Psychoanalysts

[Anonymous No.15498390]

Reading through Freud and one thing has struck me. None of these motherfuckers have any proof of their claims. Every branch of psychoanalysis (Jungian, Freudian, Lacanian) is completely unfalsifiable. This has unnerved me as I now realize the entire field of therapy is complete bullshit. Is the unconscious mind even real? Is there even proof of that?

[Anonymous No.15498398]

is the unconscious mind even real? are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.15498400]

>>15498390
You have hidden desires that you are not conscious of

[Anonymous No.15498404]

>>15498398
Burden of proof is on you, retard. Freud didn't have any empirical proof he just made it up. No science proves it exists.

[Anonymous No.15498409]

>he wants falsifiable truth
You're missing the point

[Anonymous No.15498484]

>>15498390
cognitive behavioral therapy does have measurable benefits

[Anonymous No.15498491]

consciousness is unfalsfiable

[Anonymous No.15498496]

[Anonymous No.15498498]

>>15498390

>Being this much of bugman

How do I know you're real? How do I know I'm no the only thinking living person and the rest of you are just projections of my mind? I don't, but I'm not so autistic as to actually believe that.
Some things are just obvious. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15498513]

>>15498390
if we claimed that everything that was unfalsifiable was incorrect, our understanding of the world would be completely shattered. Falsifiability only comes after we accept certain things to be true.

[Anonymous No.15498514]

>>15498498
That's an idiotic point. Solipsism can be refuted philosophically. Skepticism in its entirety has been refuted.

[Anonymous No.15498529]

>>15498514
how has skepticism been refuted?

[Anonymous No.15498531]

>>15498529
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[Anonymous No.15498532]

So you are just completely conscious of every single action you take?

[Anonymous No.15498535]

>>15498390
I don't think you're actually reading Freud. If you were, you probably wouldn't be asking this.

Obviously the unconscious exists. The plain fact that you have memories you forget one day and remember the next demonstrates its existence.

[Anonymous No.15498536]

>>15498531
that's an objection, not a refutation, not even close

[Anonymous No.15498543]

>>15498514

>Solipsism can be refuted philosophically.

No it can't. Not if I put my fingers in my ears and scream la la la I don't accept any truths which is basically what you're doing in regards to the unconscious.

[Anonymous No.15498547]

>>15498535
These are all material processes. Science has proved this (unless you deny science and believe in silly things like a god). Consciousness is matter. There is no "me" recalling previous memories, it's simply a bout of particles moving back and forth.

>>15498543
Your denial of the proof isn't an objection to science.

[Anonymous No.15498601]

>>15498390
A set scientific method cannot progress past certain paradigms, epistemes, and underlying assumptions which lay beyond science. Psychoanalysis is a system that lay outside of science, not because it is untrue or inferior, but because it is categorically different on an epistemic level. It's like judging philosophy from the standpoint of chemistry.

[Anonymous No.15498649]

>>15498547
contents of consciousness are material processes but that doesn't mean you have to be limited to the chemical/electrical layer of abstraction when you talk abut psychology. CBT layer of abstraction for instance, is much more actionable

[Anonymous No.15498657]

>>15498390
Does anyone have a psychoanalysis chart?

[Anonymous No.15498667]

>>15498390
You'll love to know that, despite the fact that psychoanalysis is apparently unfalsifiable and no one proved anything, psychoanalysis is the only field of psychology that doesn't suffer from an outrageously reproducibility crisis.

[Anonymous No.15498668]

>>15498390
The unconscious mind is real though not in the general psychoanalytical sense. Look up priming experiments in psychology.

[Anonymous No.15498684]

>be high school pseud
>interested in jungian psychology
>go to uni to study scientific psychology
>now am science fag
Feels good man.

[Anonymous No.15498893]

>>15498601

[Anonymous No.15499274]

freud was full of shit

[Anonymous No.15499288]

freud was a genius

[Anonymous No.15499289]

>>15498390
It's all nonsense. My therapist in high school tried to suggest that I had ASPD because I didn't want to sit around and watch Dr Phil and Wheel of Fortune with my grandparents.

[Anonymous No.15499296]

>>15498390
Well it is completely and utterly overran by jews so that should've been your first clue.

[Anonymous No.15499303]

>>15498390
it's cope for the elite to sit around and read their bullshit psychology journals while over prescribing and falsely diagnosing society so they can feed them "research chemicals" like labrats.

[Anonymous No.15499313]

freud was eminently based

[Anonymous No.15499314]

>>15498390
>None of these motherfuckers have any proof of their claims
Modern psychology as a field is largely reactionary to this fucking crushing revelation. That said, it's just as hard to disprove Freud as it is to prove him. The current paradigm still, from time to time, uses the "insight psychologists" like Freud as springboards for more attemptively scientific studies but we need something more these days. Where philosophy used to be the basis of psychology, mathematical models have replaced it. Math is ultimately a superior way to model the world around us anyway, as it's much closer to reality than philosophy is.
Philosophy:
>Reality -> human language -> concepts -> application
Mathematics:
>Reality -> math -> application
Math takes more work to have confidence in how well it reflects the slice of reality you're trying to model, but once you've got your model, you can work with the numbers, which can be proven to have been drawn from reality. Crucially, it's also its own self contained system and sidesteps solipsism entirely.

[Anonymous No.15499797]

>>15499289
You know they get a bonus each time they prescribe those ssri 's

[Anonymous No.15499809]

>>15499797
Most therapists are psychologists and thus can't legally prescribe medication. Psychiatrists more often than not don't do therapy themselves.

[Anonymous No.15499816]

>>15498390
>None of these motherfuckers have any proof of their claims.
I cannot believe it took you that long.

[Anonymous No.15499825]

Freud, Sigmund. A figure of fun. Loathe him. Vile deceit. Freudian interpretation of dreams is charlatanic, and satanic, nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15499849]

>>15498390
>Every branch of psychoanalysis (Jungian, Freudian, Lacanian) is completely unfalsifiable.

DUH! You know what else is unfalsifiable? Evolutionary "theory", utilitaritarianism, communism, hegelianism...basically every atheistic-left wing humanist creation is a catch 22.

"theory of natural selection is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program"

Popper.

[Anonymous No.15499851]

>>15498390
Read Kant before making retarded threads like these

[Anonymous No.15499854]

>>15498601
>Psychoanalysis is a system that lay outside of science

Regardless how you categorize it, its mostly trash that hasnt produced much development in understanding.

