoanalysis?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cara susanna]

It's hard to prove psychoanalysis since Freud's theory isn't falsifiable (one of its many criticisms).

 

[MoeAlza]

It's hard to prove psychoanalysis since Freud's theory isn't falsifiable (one of its many criticisms).

But did Freud himself ever attempt to provide any kind of evidence to help his claims or did he acknowledge they are simply beliefs?

 

[ela]

Depends what you mean by evidence.


From The Interpretation of Dreams (1899)

"The poets and philosophers before me discovered the unconscious; what I discovered was the scientific method by which the unconscious can be studied."

From The Unconscious (1891)

"Our right to assume the existence of something mental that is unconscious and to employ that assumption for the purposes of scientific work is disputed in many quarters, To this we can reply that our assumption of the unconscious is necessary and legitimate, and that we possess numerous proofs of its existence.

It is necessary because the data of consciousness have a very large number of gaps in them; both in healthy and in sick people psychical acts often occur which can be explained only by presupposing other acts, of which, nevertheless, consciousness affords no evidence."


From The Resistances to Psychoanalysis (1925)

"So it comes about that psycho-analysis derives nothing but disadvantages from its middle position between medicine and philosophy. Doctors regard it as a speculative system and refuse to believe that, like every other natural science, it is based on a patient and tireless elaboration of facts from the world of perception; philosophers, measuring it by the standard of their own artificially constructed systems, find that it starts from impossible premises and reproach it because its most general concepts (which are only now in process of evolution) lack clarity and precision. This state of affairs is enough to account for the reluctant and hesitant reception of analysis in scientific quarters. But it does not explain the outbursts of indignation, derision, and scorn, which in disregard of every standard of logic and good taste, have characterized the controversial methods of its opponents. A reaction of such kind suggests that resistances other than purely intellectual ones were stirred up and that powerful emotional forces were aroused. And, there are indeed plenty of things to be found in the theory of psycho-analysis calculated to produce such an effect as this upon the passions of men of every kind and not of scientists alone."

 

[Pragma]

Sounds like maybe an UG quiz question?

 

[bmedclinic]

Sounds like maybe an UG quiz question?

This is my thought. If so, the answer on your quiz is D... as in Do your own homework.
If not, and this is a discussion than it think it goes without saying that by today's standards, absolutely no evidence that psychoanalysis was provided by Freud. FWIW, nothing for a long time after him provided "evidence" that would be acceptable by today's standards as best as I know.

 

[bcliff]

Freud wrote an entire book on aboriginal tribes in Australia without ever setting foot in the continent and championed the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, not to mention that Freud's theory on the Oedipal complex is suspected to be based off of his own anecdotal experience with his stepmother that was not much older than he was.

 

[MBellows]

Freud wrote an entire book on aboriginal tribes in Australia without ever setting foot in the continent and championed the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, not to mention that Freud's theory on the Oedipal complex is suspected to be based off of his own anecdotal experience with his stepmother that was not much older than he was.

And he sure enjoyed putting those nice fat... cigars in his mouth.

 

[HomeworkHelper]

Sounds like maybe an UG quiz question?

I concur, unfortunately. At the very least, OP has mentioned being an undergrad.

 

[psypipe]

Does anyone know if Freud gave away any evidence to help prove psychoanalysis?

..

 

[MoeAlza]

Yes he did, he provided case studies, personal experience, and evidence in literature and the arts. Apart from that, he did not provide much. A number of Post-Freudian researchers and clinicians have provided much evidence. When people say he did not provide evidence they mean that the evidence he provided 100 years ago is not acceptable and does not prove much by today's standards. They are correct in that assessment. I personally think he was no different than any other great thinker, psychologist, and pioneer. He was right in many things and was very wise but he was wrong in many things as well. Don't fall into the Freud-hate fallacy much of it is based on irrationality. People criticize because they only see it the way they want to see, they don't see it the way Freud saw it. Understand Freud and then criticize don't criticize without understanding. Btw I hope you are not using us to do your homework.

Thanks, I asked my professor later on and he also told me that the case studies themselves and the results at the time were evidence.

 

[CR1]

Yes he did, he provided case studies, personal experience, and evidence in literature and the arts. Apart from that, he did not provide much. A number of Post-Freudian researchers and clinicians have provided much evidence. When people say he did not provide evidence they mean that the evidence he provided 100 years ago is not acceptable and does not prove much by today's standards. They are correct in that assessment. I personally think he was no different than any other great thinker, psychologist, and pioneer. He was right in many things and was very wise but he was wrong in many things as well. Don't fall into the Freud-hate fallacy much of it is based on irrationality. People criticize because they only see it the way they want to see, they don't see it the way Freud saw it. Understand Freud and then criticize don't criticize without understanding. Btw I hope you are not using us to do your homework.

