This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- english context
- aqa a level psychology review plan?
- RS OCR Essays
- Epq anaylysis help?
- Funding for PGDip
- GCSE Edexcel Psychology Paper 2 Chat
- EPQ on dreaming (psychology)
- How to apply for pharmacy work experience? (Year 11)
- Considering to be a bio-medical technician
- Is it safe to do psychology?
- Lord of the Flies?
- Participate in a Survey on Multilingualism in the Digital Word
- Edexcel A Level History of Art Paper 2 (9HT0 02) - 3rd June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Psychology Extra Reading of Uni
- Best Laptop to chose from Study Tech via DSA
- Eduqas religious studies a level 2023
- Applying to 4 Russell groups
- UCL and Anna Freud
- What is a psychology degree like?
- UCL Developmental Psychology and Clinical Practice 2024
Is Freud Obsolete?
Hey,
Just thought it'd be kinda interesting to see what other Psychology students think about this debate.
Is Freud obsolete in 21st century Psychology? I mean sure, the psychodynamic model might of been great during the 1900's, but today we have been able to develop the field of Psychology so much further as a science, with all major contemporary discoveries revolving around neuroscience and technologies such as MRI, fMRI and PET scanners.
I personally do not understand why Freud is even mentioned in the teaching/application of Psychology today; As H. J. Eysenck once said "Freud set psychiatry back one hundred years." In my opinion, using the works of Freud would be like med students using the Four Humors theory created by Hippocrates. So why do we still study him in such depth? Can his works even be considered relevent to today's neuroscience-dominated field of Psychology? How can theories with such little scientific backing be accepted by a 21st Century audience?
It seems as a result of Freud's subjective and unscientific works, Psychology as a field has become infamous for being a pseudo-science, when in reality, psychodynamics are only a tiny fraction of the field itself. Whenever Freudian theories are mentioned, I suddenly feel as though I may as well be studying horoscopic astrology.
What do you think?
Just thought it'd be kinda interesting to see what other Psychology students think about this debate.
Is Freud obsolete in 21st century Psychology? I mean sure, the psychodynamic model might of been great during the 1900's, but today we have been able to develop the field of Psychology so much further as a science, with all major contemporary discoveries revolving around neuroscience and technologies such as MRI, fMRI and PET scanners.
I personally do not understand why Freud is even mentioned in the teaching/application of Psychology today; As H. J. Eysenck once said "Freud set psychiatry back one hundred years." In my opinion, using the works of Freud would be like med students using the Four Humors theory created by Hippocrates. So why do we still study him in such depth? Can his works even be considered relevent to today's neuroscience-dominated field of Psychology? How can theories with such little scientific backing be accepted by a 21st Century audience?
It seems as a result of Freud's subjective and unscientific works, Psychology as a field has become infamous for being a pseudo-science, when in reality, psychodynamics are only a tiny fraction of the field itself. Whenever Freudian theories are mentioned, I suddenly feel as though I may as well be studying horoscopic astrology.
What do you think?
Scroll to see replies
GodspeedGehenna
Hey,
Just thought it'd be kinda interesting to see what other Psychology students think about this debate.
Is Freud obsolete in 21st century Psychology? I mean sure, the psychodynamic model might of been great during the 1900's, but today we have been able to develop the field of Psychology so much further as a science, with all major contemporary discoveries revolving around neuroscience and technologies such as MRI, fMRI and PET scanners.
I personally do not understand why Freud is even mentioned in the teaching/application of Psychology today; As H. J. Eysenck once said "Freud set psychiatry back one hundred years." In my opinion, using the works of Freud would be like med students using the Four Humors theory created by Hippocrates. So why do we still study him in such depth? Can his works even be considered relevent to today's neuroscience-dominated field of Psychology? How can theories with such little scientific backing be accepted by a 21st Century audience?
It seems as a result of Freud's subjective and unscientific works, Psychology as a field has become infamous for being a pseudo-science, when in reality, psychodynamics are only a tiny fraction of the field itself. Whenever Freudian theories are mentioned, I suddenly feel as though I may as well be studying horoscopic astrology.
What do you think?
Just thought it'd be kinda interesting to see what other Psychology students think about this debate.
Is Freud obsolete in 21st century Psychology? I mean sure, the psychodynamic model might of been great during the 1900's, but today we have been able to develop the field of Psychology so much further as a science, with all major contemporary discoveries revolving around neuroscience and technologies such as MRI, fMRI and PET scanners.
I personally do not understand why Freud is even mentioned in the teaching/application of Psychology today; As H. J. Eysenck once said "Freud set psychiatry back one hundred years." In my opinion, using the works of Freud would be like med students using the Four Humors theory created by Hippocrates. So why do we still study him in such depth? Can his works even be considered relevent to today's neuroscience-dominated field of Psychology? How can theories with such little scientific backing be accepted by a 21st Century audience?