[Anonymous No.15499872]

>>15498390
I doubt that you really read anything in-depth. The "entire field of therapy" isn't based on psychoanalysis. In fact, except maybe in France and South America, the most prevalent forms of psychotherapy are not based on psychoanalysis at all. There is unequivocal proof that psychotherapy in general works, at least as good as medication even, but without the side effects. There is considerable debate as to what form of psychotherapy is the most effective. As of now, it looks like pretty much all elaborate systems of psychotherapy, including psychoanalytic therapy, work about equally well, although some studies claim to show the superiority of CBT. Likewise, for certain disorders, particularly phobias, classic behavior therapy seems to be the most effective. Why psychotherapy works, however, remains unclear as of now. It might be due to factors common to all types of psychotherapy, i.e. the therapeutic alliance, dealing with your problems in a systematic manner, having "explanations" for why you feel and behave in a certain way. Or it might be due to factors specific to certain types of therapy, i.e. free association, cognitive modification. It's pretty hard to test that.
Next, to claim that psychoanalysis is based on nothing is wrong. It's based on clinical experience obtained by treating thousands of patients. However, Adolf Grünbaum has shown why this is inadequate to unequivocally prove psychoanalytic theory (read The Foundations of Psychoanalysis for elaboration). Instead, evidence for psychoanalysis would have to be based on studies. There have been a lot of such studies, many of them trash, some of them good, with mixed results so far. Also, people in this tread need to learn the difference between the cognitive and the dynamic unconscious. Stuff like priming etc. (which is mostly bullshit anyway) is not proof of the unconscious in the Freudian sense.

If you're really interested in this topic, I would recommend you to read the mentioned book by Grünbaum or this paper by Paul Meehl: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bd29/24ad76adacb3e50273cc471b3931942df0c6.pdf

[Anonymous No.15499889]

>>15498404
Thats more so a critique of your system of proving things

[Anonymous No.15499898]

>>15499849
Evolution has been observed, through selective breeding and such things.

[Anonymous No.15499907]

>>15499898
>Evolution has been observed, through selective breeding and such things.

what has been observes is natural selection which isnt sufficient proof for 5 billion years of cross species evolution, obviously.

[Anonymous No.15499917]

>>15498390

Some of it is empirically verifiable - importance of early childhood on development, rational/emotional mind as a false dichotomy. Sure, both Freud and his descendants over generalized from specific examples quite frequently. I would read The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker if you want to gain an appreciation for the nuggets of truth within the psychoanalytic perspective.

[Anonymous No.15499935]

>>15498390
Jung's claims are entirely valid when observing archetypes you fucking mong.

[Anonymous No.15499944]

>None of these motherfuckers have any proof of their claims

[Anonymous No.15499949]

>>15499935
>archetypes
Complete and utter esoteric bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15499952]

>>15498390
>Every branch of psychoanalysis (Jungian, Freudian, Lacanian) is completely unfalsifiable.
Why is unfalsifiability bad?

[Anonymous No.15499985]

>>15498390
Lacan is just a pseud.

[Anonymous No.15499996]

>>15499949
People honestly still think calling archetypes esoteric bullshit devalues their purpose. Neck Yourself

[Anonymous No.15500028]

>>15499996
""""purpose""""

[Anonymous No.15500046]

>>15500028
?

[Anonymous No.15500076]

>>15499949
esoteric bullshit that repeatedly shows up cross-culturally regardless of time and medium. Yeah, totally bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15500089]

>>15498390
>what is cbt
>what is Neuropsychology
>who is Bowlby

[Anonymous No.15500120]

>>15498547
>composition and division fallacy

[Anonymous No.15500141]

>>15498390
Sounds like you’re repressing deep trauma anon, seek analysis.

[Anonymous No.15500157]

>>15499854
A shitload of marketing is based on psychoanalysis

[Anonymous No.15500202]

ITT mystic pseuds defend garbage pseudoscience and attack real science with vague platitudes.

[Anonymous No.15500310]

>>15498529
To doubt, you already presuppose certainty

[Anonymous No.15500384]

>>15498390
ANON I HAVE TO SAY YOU SOMETHING...

You´re completely right and you better dont listen to anything Petersons wannabe sons are gonna tell you.
We´re proud of you discovered psychonanalysis for the unredemebable trash it is

[Anonymous No.15500412]

NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN INCLUDING THIS STATEMENT
NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.15500458]

>>15499849
low-level bait

[Anonymous No.15500476]

>>15499907
>implying the mechanisms back then were not the same
>not understanding DNA
>implying the universal gravitation theory 5 billion years ago isn't relvant today, so prolly rocks didn't fall down

[Anonymous No.15500520]

>>15498390
honest question
do people who disregard psychoanalysis (such as Jung) also disregard philosophers who arent going for a pure A then B then C?
im just a dimwit, but how is Nietzsche's philosophy any different? it's just his way of viewing things. where's the empirical proof that Sisyphus is happy?

[Anonymous No.15500564]

>>15498390
psychology as "sad people is sick" its an error. unfalsifiable or not. there is an element of pure philosophy in human medical psychology. and always will.
they are modern social shamans with science manners.

[Anonymous No.15500625]

>>15500520
psychoanalysis is getting more obsolete is current years. it's all about meds and neuroscience now.

[Anonymous No.15500640]

>>15499849
is this a virgin vs chad meme

[Anonymous No.15500682]

Fraud and Jung are not to be trusted.
The former so cunning at hiding the intellectual roots of his so called creation, physcoanalysis, he feared the former was going to steal it from under him so much so that when Jung confused his incestuous relationship with his sister in law to Fraud, he played the moral superior absolving Jung whilst unbeknownst to him Jung knew that he had done the very same selfish disgusting act.
That is what physcoanalysis is, the manipulation of catholic confession which aims to elevate the individual and move past his vices and struggles.
Fraud took the manipulated form from the first illuminists who used a version of confession to spy on the initiates and as blackmail but most crucially, where fraud was genius, also use the vices and passions to manipulate the initiate or target (or in frauds case patient) for financial political gain etc. You might say, my therapist does not do that? No but they allow you to frame whatever is troubling you in a way to make it seem normal and appease your pain and suffering for your hatred of your actions and life that you live. By doing this they let it take a grip of you in the long run. You are not sorting yourself out. You feel less bad about the shit show you are living in and are less likely to get angry at those who are fucking you over.