amen

i'm reading Civilization and Its Discontents now, and read Interpretation of Dreams in college. This bandwagon bashing of Freud is absolutely hilarious. Interpretation of Dreams lay the foundation not only for grappling with the nearly ineffable, impenetrable meaning of dreams (whereas for all previous history, grapes = testicals, and similar hard and fast symbols, was the prevailing "science"), but also the foundation for modern anthropology and its approach to understanding values and norms within different cultures in a meaningful way, from the outside. Freud's contribution was his courage to use his immense deductive powers to explore the darkness of the human mind where more timid, lock-step "scientists" of his day, and ours apparently, feared to tread. From my reading he considered himself a scientist in a general way and stopped himself short of making large assumptions outside his experience or the knowledge of the day. To see a great mind at work, taking risks, many of them failures in a strict sense and the heckle fodder of bitter little academics and their undergrad lackeys, read the above two books--i imagine there's something worth investigating in his others as well

 

[WisNeuro]

amen
Freud's contribution was his courage to use his immense deductive powers to explore the darkness of the human mind where more timid, lock-step "scientists" of his day, and ours apparently, feared to tread. From my reading he considered himself a scientist in a general way and stopped himself short of making large assumptions outside his experience or the knowledge of the day. To see a great mind at work, taking risks, many of them failures in a strict sense and the heckle fodder of bitter little academics and their undergrad lackeys, read the above two books--i imagine there's something worth investigating in his others as well

Wow, now that's some blind hero-worship. I think we have different ideas of what constitutes science. As stated above, the scientific process requires something that is falsifiable. I think many people in the field appreciate that Freud was integral in the application and development of psychology as a clinical field. They also appreciate that psychology, as do other clinical fields, move on as science and research advances. There is a reason that we no longer engage in trephination. Oh, we also don't prescribe cocaine to treat everything under the sun.

 

[psypipe]

They also appreciate that psychology, as do other clinical fields, move on as science and research advances. There is a reason that we no longer engage in trephination. Oh, we also don't prescribe cocaine to treat everything under the sun.

..

 

[WisNeuro]

Freud was trying to see if cocaine could treat depression and other conditions. He preceded modern psychiatry in investigating psychopharmacological treatment for mental conditions. He rarely used it on himself and patients( If at all) after it was found harmful. Psychoanalisis/Psychodynamic psychotherapy is also moving foward by research and clinical practice, it has not stayed the same since Freud. On it not being falsifiable:

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/ClimateChangeWhiteboard/Resources/Uncertainty/Mac1/grant05PR.pdf

That paper does not do a convincing job. It's more philosophy than psychology.

 

[chman]

Yes he did, he provided case studies, personal experience, and evidence in literature and the arts. Apart from that, he did not provide much. A number of Post-Freudian researchers and clinicians have provided much evidence. When people say he did not provide evidence they mean that the evidence he provided 100 years ago is not acceptable and does not prove much by today's standards. They are correct in that assessment. I personally think he was no different than any other great thinker, psychologist, and pioneer. He was right in many things and was very wise but he was wrong in many things as well. Don't fall into the Freud-hate fallacy much of it is based on irrationality. People criticize because they only see it the way they want to see, they don't see it the way Freud saw it. Understand Freud and then criticize don't criticize without understanding. Btw I hope you are not using us to do your homework.

I think this is a good point. Sure, much of Freud's work is unsubstantiated, but he was a great thinker to be sure.

I think that the "Freud bashing," as it were, has set the field back in some respects. The mere mention of unconscious processes turns a lot of people off, but the fact remains that most of our cognitive processes happen on an automatic or unconscious level. There is serious debate to be had about how much of these automatic processes are just perceptual and procedural and how much of it actually plays a role in psychopathology, but it is a worthy debate and shouldn't be ignored to the extent that it is in research. I mean, I personally don't subscribe to psychoanalytic theory (even though some could argue it is just as effective as CBT in some cases), but that doesn't mean there aren't elements of truth we can take from Freud's work and apply them to current psychological theory. I mean, do we bash Aristotle because he didn't have the same understanding of physical laws as Newton? No, because he was still a great thinker who at least began discourse on the subject. I tend to look at Freud in much the same way.

 

[CR1]

Wow, now that's some blind hero-worship. I think we have different ideas of what constitutes science. As stated above, the scientific process requires something that is falsifiable. I think many people in the field appreciate that Freud was integral in the application and development of psychology as a clinical field. They also appreciate that psychology, as do other clinical fields, move on as science and research advances. There is a reason that we no longer engage in trephination. Oh, we also don't prescribe cocaine to treat everything under the sun.

the operative word being integral--i have no problem with those who don't try to tear the man (hero, yes--because where would we be without him; who in your eyes would be a worthy hero?) down in a flip and hip way, without at least acknowledging his contributions. Moving on from those by intelligently and constructively engaging with them, even in disagreement, deserves respect--that would not be "Freud-bashing", and Freud himself would do the same were he living today. Fact is, Freud (like Aristotle) wrestled with immense mystery at a time when the prevailing modes of thought and norms of science were even more restrictive then today. I admire him for that, personally, while recognizing that his theories, based largely on 19th century science, are not the end of the road...