It seems as a result of Freud's subjective and unscientific works, Psychology as a field has become infamous for being a pseudo-science, when in reality, psychodynamics are only a tiny fraction of the field itself. Whenever Freudian theories are mentioned, I suddenly feel as though I may as well be studying horoscopic astrology.
What do you think?
What a strange way to start a thread. You tell us that his work is now obsolete, but in no way back that up with why it is obsolete.
Sure, we've moved on a lot since his day, but unfortunately he's done very little to update anything since his death. The basic principles are still very relevant today, and natural selection is still a huge factor to take into account. Aren't you interested in how we will evolve over the next few hundreds of years?
Also, how does developing new technologies change anything? If anything, it helps us see exactly what's happening.
GodspeedGehenna
I personally do not understand why Freud is even mentioned in the teaching/application of Psychology today; As H. J. Eysenck once said "Freud set psychiatry back one hundred years." In my opinion, using the works of Freud would be like med students using the Four Humors theory created by Hippocrates.
I personally do not understand why Freud is even mentioned in the teaching/application of Psychology today; As H. J. Eysenck once said "Freud set psychiatry back one hundred years." In my opinion, using the works of Freud would be like med students using the Four Humors theory created by Hippocrates.
But it is important to study the development of the history of your discipline, isn't it? Whether you like Freud or not, there's no question the massive cultural impact and influence in psychology that he has had. To not study Freud just because there might be better contemporary theories means you have no knowledge of the background of the development of your discipline, and that can't be a good thing.
We certainly wouldn't expect med students to use the four humors theory in practising medicine today, but isn't it interesting and important to study how we got from the four humors to modern medicine? You can't not teach something just because there is something potentially better. It helps you to understand the 'better' theory by knowing what happened before it.
I think Freudian psychology still has a major impact even though as SillyFencer said, we're not going to hear anything more from him because he's dead.
While neuroscience and the biological model may explain genetic and physiological factors in one's behaviour and mental processes, other aspects of our psyche such as consciousness and our internal thoughts/emotions are not. You still see bits of Freudian psychology here and there. A lot of psychologists encourage 'free talking', similarly to Freud, in their sessions, and a lot of studies into disturbed people still mention disturbed childhoods, etc.
Personally, I think Freud is fascinating. It'd be a shame not to learn about him. I mean, science explains so much, but in psychology, not everything can be explained by science.
While neuroscience and the biological model may explain genetic and physiological factors in one's behaviour and mental processes, other aspects of our psyche such as consciousness and our internal thoughts/emotions are not. You still see bits of Freudian psychology here and there. A lot of psychologists encourage 'free talking', similarly to Freud, in their sessions, and a lot of studies into disturbed people still mention disturbed childhoods, etc.
Personally, I think Freud is fascinating. It'd be a shame not to learn about him. I mean, science explains so much, but in psychology, not everything can be explained by science.
SillyFencer
Also, how does developing new technologies change anything? If anything, it helps us see exactly what's happening.
Also, how does developing new technologies change anything? If anything, it helps us see exactly what's happening.
Okay, well.. take a look at something like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
According to the Psychodynamic model, the roots of the disorder are a result of a disturbance in the sexual life of a child. With unstable conflicts in the subconscious mind resulting in this case, a tendency to hoard or other obsessive symptoms. These symptoms are seen as a way of dealing with the unwanted intrusion of hostile oedipal wishes.
http://www.ncpamd.com/obsessive.htm
As opposed to the recent discovery that decreases of grey matter in the orbitofrontal and right inferior frontal regions of the brain, which are important in suppressing responses and habits, are a possible cause for the manifestation of OCD.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7109763.stm
So, in my opinion, new technology changes everything. It provides us with new perspectives, scientific backing and a far more stable ground to make hypotheses; Something which I believe is far superior to any of Freud's psychoanalytical workings.
GodspeedGehenna
Okay, well.. take a look at something like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
According to the Psychodynamic model, the roots of the disorder are a result of a disturbance in the sexual life of a child. With unstable conflicts in the subconscious mind resulting in this case, a tendency to hoard or other obsessive symptoms. These symptoms are seen as a way of dealing with the unwanted intrusion of hostile oedipal wishes.
http://www.ncpamd.com/obsessive.htm
As opposed to the recent discovery that decreases of grey matter in the orbitofrontal and right inferior frontal regions of the brain, which are important in suppressing responses and habits, are a possible cause for the manifestation of OCD.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7109763.stm
So, in my opinion, new technology changes everything. It provides us with new perspectives, scientific backing and a far more stable ground to make hypotheses; Something which I believe is far superior to any of Freud's psychoanalytical workings.
