Soul Murder

[erudito]

Here’s a bit of a paradox. I think Freudianism is largely bunk. That is, the anal, oedipal, oral etc theorising is false and distracting; the id, ego, superego structure either wrong or simplistic. But I have found material written by Freudians (such as the blogger Shrinkwrapped’s comments on therapeutic matters-as distinct from his other

Comments

[catsidhe]

I think Freudianism is largely bunk.

Actually, when you include the whole "repression" concept into the mix, it isn't even wrong: it's unfalsifiable twaddle, and on a scientific par with Creationism.

(He had such-and-such an experience in childhood, and therefore [is homosexual/hates his father/wants to have sex with his mother].
He says he doesn't/isn't.
Well, he's either lying or repressing, both of which are 'predicted' by Freud's 'theory'. Heads, you're gay, tails, you're gay and repressed. No further data need be taken into account, certainly not what the patient thinks, they're hardly qualified to comment, are they? nyah!)

Of course, a correct response can come out of an incorrect basis, but you wouldn't want to put money on it. And my unscientific theory is that when a Freudian has something relevant to say, it is despite his Freudian basis, more than because of it.

And, yes, 'Soul Murder' does have a certain resonance.

[tcpip]

Freudianism is weakened by its early pretences to biological facticity, which were fashionable at the time. However, it has significant value as both structures and metaphor (I'll disagree with you, for example, on the id, ego, superego system of the mind). I am also of the opinion that Marcuse's valuable contribution (Eros and Civilization) is certainly worth more than a passing glance.

In a nutshell, psychotherapy provides the same positive role as shamen did in mythic times and priests of traditional society (and with similar rates of success); it heals people who are mentally affected by past experiences, who suffer from confusion between signifiers and the signified. These are not issues that can be resolved through medical treatment in the biological sense - because they are not biological illnesses.

[catsidhe]

Yabbut, beyond what I have said above about the problem of falsifiability, there are newer, better, scientifically testable and experimentally tested psychological paradigms which have far better and more repeatable results.

I'm thinking mainly of NLP here (in its original form of the first three or four books, as opposed to the marketroid nonsense accreted around it since), but there are other theories and models which share far more meaningful provenances than Freud's frauds.

If the rôle of a Freudian psychotherapist is to be a shamanistic sounding-board, then for all the difference it makes, he may as well be a shaman, or wave chicken bones, or channel the spirit of Uri Geller -- or The Amazing Randi for that matter. It's just a gimmick around which the real healing is strung, and the 'theory' which is given so much importance is so much props and scenery, with as much substance

[tcpip]

Everytime I hear of NLP the first thing I think of is "guided therapy" in hypnosis; which I rate as possibly one of the most evil things you can do to a human being.

Mainly because I agree, empirically, with the basic proposition, you can "program" a person, neurologically, through linguistic expressions.

Seems to be a bit of a war in Wikipedia over what it means as well;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

All things considered psychotherapy is the art (yea, not a science) of interpreting symbolic expressions for rational and irrational content. Freud was a pioneer in this field whose basic propositions contained significant validity.

[basal_surge]

Some of the basic precepts of NLP were ok for what they were in the seventies and eighties, insofar as it was based on early neurology work, and analysis of a the methods of a number of the unusually successful therapists of the time, regardless of the therapist's scholastic allegiance.

Unfortunately, since then it's mostly done nothing useful - rather than following up and publishing what they had in peer reviewed fields, the initiators went for the semi corporate pseudoscience approach and published self help books and went on the road in a manner similar to Amway and Scientology.

Dang.

Unfortunately too, my father swallowed a lot of it hook, line and sinker.

[donut_fiend]

Freud retracted his cockamamie seduction theory. It never ceases to amaze me how it still crops up in current works. Which is not to undermine the important impact Freud had on the study of abuse, but it is irritating when psychoanalysts lapse into 100 year-old discredited theories.

Not Shengold

[erudito]

The abuse and deprivation Shengold discusses is not necessarily sexual abuse, and is not based on the seduction theory.

Re: Not Shengold

[donut_fiend]

For some reason, my brain thought there was a mention of repression, but it occurs to me that that was simply mentioned in another comment here :-P There are really very few references to repression in the book. I tell you, my mind just doesn't function like it used to. Probably a sleep deprivation thing. It's a good thing my daughter is more rewarding than my ability to remember things I've just read ;)

It does sound like quite an interesting read. I should make a note of it for when I have the time for books that are more than 20 pages long and aren't filled with colourful illustrations of animals :-P