The Century Of The Self

Core

Fascinating...
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
389
Likes
0
Points
16
#81
You raised Neuroscience, or Neuropsychology as one of your main arguments. At this current point in time: Neuroscience raises more questions then it answers. Otherwise the field of "Neuroscience of free will" would never have been allowed to be "opened"(proverbial can of worms)
Therefore Neuroscience cannot be used as a cogent argument to refute Freud's theories of the subconscious. OR IT WOULD HAVE DONE SO ALREADY.
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#82
You raised Neuroscience, or Neuropsychology as one of your main arguments. At this current point in time: Neuroscience raises more questions then it answers. Otherwise the field of "Neuroscience of free will" would never have been allowed to be "opened"(proverbial can of worms)
Therefore Neuroscience cannot be used as a cogent argument to refute Freud's theories of the subconscious. OR IT WOULD HAVE DONE SO ALREADY.
Using that kind of logic, we should still stick with pre modern physics because modern physics raises more questions then it answers. That simply happens every time we come up with a new scientific field. At the start, its gonna raise a lot of questions and it wont answer all of them at once. That takes time. However, that is no reason to say its findings are incomplete or irrelevant or cant disprove other theories yet.

No, neuroscience answers enough questions and it has proof to boot as well, while Freud doesnt actually answer anymore questions then say...your local priest. Freud has no proof, makes gross generalizations, places a strong emphasis on invisible actors that somehow do manage to strongly influence behavior. Man, it sounds a lot like religion.

Funnily enough, neuroscience has already partly debunked Freud. If you look around the HSL a bit more you will find a topic about magnet influencing peoples moral behavior. Thus strongly suggesting that morals are not done by some Uber Ego personality, but that a part of your brain does it for you. We have already established that brain damage can cause radical personality changes. We know a lot of mental disorders are caused by defective parts of the brain or chemical imbalances in the brain. All these things would not fit in Freuds theories. They would fit in say...a model that combines environment, genes and neurobiology. And again, there is a reason why in Psychology Freud has been reduced to a historical figure, but no longer really relevant.
 

Core

Fascinating...
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
389
Likes
0
Points
16
#83
I find it absolutely hilarious that you take everything literally except when YOU have to explain something.

You say: A part of the brain does that for you SO IT CANNOT BE THE UBER EGO CAUSE IT DIDNT HAVE ITS NAMETAG ON!

I say: It still very well might because theres no point in debunking one tiny part if you cant debunk the entire thing

You are also comparing Freud almost a century old theory to neuroscience which hasnt existed for longer than 12. So of course you have to take things LESS FUCKING LITERAL.
 

Zero Phoenix

The Second Coming of Hazama
Joined
May 2, 2011
Messages
908
Likes
6
Points
18
#84
I find it absolutely hilarious that you take everything literally except when YOU have to explain something.

You say: A part of the brain does that for you SO IT CANNOT BE THE UBER EGO CAUSE IT DIDNT HAVE ITS NAMETAG ON!

I say: It still very well might because theres no point in debunking one tiny part if you cant debunk the entire thing

You are also comparing Freud almost a century old theory to neuroscience which hasnt existed for longer than 12. So of course you have to take things LESS FUCKING LITERAL.

Watch out there Core. He'll start deleting your posts if you don't mind your manners. :smart:
 

shard2323

Kafkaesque
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
50
Likes
0
Points
6
#85
@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.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#86
There's a reason why I never mentioned Freud as a scientist in anything I wrote about him or about psychoanalysis.
Nevertheless, I do find great interest in his theories and pretty much develop independently my on interpretation of his works,
something that obviously requires constant testing, revision or even abandonment through exchanges with various sources.
In short, I do not declare infallibility for anything I wrote about him - those are just my own personal exegeses.
 

shard2323

Kafkaesque
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
50
Likes
0
Points
6
#87
@ Kaze: Brilliant, glad you said you it! Sorry for the misunderstanding, but there still lies on nugget that was left unanswered to which I will quote again:


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?