[Anonymous No.15500704]

>>15498498
>Some things are just obvious.
Nothing is obvious, you dumb niggerchink

[Anonymous No.15500709]

>>15498535
>Obviously the unconscious
It's not obvious at all.

[Anonymous No.15500722]

>>15500520
Academic philosophers consider Nietzsche to be an aphorist, poet, and social critic, but not a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.15500747]

>>15500722
and a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.15500814]

>>15500458
>>15500476
>>15500640
daily reminder that evolutionary "vestigialiarity" is a catch 22 meme as well. Also, you can differentiate between a bodily "defect" and evolutionary mutation which proves the whole theory is just semantic nonsense.

THERE ARE NO REDUNDANT HUMAN BODY PARTS!!!!!

>The lowly appendix, long-regarded as a useless evolutionary artifact, won newfound respect two years ago when researchers proposed that it actually serves a critical function. The appendix, they said, is a safe haven where good bacteria could hang out until they were needed to repopulate the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea, for example.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820175901.htm

[Anonymous No.15500820]

>>15500814
>Also, you can differentiate between a bodily "defect" and evolutionary mutation

*cant

[Anonymous No.15500833]

I want to start with Jung and Evola, do you guys have a recommended readings list and reading order?

[Anonymous No.15500843]

>>15500833
Read Red Book as a last entry of Jung.

[Anonymous No.15500845]

>>15500640
the virgin man vs the chad abomination

[Anonymous No.15500928]

>>15498390
Bruh its fun to read STFU

[Anonymous No.15500972]

>>15500833
The Epic of Gilgamesh
That's literally the only book you need. Everything else are just corrupted versions of it

[Anonymous No.15501025]

>>15499872
Only informed post itt

[Anonymous No.15501221]

>>15500520
>philosophers who arent going for a pure A then B then C

These are inferior to philosophers who actually attempt to justify their point of view, yes. However there are significantly different standards that one should apply to clear-cut humanitarian gesticulating and to something that is being presented as medical fact.

[Anonymous No.15501259]

My dear Bennet, 22 May 1960
Thank you very much for your kind review of my Aion.
There is only one remark I do not quite understand.
Speaking of the hypothesis of archetypes, you say that there is no scientific proof of them yet.
A scientific hypothesis is never proved absolutely in so far as an improvement is always possible.
The only proof is its applicability.
You yourself attest that the idea of the archetype explains more than any other theory, which proves its applicability.
I wonder therefore which better proof you are envisaging.
When you assume the existence of an instinct of migration you can’t do better than to apply it f.i. to birds and demonstrate that there are actually birds which migrate.
The archetype points out that there are thought-formations of a parallel or identical nature distributed all over the world (f.i., holy communion in Europe and Teoqualo in ancient Mexico), and furthermore that they can be found in individuals who have never heard of such parallels.
I have given ample evidence of such parallels and therewith have given evidence of the applicability of my viewpoint.
Somebody has to prove now that my idea is not applicable and to show which other viewpoint is more applicable. I wonder now, how you would proceed in providing evidence for the existence of archetypes other than their applicability?
What is better proof of a hypothesis than its applicability?
Or can you show that the idea of “archetype” is a nonsense in itself?
Please enlighten my darkness.
Yours cordially,
C.G. Jung

[Anonymous No.15501301]

>>15501259
the smugness of his

[Anonymous No.15501366]

I got the exact opposite reading Freud . He always talks about further research and that his claims are hypothetical. I expected the unfalsifiable meme to be true

[Anonymous No.15501380]

>>15498390
congratulations OP
this is the first step towards total annihilation

[Anonymous No.15501601]

Why are bugmen so afraid of Psychoanalysis lmao?
They always attack it like rabid dogs

[Anonymous No.15501660]

>>15498390
>None of these motherfuckers have any proof of their claims.
There's not supposed to be any proof.
I know Freud claimed otherwise, but realistically, you cannot expect his claims to be provable. Yet, we live our lives with information that is improvable, which only makes sense consider we have to live somehow.

>This has unnerved me as I now realize the entire field of therapy is complete bullshit.
No, therapy is about subjective experience. If you have a therapeutic experience from psychoanalysis and it helps you, it doesn't matter if it's bullshit to another million people.

>Is the unconscious mind even real?
Yes, but considering you're looking from proof, it'd be a waste of energy for me to even try and explain it. You've read Freud.

>>15498668
>The unconscious mind is real though not in the general psychoanalytical sense.
Why not?

>Look up priming experiments in psychology.
These and hypnosis are pretty interesting.
For example the one, in which the hypnotist suggest the person to open a window before they fall asleep and they do it when they wake up without consciously knowing why.

>>15500625
It's not obsolete. It's just in a different category.
I'd argue that psychoanalysis is in big part about writing lots of texts, out of which, some will capture human condition so well it will give us that inside.
The literature alone is interesting enough and CBT cannot produce that. Psychoanalysis is not a replacement for psychiatry..

[Anonymous No.15501672]

>>15500157
Nearly all of it. The fact that it works so well is evidence enough.

[Anonymous No.15501694]

>>15501601
because they're stemtards

[Anonymous No.15501701]

>>15501301
smug yet unrefuted

[Anonymous No.15501845]

>>15500625
Psychoanalytic theory is actually so engraved into metapsychology that, pretty much, every clinical psychologist utilises some form of understanding of the human psyche based on psychoanalysis. People tend to think psychoanalysis is getting obsolete based on the current institutional trend of CBT, but even then, private and public clinical work uses some theory rooted or derived from psychoanalysis. Medication and neuroscience is, in my opinion, over-utilized by the public system in order to streamline the process of therapy which is, in a way, missing the point of psychotherapy. Although i could hardly find a clinical psychologist who thinks meds and neuroscience will replace clinical work.

[Anonymous No.15502432]

If /lit/ was based someone would of brought up Wilhelm Reich by now

[Anonymous No.15502448]

>>15498390
>>15496818
>>15496850
>>15496860
>>15496937
>>15496961
>>15497451
>>15497460

Everyone go read Wilhelm Reich or another Psycolologists that links psyche problems with the body and understand that trauma and repressed emotions are stored in the body and cause "mental-illness"
Only then can this board ever progress into real healing and leave the nonsense about wanting to bang your momma or wonder of why you dream about waterfalls or even why you are gay
So start with "character analysis" by Reich and understand what "character armor"
Maybe then you can graduate and put some thought into the sexually repressed world you live in and you will finally begin to make sense of why mental illness is so prevelant

TL;DR
Google "wilhelm reich character armor"

And then come talk to me about psychologoly you fags

[Anonymous No.15502462]

>>15498390
The basis of psychoanalytic claims is psychoanalytic clinical work.
>>15502448
>>15502432
Wilhelm Reich is a complete fraud, delusional schizo, and literal criminal. Character armor has some merit in the analytic literature but his work in general is worthless.

