@
Kaze Araki
~ Okay, before I start, let me say that what follows is merely reply to the opening post and the video contained in it. Ergo it is likely not taking into account the newer information contained in newer posts. Be that as it may, I do have a life (even if it is a boring one) and would like to spend it doing something. Namely other than reading posts, that is.
~ With that, let me start by saying this: Freudian psychology is an overrated, lower than pseudo-scientific pile of rubbish in most cases. His views on the self were largely subverted by the cognitive revolution in psychology, his emphasis on unconscious desires was largely created from guess-work and even today, are not proven, and to top it off, all of his theories are the result of
his opinions. I say this because you seem awfully bent-up on Freud as if he is a scientific figure in psychology; he isn't. Psychologists—scientists, that is—rarely, if ever, prescribe to his doctrines. Why? Because it was not entirely valid or worthwhile. Moreover, a great deal of it has been debunked. They feel that Freud has bullshitted the world, and with it, peppered common thinking with invalid truths and assumptions [Cioffi, 1998:
Freud and the Question of Pseudo-science.; Medawar also was quoted saying rather ill things of Freudian psychology in '82] But if these people are to be held true, we come to an issue: How can leaders use Freudian psychology to control the masses if it isn't valid? Answer: they can't.
~ I know you require evidence, and I'm glad of it. Humanity is filled with idiots who would rather act on gut feeling than on empirical evidence, and although Freud himself outwardly shunned objective evidence, a great deal of his theories were disproved by such evidence. I don't have the time, however, to go through ALL of his bogus theories. What I can do for you, however, is hopefully jar the foundation you've laid out for yourself by destroying a few fundamental concepts of Freudian psychology. Starting first the man and his theories themselves.
~ Freud was a brilliant promoter; someone any capitalist could envy. His works contained paragraph after paragraph detailing infant and child sexual urges, penis envy, hate, and the like. Yet let us get something right: he was not at all impartial or objective. At best, he would sit down, listen to a patient, and come up with an assumption or idea to explain what he saw. That was it. At best, I say again. A quick review of his works will reveal this with a plethora of statements such as “Obviously this meant...” “Thus I could deduce...”, “It seemed to me....”, etc., etc. But wait! There's more! Scholars are bookish folk, and upon going through Freud's diaries, letters, and notes, find rather chilling things. First of all, Freud reported more-or-less sitting down with a set theory in mind, and like a vice, he pressed his patients for information that would validate it (To himself, anyway...) [Crews:
The Memory Wars: Freud's Legacy in Dispute, and
Unauthorized Freud: Doubters Confront a Legend; Esteron: Seductive
,Mirage: An Exploration of the Work of Freud, Powell & Boer:
Psychological Reports, 'Did Freud Mislead Patients to Confabulate Memories of Abuse?, 74, 1283-1298, Webster:
Why Freud was Wrong]. In short, most of his subjective evidence was largely the result of pressing a patient to say what he wanted. If he didn't, as Crews in “Unauthorized Freud” remarks, he would often take even bogus dreams, twist them, and use his creation as evidence. Take an instance were, believing that sexual molestation was common and resulted in a great deal of problems, took issue with the lack of affirmation via his patients and wrote: “We must not believe what they say, we must always assume, and tell them, too, that they have kept something back because they found it unimportant or distressing” [Freud, 1895, cited in previous source by Powell & Boer]. Let us also use common sense, shall we? Freud's opinions were the result of speculation and since they focus on the notion that their evidence is not tangible, only decipherable via intense therapy and the use of arcane symbolism, Freudian psychology is no more scientific than religion. Still, what of his individual theories? What must I say about them? Mostly my own views, and thus I will use logic as justification more so than normal. Nevertheless, I feel it needed if I am to rid you of this idolization of Freud for something he is not.