I am going to do two things here, the first of which is to revise this rather badly put quote. The second is to make it an actual question. So:


~ If modern behavioral sciences have largely swept away Freudian psychology, showing it to be more-likely wrong than not, what basis do you (Or the documentary you posted) have?
~ Freud wasn't a scientist, we we both agree. Nor did he use any form of rational logic in his works. You say you took those works of base assumptions and made your assumptions based off of those assumptions (Need I stress the “assumption” part more?). Perhaps this entire post is just me wondering why you would stoop to something so nonsensical. You said that you have checked your views with sources, may I ask if you meant that the said sources validated Freud's views? Apologies if you have already elaborated on this, by the way.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#88
Whether Psychology is science or not, is an open question.
Even so, I choose to reject psychology as science, but with no derogatory connotation involved.
http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/index.html

Psychology as science is pretty much a boring endeavor from my personal point of view, it is the non-scientific nature of it that makes it more religious and prophetic (and thus, more interesting).
Religious, because one would observe the pattern of human behavior and try to come out with a cogent dogma in term of explaining them.
Prophetic, because this dogma is then tested by means of predicting a specific pattern involved in a specific case of study.

In this instance, Freud (through Bernays) can be said as largely successful.
 

Denuo Prince

The Forsaken
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
720
Likes
2
Points
18
#89
[MENTION=45]Kaze Araki[/MENTION]

Interesting view but is observing and experimenting not science? And why personally would you Psych boring as a science?
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#90
Read the article for the first question.
For the second question, it lackluster without the mysticism of people like Freud, Lacan or Reich.
But my personal view hardly means anything at all here.
 

shard2323

Kafkaesque
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
50
Likes
0
Points
6
#91
~ It isn't really my desire to debate about whether psychology is a science. Yes, it is part of my point. However even without it, I could just as easily replace “psychology” with “behavioral sciences” such as neuroscience, cognitive science, and the like. I however, do view modern psychology as a science; as do the great majority of the people who have mulled over the text you gave. Given the nature of my argument though (i.e., it doesn't require psychology per se), I will refrain from making another wall 'o' text on the issue; unless you don't mind of course. As for your text, I have read it before and have written an essay criticizing it on multiple grounds. Again, if you would okay the notion, I would like to at least PM that to you for the sake of showing you that modern psychology is a science. If not, at the very least, in the methods of social, cognitive, and biological psychology. Mainly as they make heavy use of experimentation, observation, and the like. (I suppose citing about twenty critically acclaimed text books and Morton Hunt's fantastic Story of Psychology would do little to convince you of this? Again, if you okay the request, I will gladly do so.)
~ With that said, Freud is about as prophetic as blind, deaf, mute comatose vegetable. Sorry for the revolting use of a simile, but as just about ALL of my sources in my first post detailed, Freud's theories predict behavior very badly. Not only does this stem from the fact that he never had any basis whatsoever for his assumptions, but he only (Thought) them proved by a select number of patients. Most of whom were pressured into giving desired responses in the first place. So to sum it up, I have to reject your views that any part of Freudian psychology can be viewed as prophetic until you (The bearer of the statement?) give me proof otherwise. Until then, I have a heaping mound of sources you can roll in, all of which should be available in PDF around the web.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#92
What you wish to write requires no permission from me, but I do decline any PM sent to me regarding this matter.
I do not use my inbox for this type of activity, and I do view it more beneficial to the readers if anything you wrote are available to the public instead.

As for Freud's prophetic ability, as I have said before - has been reasonably proven through Bernays.
Regardless of whether the basis of his tenets is correct or not, it has been used extensively and with great success.

The documentary gives many examples that you demanded.
 

Core

Fascinating...
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
389
Likes
0
Points
16
#93
[MENTION=1264]shard2323[/MENTION]

Most of the points you made I made earlier and yet on this topic I will still have more fun discussing the possibilities of freud's theoris being true and its not because I want attention.

According to Hopper's advanced fallacy + psychology as a science: Freud's theories CAN be proven true or false. However if something is not proven true or false does not necessarily mean it cant be proven true or false. According to Hopper if it can be proven true or false it has to be proven true or false before being considered either.