[Anonymous No.15502480]

>>15498484
CBT literally stem from a mistake in reading psychoanalysis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5623885/

All 'teset' theraphy tests to have measurable benefits. Guess why.

[Anonymous No.15502483]

>>15498390
the only thing these pseuds got right is i do indeed want to fuck my mom

[Anonymous No.15502508]

>>15502462
>t. orgonically impotent little man

[Anonymous No.15502766]

>None of these motherfuckers have any proof of their claims.

Proof of your claim that "the entire field of therapy" is based on psychoanalysis (of which you've referred to three distinct schools of thought)?

[Anonymous No.15503148]

>>15501660
The unconscious is more like an automatic mental functioning than in things like the oedipus complex. Things we do smoothly without hard thinking, like driving and walking. Priming shows that things influence behavior unconsciously, for example one experiment shows that holding a cup of warm coffee rather than a cold one would cause you to like your conversation partner better. Honestly, one of the things I believe from Freud is projection, and that could be explained as availability heuristic.

[Anonymous No.15503150]

>>15498390
IIRC, the unconscious is the pool of information your mind retains. The subconscious is something that processes that information and forms associations between them.
With this then, I'd like to report that not only do you have an unconscious, you also have a subconscious and you can talk to your subconscious.

Mr. Robert Waggoner reveals in this book that through lucid dreaming, one is actually able to communicate with their own subconscious. Whilst being in a lucid dream, merely shout out openly, as if talking to the dream itself "Hey Dream, show me something funny" and you will be shown something funny. You don't have to shout, just intend to talk to the dream itself. One woman said "Hey dream, show me what unconditional love feels like" and, according to Mr. Waggoner, the experience was so profound, she woke up in tears.

I would like to personally vouch for Mr. Waggoner as I too have applied his technique of talking, whilst in a dream, and directing my speech such that it is as though I were directing it towards the dream itself and I wish to say that I have indeed attained results doing this. I asked to be shown something interesting and I received it. Whilst watching a hockey match be played, I asked to be shown tactical information and for it to be overlayed over the players (as though my eyes had some kind of Augmented Reality Vision capability) and indeed, I gained that too. Unfortunately, it's not easy for me to get into a lucid dream so I stopped trying but nonetheless, I've had enough success to confirm its legitimacy.

If you wish to listen to a lecture by him on this topic, this is the one I recommend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVRbP9EI7L0
Supposedly, one can even heal wounds by simply healing them whilst in a dream. It's a bit unusual to me that this book seemingly gets no discussion so I thought to share my awareness of its existence with you all.

[Anonymous No.15503218]

>>15503150
Thanks anon. I've always been interested in a ways to talk with subconsciousness. However when it comes to lucid dreaming, i cant just get past sleep paralysis.

[Anonymous No.15503270]

>>15503150
I can somewhat attest to this, I usually talk to my "unconscious" or whatever it is I am talking to as I tend to lucid dream frequently. I ask questions about God and such, usually the dream character who I talk to ends up bugging out, they can't answer my questions, which I expect. But I didn't think I could just ask to feel things, like you mentioning the woman who asked to feel unconditional love, I'll do something like that next time. Thanks for this anon.

[Anonymous No.15503282]

>>15503270
you sound like a schizo anon :)

[Anonymous No.15503288]

>>15503282
and?

[Anonymous No.15503317]

>If something is not falsifiable, then it is meaningless
Is this statement falsifiable?

[Anonymous No.15503360]

>>15503148
>Honestly, one of the things I believe from Freud is projection, and that could be explained as availability heuristic.
Interesting that you brought this up, just yesterday I read an article that attempted to explain projection in cognitive, instead of psychodynamic, terms, see pic related.

[Anonymous No.15503395]

>>15503360
Damn that's interesting, source? Would love to read on this

[S_G !1QMBwfhvhU No.15504456]

>>15498547
It doesn't matter if you consider it a material process or not. When you are aware of a memory, it is conscious. When you have forgotten it, it is unconscious.

>>15500709
Read Freud and then come back. If you are aware of what exactly "unconscious" means, you will see how fundamentally it is a part of the modern conversation.

[Anonymous No.15504460]

>>15503317
MEGA based

[Anonymous No.15504480]

>>15499872
This

No psychologist uses freud, lacan, or jung. If they do is is a watered down version. Early psychology stems from philosophy. Hence why you fags love em.
Carl rogers is the bread and butter of all therapy IMO.

Also look up the dodo bird effect.

[Anonymous No.15504485]

>>15498535
>Obviously the unconscious exists. The plain fact that you have memories you forget one day and remember the next demonstrates its existence.
That doesn't mean the unconscious exists in the way Freud imagined it to.

[S_G !1QMBwfhvhU No.15504496]

>>15504485
OP asked "Is the unconscious mind even real?"-- Not referring to any specific psychoanalyst's system.

[Anonymous No.15505357]

>>15498390
>the entire field of therapy is complete bullshit

As in it doesn't do anything? Because it definitely does.

As far as the rest, you're right. Their theories were unfalsifiable, like most philosophers. If you want hard science in psychotherapy, behaviorism's your boy. But you'll call it soulless, so it's a lose/lose.

[Anonymous No.15505410]

>>15502480
Tl;dr the author wants a magical daddy therapist with special powers to tell him his secret answers rather than hear, by someone who refuses to control him, that he's responsible for his own unhappiness

[Anonymous No.15505522]

>>15498390
The idea of unconscious mind isn't even Freudian, the first publication on the topic was by Francis Galton(given his body of work that he dabbled with it is no surprise) that described it was published in 1868 in "Brain" to which Freud subscribed.

I'd suggest Eyenck "Decline and Fall of Freudian Empire" if you're looking for general struggles of psychoanalytic school with reality, but the short story is - some of the claims are falsifiable and if these were claims new to psychoanalytics then the chances are they were actually false. It's not in the book but take Eysenck own research on personality - that unlike the modern standard big five was more focused on general factor of personality, but that's a topic for another day - all the personality models we use today clearly show that human personality is more or less strung between several different axis between various extreme behaviours and the best jungians can do is to loosely fit the archetypes in this framework, which would however go against some details of Jung's ideas on how the archetypes are actually supposed to work. Now the reason why the modern personality models work can be shown from the fact that the remaining jungians have drastically increased the number of archetypes they profess exist after the research on psychometrics of personality started coming out, because now it could be very easily pointed out that the vast majority of people in the world didn't fit into either one of them.

