Psychoanalysys - Was Freud a Narcissist?

creative_nothing wrote:

I've had several myself. They want a position where they have power, where they bend rules and reality itself to THEIR OWN beliefs and needs. I've mentioned several times how psychotherapy is crawling with Cluster Bs. I do believe psychotherapy was made for and by Cluster Bs. However, obviously, it doesn't work for them. Their personalities and behavior are globally bad, but it's physical. More so than Axis 1 illnesses. it's a lot like autism, down syndrome, etc., where the organism already forms all crooked and prone to malfunction.
.....
Go to a psychology class at any university in brazil, you'll see a lot of odd/loser/weird/frustrated people trying to show they're more than they are. It's full of women and gay men, too. I don't think that's cultural. I think "weaker" Cluster Bs are usually women or gay men, due to the excessive female hormones (Cluster Bs are mainly about dysregulated hormones, biologically).

This is one of the criticism of psychoanalysys I dont agree. Psychoanalystys arent necessarily psychologist, they dont have a bachelor degree in psychology. But I think the idea of someone 17 years old choosing this degree is weird. Psychoanalystys and Psychiatrist problably made their choice a little later in life.

A psychoanalyst in theory shouldnt act as a psychologist, his work should be just to facilitate transference, not giving advices. Now psychoanalystys criticizes Jung for creating a psychology. IMO Freud himself also did it!. Pure talk therapy is maybe Carl Rogers PCT, but I dont know much about it.

Besides psychoanalystys dont have "medical privileges". You cant ask for tax refund, they cant diagose you, or give a free work day. I think psychology is too mixed with law. Many things on the anti-psych movement are related to that.

Like if a poor man stills, he is a thief at most psycopath. Now when the rich man stills he hires a shrink to say he is cleptomaniac and therefore not guilty.

But something to realize, Stirner, is that even in developed countries, Freud's ideas are being carried over - directly or not - to the minds of the students. And most psychotehrapists don't really work work with ONE approach, they're make a mess out of everything in their minds.

here in Brazil, most claiming to do something else are doing psychoanalysis (a crappy one, also).

Psychology does a bad job at being precise on what they're doing, why and how. Even university courses tend to be garbled with outdated, conflicting and otherwise assorted learning material.

And most of the times, in practice, psychotherapy will be a bastard child of Freud's model + some of this and that approach, + poorly understood neuroscience (because this person doing psychotherapyi is not always a physician).

Sorry if I deviate from your post and original intentions of discussion, though. I know psychoanalysis isn't regulated like psychotherapy (specially here in Brazil - on other places, they are).
I'm just taking in consideration the reality of psychotherapy and it's students from what i've gathered personally, from books, articles and through people i've met or discussed with over the internet.
"Freudianism" is a part of many psychologists and psychiatrists practice, and often they won't be even aware.

And the "types of people" still seeking these careers are not very much different biologically from Freud. As neurosciences can explain today a little better, people do come in repetitive and somewhat simple patterns. And this particular kind of mistake of nature (Cluster Bs), usually love to venture in this particular kind of mistake of science (psychology).

@dazz,

I don't speak french. No translation available?

^^^^^
Nope, unfortunately.

One must remember, that out of all the hundreds of thousands who created theories in psychology Freud seems to be the most famous, most pushed by universities. For what ever reason, its those who design the curriculum who want us to know about Freud's work, despite so much has happened since then.

Riccola wrote:One must remember, that out of all the hundreds of thousands who created theories in psychology Freud seems to be the most famous, most pushed by universities. For what ever reason, its those who design the curriculum who want us to know about Freud's work, despite so much has happened since then.

Inertia.

People studied Freud got an phD and they teach others Freud ...

Even if people realize now that his theory is flawed, there is a legion of professionals to defend him, or to "fix" his theory instead of discarding it.

Point being, that when universities teach 100 year old theories on psychoanalysis and child development suddenly a science that has long evolved since then begins to look primitive. This makes way for "modern" theories such as the chemical imbalance theories. Teaching the new "modern" theories in chemical imbalance while withholding any recent progress in psychoanalyses gives rise to the perception anything outside of medication management is obsolete. Universities all have a curriculum that is chosen, created, with knowledge hand picked from a huge volume of data. What students get are what those teaching want them to learn. Just in the manner something is taught can alter its meaning entirely, forget snippets of history.