According to the Psychodynamic model, the roots of the disorder are a result of a disturbance in the sexual life of a child. With unstable conflicts in the subconscious mind resulting in this case, a tendency to hoard or other obsessive symptoms. These symptoms are seen as a way of dealing with the unwanted intrusion of hostile oedipal wishes.
http://www.ncpamd.com/obsessive.htm
As opposed to the recent discovery that decreases of grey matter in the orbitofrontal and right inferior frontal regions of the brain, which are important in suppressing responses and habits, are a possible cause for the manifestation of OCD.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7109763.stm
So, in my opinion, new technology changes everything. It provides us with new perspectives, scientific backing and a far more stable ground to make hypotheses; Something which I believe is far superior to any of Freud's psychoanalytical workings.
Those aren't changes though, that's just us getting a better understanding. Surely Freud's work is even better when you consider what technologies he had to work with‽
Now, back to my point, although we can be sure that knowledge today is far superior to anything Freud did, you have still failed to show where he was wrong. A lot of his work still has significant relevance to today's work.
Lizsco3
I mean, science explains so much, but in psychology, not everything can be explained by science.
I disagree, tbh. I don't see how looking into the workings of the mind should be anything but scientific - otherwise what do we have?
rottcodd
So all 'nutty' people from history should be forgotten about and never studied again?
Not in the context of History the subject, no. And a little historical perspective can be interesting in any subject, sure, and even make the stuff we know now easier to understand.
...But... For a me-related example: I study Biochem. I would not be chuffed if our course went into great depth on the different theories people had about proteins being the infomation carrier, prior to figuring about DNA. I would be even less chuffed if these theories were stated as fact...
And just a small disclaimer: I haven't read Freud's works. So, hey, perhaps I'm missing something, but from the much I've read in secondary sources, it rather seems as if he listened to alot of disturbed people's life-stories, then made-up a little story about how they got that way. However, if anyone has proof he was more scientific and believable about it, I'd genuinely like to know.
SillyFencer
Those aren't changes though, that's just us getting a better understanding. Surely Freud's work is even better when you consider what technologies he had to work with‽
Now, back to my point, although we can be sure that knowledge today is far superior to anything Freud did, you have still failed to show where he was wrong. A lot of his work still has significant relevance to today's work.
Now, back to my point, although we can be sure that knowledge today is far superior to anything Freud did, you have still failed to show where he was wrong. A lot of his work still has significant relevance to today's work.
Those arnt changes? I dont quite understand how you can say that. It shows that in modern society, we have the technology to reveal biological differences in the brains' of OCD sufferers to those of healthy patients. Surely that is a huge precedent to the fact that we are now able to turn towards a more biological perspective than relying on the subjective, unfalsifiable workings of Freud.
I failed to show where Freud was wrong? Freud failed to show where he was right.
The reason Freuds still being studied today is because alot of psychologists still believe in his work, he took psychology to another level with (what was then) groundbreaking theories of how our childhood shapes the rest of our lives. Yes all his reasearch was based on case studies and was completely subjective but it doesn't take away what he did for psychology, what he found was easy for people to understand and makes sense to an extent.
Whether he is obsolete today is debateable, some of his theories are abit out there but the idea of there being a concious/pre-concious/ un-concious is extremely believable and makes alot of sense the same with the id/ego/super-ego. Whereas the oedopus and Elektra complex, to me, just sounds slightly ridiculous but Freud would probably say many people who say this say it because they refuse acknowledge even the thought of ever fancying our mother or father, its delved so far into our un-concious we'll refuse to believe it. No matter how 'nutty' some of his theories may be you can't take away from the fact that they make alot of sense and even though there's been countless amounts of research to refute alot of his theories alot of his work still has significant relevance in research being carried out today.
Whether he is obsolete today is debateable, some of his theories are abit out there but the idea of there being a concious/pre-concious/ un-concious is extremely believable and makes alot of sense the same with the id/ego/super-ego. Whereas the oedopus and Elektra complex, to me, just sounds slightly ridiculous but Freud would probably say many people who say this say it because they refuse acknowledge even the thought of ever fancying our mother or father, its delved so far into our un-concious we'll refuse to believe it. No matter how 'nutty' some of his theories may be you can't take away from the fact that they make alot of sense and even though there's been countless amounts of research to refute alot of his theories alot of his work still has significant relevance in research being carried out today.
GodspeedGehenna
Those arnt changes? I dont quite understand how you can say that. It shows that in modern society, we have the technology to reveal biological differences in the brains' of OCD sufferers to those of healthy patients. Surely that is a huge precedent to the fact that we are now able to turn towards a more biological perspective than relying on the subjective, unfalsifiable workings of Freud.
I failed to show where Freud was wrong? Freud failed to show where he was right.
I failed to show where Freud was wrong? Freud failed to show where he was right.
But that was the same before we had the tech. The only difference is that we can now measure it.