The therapy itself sort of works, but the problem is that it's marginally better than talking to a priest about your problems, so if it works it's only because analytics are taught to behave in certain understanding manner. CBT just mogs it when it comes to efficiency.

[Anonymous No.15505581]

>>15499872
yup its all bullshit. they all work just a bit better than a placebo. exactly what you would predict from having a reasonably charismatic person sit down and cope with you for a few hours a week.

[Anonymous No.15505605]

>>15499872
>priming
The modern works on priming were all fraudulent.

[Anonymous No.15505610]

>>15498390
Yeah, Freud just projected his own incestuous desires onto the entire world through his "bringing the plague" to the West (as he put it), like the way Ted Kaczynsky projected his hatred of well adjusted people into his dog-rape activities.

[Anonymous No.15505616]

>>15498390
This book will help you understand Freud and his ilk...

[Anonymous No.15505727]

The major 'problem' with psychoanalysts is that they are only capable of observing 'patients'. They take what they say as face value or rather try to compare more of said 'mentally ill' people. Observation leads only so far.

As a paranoid schizoid diagnoised guy I can tell you that they got fairly close, to what's true and what isn't. In german Freuds thesis: Das Ich, Es und über-Ich. Jungs: Ich, Du, Selbst

They couldn't really fathom a deeper meaning behind this but divide one's soul in parts for a better comprehension.

Welp, one has to find his own answers. Mine wouldn't really be 'objective'.

But like in every science, your answers can be found in nature.

[Anonymous No.15505904]

>>15500520
>>do people who disregard psychoanalysis (such as Jung) also disregard philosophers who arent going for a pure A then B then C?
Yes
>>15500520
>how is Nietzsche's philosophy any different?
It's not.

[Anonymous No.15506088]

>>15505522
>when it comes to efficiency.
only when it comes to treating generalised anxiety and depression disorders.

[Anonymous No.15506105]

>>15498498
Just because things are obvious does not mean they are true. Lots of truth seemed obvious at point in history of in our lives, but has since come to seem an absurdity.

[Anonymous No.15506119]

The notion of the unconscious in its simplest is not unfalsifiable. The claim would be there are factors which influence our decision-making and behaviour which we are not aware of. Freud and Jung both make a slew of different claims about what these factors are and how their influence may work, some of them falsifiable and some of them not. Crying unfalsifiability is something stupid people do to delegitimize something in some primitive move against it, a fetishization of scientific rigor as a powerful tool for dethroning something's authority. You may as well get your big boy big brain points from reading outdated astronomy textbooks and scoffing about how much more you know about the universe than these charlatans. Absolute peak pseud.

[Anonymous No.15506126]

>>15498514
Solpisism has not and cannot be refuted. Anything beyond it is based on the assumption of the legitimacy of experienced phenomena. Choosing to play the game of reality, as it were.

[Anonymous No.15506163]

>>15506126
>reads Husserl once
Who am I kidding, you didn't read him at all.

[Anonymous No.15506305]

>>15506126
Read Hume, specifically about how the fact that our subjective perception is set up to receive information from the outside is evidence for the existence of an outside

[Anonymous No.15506395]

>>15505581
No, this is untrue. Psychotherapy based on one of the established models (CBT, psychoanalysis) works better not only than placebo but also than pseudo-therapy where the "therapist" juts sits with you and is nice and understanding.

>>15505605
No, mostly only claims regarding the priming of intelligent behavior are completely bullshit. Basic semantic priming exists but it's not a very strong or important effect. That's why I wrote "mostly bullshit".

[Anonymous No.15506397]

>>15503218
Apparently, it's actually possible to turn sleep paralysis experiences into lucid dreams although I'm not sure on the mechanism. You'll have to research into that yourself but nonetheless, I believe it is possible so I believe you do have potential to enjoy lucid dreaming.
The possibilities with lucid dreaming seem quite bountiful. I recall Mr. Waggoner stating that a programmer had told him that he would present programming problems to his subconscious in a lucid dream and 99% of the time, the solution he was presented with was right. The programmer admitted that one time or maybe a few times, the answer wasn't right but he reassured Mr. Waggoner that the answer's correct enough of the time so as for the technique to be reliable.
I also recall a writer talking about how they had used lucid dreaming to resolve their writing problems so perhaps that'll be of interest to /lit/.

>>15503270
Mr. Waggoner's story is that originally, when he would lucid dream, he would ask dream characters what they represented and typically, they would answer however, he had one strange experience. He asked a dream character what they represented, they didn't respond and then what did respond was this great, booming voice from the sky in the dream. That's when Mr. Waggoner realised that there was actually a sentience "behind" the dream that he could communicate with. One that is generating the dream and knows it through and through.
Now, one of the things I find I'd like to explore is Jung's claim that supposedly, there are self-aware dream characters. There are dream characters who are so self-aware, they'll say things like "How do I know that I'm not dreaming you?!". You can most certainly have in-depth conversations with these characters. I do wonder about their nature though. You see, I'm a Catholic and I wholly believe not only in demons but that they can actually influence your dreams and so I do wonder about these so-called self-aware dream characters.
You see, Mr. Waggoner, in one of his talks available on YouTube, he said something I found displeasing. He said that in one of his dreams, he sensed the presence of someone and when he turned around, it was a woman. I do not believe that it is natural in a dream to feel the presence of what's supposedly a mere character. I am convinced that these are demons. Anyway, in the dream, he spoke with the woman and she claimed to be a figment of his subconscious fears or something. He then, choosing to accept her, allowed her to miniaturize herself and enter his body, after which he reported feeling elated. I think damage was done and he doesn't realise it.
I'd definitely like to, from a Catholic perspective, study the nature of dreams. I think that could be interesting.

[Anonymous No.15506417]

>>15506397
>it was a woman
>I am convinced that these are demons

[Anonymous No.15506566]

>>15500046
!

