Candace Owens mentioned him at a FVD conference in Amsterdam yesterday, so I decided to do a little research myself. So here I am; less than 10 mins. underway, but: Wow. Just Wow!
My life was literally destroyed by a psychoanalyst who had me free associating, only talking about childhood (which wasn't even that traumatic, by the way) dream analysis, etc. My mom was dying of cancer when I was only 19 and I wanted one appointment with a therapist to verify that my feelings were called anxiety, which I'd heard about but never had much (I'm an actress, extrovert, not much fear, etc.). She took advantage of me and my parents money, and one appointment turned into years, and literally, she destroyed my life. I can't move on because I can't believe someone like this is even allowed to practice! How is it possible that this field has so many quacks? When I finally dumped her, the next therapist didn't know what anxiety was either, and the next one professed his love for me after rescheduling our appointment for an even session when the building was vacant. He sobbed and tried to hug and kiss me. Then after he died I wrote an anonymous Yelp review and one of his other victims wrote me saying it happened to her too. I feel like I need to do something to help others to know that there are so many quacks. But I also just wish my life hadn't been destroyed. You seem like one of the very rare competent therapists, but I think most are nuts and I'm in so much pain after having been abused by these horrible people.
Freud reminds me of medieval alchemists who thought they could turn lead into gold via chemical processes. They were dead wrong about that, of course. But they invented many useful techniques along the way. Freud may have been a "quack" in a lot of ways, but he helped change mental health treatments from torture chambers called "asylums," to much less harmful practices, such as putting people "on the couch."
Hey I am a therapist who very much has appreciated your videos! You may enjoy the magazine Parapraxis which is very much psychodynamic, while also not shying away from the ghosts in the psychodynamic closet. Psychodynamic approaches often get conflated with freud. However, glad to see you expanding your horizons on content! Best of luck!
Thank you for sharing this deconstructing video! I started to read the biography of Freud "The Making of an Illusion" recently and had to put it down multiple times. It's deeply disturbing! It makes me wonder if this field as a whole draws in a disproportionate number of narcisstic character structures, much like the character you've described.
Any field based upon holding influence over others will attract narcissistic character structures. Law, law enforcement, healthcare, government... local restaurant or retail store managers...
If Freud was a woman, this video would be a completely different story. That being said, if it wasn't for Freud and his intense psychology studying, we today would be absolutely clueless on how to treat patients and their illnesses. Appreciate Freud and what he's accomplished.
Yeah, i think of him as just a fraud. Seeing people believe in that whole transactional psychology thats based off of fraud makes me question it as well. His name associated with anything makes me think its pure bs.
Even to me as a man the guy is disgusting. Also I cannot find good evidence of psychoanalysis being therapeutic... i mean group control vs pther ways pf treatments and such. To me is some kind of a cult.
I studied psychology when I went to college. Was on my way to getting a psychology degree and almost finished it. I didn't get it, but that's a different subject. Anyway, when I was learning about Freud in class, the biggest impression I got of him is that he loved to project. It seems he liked to assume that his own issues were everyone's issues. Projection, projection, projection. Lot's of projection. I think a lot of his "theories" came from him projecting his issues onto others. Granted, lots of those who studied psychology and named certain theories may have discovered their conclusions based on their own life experience. But, there's a difference between a psychologist who bases their theories not solely on personal experience, but also repeated, quantifiable, studies with consistent results. Whereas, it seemed like Freud was mostly basing his conclusions by projecting his personal experiences on others without any other objective studies to back up his claims. I don't know... the more I learn about Freud, the more I think, "are you serious? THIS joker is the "father of psychology"?" Granted, no one is perfect. But really... him, of all people??
Late response - but it's ironic you use the term "projection" to describe Freud. Freud introduced the concept of projection to psychology. So yes, he is the father of psychology because even in shooting him down, you use the terms and frameworks that he invented.
@@thetomhousecat, the concept was around. And Feuerbach might be the first who introduced a term for the concept. "The rabbit laughs at the donkey for its long ears" is an eastern European proverb. "The pot calls the kettle black." is another. Plenty of proverbs about hipocrisy and blame shifting. The thief who wants to deflect from his own wrongdoing blaming someone else is a theme in a lot of fairytales. The Babylonian Talmud notes the human tendency toward projection and warns against it: "Do not taunt your neighbour with the blemish you yourself have." In the New Testament, Jesus warned against projection: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. Let's stop making a superhuman out of Freud, as if only he has observed something hidden for all humanity and nobody ever, ever had a clue about blame shifting and then came this god named Freud and unveiled hidden human behaviour. Nearly all concepts Freud used had been around for centuries. To be honest his contribution is that he really perverted them to the point they mean everything and nothing.