Anyway to be fair; theres still controversy. [MENTION=1264]shard2323[/MENTION] if psychology is an absolute science then you are ~60% on the way to the correct answer(You have to disprove everything in order to win, since it is disprovable) you even used extrapolation to get there.
But if psychology is not a science we dont have to prove anything. :p Hence; Controversy.
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
941
Likes
1
Points
18
#94
~ With that said, Freud is about as prophetic as blind, deaf, mute comatose vegetable. Sorry for the revolting use of a simile, but as just about ALL of my sources in my first post detailed, Freud's theories predict behavior very badly. Not only does this stem from the fact that he never had any basis whatsoever for his assumptions, but he only (Thought) them proved by a select number of patients. Most of whom were pressured into giving desired responses in the first place. So to sum it up, I have to reject your views that any part of Freudian psychology can be viewed as prophetic until you (The bearer of the statement?) give me proof otherwise. Until then, I have a heaping mound of sources you can roll in, all of which should be available in PDF around the web.
Just brilliant! I loved your wall of text as well.

Anyways, just want to comment on that. Isnt Freud's inability to predict behavior because he never predicts it to begin with? Instead, he explains observed behavior. Which is why he is no better then your average preacher.

And isnt that something that defines something as a science? It has to endeavor to predict outcomes, based on theories. Modern Psychology definitely strives to do this, and to some extend, succeeds at it.

According to Hopper's advanced fallacy + psychology as a science: Freud's theories CAN be proven true or false. However if something is not proven true or false does not necessarily mean it cant be proven true or false. According to Hopper if it can be proven true or false it has to be proven true or false before being considered either.
So you regard something as possibly true because it actively tries to avoid scientific scrutiny? Also, who is Hopper? Or do you mean Karl Popper? Because it sounds like youre talking about empirical falsification, ie, that theories are only worth something if its technically possible to prove them wrong.

Anyway to be fair; theres still controversy. If psychology is an absolute science then you are ~60% on the way to the correct answer(You have to disprove everything in order to win, since it is disprovable) you even used extrapolation to get there.
But if psychology is not a science we dont have to prove anything. :p Hence; Controversy.
What part of psychology is not scientific? Their methods are based on the natural science standards, and their aim is to predict instead of merely explain. And all their theories and such meet the empirical falsification standard. You cant get much more science then that.
 