 

[WisNeuro]

the operative word being integral--i have no problem with those who don't try to tear the man (hero, yes--because where would we be without him; who in your eyes would be a worthy hero?) down in a flip and hip way, without at least acknowledging his contributions. Moving on from those by intelligently and constructively engaging with them, even in disagreement, deserves respect--that would not be "Freud-bashing", and Freud himself would do the same were he living today. Fact is, Freud (like Aristotle) wrestled with immense mystery at a time when the prevailing modes of thought and norms of science were even more restrictive then today. I admire him for that, personally, while recognizing that his theories, based largely on 19th century science, are not the end of the road...

While he was an important figure, I believe he's given too much credit as being the "father" of psychology. I give that title to Wundt. The first to really apply experimental methods in a systematic way to the study of psychology.

 

[erg923]

While he was an important figure, I believe he's given too much credit as being the "father" of psychology. I give that title to Wundt. The first to really apply experimental methods in a systematic way to the study of psychology.

While he popularized the talking cure, no doubt, I am not sure what else he contributed to psychology that is applicable today, especially if you are not given to wild theories about incest. He was certainly not the first person to postulate the uncouncious and certainly not the first or only one to acknowledge the role of development in later psychopathology.

 

[WisNeuro]

While he popularized the talking cure, no doubt, I am not sure what else he contributed to psychology that is applicable today, especially if you are not given to wild theories about incest. He was certainly not the first person to postulate the uncouncious and certainly not the first or only one to acknowledge the role of development in later psychopathology.

He did do something that is still applicable today. He helped perpetuate a stereotype that is used in movies still today that mis-characterizes what we do clinically.

 

[erg923]

I think that the "Freud bashing," as it were, has set the field back in some respects. The mere mention of unconscious processes turns a lot of people off, but the fact remains that most of our cognitive processes happen on an automatic or unconscious level.

No and no. I do not think heavy scrutiny of a person's methods, theories, and his subsequent conclusions sets us back. I think that's how science moves forward.

And no, I do not see any well informed psychologists cringing at the thought of unconscious cognitive processing. One must buy many other postulates in order to swallow Freud's kool aid.

I am reminded of the ghostbusters quote when thinking of his work. 😉

"Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman! "

 

[psypipe]

While he was an important figure, I believe he's given too much credit as being the "father" of psychology. I give that title to Wundt. The first to really apply experimental methods in a systematic way to the study of psychology.

..

 

[psypipe]

While he popularized the talking cure, no doubt, I am not sure what else he contributed to psychology that is applicable today, especially if you are not given to wild theories about incest. He was certainly not the first person to postulate the uncouncious and certainly not the first or only one to acknowledge the role of development in later psychopathology.

..

 

[psypipe]

He did do something that is still applicable today. He helped perpetuate a stereotype that is used in movies still today that mis-characterizes what we do clinically.

..

 

[psypipe]

No and no. I do not think heavy scrutiny of a person's methods, theories, and his subsequent conclusions sets us back. I think that's how science moves forward.

And no, I do not see any well informed psychologists cringing at the thought of unconscious cognitive processing. One must buy many other postulates in order to swallow Freud's kool aid.

I am reminded of the ghostbusters quote when thinking of his work. 😉

"Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman! "

..

 

[MBellows]

Yet, they don't know who Aron Beck is.

Maybe if Freud had a better choice in bow-ties he would be as well liked as Aaron Beck.

 

[WisNeuro]

I agree the questioning is important.Things that are not helpful: rediculing , the oppression of students curiosity for the orientation, the distorted and uninformed explations of the theory, and the anger professors have when presenting the work. All of this happens and the worst part is, the professors have never read the books. Then you have a bunch of undergrads bashing Frued who can't even explain structural theory. They feel it isn't necessary to know it because they are CBT. Yet, they don't know who Aron Beck is.

How exactly are some students being oppressed? I feel like that word gets thrown around a lot in our society bereft of any actual meaning.

 

[MBellows]

How exactly are some students being oppressed? I feel like that word gets thrown around a lot in our society bereft of any actual meaning.

Come on. You know that the oppression is real, you're just in denial.

 

[psypipe]

How exactly are some students being oppressed? I feel like that word gets thrown around a lot in our society bereft of any actual meaning.

Because they are in the minority and are afraid of liking an orientation that is not CBT. Afraid of being mocked. Freud and psychodynamics are taboo subjects in some psychology programs. Students can sense the implicit anger professors have towards it. We need to treat others with respect and not mock others orientation.

