There are more places/countries that use psychoanalysis, having it their curriculum. I study psychology and there is a main difference in psychoanalysis/humanistic psychology and behaviourist psychology. The latter is a actual science, because it studies behavior, and you can observe it. The other two, mainly focus on consciousness, thinking, individual meaning and a particular person’s world. I get that psychoanalysis has a lot of strange ideas, but there is neo psychoanalysis, and as a whole, the school tries to constantly renew itself, as it’s made in the the actual therapy process. The point is psychology is a vast field, behaviourist based theories are actual sciences doesn’t make the other options available bad. Depending on the case, one is better than the other. Jeffrey Young saw what I am describing and combined elements from these and some other theories.
No I strongly disagree on giving psychoanalysis that much consideration
Besides the fact that psychoanalysis, new wave or not ; jung, freud, lacan, has only been demonstrated to work better than leaving the patient alone on a handful of illnesses and it’s still unclear whether simply letting patients talk and air out their problems could be the main driver of that.
It is fundamentally a discipline that is impermeable to science
I’ve never heard a student tell me they’ve read Watson or Rayner or any of the founders of CBT because scientific disciplines are centered around historical results and not authors. They know about Rayner’s results and it is enough, and if something better comes along later they’ll switch. No one is a Raynerist.
Psychoanalysis has gurus, and the beliefs themselves are built to be unverifiable
I’m tired of lecturers who tell you that if you treat someone with it, it’s proof that it works. And if the patient doesn’t respond to treatment it’s either the patient’s fault or they just need more time, and nothing is ever proof that it doesn’t work. And who are you to question <authority figure> anyway?
If they suddenly start publishing reproduced results in reputable journals that do anything other than being less effective than the current state of the art, then sure, let’s have them beyond history classes. Right now though? It’s a load of bullshit
There are more places/countries that use psychoanalysis, having it their curriculum. I study psychology and there is a main difference in psychoanalysis/humanistic psychology and behaviourist psychology. The latter is a actual science, because it studies behavior, and you can observe it. The other two, mainly focus on consciousness, thinking, individual meaning and a particular person’s world. I get that psychoanalysis has a lot of strange ideas, but there is neo psychoanalysis, and as a whole, the school tries to constantly renew itself, as it’s made in the the actual therapy process. The point is psychology is a vast field, behaviourist based theories are actual sciences doesn’t make the other options available bad. Depending on the case, one is better than the other. Jeffrey Young saw what I am describing and combined elements from these and some other theories.
No I strongly disagree on giving psychoanalysis that much consideration
Besides the fact that psychoanalysis, new wave or not ; jung, freud, lacan, has only been demonstrated to work better than leaving the patient alone on a handful of illnesses and it’s still unclear whether simply letting patients talk and air out their problems could be the main driver of that.
It is fundamentally a discipline that is impermeable to science
I’ve never heard a student tell me they’ve read Watson or Rayner or any of the founders of CBT because scientific disciplines are centered around historical results and not authors. They know about Rayner’s results and it is enough, and if something better comes along later they’ll switch. No one is a Raynerist.
Psychoanalysis has gurus, and the beliefs themselves are built to be unverifiable
I’m tired of lecturers who tell you that if you treat someone with it, it’s proof that it works. And if the patient doesn’t respond to treatment it’s either the patient’s fault or they just need more time, and nothing is ever proof that it doesn’t work. And who are you to question <authority figure> anyway?
If they suddenly start publishing reproduced results in reputable journals that do anything other than being less effective than the current state of the art, then sure, let’s have them beyond history classes. Right now though? It’s a load of bullshit