I agree with the comment about taking a lot of what we read about Freud with a grain of salt. I think it might be helpful to get a well rounded view of Freud and Psychoanalysis from his actual biographer Ernest Jones who began writing about Freud when he was still alive. Peter Gay also wrote a well detailed, documented, and fact supported biography about Freud. I think these books although lengthy put Freud into context. We need to remember Freud was trying to create a new form of therapy/science so there were bound to be mistakes in his approach. He was absolutely not a perfect person and was prone to tantrums, depression, and anxiety as well as cutting people off if he felt betrayed. However, let's not throw the theory out with the person. There were many analyst who built off of his work and made psychoanalysis a very helpful form of treatment--Heinz Kohut comes to mind when he brings empathy into the theory. Last, there are many analyst as myself using what was helpful from Freud's beginnings and adapting analysis to fit the current culture with open-mindedness, empathy, curiosity, and warmth.
it's not so much misogyny as it's down to the nose job a typical overindulged and emotionally brutalized Jewish boy self therapy attempt. these days they often call it emotional Inzest
This was very interesting, Marie, even though I had never heard a lot of glorification of Freud, at least in my studies (I'm in Northern Europe). We were taught to treat whatever we read of and about Freud with many, many grains of salt, so I couldn't emotionally react to these newer facts since I never saw Freud as a perfect human being. He was, undoubtedly, a very interesting and very intelligent human being, and his contribution is invaluable, but this video made me interested more in Jung's approach. (I've been taught to see Jung as this woo woo mystic, but over the years I see more and more of Jung's approach seep into my psychology practice). As for the style of the video - I'm happy whenever you post a video, Marie, regardless of what it's about. I enjoyed the longer video. I do, however, see you more of an expert in the organization and business side of a psychology practice than a teacher of theories and history. There were things in this video I really really would love to see a video about - like the words that you beeped out. I have no idea what words TH-cam considers demonetezable (that's not a word, i'm sure, and I see demons there :D ). And another thing I'd love to hear you talk about is where, how and whether you (or any practicing psychologist) keep up with research and studies once the university is well behind you. I'd be really interested to hear how others deal with this. I'm sure I'm not the only psychologist who really misses their university library and APA, EBSCO etc. database subscriptions that were once available to me in the university. I can't keep studying there forever, but I really don't know HOW to keep up with the latest research and schools of thought in our field. And I would love to see a video like this about Jung. THANKS, MARIE! For everything. I love your videos, I cherish and enjoy them immensely.
Sadly, there is such thing. In Brazil, Argentina and France, he is still relevant and don't you dare say anything about Freud, the psychoanalysis cult will call you out.
None of this impacts his brilliance and the fact that his constructs are still in play… he also postulated, as a physician, that he hoped that in the future psychiatry would be enabled to embrace ‘a medical model’-which we see happening in the present… As well, your focus is set on a deflection away from his major ideologies and conceptual ideologies… I felt sure you would pound the drum of penis envy…
Again, psychoanalytic theory AFTER Freud, including Object Relations, attachment-based, etc are incredibly helpful sometimes significantly more so than cognitive therapies. It feels irresponsible of you to diminish psychoanalysis to this problematic man. Yes he started things, but it has been HEAVILY revised since then.
When I was in training we had to obviously learn about Freud as a pioneer in psychotherapy. Our program taught him as a historical figure and that maybe his desire to give a client insight into problems MIGHT be useful to some clients, but that most clients want to move on to something like Person Centered, CBT, or Motivational Interviewing. So, insight may be important to help the client explore his or her beliefs, but the client will move into the action stage at some point and the "Why do I do that?" will become "How can I move on and change." The funny part is that the Chair of our Department did a "genetic" analysis of his supervisor, who supervised him and then who supervised the supervisor of the supervisor and they wound up at Josef Breuer Freud's academic crush. This person (our Dept. Chair) taught that Freud's main use is to help a client understand his/her motivation if he or she feels inclined to it, and then move on to more scientific modalities which he believed can actually promote change and well being.