 

[WisNeuro]

Because they are in the minority and are afraid of liking an orientation that is not CBT. Afraid of being mocked. Freud and psychodynamics are taboo subjects in some psychology programs. Students can sense the implicit anger professors have towards it. We need to treat others with respect and not mock others orientation.

I have never seen this oppression. Going through two Ph.D programs (transfer with advisor), one that was split CBT/Dynamic, one that was more behavioral; it wasn't evident. As long as you could back up your position with empirical data, you were good. If you just stated something as clinical fact with no backup, well then, you should be ridiculed. (Everyone should read Meehl's case conference paper) I think these feelings of "oppression" are unfounded, or maybe just geographically constrained.

 

[erg923]

Because they are in the minority and are afraid of liking an orientation that is not CBT.[/B] Afraid of being mocked. Freud and psychodynamics are taboo subjects in some psychology programs. Students can sense the implicit anger professors have towards it. We need to treat others with respect and not mock others orientation.

That's the problem. Right there. Ollie had talked about this before.

I dont care what you "like." I would hope orientations used for conceptualization and treatment are guided by utility, applicability, and empirical data that looks at outcomes and cost efficiency...not because you like it or find it fun or...whatever else.

 

[psypipe]

That's the problem. Right there. Ollie had talked about this before.

I dont care what you "like." I would hope orientations used for conceptualization and treatment are guided by utility, applicability, and empirical data that looks at outcomes and cost efficiency...not because you like it or find it fun or...whatever else.[/

Students should be able to learn about their interest( as long as they are a big part of Psychology, like psychodynamic psychotherapy is) from people who know what they are talking about and are not arriving at conclusions without studying what they are criticizing. You are an example of the oppression I was talking about. If anyone was wondering if it existed or not.

 

[WisNeuro]

That's the problem. Right there. Ollie had talked about this before.

I dont care what you "like." I would hope orientations used for conceptualization and treatment are guided by utility, applicability, and empirical data that looks at outcomes and cost efficiency...not because you like it or find it fun or...whatever else.[/

Students should be able to learn about their interest( as long as they are a big part of Psychology, like psychodynamic psychotherapy is) from people who know what they are talking about and are not arriving at conclusions without studying what they are criticizing. You are an example of the oppression I was talking about. If anyone was wondering if it existed or not.

That's not oppression, that's just science. If we're talking about undergrad, go nuts, Freud it up to your hearts content. But when we start talking about empirically supported interventions in graduate school. You better bring more than anecdotes. In my program we studied orientations from an all-around basis, we were left to reject those without solid backing of evidence in treatment.

No one is stopping you from studying Freud. Just don't expect serious clinicians to waste their time teaching you clinical concepts without applicability in clinical settings.

 

[erg923]

Students should be able to learn about their interest( as long as they are a big part of Psychology, like psychodynamic psychotherapy is) from people who know what they are talking about and are not arriving at conclusions without studying what they are criticizing. You are an example of the oppression I was talking about. If anyone was wondering if it existed or not.

For goodness sakes, son, toughen up.

The progression of science is all about teaching the upcoming generation...this aint candyland where you get to flock with carebears in the land of Freud for fun...or because you are interested in it. You can do that on your own if you wish. This is a science that deals with helping people to the best of our knowledge and in way that fits within their means and within the means of the healthcare system. If there is something better out there...lets get on with the work, shall we?!

 

[CheetahGirl]

Maybe if Freud had a better choice in bow-ties he would be as well liked as Aaron Beck.

Read up on Aaron Beck's history: He was turned down by psychoanalytic institute because his patient got better too quickly (and the institute thought he was only scratching the surface rather than allowing for deeper introspection), so he said "@#$% it" and history was made. So even Beck believed in the utility of psychodynamics until he was forced to find other options.

We need to treat others with respect and not mock others orientation.

I would hope orientations used for conceptualization and treatment are guided by utility, applicability, and empirical data that looks at outcomes and cost efficiency...not because you like it or find it fun or...whatever else.

erg923, your hope is reality. Everyone should use their individualized orientations for conceptualization, and their treatment guidelines should be based on utility, applicability, and evidence-based methods, otherwise it's poor and crappy science. Without these very important factors (which certainly exist in dynamic approaches), we're all reduced to being 'shamans.' Why not be a priest then, if you're going to base your methods on spirituality rather than science?

I don't think psypipe is saying psychodynamic therapy is the best option out there. Psypipe is just stating that it's another option out there, obviously different from erg923's. And the point is well-taken that you should not criticize what is unknown to you. One the greatest analytic debates has to do with Kohut & Kernberg approaches to narcissism, but if you really read Kernberg, you can tell he intimately knew all of Kohuts' points before he offered any sort of rebuttable. Know your enemies.

