I’m always fascinated by the seemingly infinite ways we as humans can feel so right about things we get so horribly wrong! I think you’re absolutely right that we sweep this under the rug too much, lots of lessons to learn from the history of Freud and psychoanalysis that we don’t acknowledge. This bleeds into some of the mistakes we make today.
I joke to people that i've studied Freud five times (Secondary school RP, Undergrad Medicine, Undergrad Philosophy, Personal reading on Literary theory, Critical theory Masters), and every time I find something new that he's wrong about. With that said I remember coming across an essay that applied queer theory to the field of children's rights. The essayist argued that Freud, more than anyone did a good job at breaking down the assumption of complete difference between children and adults by putting a sledgehammer right through contemporary notions of sexuality as these clear, obvious adult things and allowing for an acknowledgement of both childhood experience, and that sexuality couldn't be coded or put into a box (Freud himself then rapidly tried to build a box to put it into and failed). They accused most of the neo-Freudians of moving away from this observation and leaving it to people like Foucault and Lacan to put it back together. Lacan was another one where I still disagree with him, but as I studied him I found a surprising amount of 'oh if only he'd...' moments. As for the matter of teaching these, I was talking to my supervisor about this a few weeks ago and she brought up the idea that the way STEM causes teach actively neuters a lot of the possibilities for actual hermeneutics or critical analysis of their disciplines. At the time I was thinking about the way I was taught Freud (in which his segmenting of the mind was treated as if it was a natural step towards the neuroanatomical model of a modular brain, which is absolutely not correct). Since the aim is to build a set of practical skills, there's often this move to suture the actual history into neat stories to imply a continuity. My supervisor argued that teaching critical analysis of these thinkers is often not only not building this, but from the perspective of a university trying to produce a set of interchangeable, largely Taylorist therapists/doctors/so on, actively unhelpful. It's one of those ways where the way we shape society and culture puts limits on how we educate and vis a versa. Rebecca Hester also has an interesting take on this. She looks at the way 'Cultural competence' is taught to doctors. She notes that cultural awareness education tends to just lead doctors to weaponisethe cultural facts they learn to better manipulate patients into doing what the doctor wants, which is depressing but it's worth keeping an eye on when education critical skills amongst groups who go on to have power.
Hi, I'm curious though have opinions from decades of living. In the early 70s middle school was torture. That's probably common, though in my decades I rarely find others whose lifetime drive was damaged from those horrible experiences. Childhood iny case has been a lifetime reflection too, where talk therapy turns into harmful rambles without grounding, selfcare nor Somatic understanding. It's time to mention hiw discovery of trauma therapy about 2015 pretty much saved me. Decades after repressing SA age 16, this internet has a way of consistently reminding me it's happened. Somewhat a wrap up: Survival mode, Window of Tolerance, EMDR and near 3 yrs of trauma therapy helped this life begin anew. Very late though, but, maybe I can manage my old age better? Regret about the loss of living well because of trauma, cptsd, anxious attachment, fawning personality matching (over giving to be liked), and severe body dysmorphia created mind storms. 23 yrs sober, and more learning there. I like your videos a lot.
When I was fond of reading Freud, I tried to interpret dreams according to Freud and it turned out well, although it is tedious and requires discipline. But the truth is, like digesting food, my dreams were 3 days late. Has anyone else notice that dreams were delayed? Wonder if that is a feature of ADHD and/or autism?
Quick correction: Anastasia was directed by Don Bluth and distributed by (I think also produced under?) 20th Century Fox, it is not a Disney film Very interesting video! I wrote the sentence "Freud yeeted is way into our culture and acting theory" to summarize the video since the thought was in my head.
I must praise your take 🙌 While I often feel like we throw the baby out, Freud was obviously a gross patriarch. If anyone accepts he was a "product of his time," also accept that plenty of people were also not opportunists largely holding up oppressive traditional institutions. Oddly enough, he was also relatively progressive in refusing to demonize homosexuality, so... weirdly complex drug addled man, yep
While I was writing this all I could think about was my video on Magnus Hirschfeld's trans clinic from the same era and how much more progressive and responsible he was in comparison to Freud. Hirschfeld also had issues, but FAR less than Freud did. And made it a lot harder to be like "oh Freud was a product of his time" given that Hirschfeld also was and... didn't suck lol
There's a guy on TH-cam who mentions freud, and the "Shadow side" (i thought that was Carl Jung anyway??) The guy's name is Richard grannon. He's had several TH-cam channels and talks with a strong sense of authority on everything. Then, as his thinking changes he often contradicts himself. It would be easy to fall for his self confident view of himself and put far too much weight on what he says. Listen to him if you want to, but take everything he says with an enormous pinch of salt. I just don't listen to him on anything. It's all just self important hot air 😂
My take about talk therapy is that it is a stagnant method to nowhere. Traumatized lives with cptsd and other won't find what's needed without trauma informed care. I've never liked Freud.