-- Sun Aug 03, 2014 12:05 pm --

creative_nothing wrote:[
Inertia.

People studied Freud got an phD and they teach others Freud ...

Even if people realize now that his theory is flawed, there is a legion of professionals to defend him, or to "fix" his theory instead of discarding it.

Spot on. The sad part is many people only absorb knowledge without creating anything new or questioning what they are being told. Never do they stop to think what if I am being taught is wrong or what someone wants be to believe.


Sorry I forgot to add this in my last post

Riccola wrote:Point being, that when universities teach 100 year old theories on psychoanalysis and child development suddenly a science that has long evolved since then begins to look primitive. This makes way for "modern" theories such as the chemical imbalance theories. Teaching the new "modern" theories in chemical imbalance while withholding any recent progress in psychoanalyses gives rise to the perception anything outside of medication management is obsolete. Universities all have a curriculum that is chosen, created, with knowledge hand picked from a huge volume of data. What students get are what those teaching want them to learn. Just in the manner something is taught can alter its meaning entirely, forget snippets of history.

-- Sun Aug 03, 2014 12:05 pm --

creative_nothing wrote:[
Inertia.

People studied Freud got an phD and they teach others Freud ...

Even if people realize now that his theory is flawed, there is a legion of professionals to defend him, or to "fix" his theory instead of discarding it.

Spot on. The sad part is many people only absorb knowledge without creating anything new or questioning what they are being told. Never do they stop to think what if I am being taught is wrong or what someone wants be to believe.


Sorry I forgot to add this in my last post

yep. It's all just a chance at money and status, for most. A job to push through. Many people get a psychology major either because it's easy or because it's cheaper than sessions, too.

So they learn outdated stuff, push it as a (very well and intensely marketed) product aiming at problem solving and happiness, but that has absolutely no guarantee of functionality (and of a refund). I think most psychology majors are smart enough to realize it doesn't work, so they just keep doing theatrics for money or flat out renting their time to be pretend friends.

twistednerve wrote:So they learn outdated stuff, push it as a (very well and intensely marketed) product aiming at problem solving and happiness, but that has absolutely no guarantee of functionality (and of a refund). I think most psychology majors are smart enough to realize it doesn't work, so they just keep doing theatrics for money or flat out renting their time to be pretend friends.

My last shrink, seemed to be insecure wether psychotherapy works. Even without questioning her, she from time to time started to tell why therapy is good.

But I think this insecurity will be a conflict, few would be "sincere quackers"

[u]

Point being, that when universities teach 100 year old theories on psychoanalysis and child development suddenly a science that has long evolved since then begins to look primitive. This makes way for "modern" theories such as the chemical imbalance theories. Teaching the new "modern" theories in chemical imbalance while withholding any recent progress in psychoanalyses gives rise to the perception anything outside of medication management is obsolete. Universities all have a curriculum that is chosen, created, with knowledge hand picked from a huge volume of data. What students get are what those teaching want them to learn. Just in the manner something is taught can alter its meaning entirely, forget snippets of history. ]

I think poor psychotherapy is the major problem at modern psychiatry. I mean you will have an X number of patients and a Y number of good therapists. If Y is not enough to help X, many of those patients will end up either with drug therapy only, or drug therapy + poor psychotherapy.

And about poor psychotherapy, I think it has more to do with the therapist than with the science. Most therapist will work like 40 clients a week, this alone is a huge challenge.

creative_nothing wrote:

twistednerve wrote:So they learn outdated stuff, push it as a (very well and intensely marketed) product aiming at problem solving and happiness, but that has absolutely no guarantee of functionality (and of a refund). I think most psychology majors are smart enough to realize it doesn't work, so they just keep doing theatrics for money or flat out renting their time to be pretend friends.

My last shrink, seemed to be insecure wether psychotherapy works. Even without questioning her, she from time to time started to tell why therapy is good.