That's the problem...they are different orientations, and we can't possibly be good at all of them (or so some think). My offer to this forum's long-standing debate is keep doing what you're doing well - with the highest standards & peer-exhausted, evidence-based methods. And leave other types of orientations to those individuals who know them best. It is why we have subspecialties. As I've said before, I may not go to an orthopedic surgeon for a podiatry problem. Just as I may choose to go to a CBT-trained therapist for a phobia over a psychodynamically-trained therapist. Or I may choose to refer a severally battered adult with a long history of childhood abuse to a psychodynamically-trained therapist who specializes in EMDR, rather than a behavioral-trained therapist. Get it? Different strokes for different folks, for both patients and providers.

It will always be one's opinion that his/her option is the best. After all, couldn't we trace that concept to basic biology? To be best adapted to our environment in which we choose to live and strive.

I'm getting back to deeply introspective psychodynamically / cognitively-oriented dissertation work while I work on my procrastination behaviors with some monitoring of intrusive thoughts. Enjoy scrapping it out, but the point is really moot.

 

[WisNeuro]

Or I may choose to refer a severally battered adult with a long history of childhood abuse to a psychodynamically-trained therapist who specializes in EMDR, rather than a behavioral-trained therapist. Get it? Different strokes for different folks, for both patients and providers.

Now this is the problem. EMDR is simply exposure therapy with some bells and whistles that make it more expensive. "Trainers" charge exorbitant sums to train practitioners, and that cost gets passed on somehow. Show me a well constructed components analysis that suggests good evidence for the EM here and I'll reconsider, but I haven't seen it yet.

I think that was the crux of erg's argument. Too often is outdated/pseudoscience held up in the same regard as empirically supported treatments.

 

[psypipe]

That's not oppression, that's just science. If we're talking about undergrad, go nuts, Freud it up to your hearts content. But when we start talking about empirically supported interventions in graduate school. You better bring more than anecdotes. In my program we studied orientations from an all-around basis, we were left to reject those without solid backing of evidence in treatment.

No one is stopping you from studying Freud. Just don't expect serious clinicians to waste their time teaching you clinical concepts without applicability in clinical settings.

Not science when you don't present the evidence correctly. I am talking about undergrad. I am not a grad student, I have studied it on my own. I don't like the stereotypes you and others portray because it leaves a feeling of guilt to those that want to study it. It also gives the impression that the orientation has no validity, which is not true, and creates a bunch of undergrads who only want to study CBT and lack a basis on any other orientation. Again, I am talking about undergrad classes.

 

[CheetahGirl]

Now this is the problem. EMDR is simply exposure therapy with some bells and whistles that make it more expensive. "Trainers" charge exorbitant sums to train practitioners, and that cost gets passed on somehow. Show me a well constructed components analysis that suggests good evidence for the EM here and I'll reconsider, but I haven't seen it yet.

I think that was the crux of erg's argument. Too often is outdated/pseudoscience held up in the same regard as empirically supported treatments.

WiseNeuro, come on now. Do you really think you sit a patient in front of some lights and ask them to recall their most painful memories and that's that?! No, you interact with them, you provide all the 'other stuff' that you learned about in graduate school that facilitates the change in mood, affect, behaviors, cognitions. It's not cut and dry. It never is. The power to cathetect is incredible. It is why we call it 'talk therapy.' What is talk therapy? Meeting clients where they are and existing with them in an unsafe place until they can muster up enough strength to move forward and change states.

If you don't actively do psychotherapy with a live person, don't comment here becasue it is a sea change that occurs in the therapy room and sometimes it's better understood case-by-case, when you are the actual therapist.

Yeah, I won't show you a well constructed components analysis, but I may be able show you an adult patient who may be able to sleep through the night because he/she is no longer troubled by recurrent flashbacks from severe childhood trauma, and EMDR helped when this person had to be weaned off all meds because he/she was becoming chemically-dependent. That person, my friend, may end up an outlier on a graph, but that is not my battle to fight. I am not trained in EMDR. EMDR was just an example. I had a supervisor that had excellent results with her patients and sure it was an n =1, but like I said if it worked for her clients and they were able to return to normal functioning and move on with their lives than more power to those methods of those individuals who study, teach, confer, and deliver that type of treatment. If you need more evidence about the treatment, consult the professionals who can give you more empirical data and debate your understanding of the "pseudoscience" behind it. (www.emdr.com) I was just sayin' it was one way of looking at the big picture.

 

[CheetahGirl]

I don't like the stereotypes you and others portray because it leaves a feeling of guilt to those that want to study it.

Don't feel guilty...study away and improve your understanding of all of it. It will only make you a better, more well-rounded person.

 

[psypipe]

For goodness sakes, son, toughen up.

