Ask MetaFilter posts tagged with freud

What's the current state of thought regarding symbolism within psychological analysis?

humblepigeon — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:09:50 -0800

What's the current state of thought regarding symbolism within psychological analysis (ie Freud and Jung)? I have only a slight knowledge of psychology, but I understand that both Freud and Jung have been widely discredited. Has there been any advances in symbolistic psychology since Freud and Jung's time? Is it still considered a valid tool with which to analyse the human mind and, in a wider context, the workings of the world? As you might be able to guess, I'm approaching this from the angle of critical theory but it all comes from a psychological root that was once highly regarded and I'm interested in understanding the validity or otherwise of it nowadays.

Freud and Jung Book Recommendations

majikstreet — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:20:26 -0800

I'd like to start reading Freud and Jung. Any recommendations for books? I'm already considering "How to read Freud," "How to read Jung," "Two Essays on Analytical Psychology," and "Memories, Dreams, Reflections." I know that the hive mind must have some other suggestions (and something more for Freud). Thanks!

Serial killers serve X purpose in society...solve for X.

sarahkeebs — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:58:50 -0800

I am 96% sure that I have read/heard from a reputable source that murderers, especially serial killers, are an inherent reflection of Western society, and that both actual murderers and fictional portrayals are important significant elements. Part A: Is this just a half-remembered bit of dialogue from some prime-time criminal procedural, and Part B: if not, where is it from? In undergrad I took a lot of survey Psychology, Philosophy, and History of Western Thought courses, and suddenly I realize that I don't remember who said what.

The basic idea I have is that exposure to criminals (real and fictional)do by proxy what law abiding people wish they could but don't allows us to surpress those urges. Places I have looked but not exhausted yet:
- Foucault (power)
- Durkheim (deviance)
- Aristotle (catharsis)
- Freud (id/ego/superego)

Are any of those right, and if so, which of their works should I be looking at closely?

And if I'm totally off track, who should I be looking at?

Why is psychoanlaysis still around?

decoherence — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 19:22:57 -0800

Freud and his followers have been thoroughly discredited for quite a while now. Our scientific understanding of the brain has grown by leaps and bounds since their heyday, and we now have treatment methods that are cheaper, quicker, and more effective than anything psychoanalysis had to offer. So why is psychoanalysis still practiced? Paraphrasing Peter Watson, when all is said and done, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Freud, et al. simply "made everything up." So why are there still practicing psychoanalysts, many of whom hold academic positions on the medical faculties at places like Columbia and Yale? Why are there still psychoanalytic training institutes? And above all, why do people continue to subject themselves to psychoanalysis, in light of the fact that it's expensive, time-consuming, and ineffective?

I'm just curious how this pseudo-science has managed to stick around for so long when everything I know about it seems to indicate that it should be about as commonly practiced as alchemy these days. I realize that it's not exactly thriving, but I find its continuing presence in the major cities, among the intelligentsia, and it's refusal to completely disappear from psychiatry a bit strange.

Can anyone who knows more about it and the present state of psychiatry and psychology help me out here?

Where and how did Freud discuss "reaction formation"

creasy boy — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:50:48 -0800

FREUDIANS: the concept "reaction formation" -- which book does it come from and/or what was it called in German? I'm writing a paper in German and want to use "reaction formation" as an analogy but I don't know what this is called in German. If I at least knew what book it comes from I could look it up myself. "Reaktionbildung" has almost zero Google hits.

Why do any therapists trust The Interpretation of Dreams?

Malad — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:00:57 -0800

I'm reading Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams, and the jumps he makes in interpreting dreams -- from a dream image to someone's long-ago memory to some quote to another quote to a childhood wet-nurse -- strike me as absolutely ludicrous. How and why do any therapists put any faith in this method of interpretation (I know many don't)?

No such thing as a joke?

hokie409 — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:44:57 -0800

Freud once said there's no such thing as a joke? I'm interested in the theory that there is no such thing as a joke. Actually, I think I just want a really witty response when someone tries to mask hostility by calling it a "joke".

A quick web search about Freud's book "Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious" said he "theorized that jokes have only two purposes: aggression and exposure. The first purpose (which includes satire and defense) is fulfilled through the hostile joke, and the second through the dirty joke."

Dirty jokes are obviously awesome. But I'm interested to hear if anyone has any interesting articles, thoughts, or responses to hostile jokes.

Social Manipulation and the Unconscious

ifranzen — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:41:17 -0800

Is there any way to manipulate the unconscious on a micro scale? I have read about Edward Bernays and psychological manipulation in advertising and government, but what about social manipulation on a micro-scale? Is it possible for a single person to manipulate the subconscious of another person? How? Any suggested reading would be most appreciated.

Why do some victims become perpetrators?

ori — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:54:59 -0800

What are the various theoretical frameworks for understanding why victims of abuse often 'deal' with their trauma by becoming perpetrators themselves? What explanations have been suggested, for example, as to why sexually molested children often grow up into sexually-molesting adults? The one that comes to mind is that the victim somehow feels he can master the trauma by becoming its perpetrator. What, or who, is the origin of this theory? Is it Freud? Does it (still) have any currency in professional circles? What, if any, other theories have been suggested?

Sometimes a quote is just a quote

.kobayashi. — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:50:35 -0800

The phrase "Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe" is always attributed to Freud, but is so hackneyed by now -- so well-known -- that it always seems to be cited without any hint of a reference to its original context, which makes me wonder if it is apocryphal. Did Freud really write/say this? If so, where? If not, where does its origins lie? Does anyone know? And if you found the answer quickly via google, could you please let me know what you searched for, because I'm coming up empty. Thanks, MetaFilter!