[Anonymous No.15506579]

>>15500814
wisdom teeth, most of the bodily hair, Jacobson’s organ, male nipples, use google if you want to know more

[Anonymous No.15506699]

>>15499889
based antiscience poster

[Anonymous No.15507650]

bump

[Anonymous No.15507868]

>>15506699
based unreasonably antagonistic poster

[Anonymous No.15509600]

>>15506579
>wisdom teeth, most of the bodily hair, Jacobson’s organ, male nipples

wisdom teeth are as useless as the rest of teeth, my bad if someones jaw hasnt developed properly

[Anonymous No.15509619]

>>15498390
That's why people call it a meme field here. My psych teacher said this shit in the intro class multiple times, that the field is just whatever is popular at the time usually.

[Anonymous No.15509627]

>>15498390
Freud is pure chad

[Anonymous No.15509657]

>>15498390
>None of these motherfuckers have any proof of their claims.
Yes, they do? Their clinical cases in where there predictions were validated. What have you even read by them?

[Anonymous No.15509665]

>>15509619
Your teacher is probably a cognitive geek. I ask him about the replication crisis, see how he wavers.

[Anonymous No.15509698]

Psychology was based in philosophy and then moved into science. The problem is that all theories have shown positive results (dodo bird effect). There is no one true all knowing theory in psychology. As a counselor you have to pick the best theory that fits with the client.
It is true that there are 'hot' theories but they do not work with everyone. Mindfulness is the big one now.

[Anonymous No.15509701]

>>15501601
>Why are bugmen so afraid of Psychoanalysis lmao?
Why was Freud so scared of it?

[Anonymous No.15509719]

Yes, the entire field of psychoanalysis is pseudoscience, and the fact that most anons itt fail to understand why it isn't science is the reason why people laugh at humanities. This whole thread is asinine.
Especially idiots like >>15499849
>Evolution is unfalsifiable
This is the dumbest shit I've real all day.

[Anonymous No.15509756]

>>15509719
All of psychoanalysis isn't pseudoscience.
Resistance, transference, and counter-transference are real and come up in every counseling situation. Freud was spot on about these.
Freud's defense mechanisms are also credible.
Attachment is a real thing. Although psychoanalysts clung to this because it was the first scientific backing they had in a time where their theories were becoming archaic .

[Anonymous No.15509772]

>>15509719
Seethe. You cant even refute >>15503317

[Anonymous No.15509837]

>>15509719
>>Evolution is unfalsifiable
>This is the dumbest shit I've real all day.

hey idiot, hey moron, how do you define "healthy human body" according to evolution?

find me a precise diferentiation criteria between a mutation and what creationist call "bodily defect". If you do that Ill go away

>inb4-if it enhances the chances of survival I cant scientifically falsify spiel

[Anonymous No.15509970]

A proof is just an axiomatic fallacy. Science is just another belief system

[Anonymous No.15510048]

>>15509719
>>>Evolution is unfalsifiable
Popper thought so and he started the trend of falsificationism. Yes, I know he made a offhand cuck apology about it after much screeching, without ever denying his initial criticisms.

[Anonymous No.15510066]

>>15498390
The unconscious is self-evident unless you assume everything you know about yourself is everything there is to you, a hypothesis that is falsified every time you learn anything in life.

[Anonymous No.15510086]

>>15498390
those are 3 of the greatest psych minds.
you're probably autistic and i hope you die

[Anonymous No.15510149]

>>15498390
>is completely unfalsifiable
Jung talks about this a lot actually and is deeply concerned with issues of falsifiability and empirical precision, so I can tell you're talking out your ass.

>Is the unconscious mind even real? Is there even proof of that?
you could've read yourself and found out instead of pretending to btfo people you know nothing about in order to sound smart on 4chan

[Anonymous No.15510185]

>>15509837
That guy used to be a lot fatter, and lost a bunch of weight. If he built up some more muscle he would fill out and his skin wouldn't fold so badly.

[Anonymous No.15510213]

>>15510086
change lacan to rogers

[Anonymous No.15510221]

>>15509837
"health" is largely a human conception of how optimally the body functions in regard to several criteria, such as mobility, stamina, longevity of life, and lack of pain. mutations are departures from what came before, if they lower the chance of survival, they die out, if they raise the chance of survival, they are replicated. how hard is this to understand? grade schoolers can learn this stuff

[Anonymous No.15510224]

>>15510213
change lacan?
are you some dimwit fucktard, thats the only one that matters cunt

[Anonymous No.15510251]

>>15498547
why did anons keep replying after OP exposed his own bait so clearly with this post?

[Anonymous No.15510276]

>>15510224
Très basé

[Anonymous No.15510364]

>>15510224
>no original thought
>most important
there would be no lacan without freud

[Anonymous No.15510444]

>>15510224
Lacan has very little importance in the psychology world
Rogers is the basis of all modern day counseling

[Anonymous No.15510455]

>>15498390
falsifiability is an unscientific criterion for knowledge

[Anonymous No.15510478]

>>15510086
They are not the greatest by any means.
Freud's theory cause many patients harm. He was rigid and had very little insight into his own fallacies.
see this >>15509756

Jung has some merit but no one really uses his theories in counseling.

Lacan's only idea worth noting is mirror stage.

[Anonymous No.15510523]

>>15510364
Are you fucking stupid lacan just pretended to look back to Freud and he grabbed all of jungs psychotic episodes along the way.
I’ll get serious for two seconds lacans greatest contribution was language the importance of language. Freud never really gave a fuck all Freud and jung cared about were the symbols what lacan did was he said what the symbols were composed of : language.
I’ve had the exact experience when I experimented with the law of attraction I said to myself i will get a girlfriend Repeatedly and I dreamt of it. This is what lacan was talking about in its most basic sense.
Lacan demystified Freud and of course jung is basically someone with psychosis so thats easy. I like jung because he basically experimented in himself but either way my point is that lacan is the fucking scientist while Freud and jung were the lab rats. I love all 3 don’t get me wrong but lacan pointed out what was really happening and anyone who isn’t lacanian with a focus on language and practices psych is a fucking useless retard in my eyes.
The most important mental illness is schizophrenia and Freud basically brushed it off only jung was able to understand it and lacan further was able to point out exactly what it was was; a disconnect with language or rather a cultural narrative. Freud just copped out and jung was able to figure it out but only within his cultural narrative lacan was able to point out that what it really was outside of all cultural boundaries and that’s really what makes lacan a fucking genius and if anybody wants to disclude lacan they need to be discluded from psychoanalysis as a whole

[Anonymous No.15510550]

>>15510444
Nah you’re on some self help trip your head is basically fucked you have no redemption if you can’t delve to the feels of human suffering and understand the root cause and instead you want to preach some let’s achieve the greatest you’re basically a fucking bitch coward who is incapable of looking at the root of your own mental processing and by that you need to be removed altogether I think Tony Robbins is more in your vein you are worthless impotent sack of goat shit

[Anonymous No.15510559]

>>15510478
You’re saying nothing at all it’s almost like you didn’t read anything by these three people. Feel free to prove me otherwise if not then you can fuck off

[Anonymous No.15510574]

>>15498390

>Is the unconscious mind even real?