The progression of science is all about teaching the upcoming generation...this aint candyland where you get to flock with carebears in the land of Freud for fun...or because you are interested in it. You can do that on your own if you wish. This is a science that deals with helping people to the best of our knowledge and in way that fits within their means and within the means of the healthcare system. If there is something better out there...lets get on with the work, shall we?!

..

 

[erg923]

Sir, when the evidence is presented correctly and Professors stop their mocking and stereotyping I will drop my case. I am just calling for an accurate portrayal of all orientations not just CBT. I started to post because you and others are stereotyping Freud based on distortions. This is not helpful to science, clinical work, and future psychotherapist. More research is needed on psychodynamic psychotherapy, how is it going to be done if it is not portrayed accurately and students are not allowed a choice based on complete information.

I don't really care about my fairness to Freud. Why are you so hung up on that? Freud is dead and could give less than a **** about how fair I am being to him. I prefer to be fair and optimally helpful to those who myself or my students/supervisees see, not Freud.

Obviously, good psychologists recognize the validity of development, parents, attachment, etc. in the development of psychopathology. However, competent practice also requires moving beyond and adjusting our work so that its fits into mainstream, evidence based, healthcare. This also requires moving beyond hero worship and focusing our time in grad school on the knowledge it takes to be a competent psychologist at the present time. It also requires that we question why we are choosing to operate or adhere to a certain theoretical frames. If its because its the ones that "interest you most" and you feel Freud is some kind of misanthrope not getting his fair shake from the establishment...I would suggest you be prepared to have that quickly smacked down by those who are responsible for sending you out into the world to serve patients.

 

[psypipe]

Read up on Aaron Beck's history: He was turned down by psychoanalytic institute because his patient got better too quickly (and the institute thought he was only scratching the surface rather than allowing for deeper introspection), so he said "@#$% it" and history was made. So even Beck believed in the utility of psychodynamics until he was forced to find other options.





erg923, your hope is reality. Everyone should use their individualized orientations for conceptualization, and their treatment guidelines should be based on utility, applicability, and evidence-based methods, otherwise it's poor and crappy science. Without these very important factors (which certainly exist in dynamic approaches), we're all reduced to being 'shamans. Why not be a priest then, if you're going to base your methods on spirituality rather than science?

I don't think psypipe is saying psychodynamic therapy is the best option out there. Psypipe is just stating that it's another option out there, obviously different from erg923s. And the point is well-taken that you should not criticize what is unknown to you. One the greatest analytic debates has to do with Kohut & Kernberg approaches to narcissism, but if you really read Kernberg, you can tell he intimately knew all of Kohuts' points before he offered any sort of rebuttable. Know your enemies.

That's the problem...they are different orientations, and we can't possibly be good at all of them (or so some think). My offer to this forums long-standing debate is keep doing what you're doing well - with the highest standards & peer-exhausted, evidence-based methods. And leave other types of orientations to those individuals who know them best. It is why we have subspecialties. As Ive said before, I may not go to an orthopedic surgeon for a podiatry problem. Just as I may choose to go to a CBT-trained therapist for a phobia over a psychodynamically-trained therapist. Or I may choose to refer a severally battered adult with a long history of childhood abuse to a psychodynamically-trained therapist who specializes in EMDR, rather than a behavioral-trained therapist. Get it? Different strokes for different folks, for both patients and providers.

It will always be ones opinion that his/her option is the best. After all, couldnt we trace that concept to basic biology? To be best adapted to our environment in which we choose to live and strive.

I'm getting back to deeply introspective psychodynamically / cognitively-oriented dissertation work while I work on my procrastination behaviors with some monitoring of intrusive thoughts. Enjoy scrapping it out, but the point is really moot.

..

 

[WisNeuro]

WiseNeuro, come on now. Do you really think you sit a patient in front of some lights and ask them to recall their most painful memories and that's that?! No, you interact with them, you provide all the 'other stuff' that you learned about in graduate school that facilitates the change in mood, affect, behaviors, cognitions. It's not cut and dry. It never is. The power to cathetect is incredible. It is why we call it 'talk therapy.' What is talk therapy? Meeting clients where they are and existing with them in an unsafe place until they can muster up enough strength to move forward and change states.

If you don't actively do psychotherapy with a live person, don't comment here becasue it is a sea change that occurs in the therapy room and sometimes it's better understood case-by-case, when you are the actual therapist.
.

I actually do psychotherapy. While Neuropsychology is the bulk of my work, PTSD is another specialty that I still pursue and have had a good deal of training in. I have done many hours of PE work with sexual assault victims and combat vets. And I still maintain that just because a method "works" like EMDR does, does not mean that it should be adopted as an empirically supported treatment. Especially one that cannot explain it's mechanism of action, and how it differs from an easier to deliver method that has shown very good outcomes. If we go by that logic, we should just prescribe snake oil and sugar pills. They "work" too.