I've always been bothered by the psychological laymen's "freud dumb lol" cliche. he was a flawed human being--just like the rest of us--and a product of his culture; but outside of these limitations, he opened more deep conversations about the mind/personality than maybe any other secular thinker ever. psychoanalytic thinkers (karen horney, donald winnicott, christopher bollas, carl jung, among so many others) are some of the wisest, broadest-minded, most lucid, sharpest human beings. I think that a big problem for the reputation of psychoanalysis is that it paints a grimly sober picture of who/what we are. the psychologists that would like to disown freud would actually like to disown the painful insight and intensely abstract thinking that psychoanalysis requires. If it cannot be explained with a list of symptoms and neat statistics, modern psychology wants nothing to do with it. Ironically, modern psychologists and freud have something in common: they both want(ed, in freud's case) psychology to be a science. that's too damn bad. behind hand-wavy uses of statistics, phrases like "scientifically backed healing modalities" (which means "we have statistics"), and pharmaceutical prescriptions, what we're left with is contemplative literature. pure theory. anyone who works closely with the minds of others (social worker, therapist, theologian, life coach) knows that this is MUCH more of an art than it is a science. Freud was nominated for the nobel prize for literature in 1936. to be a psychologist means to be an artist. a suffering one, at that. psychologists who think they are conducting science, proving and disproving this or that, are con-artists (unto themselves, foremostly). all of us would be better off if psychology were marketed for what it is--a form of literature. then it might attract the people we actually need as psychologists: creative, intuitive, open-minded, bleeding-hearted, striving to express, trying to love, human beings. not rigid dorks who think consciousness/personality is an object of "science".
![A Beginner's Guide to Managing Disability & Economizing Energy [CC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RWzhpe00Y6U/mqdefault.jpg)
![A Beginner's Guide to Managing Disability & Economizing Energy [CC]](/img/tr.png)
![Where Did The DSM Come From? | Neurotypicality & Capitalism Pt. 1 [CC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/anfsIs6Ex3M/mqdefault.jpg)
5:20 this line never gets old
What!? No mention of Lacan?
I’m always fascinated by the seemingly infinite ways we as humans can feel so right about things we get so horribly wrong!
I think you’re absolutely right that we sweep this under the rug too much, lots of lessons to learn from the history of Freud and psychoanalysis that we don’t acknowledge. This bleeds into some of the mistakes we make today.
I have a shirt in the same font that says "I would prefer not to" - Bartleby !!!
I joke to people that i've studied Freud five times (Secondary school RP, Undergrad Medicine, Undergrad Philosophy, Personal reading on Literary theory, Critical theory Masters), and every time I find something new that he's wrong about. With that said I remember coming across an essay that applied queer theory to the field of children's rights. The essayist argued that Freud, more than anyone did a good job at breaking down the assumption of complete difference between children and adults by putting a sledgehammer right through contemporary notions of sexuality as these clear, obvious adult things and allowing for an acknowledgement of both childhood experience, and that sexuality couldn't be coded or put into a box (Freud himself then rapidly tried to build a box to put it into and failed). They accused most of the neo-Freudians of moving away from this observation and leaving it to people like Foucault and Lacan to put it back together.
Lacan was another one where I still disagree with him, but as I studied him I found a surprising amount of 'oh if only he'd...' moments.
As for the matter of teaching these, I was talking to my supervisor about this a few weeks ago and she brought up the idea that the way STEM causes teach actively neuters a lot of the possibilities for actual hermeneutics or critical analysis of their disciplines. At the time I was thinking about the way I was taught Freud (in which his segmenting of the mind was treated as if it was a natural step towards the neuroanatomical model of a modular brain, which is absolutely not correct). Since the aim is to build a set of practical skills, there's often this move to suture the actual history into neat stories to imply a continuity. My supervisor argued that teaching critical analysis of these thinkers is often not only not building this, but from the perspective of a university trying to produce a set of interchangeable, largely Taylorist therapists/doctors/so on, actively unhelpful. It's one of those ways where the way we shape society and culture puts limits on how we educate and vis a versa.
Rebecca Hester also has an interesting take on this. She looks at the way 'Cultural competence' is taught to doctors. She notes that cultural awareness education tends to just lead doctors to weaponisethe cultural facts they learn to better manipulate patients into doing what the doctor wants, which is depressing but it's worth keeping an eye on when education critical skills amongst groups who go on to have power.
Before seeing the video. Yes. Wondering if I'll change my mind.
Nope
"controlling the poos" cracked me up
Misogyny and cocaine!
14:00 Cocaine can have that effect on people.