This is some real 'cant see my own eyes' type shit.

[Anonymous No.15510591]

>>15510550
>>15510559
I am not saying any of that. I am saying why be so fixated on outdated theories?

There is some merit to these three. And certainly they helped move psychology forward.
But they didn't help people in the counseling process. Rogers focused on listening to clients, being empathetic, and holding clients in unconditional positive regard.

The problem with you is that you don't come from a psychological perspective

[Anonymous No.15510628]

>>15510591
Oh you replied to me twice that’s sad
What’s outdated exactly?
Lacans emphasis on the role of language in its cultural context is the core of understanding any mental illness. Your self help Tony Robbins approach is impotent and weak and doesn’t help anybody understand what’s going on all it does is delude and if the mental patient is smart enough it delays the next breakdown.
Your self help approach doesn’t acknowledge the full ugly and beautiful human experience and your goal intentional or not is to delude the patient. To be fair I think you have deluded yourself.

[Anonymous No.15510638]

>>15510523
>>15510550
>>15510628
take meds schizo

[Anonymous No.15510653]

>>15510638
Reality is i probably spoke too much to your inner life which is probably not interesting at all.
If you were nice I’d help you with your schizophrenia which you are obviously projecting but since you’re repressed I will leave you to your own weak shitposting because you are obviously too impotent and lost in your own head to have a proper conversation with me or anyone

[Anonymous No.15510658]

>>15510653
ok pseud

[Anonymous No.15510664]

>>15510658
Do you really believe this or are you just typing this like before

[Anonymous No.15510847]

>>15510628
My approach is based on evidence based practice.
You are focused on a very narrow approach. Yes language and culture play an important role in how a client conceptualizers their life.
I don't know why you are just fixated on schizophrenia. But there are many other forms of mental illness. You also need to recognize that schizophrenia is a abnormal mental illness. You need meds in combination with therapy to treat the patient. I don't believe you talking about how language and culture will connect with a patient.

For my clients I create a space where they can be heard and they can tell their own story in their own words. I do not delude my patients and tell them 'oh everything is okay' ' you're the best tiger go get em'. I follow the patient.

But again I am arguing with someone who reads wikipedia pages on theories.

[Anonymous No.15510928]

>>15510847
What evidence? Just because one patient gets better with cbt doesn’t mean shit.
Schizophrenia is the core of all mental illness you clearly don’t understand the root of any mental illness you just deal with the symptoms you are self help like I said you’re basically a drug dealer. Go Google jungs and lacans dealings with schizophrenics they cured it with no meds. If you actually practice psych then you are a charlatan you probably got the degree and now you spout rout shit onto your patients which may or may not work you’re basically a fucking whore and drug dealer in one.
You don’t talk about language and culture with the patient you stupid fucking cunt you talk to them sorry you’re probably as fucked up as they are and therefore you can’t really help them.
I mean if you can’t hold a conversation with a stranger and make light hearted casual jokes with them then why the fuck are you in the business of helping strangers integrate into a normal life?

[Anonymous No.15511024]

>>15510928
>Schizophrenia is the core of all mental illness
Schizophrenia is not a disease that happens to a few people - it is the normal state of humanity. Everybody is divided, split. You can watch it in your own life. When you are not with a woman, with a man, not in love, you think, you fantasize about love. Love seems to be the goal. That seems to be the very meaning of life. When you are with a woman or with a man and in love, suddenly you start thinking in terms of spiritualism: "This is attachment, this is possessiveness, this is lust." A condemnation arises.

You cannot be alone and you cannot be with somebody. If you are alone you hanker for the crowd, for the other. If you are with somebody you start hankering to be alone.

This is something to be understood, because everybody has to face this problem. You are born in a schizophrenic world. You have been given double standards; you have been taught materialism and you have been taught spiritualism, together. The whole society goes on teaching you contradictory things.

[Anonymous No.15511030]

>>15510847
Hey, so I just noticed you ITT and I dont really want to work backwards to see what all you believe/practice.

Could you give me a tl;dr of your approach? I'm a second year counseling student getting ready to start field work in the fall.

[Anonymous No.15511181]

>>15511024
It’s not really about love as you say it but love is cruel in many ways as well so maybe you are right unintentionally
>>15511030
I just talk to them normally, understand where they’re coming from and help bring them back from their trauma back into the real world

[Anonymous No.15511215]

>>15500814
What >>15506579 said, and there's also some other stuff like the path of the left recurrent laryngeal nerve.

[Anonymous No.15511309]

>>15498390
Wait until you read Freud’s 1897 letter to Fliess, where he formulated the Oedipus Complex for the first time - its literally him admitting to wanting to fuck his Mother and then projecting that onto everyone else LMAO

[Anonymous No.15511344]

>>15511309
explain the popularity of mommy porn and zoomer/millienial women calling handsome men daddy

[Anonymous No.15511385]

>>15511344
Freud made it into a meme, and it followed the cycle into ubiquity. This was his endgame all along

[Anonymous No.15511405]

>>15498657
I don't, but the general way is to read Freud > Klein > Jung > Lacan
Freud's daughter made a collection of his father's (and psychoanalysis) fundamental writings, maybe you can start with that

[Anonymous No.15511418]

>>15498390
>what is client privacy

[Anonymous No.15511445]

>>15503317
Kek
I'm borrowing this

[Anonymous No.15511466]

>>15504480
>No psychologist uses freud, lacan, or jung.
False
>If they do is is a watered down version
What if they went through psychoanalytic training?
>Early psychology stems from philosophy.
So does every other field of inquiry
>Carl rogers is the bread and butter of all therapy IMO.
Why are you giving your opinion and not facts? Freud is the father of psychology. If you want to know anything about the field, you need read him like we read Plato. You either disagree, agree, or build on his ideas.
Btw Freud specifically did not read philosophy. Read "History of the Psychoanalytic Movement" by him.