 

[psypipe]

I don't really care about my fairness to Freud. Why are you so hung up on that? Freud is dead and could give less than a **** about how fair I am being to him. I prefer to be fair and optimally helpful to those who myself or my students/supervisees see, not Freud.

Obviously, good psychologists recognize the validity of development, parents, attachment, etc. in the development of psychopathology. However, competent practice also requires moving beyond and adjusting our work so that its fits into mainstream, evidence based, healthcare. This also requires moving beyond hero worship and focusing our time in grad school on the knowledge it takes to be a competent psychologist at the present time. It also requires that we question why we are choosing to operate or adhere to a certain theoretical frames. If its because its the ones that "interest you most" and you feel Freud is some kind of misanthrope not getting his fair shake from the establishment...I would suggest you be prepared to have that quickly smacked down by those who are responsible for sending you out into the world to serve patients.

..

 

[erg923]

The problem I have is ( and I agree with what you said on what is necessary to be a good psychologist, and I am not a blind hero worshiper as you assume) Professors in Academic Psychology departments often imply Freud=All psychodynamic psychotherapy, then they bash Freud. This creates a culture of undergraduates that are biased towards orientations that are not psychodynamic. To me this is not helpful to the field, unfair to psychodynamic clinicians ( many who incorporate CBT and company into their psychotherapies), and other students. It is not about studying only what I am interested. I study all orientations and read articles on the problems of psychodynamic psychotherapy, the problems that CBT has, the strengths and weaknesses of both etc. The point is about how the stereotypes portrayed on Freud/psychodynamics present an inaccurate view of psychodynamics and how it is practice today.In your post you have assumed everything about me. That I am a childish, that I only study what I want, that I ignore science, that I am a blind hero worshipper. Non of that is true, it is your own stereotype you attach to me because my primary orientation is psychodynamic and I have a picture Freud. Me and the other poster tried to represent a non-hostile point of view on Freud only to be met with the same stereotypes and hostility. I am tired of this attitude. I am here to stay and present my point of view. You and others like you should be more respectful and describe psychodynamics and Freud without the hostility, stereotypes, and distorted inaccurate information. If not, you should not comment and expect others to shut up because they disagree with you.

Bless,

Psypipe

Thy kingdom come, thy Freud be done?

 

[CheetahGirl]

I still maintain that just because a method "works" like EMDR does, does not mean that it should be adopted as an empirically supported treatment. Especially one that cannot explain it's mechanism of action, and how it differs from an easier to deliver method that has shown very good outcomes. If we go by that logic, we should just prescribe snake oil and sugar pills. They "work" too.

WiseNeuro, I'm feeling some sarcasm here...we should not prescribe snake oil - that's ridiculous. And placebos do work. However, if you are so knowledgeable about all methods that don't work or are not supported by evidence-based literature, tell me with specific details (and evidence to back your statements) why these methods do not work. Then, I will reconsider my opinion that we must weigh all options in the best interest of the client and the integrity of our field. Most likely, you will not have the time, volition, or specific information, so why debate (about EMDR) or anything else? (And BTW: I'm not sure if EMDR is not empirically supported...but this particular method may not have received global funding yet, have you thought of that?) It is your opinion that it does not work and therefore, can be equated to snake oil. And you know what they say about opinions, we all have one. I respect your confidence about your specific field and position, but don't squish someone else's interests and goals. You were better trained than that, I'm sure.

I agree with your statements and you definitely have a very good point. But things are not always logical when it comes to emotions and behaviors, and we will not always understand the mechanisms of action, especially if we don't have the funding to do neuroimagining for every method of delivery (and neuroimaging may not even touch on some physiological state changes). There will always be limits to our understanding - it is the nature of science and the ever-changing universe.

My point is that we share this field together and it makes no sense to be rigid and dogmatic about other treatments if you have not studied them and consulted with experts in those subspecialties to discount those methods (even ones that are psychiatric). That's how I was trained, to be open. Not open to ridiculousness, but open to understanding more about what others' have to bring to the table. (No one said you have to eat what is brought to the table, but don't criticize it without a specific sound reason....just say it's not right for you or your clients). I say again, know your enemies. In order to criticize any other method or orientation, you better know it, inside and out before you pass judgment otherwise you may come across as arrogant and ignorant, and touting your own trade....which I am sure you are not. I bet you could be quite lovable if we were all in agreement (which we kind of are?!). I'm just trying to get some of you stiff-types to open up. 😉

I'm done here. And I'm done with the Freud conversation. On a last note, if anyone has interest, watch the movie, A Dangerous Method, with Kiera Knightley...It takes place during WWI and it's about the therapeutic relationship Jung had with one of his patients who later became an physician and psychoanalyst. Talk about the sea change in the field - we've come a long way, baby.