~ Let's start with the basic tenets of Freud. Or rather, his basic concept: The organization of the mind. Freud believed, as you know, that the mind was divide into the “id”, the “ego”, and the “superego”. Our
id represents all of those supposedly irrational, animal-like behaviors which (Unconsciously); our
ego represented reason and judgment; our
superego represented the collective will of social demands. As aforementioned, Freud’s means of coming up with this theory was merely pressing patients and making assumptions (I cite Crews two sources again, as they contain record of this). Moreover, modern cognitive psychology offers much better views as to how the mind works, and how subconscious influences are seemingly minimal [Hunt:
The Story of Psychology, Chapter:
The Cognitive Revolution in Psychology]. This demonstrates how Freud placed far too much focus on the issues of unconscious motivations for behavior, and not enough for conscious ones. Alas though, I believe I have cast one too many stones in the id/ego/superego's way. How about we put more focus instead on the basics of psychoanalysis?
~ Freud’s tenets on psychoanalysis were simple: most motivation for behavior is animalistic, unconscious desire for violence and sex. The first five years of s child's life were marked by clear stages of psychosexual growth. Lastly; societies need for conformation causes the need for an outlet for such unconscious desires and a means to get past such stages. This is, by no means, the complete list, but it is fairly accurate in describing the three key assumptions of psychoanalysis. Needless to say, they are all doubtful to the extreme. To start off with, humanity has gained many ways of repressing such animalistic urges as Freud talks about. Not because of society, but because of evolution [Travis & Wade:
Psychology in Perspective, p.265-343]. To wit, the ability to suppress animalistic urges in favor of reasoned behavior is beneficial to an organism's survival; allowing them greater adaptive flexibility. Not to mention that there are just as many altruistic instincts as there are selfish. In short, nothing we due is selfish in the sense that it is just for us. We are all driven because our minds have evolved to help further our species, not ourselves. Because of this, while killing off a competitor allows further monopoly of a local genepool, the more common occurrence of “posturing” exists. It is a replacement for killing. An altruistic one? No, however we are instinctively driven to protect family, even at the costs of our own lives. Altruistic? Very, and it results not because of a desire we have, but because it furthers the species. One life for many is acceptable for Mother Nature. It is only when our cognition and environment get in the way that true selfishness sets in. Indeed, selfishness is a modern creation, and has likely increased with civilization.
~ As said above, Freud also believed that there are rigid stages of psychosexual development. Since this is not of primacy in the discussion, I shall make my criticisms of it brief. I do this by saying that, more or less, Jean Piaget, the founder of developmental psychology felt roughly the same way, minus the sexual stuff. He believed that children go through four stages of mental growth: the sensori-motor stage the per-operational stage, the concert operations stage, and the formal operational stage. Yet modern science has had a lot to say about this, pointing out that such stages, while more valid than Freud's by a mile, are still not accurate depictions. Stages in psychology are rarely clear-cut. [Siegler:
Emerging Minds: The Process of Change in Children's Thinking]. Enough on that however, let's get to the last thing on my list. These dry, arid essays bore me like hell =.=...
~ So at last we come to Freud's assumption that society must have a vent for such unconscious motivators. To this, and anything relating to it, all I have to say is look above you. There is a small wall of text that should serve as a gateway to show you that Freud's previous assumptions and methods are...lackluster. The fact that such motivators do not even hold large influence on one should speak fathoms itself [Travis & Carol:
Psychology in Perspective, p.452-460].
~ So were does this leave us? I don't deny that leader's try and control their masses. I deny that they do it via Freud's methods and theories. That pretty much sums up my views. It is worth noting though that, for whatever reason—Freudian or otherwise—modern man is capable of great evils. We look at death and laugh, watch shows about sex and violence to pass the time, gather around and party when a man is murdered (Even if he was a terrorist children, “Thou shalt not kill.” seems applicable), and we happily screw; even against the recipient's will at times. I don't deny that humanity is choking on its own hate and filth. That is apparent. What I deny are the reasons you asserted
for this. As anal retentive as that may seem (Word humor?), I think it is fair to say that it is still a valid squabble.