Sorry, but you cannot start a thread discounting someone's work without backing up your reasons. It's a ridicuous way to start a discussion. "Freud failed to show where he was right" just doesn't cut it. If you think he was wrong, then why was he wrong?
GodspeedGehenna
I failed to show where Freud was wrong? Freud failed to show where he was right.
I failed to show where Freud was wrong? Freud failed to show where he was right.
Then you have failed to prove that Freud was wrong as much you believe Freud failed to show that he was right. There is no 'right' and 'wrong' in the traditional sense in the history of human thought and development - you cannot say we must stop teaching Freud purely because some of his theories you percieve as wrong. Without wanting to sound patronising, you haven't even started you're degree yet - there are plenty of people that believe certain ideas from Freud are correct, and have developed them and are well known and respected critics.
SillyFencer
Sorry, but you cannot start a thread discounting someone's work without backing up your reasons. It's a ridicuous way to start a discussion. "Freud failed to show where he was right" just doesn't cut it. If you think he was wrong, then why was he wrong?
Sorry, but you cannot start a thread discounting someone's work without backing up your reasons. It's a ridicuous way to start a discussion. "Freud failed to show where he was right" just doesn't cut it. If you think he was wrong, then why was he wrong?
Its one thing to start a thread without backing up my reasons. How about starting up a whole approach to psychological disorders without backing up my reasons?
The major downfall with Freudian theories is that they are unfalsifiable. Asking me to prove him wrong is just a circular, and therefore invalid argument in itself, when Freud was unable to create hard evidence to support his reasoning. To be considered valid, Freud's workings should of been based on testable and experimental evidence; Is that not the whole principle of science?
I find it rediculous that support for Freudian works often stem from "Well, you can't disprove it." Those are not grounds for a reasonable argument.
ixivxivi
I disagree, tbh. I don't see how looking into the workings of the mind should be anything but scientific - otherwise what do we have?
How can you empirically study emotions? And memories? They're abstract concepts, rather than concrete. Freud was aware of the lack of scientific evidence in his studies actually, and did try to support his theories as much as he could. For example, with his hypnosis experiments, he replicated them several times, and drew on similarities between them. He also conducted empirical tests on cocaine and its effects during the 1880s. He even trained as a medical researcher for a few years. Considering x-rays wouldn't come around for another 60 years, he did alright for himself scientifically during his time.
The people who say they don't like Freud do so because they know (and don't like to admit) that he was onto something. 
Many of his ideas... they make sense. We have enough scientific theories and in my opinion Freud's should be presented supplementarily. Freud cannot just be disregarded.
Many of his ideas... they make sense. We have enough scientific theories and in my opinion Freud's should be presented supplementarily. Freud cannot just be disregarded.
Lizsco3
How can you empirically study emotions? And memories? They're abstract concepts, rather than concrete. Freud was aware of the lack of scientific evidence in his studies actually, and did try to support his theories as much as he could. For example, with his hypnosis experiments, he replicated them several times, and drew on similarities between them. He also conducted empirical tests on cocaine and its effects during the 1880s. He even trained as a medical researcher for a few years. Considering x-rays wouldn't come around for another 60 years, he did alright for himself scientifically during his time.
Hormones, brain cells - all the mushy and chem stuff is a good way of starting
And I don't care how well Freud did for his time (except for Good For Him etc etc)
- the Greeks did pretty damn well for their time, but we wouldn't want to teach most of their ideas as straight science.Inside
The people who say they don't like Freud do so because they know (and don't like to admit) that he was onto something.
Many of his ideas... they make sense. We have enough scientific theories and in my opinion Freud's should be presented supplementarily. Freud cannot just be disregarded.
Many of his ideas... they make sense. We have enough scientific theories and in my opinion Freud's should be presented supplementarily. Freud cannot just be disregarded.
Agreed
You have to give him credit that was one of the first persons who came up with the idea that having traumas as a child can lead to other negative stuff in the future.
Related discussions
- english context
- aqa a level psychology review plan?
- RS OCR Essays
- Epq anaylysis help?
- Funding for PGDip
- GCSE Edexcel Psychology Paper 2 Chat
- EPQ on dreaming (psychology)
- How to apply for pharmacy work experience? (Year 11)
- Considering to be a bio-medical technician
- Is it safe to do psychology?
- Lord of the Flies?
- Participate in a Survey on Multilingualism in the Digital Word
- Edexcel A Level History of Art Paper 2 (9HT0 02) - 3rd June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Psychology Extra Reading of Uni
- Best Laptop to chose from Study Tech via DSA
- Eduqas religious studies a level 2023
- Applying to 4 Russell groups
- UCL and Anna Freud
- What is a psychology degree like?
- UCL Developmental Psychology and Clinical Practice 2024
Latest
Trending