 

[WisNeuro]

WiseNeuro, I'm feeling some sarcasm here...we should not prescribe snake oil - that's ridiculous. And placebos do work. However, if you are so knowledgeable about all methods that don't work or are not supported by evidence-based literature, tell me with specific details (and evidence to back your statements) why these methods do not work. Then, I will reconsider my opinion that we must weigh all options in the best interest of the client and the integrity of our field. Most likely, you will not have the time, volition, or specific information, so why debate (about EMDR) or anything else? (And BTW: I'm not sure if EMDR is not empirically supported...but this particular method may not have received global funding yet, have you thought of that?) It is your opinion that it does not work and therefore, can be equated to snake oil. And you know what they say about opinions, we all have one. I respect your confidence about your specific field and position, but don't squish someone else's interests and goals. You were better trained than that, I'm sure.

I agree with your statements and you definitely have a very good point. But things are not always logical when it comes to emotions and behaviors, and we will not always understand the mechanisms of action, especially if we don't have the funding to do neuroimagining for every method of delivery (and neuroimaging may not even touch on some physiological state changes). There will always be limits to our understanding - it is the nature of science and the ever-changing universe.

My point is that we share this field together and it makes no sense to be rigid and dogmatic about other treatments if you have not studied them and consulted with experts in those subspecialties to discount those methods (even ones that are psychiatric). That's how I was trained, to be open. Not open to ridiculousness, but open to understanding more about what others' have to bring to the table. (No one said you have to eat what is brought to the table, but don't criticize it without a specific sound reason....just say it's not right for you or your clients). I say again, know your enemies. In order to criticize any other method or orientation, you better know it, inside and out before you pass judgment otherwise you may come across as arrogant and ignorant, and touting your own trade....which I am sure you are not. I bet you could be quite lovable if we were all in agreement (which we kind of are?!). I'm just trying to get some of you stiff-types to open up. 😉

I'm done here. And I'm done with the Freud conversation. On a last note, if anyone has interest, watch the movie, A Dangerous Method, with Kiera Knightley...It takes place during WWI and it's about the therapeutic relationship Jung had with one of his patients who later became an physician and psychoanalyst. Talk about the sea change in the field - we've come a long way, baby.

It's more about accepting ideas as supported theories that I have a problem with. In the case of EMDR, the research just simply isn't there to support that it is a different therapy than PE with an added placebo component. The problem is that we are a science, and science is skeptical. If there isn't supporting evidence, then we shouldn't herald it. If someone wants to do the research and show some supporting evidence, great. Then I'll gladly change my mind on it. But, when we start to rely on anecdotes and poorly constructed studies that we design to merely confirm our biases, we have problems. If you really want me to grab every citation I can that disputes EMDR, just let me know. There's plenty out there. That's besides the point though. The point is that we are scientists first, clinicians second. Our clinical work should be based on science. Otherwise, why not just get a certification in life coaching. Probably pays better anyway.

 

[CheetahGirl]

It's more about accepting ideas as supported theories that I have a problem with. In the case of EMDR, the research just simply isn't there to support that it is a different therapy than PE with an added placebo component. The problem is that we are a science, and science is skeptical. If there isn't supporting evidence, then we shouldn't herald it. If someone wants to do the research and show some supporting evidence, great. Then I'll gladly change my mind on it. But, when we start to rely on anecdotes and poorly constructed studies that we design to merely confirm our biases, we have problems. If you really want me to grab every citation I can that disputes EMDR, just let me know. There's plenty out there. That's besides the point though. The point is that we are scientists first, clinicians second. Our clinical work should be based on science. Otherwise, why not just get a certification in life coaching. Probably pays better anyway.

Well said....and a good conclusion to a thread on Freud. He was a physician first, and all his theories were just that...postulates. It's up to us to prove, disprove or disregard Freud's theories (and those who came before, during and after him).

BTW: I personally favor PE rather than EMDR for PTSD. I'm a big fan of Edna Foa. Thanks for the discussion, WisNeuro. 😉

 

[WisNeuro]

I definitely enjoy discussion. I know my posts can come across as antagonistic, but they are definitely not meant to be personal in nature. I get a bit passionate about science discussions. We have entered into a weird era where a significant portion of our society has gone anti-science on us and I have reacted in kind on the other end of the spectrum 🙂

 

[Zebra F701]

... "However, competent practice also requires moving beyond and adjusting our work so that its fits into mainstream, evidence based, healthcare."

If Freud, Skinner, Horney, Beck, Rogers, Yalom, Hayes, Linnehan, etc. had "adjusted their work so that it fits into mainstream, evidence-based healthcare" then we would not be where we are today. That said, I do agree that we need to move beyond Frued and that an individual's theoretical orientation should be based on science... Is there room, in your opinion, for it to also be based on the therapist's worldview and culture? There is a lot of outcome research that demonstrates an orientation's congruence with their worldview is an effective "common factor" of effective therapy.