5:20 Except I have no idea what Inside Out is so I don't, lol. Also, thanks for the awesome video! 😎🤘
Hi, I'm curious though have opinions from decades of living. In the early 70s middle school was torture. That's probably common, though in my decades I rarely find others whose lifetime drive was damaged from those horrible experiences. Childhood iny case has been a lifetime reflection too, where talk therapy turns into harmful rambles without grounding, selfcare nor Somatic understanding. It's time to mention hiw discovery of trauma therapy about 2015 pretty much saved me.
Decades after repressing SA age 16, this internet has a way of consistently reminding me it's happened.
Somewhat a wrap up:
Survival mode, Window of Tolerance, EMDR and near 3 yrs of trauma therapy helped this life begin anew. Very late though, but, maybe I can manage my old age better?
Regret about the loss of living well because of trauma, cptsd, anxious attachment, fawning personality matching (over giving to be liked), and severe body dysmorphia created mind storms. 23 yrs sober, and more learning there.
I like your videos a lot.
When I was fond of reading Freud, I tried to interpret dreams according to Freud and it turned out well, although it is tedious and requires discipline. But the truth is, like digesting food, my dreams were 3 days late. Has anyone else notice that dreams were delayed? Wonder if that is a feature of ADHD and/or autism?
Quick correction: Anastasia was directed by Don Bluth and distributed by (I think also produced under?) 20th Century Fox, it is not a Disney film
Very interesting video! I wrote the sentence "Freud yeeted is way into our culture and acting theory" to summarize the video since the thought was in my head.
Thank you! I only know it as the Disney musical and have never seen the film so I had truly no idea lol
@@disabled.autistic.lesbian The film itself is pretty good, from what I remember, but suffered from a lot of Executive Meddling. I’d recommend it!
Thank you! I imagine having to go through research for this was not fun... I wonder how many pop sci articles you had to wade through for this.
2:21 lol
I must praise your take 🙌 While I often feel like we throw the baby out, Freud was obviously a gross patriarch. If anyone accepts he was a "product of his time," also accept that plenty of people were also not opportunists largely holding up oppressive traditional institutions. Oddly enough, he was also relatively progressive in refusing to demonize homosexuality, so... weirdly complex drug addled man, yep
While I was writing this all I could think about was my video on Magnus Hirschfeld's trans clinic from the same era and how much more progressive and responsible he was in comparison to Freud. Hirschfeld also had issues, but FAR less than Freud did. And made it a lot harder to be like "oh Freud was a product of his time" given that Hirschfeld also was and... didn't suck lol
There's a guy on TH-cam who mentions freud, and the "Shadow side" (i thought that was Carl Jung anyway??)
The guy's name is Richard grannon. He's had several TH-cam channels and talks with a strong sense of authority on everything.
Then, as his thinking changes he often contradicts himself.
It would be easy to fall for his self confident view of himself and put far too much weight on what he says.
Listen to him if you want to, but take everything he says with an enormous pinch of salt.
I just don't listen to him on anything. It's all just self important hot air 😂
My take about talk therapy is that it is a stagnant method to nowhere. Traumatized lives with cptsd and other won't find what's needed without trauma informed care. I've never liked Freud.
As an asexual person Freud theories have always made me icky and uncomfortable, becouse all of it was a creepy sex thing
I've always been bothered by the psychological laymen's "freud dumb lol" cliche. he was a flawed human being--just like the rest of us--and a product of his culture; but outside of these limitations, he opened more deep conversations about the mind/personality than maybe any other secular thinker ever. psychoanalytic thinkers (karen horney, donald winnicott, christopher bollas, carl jung, among so many others) are some of the wisest, broadest-minded, most lucid, sharpest human beings.
I think that a big problem for the reputation of psychoanalysis is that it paints a grimly sober picture of who/what we are. the psychologists that would like to disown freud would actually like to disown the painful insight and intensely abstract thinking that psychoanalysis requires. If it cannot be explained with a list of symptoms and neat statistics, modern psychology wants nothing to do with it.
Ironically, modern psychologists and freud have something in common: they both want(ed, in freud's case) psychology to be a science. that's too damn bad. behind hand-wavy uses of statistics, phrases like "scientifically backed healing modalities" (which means "we have statistics"), and pharmaceutical prescriptions, what we're left with is contemplative literature. pure theory. anyone who works closely with the minds of others (social worker, therapist, theologian, life coach) knows that this is MUCH more of an art than it is a science. Freud was nominated for the nobel prize for literature in 1936. to be a psychologist means to be an artist. a suffering one, at that. psychologists who think they are conducting science, proving and disproving this or that, are con-artists (unto themselves, foremostly). all of us would be better off if psychology were marketed for what it is--a form of literature. then it might attract the people we actually need as psychologists: creative, intuitive, open-minded, bleeding-hearted, striving to express, trying to love, human beings. not rigid dorks who think consciousness/personality is an object of "science".
1st