But I think this insecurity will be a conflict, few would be "sincere quackers"

[u]

Point being, that when universities teach 100 year old theories on psychoanalysis and child development suddenly a science that has long evolved since then begins to look primitive. This makes way for "modern" theories such as the chemical imbalance theories. Teaching the new "modern" theories in chemical imbalance while withholding any recent progress in psychoanalyses gives rise to the perception anything outside of medication management is obsolete. Universities all have a curriculum that is chosen, created, with knowledge hand picked from a huge volume of data. What students get are what those teaching want them to learn. Just in the manner something is taught can alter its meaning entirely, forget snippets of history. ]

I think poor psychotherapy is the major problem at modern psychiatry. I mean you will have an X number of patients and a Y number of good therapists. If Y is not enough to help X, many of those patients will end up either with drug therapy only, or drug therapy + poor psychotherapy.

And about poor psychotherapy, I think it has more to do with the therapist than with the science. Most therapist will work like 40 clients a week, this alone is a huge challenge.

The science directed towards psychotherapy is very flawed. Psychotherapy is a guess game, and most of the times plain unhealthy.

People keep getting pressure/demanded to do stuff regardless of how beneficial it can be, as that is unknown most of the time. Or in other kinds of therapy, even the "venting" can do harm, as they can just keep recycling bad emotions and feelings. Or clinging to this sort of relationship to get things done.

I don't see anything that truly justifies psychotherapy being a profession, specially one with such a broad scope of action. Psychotherapists don't do anything for their clients they couldn't do by themselves.

Venting is something you can do anywhere, with anyone almost, nowadays. Easy to make friends, and easy to access the internet.

Psychology is something you can study by yourself for free, too. So the advice/teaching part is pretty much useless, unless you want to pay for a teacher in a subject that only requires reading/memorizing information.

I really don't get the existence of therapists, and the reason people keep going to them - aside from the marketing of the idea psychotherapy IS THE GO TO thing for emotional issues, when it's not proven it in fact works.

Psychotherapy is no better a science than acupuncture. And that is also being proved to be theatrics with a placebo effect (when it works), just like psychotherapy.

Ignorance, sincere belief in the pratice and greed marketed it towards anyone - which shouldnt happen, as there is not evidence enough behind psychotherapy to claim it works well enough to be "sold as product to any willing client". This is 2014, and yet we let people sell belief and placebo - snake oil -, as a profession claiming to be based on a scientists.

I think psychotherapy started as a (somewhat) well meaning way of dealing with personality disorders, specially Cluster B disorders. These people in fact get triggered by social interactions. Then it erroneously expanded even to Axis 1 disorders. To this day, you can still see therapy claiming to be able to treat depression and anxiety (they're getting more and more honest about what they can claim to treat, and that is reducing the scope of illnesses). That is frankly impossible, if it's truly physical depression or anxiety. PDs, depression, anxiety, bipolar - are all physical. Everything is physical, in fact. And talking about it does not improve mental illness AT ALL.

So therapy is NOT:

1) something that does treat mental illness;

2) guaranteed effective advice regarding any aspects of your life;

3) able to make you feel better by just going there. In fact, the opposite happens. Therapy can make you feel worse more often than the statistics show. Most disapointed clients are silent or not paying for studies to be done about it.

4) a person who is really empathetic or caring. He's just putting on a show. A therapist is as much as a real acquaintance or friend as a prostitute is your girlfriend.

5) based on evidence, proved by studies using the scientific methods without huge holes in the variables used. Pay close attention to psychology studies - many times they'll use constructs and beliefs instead of actual data, TO GENERATE DATA. This has a name, people. it's called fraud (no pun intended).

Lacan was a completely fraudulent narcissist, too. His sheer inconsistency proves it.

So, even well meaning or not, most therapists and psychologists tend to be narcissistic, troubled, self-driven, self-obsessed and projectors of their own issues and wishes - not scientists. Everything in psychology is terrible distorted by the minds of their own creators. Something tough to do with a chemical compound.

God Bless big pharma for saving the mentally ill from psychiatrists and psychologists.

Hmmmm...kind of both though or not? Neither one over the other as both are more or less still a form of witch doctoring to some degree.

I am not a big fan of the chemicals unless absolutely necessary and as a last resort. That's my preference though. But we are not all the same and each case is different.