Asklemmy

43942 readers

504 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Why do non-psychologists talk so much about Freud? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 6 months ago by rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Most psychologists don't care about Freud's work outside of a historical sense and kinda hate him as a person. His work was quite literally used as an example of pseudoscience by Karl Popper.

And yet for some reason philosophers have an obsession with integrating his views into their work and artists keep using his views as inspiration and analyze existing works via the lens of psychoanalysis.

Why?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Of course there is. For example there’s the study where they brushed chairs with testosterone.

The response to that chemical being present demonstrates goal-driven personality operating below the level of consciousness.

Uncovering unconscious motivations is like 95% of therapy. Everything that isn’t yet articulated is the subconscious.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 months ago

Uncovering unconscious motivations is like 95% of therapy.

I've done a ton of it, from multiple different practitioners, and none of it was like that. It was more about changing habits and examining conscious but unchallenged beliefs.

Even good psych has replication problems. I don't know where your funky chair study was published or the methodology and sample size, but I'm skeptical that amounts to a lot of evidence of anything.