[Anonymous No.15511469]

>>15511024
>>15511024
Schizophrenia is a pretty well understood and easily identifiable (though not easily treatable) illness characterized by severe sensory hallucinations and wild delusions that dominate your thinking and behavior. In layman's terms, you see shit that isn't there and believe shit that is self-evidently untrue and impossible (not dumb political views, mind, but ex. you believe your wall is going to eat your family). Prevailing consensus ties it to a severely overactive dopamine system. What you've described are identity issues (which are pathologized as dissociative identity disorder if they become debilitating) and cognitive dissonance, which are unrelated to schizophrenia and, yeah, experienced by pretty much everyone

[Anonymous No.15511509]

>>15511469
Blah blah blah im knowledgeable
Shove it up ur ass, niggerfaggot

[Anonymous No.15511517]

>>15511181
>talk to them normally
Sure, but do you subscribe to a particular theory, at least conceptually? Or utilize particular techniques?

[Anonymous No.15511544]

>>15511385
This. The biggest mistake is thinking most of these Jewish "intellectuals" are interested in truth seeking.
Their world conquest to get back at Emperor Hadrian is eternal. That is all they care about.

[Anonymous No.15511549]

>>15500412

False:

Cogneto et cum. I think therefore I am.

[Anonymous No.15511612]

>>15503360
also want link

[Anonymous No.15512321]

>>15511344
>accidentally stumble on some mommy porn on /gif/
>it makes me realize i hate my mother
>tab out
checkmate frAUd

[Anonymous No.15512471]

>>15511030
Hi this >>15511181 isn't me

Rogers is the base
approach all clients with a positive unconditional regard, emapathy and focused listening. Learn a bunch of theories so you can use them for particular clients.
The book intentional counseling techniques by allen e ivey is a great start for counseling.

>>15511466
You would be hard press to find a pure freudian and jungian. It's rare because his theories were wrong (except for >>15509756). Not only that but clients would have to remain in therapy for 40 + years just to make slight progress.

even if a therapist goes through psychoanalytic training it is not purely freudian. Theorist (like lacan and jung) had to adapt freud's theory because what he said did not match up to what clients were saying.

Freuds ideas were his own. He did not use the scientific method to conceptualize his ideas.

Also again please look up the dodo bird effect.

and you >>15510928
I suggest you read more about psychology you have a narrow scope. The way you treat a schizophrenic is different from how you would treat someone with depression and other illness.

[Anonymous No.15512546]

>>15512471
Cool, thanks! It seems like the go-to is a Rogerian atmosphere of unconditional positive regard, with CBT techniques, honed by some generally accepted concepts like automatic negative thoughts, object-relations and attachment, etc.

As much as I enjoy theory, I feel like every single technique only works because of the principles of cognitive-behaviorism. Reinforce someone processing their dreams out loud and its bound to do some good.

[Anonymous No.15512566]

>>15499849
Human bodies aren't totally efficient though, there are lots of useless aspects to the human body, one I can think of is that we eat and breath from the same hole, it works but it's kind of sketchy.

[Anonymous No.15512645]

>>15512546
CBT is great. It is especially useful for clients in the usa. Goal setting is great too. A theory which i use a lot is solution focused therapy.
Good luck on your journey

[Anonymous No.15512718]

>>15512645
I've heard solution-focused is popular and effective, especially with children. A lot of my classmates are going to be school counselors and talk about it.
Thanks, you too anon.

[Anonymous No.15512760]

>>15498390
that's not what unfalsifiable means

[Anonymous No.15513206]

As soon as mental illness will be treatable by meds only, talking will be obsolete.

[Anonymous No.15513228]

>>15500564
>sad people is sick
Wrong

[Anonymous No.15513254]

>>15511466
Literally no psychologist reads Lacan. He's one of the psychoanalist omitted from theories of personality textbooks while people like Adler, Klein, and Horney is included.

[Anonymous No.15513272]

>>15498390
It is, by definition, a pseudo-science.

[Anonymous No.15513288]

>>15513254
>no psychologist reads Lacan
Why? Is he too obscure?

[Anonymous No.15513295]

>>15510221
That's a very stupid conception.
As long as you can't provide in advance an answer of what constitutes 'chance of survival' then the doctrine is not just useless but doesn't qualify as an empirical statement.
There are some claims related to evolution (in the strict sense of life forms changing over time) that are empirical, such as the anatomical structure that could be found in chimeras. What you just said in your post is the type of pseud thinking that OP is denouncing. It is purely heuristic in the worst sense, it makes you think that you 'understand' things when you didn't exclude any possibility with it (hence not giving any information) but merely framed things in a manner that psychologically 'makes sense' to you.

[Anonymous No.15513433]

>The familiar caricature of the bearded and monocled Freudian analyst probing his reclining patient for memories of toilet training gone awry and parentally directed lust is now an anachronism, as is the professional practice of that mostly empty and confabulatory art. How such an elaborate theory could have become so widely accepted—on the basis of no systematic evidence or critical experiments, and in the face of chronic failures of therapeutic intervention in all of the major classes of mental illness (schizophrenia, mania and depression)—is something that sociologists of science and popular culture have yet to fully explain.

[Anonymous No.15513581]

>>15513288
It's too much conjecture. He is more for philosophers.

[Anonymous No.15513886]

>>15510221
>if they lower the chance of survival, they die out, if they raise the chance of survival,

AND HOW DO YOU FALSIFY AND EXPERIMENTALLY TEST THAT!!!???

oh yeah, you cant, how bloody convenient!

nothing about vestigialiarity is falsifiable.

[Anonymous No.15513986]

>>15510221
>if they lower the chance of survival, they die out, if they raise the chance of survival, they are replicated. how hard is this to understand? grade schoolers can learn this stuff

Thing is that you DONT TEST for that since you CANT TEST for that and you CANT TEST it because that thesis is UNFALSIFIABLE.

What evolutionists do is that you explain it RETROACTIVELY like mythology does explain history, so its post-hoc instead of pre-hoc explanation. I dont need to point out that this is the exact opposite of the scientific normative that is aimed at predicting. What evolutionary predictions were ever falsified?

>>15512566
>there are lots of useless aspects to the human body

compared to what? you cant test for usefullness unless you have a reference point.

[Anonymous No.15514326]

>>15503317
based

[Anonymous No.15514347]

>>15510221
that concept of evolution does not work for a gazillion animal and body parts

[Anonymous No.15514363]

CBT is a racket and only works on the weak minded.

[Anonymous No.15514952]

>>15514347
Yeah, I don't think evolution always takes the smartest path

>>15514363
Tell me more about this weak mind you fear