….don’t I remember that the veracity of Freud’s analytical stories had started to be discredited a century ago or so? Not sure I can go with this, really, and as I read the wiki article about him, it strikes me that a lot of his ideas are still being used in psychology. I personally have trouble envisioning, for example, SIECUS and the Kinsey Institute without Freud’s ideas on sexuality.
Perhaps his ideas are mostly gone from psychology and psychiatry—thankfully so?—but a superficial look at things seems those ideas show up all kinds of other places.
Excellent article! Do yourself a favor and read it to its end. I can’t believe The Atlantic caved and let this guy go.
My thoughts exactly. The article is somewhat wide ranging, but it connects quite a few things together convincingly and in an interesting way. What it’s really about is human hubris (and stupidity!)
You could almost read it and get the impression that “studies” in general are useless. Many of them are, but that’s not the point. I’ve seen more than a few studies that were, as far as I could tell, well structured, well executed, and produced potentially useful information only to be distorted beyond recognition by the media and politicians. It must be the #1 frustration of researchers!
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
….don’t I remember that the veracity of Freud’s analytical stories had started to be discredited a century ago or so? Not sure I can go with this, really, and as I read the wiki article about him, it strikes me that a lot of his ideas are still being used in psychology. I personally have trouble envisioning, for example, SIECUS and the Kinsey Institute without Freud’s ideas on sexuality.
Perhaps his ideas are mostly gone from psychology and psychiatry—thankfully so?—but a superficial look at things seems those ideas show up all kinds of other places.
Wouldn’t know about that, as it’s not my field. My experience with Freud is primarily in psychoanalytic lit crit. You know, “If it’s longer than it’s wide, it’s a….” :( It’s largely nonsense, or course (except in those literary works that show actual Freudian influence; an exception that proves the rule) but horribly stubborn and ultimately, of course, neither provable or disprovable.
Discussion
NewExcellent article! Do
Excellent article! Do yourself a favor and read it to its end. I can’t believe The Atlantic caved and let this guy go.
NewHmmmm....
….don’t I remember that the veracity of Freud’s analytical stories had started to be discredited a century ago or so? Not sure I can go with this, really, and as I read the wiki article about him, it strikes me that a lot of his ideas are still being used in psychology. I personally have trouble envisioning, for example, SIECUS and the Kinsey Institute without Freud’s ideas on sexuality.
Perhaps his ideas are mostly gone from psychology and psychiatry—thankfully so?—but a superficial look at things seems those ideas show up all kinds of other places.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
NewYes
You could almost read it and get the impression that “studies” in general are useless. Many of them are, but that’s not the point. I’ve seen more than a few studies that were, as far as I could tell, well structured, well executed, and produced potentially useful information only to be distorted beyond recognition by the media and politicians. It must be the #1 frustration of researchers!
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewBert Perry wrote: