/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9857549]

Where to start with this faggot?

He's still worth reading, right?

[Anonymous No.9857565]

>>9857549
Interpretation of Dreams is comfy

[Anonymous No.9857566]

>>9857549
Dreams

[Anonymous No.9857605]

>>9857549
>He's still worth reading, right?
Only if you are forced to talk to analysts regularly. (Like I am.) And then mainly to shit on them for literally making shit up as they go.

Even within PA, however, he is old news and barely anything from his assumptions are left.
You'd do better to read some random book on the history of psychoanalysis.
Or just ignore the entire field, like most good psychologists do.

Michel Onfray also has a fun book, where he shits all over Freud.

[Anonymous No.9857614]

>>9857605
>good psychologists

Contradiction in terms

[Anonymous No.9857615]

>>9857605
What are some good psychologists?

[Anonymous No.9857617]

>>9857605
>Michel Onfray

[Anonymous No.9857637]

Freud is training wheels for papa jung

[Anonymous No.9857639]

>>9857615
Ones that at least try to fulfill the scientific method.

Look. If you define PA as conti philosophy, it's fine. Whatever.
But the amount of people that try to force feed this stuff as """"psychology"""" is just too high.

It's comparable to life coaches trying to sell their "alternative medicine" as just as valid as anything in the medical field.
It just isn't.

[Anonymous No.9857649]

>>9857637
that's not how you spell Lacan

[Anonymous No.9857651]

>>9857617
I didn't say it was a good book. It was a fun book.

[Anonymous No.9857658]

>>9857639
But what are some good psychologists?

[Anonymous No.9857660]

>>9857639
You're critcism psychoanalysis for exactly what psychology does. Any analyst would admit its more in the vein of philosophy, its psychologists that go around masquerading their self help tier trash as science.

[Anonymous No.9857661]

>>9857649
>Lacan
He's like Bizarro-Chomsky.

[Anonymous No.9857667]

>>9857661
You say that like its a bad thing

[Anonymous No.9857671]

Yes, he's not only essential for understanding philosophy but also 20th century literature, as well as a great reader of the classics.

[Anonymous No.9857673]

>>9857667
is that Chomsky on the left? he looks weird here

[Anonymous No.9857678]

>>9857673
Its actually Alain Badiou

[Anonymous No.9857680]

>>9857678
that would make sense

[Anonymous No.9857691]

>>9857658
Start with Papa Wundt.
Apart from that, some influential name would be Skinner, Pavlov, Chomsky, William James, Maslow, Simon, Kinsey, Galton, Rogers, Erikson, Kahneman,...
Long list. Most of which are quite specialized. And kinda-sorta outdated, as their ideas have been expanded upon.

>>9857660
Have you, ever in your life, actually read a psychology article in a journal?
Seems like you haven't.
Here is an example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4313586/

[Anonymous No.9857734]

>>9857691
>people like looking at attractive faces

So this.. this is the power of science

[Anonymous No.9857780]

>>9857734
>I skimmed the title
Didn't expect more...

Nope, that was already proven. The study delves into how attention behaves in that situation and how that gives indication to where in that quite intricate process the visual system attractive faces "override" cognitive intent. And a little bit into what factors into "attractive", basically checking some weird eye color thing another study had found.
And what the specific differences in sexes is. Which will later be useful information when looking for the neurological differences in men and women.

Here is another one:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f307/cd02c3e9bea2321fe2887fdc63590f1be83a.pdf
And another one I literally just fished out:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5518168/

Now please show me a psychoanalytical theory with validated predictive value.

[Anonymous No.9857809]

>>9857780
Thats just all just pure speculation and asspulled conjecture based on only the most mundane observations. you call it "predictive" yet you don't find psychologists being consulted in marketing anymore for good reason. Its a self confirming predictive system and not genuine understanding.

[Anonymous No.9857816]

>>9857780
why do you give me the impression you're a pseud

[Anonymous No.9857822]

All pseudo-scientific garbage.

>>9857809
>Its a self confirming predictive system and not genuine understanding.
Psychology, sociology, anthropology, all pseudo-sciences suffer from this. Basically, you do a desired end and interpret evidence to support that goal. It is destructive to science and unethical.

[Anonymous No.9857828]

>>9857780
>its predictive because we predict its predictive

[Anonymous No.9857833]

science is the new religion

[Anonymous No.9857841]

How much Freud do I need to read to understand most references in continental philosophy to him? I'm thinking specifically of Deleuze and of having enough of a basis to dive into psychologists like Lacan and Jung who build on his theories.

So far, based on the amount of references I've come across, the following seem to be his most essential:
Interpretation of Dreams
Three Essays on Sexuality
Ego and Id
Beyond the Pleasure Principle
Civilization and its Discontents

Any others? Totem and Taboo? Any case histories? I don't want to force myself to read too much of him since I really only care about his successors.

[Anonymous No.9857854]

>>9857841
I think the list you have is quick thorough, I think Civ and its Discontents isn't really an essential

[Anonymous No.9857859]

>>9857854
*quite thorough

[Anonymous No.9857876]

>>9857841
Everything Freud wrote is more valuable than anything Deleuze or Lacan wrote.

[Anonymous No.9857900]

>>9857809
>Thats just all just pure speculation and asspulled conjecture based on only the most mundane observations.
Testing hypotheses based on other experiments/studies is not conjecture.

Look up stuff like the Libet-Experiment, if that is more to your liking.
Or anything relating to Priming.
Or ELM.

I feel like your greatest beef is founded in the misunderstanding that psychology, unlike psychoanalysis, uses systematic models for predictions. Which you kinda have to do with the black box problem.

>you call it "predictive"
I don't call it that, it is. If a result can't be confidently replicated, the theory is tossed or reworked. Like any other science.
>yet you don't find psychologists being consulted in marketing anymore for good reason.
First of all: They are. You can make quite a bit of dosh if you get into economic psychology. Especially if you go into advertising.

>Its a self confirming predictive system
Wat?
>and not genuine understanding.
And I suppose publishing a book on your psychoanalytical theory, in which you nitpick "examples" of your "field experience" which "confirm" your theories is "genuine understanding"?

Don't get me wrong. There are very intelligent psychoanalysts out there with genuine insight. Like Alice Miller.
But that doesn't make it science.

You just seem hell-bent on just not liking psychology, m8.
>>9857822
>Basically, you do a desired end and interpret evidence to support that goal. It is destructive to science and unethical.
By all means. Give us an actual example of a staple theory that didn't check for interference variables and was never challenged by other psychologists.

>>9857828
It's predictive because you have to be able to replicate results.

[Anonymous No.9857911]

>>9857900
We're done with you friend, reddit awaits your return

[Anonymous No.9857917]

>its another dumb anglo positivists thread

[Anonymous No.9857918]

>>9857900
>First of all: They are. You can make quite a bit of dosh if you get into economic psychology. Especially if you go into advertising.

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.9857919]

>>9857549
bruh people are recommending various books, and good on them but you might best be suited with the book "General Psychological Theories" of Freud. The cover text is purple I think, forget who edits it though. Got his most fire bars on everything from narcissism, unconscious, masochism, etc. Only dive into Interp of Dreams if you really want it, it's wild boring imo desu

[Anonymous No.9858030]

>>9857918
>even the best major only has a 54% satisfaction rating
christ

[Anonymous No.9858078]

>>9857918
>20 percent

[Anonymous No.9858186]

You think Freud ever tried to deepthroat a cigar? Just for the hell of it? The man did huge amounts of cocaine, keep in mind.

[Anonymous No.9858206]

>>9857918
>20%

[Anonymous No.9858207]

Start with your third degree cousin. You'll get to your mother in no time.

[Anonymous No.9858217]

>>9857639

You do realize psychoanalysis has been proven to be effective as a method of psychotherapy right?

[Anonymous No.9858223]

>Hurr everyone wants to have sex with their family
No, read Jordan Peterson instead

[Anonymous No.9858224]

>>9857918
They are unsatisfied BECAUSE they didn't expect to have to learn science and statistics. They thought they could get paid to talk about feelings now please.

[Anonymous No.9858238]

>>9858224

How much of what you said applies to Psychology? Brainlet here who would rather avoid mathematics

[Anonymous No.9858253]

>>9858238
To do well in psychology at uni (i.e., get good marks towards postgraduate degrees) you need to git gud at stats and writing. It's unavoidable.

[Anonymous No.9858272]

>>9858253

Can i half-ass my way into a degree if i'm not that Good at those? i'm interested in venturing into business and entertainment eventually.

[Anonymous No.9858294]

>>9858272
Depends on what degree. I'm saying you won't score well in core psych units without stats and writing. Getting INTO undergrad psych is easy. Passing is easy. Doing really well is really hard. This is why there is 20% satisfaction.

[Anonymous No.9858322]

>>9858294
Yeah keep telling yourself its not the pitiful wages, unemployment and its deserved ridiculement as a pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.9858331]

>>9858322
Pitiful wages? Unemployment? Fuck man, you have your head in the sand. As for pseudo-science, I couldn't care less about scientific prestige.

[Anonymous No.9858343]

>>9857841
If you've read all of that, you should be good to read stuff Lacan and others have written. I've only read three of those and I "get" Lacan. Though I'm reading his more clinical stuff through translators like Bruce Fink. To get Lacan's original texts and lectures, you might start reading them and then go back and read any case he references. He also makes a lot of literature and cultural references.

[Anonymous No.9859199]

>>9857691
Wundt is so outdated it`s not worth, from a /lit/ perspective psychologist have 0 stuff to offer.

Also, predictive value is shit, psychology have been borrowing models from physics and math, and at this day have been applying outdated concepts. Psychologist believe that is science, but is shit.

Psychologist here btw

[Anonymous No.9859213]

>>9857900
It's predictive because you have to be able to replicate results.
it`s so minimal that i cannot believe it`s fucking science, i mean, cross cultural studies prove that there is a fucking big amount of variables that just can´t be measured like psychologist would want.

[Anonymous No.9859221]

>>9857549
The Uncanny was good

[Anonymous No.9859224]

>>9858322
All science is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.9859226]

>>9857822
Science needs to be destroyed.

[Anonymous No.9859227]

>>9858217
do you realize thats because the therapist-patient bond? try to apply psychoanalysis to cognitive impairment, or amnesia, or alzheimer, obsesive compulsuve disorder, suicidal tendencies, drug abuse, i mean, psychoanalysis in efective with cunts and pieces of shit who are too hippies to engage a more decent and not so pseudoscientific methods.

[Anonymous No.9859234]

>>9857549
Maybe?

[Anonymous No.9859612]

>>9857615
Jordan Peterson

[Anonymous No.9860447]

>>9858331
Someone with a doctorate in psychology if they're lucky enough to find work at all can expect a salary of $40k. Thats pretty fucking pitiful for something claiming to be a science

[Anonymous No.9860451]

>>9857549
Worth reading? Yeah. Take seriously? No.
Most of his stuff is considered false in modern academia.

[Anonymous No.9860458]

>>9857734
I legit laughed.

[Anonymous No.9860522]

>>9859227
>psychoanalysis is invalid because it doesn't cure brain damage!

having to resort to this sort of intellectual dishonesty just makes you look desperate. it works in the areas in which it claims to work and has the same success rate as supposedly more scientific methods. this just goes to show what a joke it is to call psychology a science. it's a gigantic fraud.

[Anonymous No.9860588]

>>9859612

>Willfully doesn't understand the role of identity in social intercourse
>"so if indentiy if changable and shifting, why can't we electricute gay kids into being straight??' Is a real question he has.
>attracts a legion of STEMlords who want to bash things in politics for being "unscientific" yet he himself is a FUCKING JUNGIAN.

Yeah, he's a real star thinker..

[Anonymous No.9860620]

>>9857549

1. Outline of Psychoanalysis, it's a short book that will get you started.
2. Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis
3. New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis

4. On Dreams, it's a dumbed down laymans version of Interpretation of Dreams, and is a decent introduction.

5. Interpretation of Dream
6. Psychopathology of Everyday Life
7. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious

8. Three Essays on Sexuality
9. Beyond the Pleasure Principle
10. Ego and Id

Best Introduction to him is from John Lear, in the Routledge Philosophers series.

The other works like Totem and Taboo, Future of an Illusion, and Civilization and its Discontents are all going beyond his Psychology, and writing about things like politics or religion, and while interesting, are unimportant if you are just trying to jump off from freud to get to Lacan or whoever.

[Anonymous No.9860661]

>>9860447
>expect a salary of $40k. Thats pretty fucking pitiful for something claiming to be a science

Are you just austistic or legit think that 40k salary is pittyfull? Plz kys

[Anonymous No.9860680]

>>9860661
For a fucking PhD? Yeah, you could expect to make more than that learning welding