shard2323

Kafkaesque
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
50
Likes
0
Points
6
#95
[MENTION=45]Kaze Araki[/MENTION]: Let me get my premise clear here, as if I continue without doing so, it would be the equivalent of running down a flight of stairs blindfolded and wearing a peg-leg... So with that said...
~ I assert that Freudian psychology is largely incorrect, and as such, its successful application is impossible in the the field's entirety. In short, even if it is seemingly used to great success, it could still be as in the case of humanistic psychology: Not in and of itself successful, but it works because of an unrelated factor that is used in conjunction with the field itself (Humanistic psychology is not valid at all, and hold no scientific backing. But it works, with all of its tenets being dubious or false. Why? Because—in this case—the patient often believes it will work [it tends not to work so well with skeptics]. An unrelated occurrence could also be the cause of Freudian success.).
~ Now, with that said, let us get another thing clear: humans are often selfish, irrational, and vain, catering to their impulses rather than rationality. Am I suddenly making a conversion? Absolutely not, modern psychology largely backs that this side of the coin (As aforementioned, altruism exists too) as well. Moreover, we see it around us every single day, and we see HOW such things influence people's behavior. Given this, a theory (Freudian psychologies theories, for instance) that says that humans are irrational, acting on impulse is not a groundbreaking one. Even Hobbes lamented on this a bit, and philosophers before him. What matters then is the explanation of why they can often be this way, to which I contest here (That is, in essence, the only worthwhile part of Freudian psychology. Everything else is either utter BS or is saying 'Look, the orange is orange!' as if it wasn't previously known. Sadly though, the orange is that color because it was touched as a child...go figure). As such, it is not hard to influence someone's behavior keeping in mind these things. THIS is not Freudian psychology, as it ignores the base tenets, yet this is almost exactly what Bernays did. His results stemmed from an unrelated field: common sense. In the documentary, it is said that Freud wrote—in regards to the World War—that we shouldn't be surprised, given psychoanalysis, this is exactly how one would expect humans to behave (To put the quote in my own words, the actual quote is around five minutes and thirty seconds into the first episode. I laughed. You don't need psychoanalysis to know that the nations were going to war, all you needed was a competent knowledge of politics and common sense. To this day, these two tools fly in the face of the statements of Freud (Who saw the proof in not just the pudding, but in everything), however you would have to lie if you believed that modern psychology did not have a better grasp at it by now. Modern psychology explains irrationality, impulse behavior, instinctive drives, and this like in far more scientific, far more accurate ways; all the while avoiding psychoanalysis and the unconscious. They explain what Freud sought to—the obvious observations of human behavior—in a way that shows just how wrong most of Freud's assumption really were. (Take a look at bystander apathy for evidence of this, something Freud would likely peg on the desire to witness violence as a vent). The patriotism Bernays created at the advent of the Word War? Simple stimulation of psychological in-grouping and prejudice, something explained by modern psychology but known by almost every politician. It has nothing to do with animalistic motivators chained away in your subconscious! Nothing Freudian about it, or the majority of his work either. One easily knows that you can put a pretty lady next to something and make men pay attention, one easily understands that you can relate something to pleasure and have that influence further behavior (Behaviorism was founded on such assumptions, and they didn't even believe in the mind or use mental constructs.). Most of the time, these instincts that are being played on result in a conscious notation (“Damn she's nice...”), but if it doesn't, there is no reason to assume it bubbles down and creates pressure. Defense mechanisms. like what Freud asserted, don't exist. When animalistic urges vanish, they are gone. Moreover, there is no reason to assume that they are constantly gnawing at you on some level simply because you are now aware of them.
~ Alas, I have digressed! Back to Bernays and his exploits. From the above, I am basically getting at this: Bernays used the basic common sense that humans are irrational, selfish, and the like more often than not. He didn't use Freudian psychology. Bernays took what he liked from it, and tossed the rest. What resulted was PR, not proof of Freud's works. How could they be? They're only a shell of what Freud had created in the first place. To shove my point home (And admittedly down your throat), let us look at Bernays campaign for the removal of the female-smoking taboo. Bernays, after being reached by a client, said that he sent word to a psychoanalyst to see what smoking meant to woman. What he came up with was that cigarettes represented a male penis, a symbol power, and thus something females were seen as not liable to pick up. The analysts reckoned that if one related the view that woman could gain more power from men (Power is supposedly a unconscious motivator. Try telling Hitler that...) by gaining a “...penis of their own...” and thus create a craving to light one up. Clever, eh? ….no. Let us be honest, I like my penis just as much as the next guy, but it ain't holding some mystical symbolism within its testes. A penis is a penis, and besides the sexual and social connotations, that is all we have proof of it being. But why then did Bernays campaign work? Because it was affected by an unrelated factor: social association.
~ Bernays asked debutantes to light up cigarettes in public, told the press about it, and then laughed. What happened was not at all Freudian. What happened is as follows: People (woman) saw someone they perceived of a higher class (The debutantes) engage in an act that made a taboo (smoking) seem “cool” (To use a more modern term), and thus thought it would result in positive ramifications if they followed suit. Like Ozzy when he shaved his head, people followed suit not because of some mystical unconscious symbolism, but because they were doing what someone else did to seem socially acceptable or to revive attention or simply to act like cattle and follow the leader. It had nothing to do with Freud’s sexual penises. Though it is comforting to think that woman respect my penis as a symbol of power, that is just being foolish and optimistic.
~ Bernays appealed to emotions, social constructs, selfishness, and what not. He did not so much appeal to Freudian psychology, as everything above shows examples of. Not even if he honestly believed he did. Because of this, I ask why do you feel Bernays and his “results” give backing to Freud's views?
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#96
Borrowing Hawking's Model-dependent Realism; an event can be interpreted in different ways depending on the model used.
Bernays interpretation are based upon Psychoanalysis model and it did work - therefore the prophetic ability is proven.
One can argue that the event can be explained in another way that is completely in contrast with Psychoanalysis, and I'm fine with them as well.
After all, Psychoanalysis is not scientific, if anything - it is metaphysics.
 

shard2323

Kafkaesque
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
50
Likes
0
Points
6
#97
[MENTION=45]Kaze Araki[/MENTION]:
~ (Quick digression: Don't you just love the “tagging” feature? I can annoy from anytime with only the need of a “2” key =3=)


~ Kaze, my friend, what you claim as evidence falls short. You write that simply because Bernays succeed in his PR business, Freudian psychology is valid. If he predicted that a man jumping off of a bridge would die, saying that he came to this conclusion via Uncle Freud's views, would you say that such an instance still gives weight to Freudian psychology? With full conviction, I write “I hope not”. Sure, you could argue that my example of a man leaping off of a bridge is silly, but it proves a point. How can it not? Any example (In regards to Bernays' success) is almost exactly like my example.
~ Let us say that Mr. Adam, fed up with life, leaps from the Golden Gate Bridge into the harbor below. Within the next day, the city papers are filled with head-lines such as “Man commits suicide.” and “Teenager did drugs, thought he could fly.” Simple enough, yes, but let us add another dimension. Suppose that a follow of Freud was here today (Let us call him Dick, for good fun), and upon seeing the head-lines, begins to make his own theories. A month passes, and at long last, he publishes a work: “The Unconscious Motivations of a Jumper”. Written in clear, if not luxurious prose, the book asserts that cases like Mr. Adam stem from the unconscious, animalistic motivation of destruction and aggression. Dick says that Mr. Adam had a build-up of repressed desires for destruction which led him to vent it in the ultimate act of destruction: suicide.
~ The above example is, of course, entirely hypothetical; nevertheless, it provides a look at irrational justification. In short, based on the above, Dick could theorize that anyone who is sufficiently unhappy due to repressed animalistic desires that lack a social vent will lead to suicide. There is only one issue: it is common sense that anyone who is sufficiently unhappy may commit suicide. We don't need any superfluous, unjustified explanations of why it worked. Something else (Common sense, social psychology, cognitive psychology, etc.) already predicts such outcomes; with justifiable theories none-the-less. Simply because Dick made a common sense guess and backed it up with nonsense doesn't make it an indicator of the validity of anything.
~ Bernays' gimmick with the debutantes is no different. Celebrity sponsorship was well known prior to Bernays, he simply went about it in a more methodical way. In essence, Bernays could have done the same without a lick of Freudian psychology. Freudian psychology merely provided a superfluous explanation that was completely nonsensical and backed by no form of logic or evidence whatsoever. To top it off, Bernays could have pulled it off without Uncle Freud's theories. In fact, he actually did, whether he was aware of it or not.
~ To conclude, I understand your argument made in the last post; I cannot live with it, however. It is too sloppy, too lacking in logic, to acquiescent in thought for me. But I do respect that you have at least tried to make some strides into psychology; even if you reject the scientific fields related to it ;)
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#98
The predictability of a man dying from jumping off a bridge cannot be equated with the sudden breaking of a well established taboo.
The case of "Torches of Freedom" is very specific in term of providing the Freudian proposition and prediction of the would be outcome.
 

shard2323

Kafkaesque
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
50
Likes
0
Points
6
@Kaze Araki : That is it? Whether or no my hypothetical example was the same was not really the point. What was the point was, dare I say, that both instances, hypothetical or no, are utter BS. Sadly I don't think we are going to convince each other though, lol. Given this, I shall agree to disagree (If you do the same, of course), and let the readers decide for themselves who had the better points. As a side note, I have not elaborated on my view that psychology is a science because I feel that (1), it is only marginally valuable to my argument, (2), it is completely off topic because of condition one, and (3), any thread made about it elsewhere would merely be debated upon briefly and then be left to die. It really only holds relevance to our discussion, and I don't feel that it would flourish outside our conversation here. Anywho, I will leave you to your thread ;) Sorry for taking up so much of your precious time, I merely thought that I might trump your in a debate this time around~


@Zero Phoenix : Hey, hey, don't dis the “~” technique. It is simple, quick, and requires only the shift key and a button. Much better if you write on Word before posting, like I do =3=.