Thank you for being so open and vulnerable. This seriously will make us better therapists and people to call out what's (terribly) wrong and preserve the goodness. ❤
Your content is amazing. So thought provoking and informative. You are AWESOME. Thank you thank you for the great content and please do keep it up. You've (obviously and easily) earned yourself a subscriber.
I'm convinced Freud was a narcissist or worst 😮 the way he structured psychoanalysis itself creates everything about human existence as a problem ❤ thanks for calling it out... as someone who's experienced adult abuse sending you love ❤
@@airsplat490thank you. Freud started a theoretical revolution at the turn of the 20th century that provided following analysts to use what was helpful and have enough a discerning eye to identity what is historically important but no longer meets the client’s needs or needs reworking. Fried started the discussion and while he misses a lot, he also deserves immense amount of credit for his work in the first part of the 20th century.
A very helpful video. The only thing wrong with it is your apology at the end. No, you were in no way tiresome, nor was the subject matter "too heavy," particularly considering all the damage that Freud, his theories, and subsequent generations of "practioners" (dare I say "witch doctors"?) have been responsible for. A most illuminating book is Frederick Crews's "Freud: The Making of an Illusion." As a highly-regarded English professor (now retired) who at one time had totally embraced Freud's theories, his research is both exhaustive and most illuminating. There are also many fascinating interviews of him discussing this book and his views on Freud on YT. Highly recommended!
Oh Yeah, reading private letters between a husband and wife from 100 years ago and judging their statements by using terms such as "bad" to dismiss an entire body of knowledge and science (not the popperian kind), very logical and honest!!
This is the case of separating the artist from the art for me. I'm all about contemporary psychodynamic therapy. I appreciate Freud for starting the conversation of the unconscious, but he isn't necessarily a model citizen.
This doesn’t seem “too long” to me. Thanks for the video. I got my bachelors in psychology in 1992 and I can’t believe he is still handled with reverence in curriculum. But then we shouldn’t be holding anyone up to godlike status. That would help with a lot of cultural ills. Such as women continuing to not be believed about menstrual pain. (I found out at 49 that I had severe endometriosis. Hardly “hysterical”.
"the one who shall not be named" of today. Almost every school of therapy is still standing on the ground of his theories, terms etc. Peaople just dont want to know itband hear his name, because it would mean they are getting influenced by some of his views to this day under the table und would be GUILTY! GUILTY OF ENJOYING THE BENIFITS OF THIS FRAUDS RESEARCHES AND POSTULATES!
Not to write a book, but some history of psychology can be very dark. Just pick one area😅 However, along the way many in the field had enough integrity to say, "hey hey hey don't do that!" And the field is growing and has gotten much better 😊 It is still very important to know the truth as well, so this video was awesome! Thanks, I know it was heavy.
This is a fine video in terms of the style, but I hope that if you do similar "takedowns" that they'll be founded on stronger arguments. All you present here is just an extended *ad hominem* argument. Is it simple name-calling? No, it's more well-researched than that. But the premise of your argument is ultimately that Freud's morality does not match your own, and that he deserves to be dismissed solely on those grounds. Right out the gate, you make a lot of general statements about Freud and all the "icky stuff" he's done. I know you "can't cover all of it," but just dropping a moral statement and then saying "there's so much that I can't cover all of it and that's proof that he's a bad dude" is really not fair. It would be like me making a response video and saying "wow, Marie's video is terrible and there are so many wrong things with it" and then just making a face at the camera. You spend a sizable chunk of the video criticizing his marriage and personal life, justifying that ad hominem argument with the statement that "being a person of integrity at home...translates over to how you do your work." While I don't disagree with this, I figure there are ways to separate the art from the artist, so to speak. Are there nasty things that bleed through into his work? Of course. But the same could probably be said of your evangelical background; I can imagine a number of ways that this background still influences your work in ways that limit client growth. Hell, many of your criticisms involving misogyny are a hallmark of evangelical Christianity! We all have histories where we are socialized to fall into a particular power dynamic, and we're all putting varying degrees of effort to shift that power dynamic to something more equitable. We also make many missteps, and both Christianity and psychotherapy are built on the assumption that people can change and grow. Rather than considering that Freud was genuinely trying to alter the way we view and treat women, you focus exclusively on the missteps, reinforcing a caricature of him that has been pervasive since at least the 1980s. He failed A LOT, but he was trying to fight against hundreds of years of faulty medical practice...using a skillset built on hundreds of years of faulty medical practice. You mention *Verführungstheorie* (seduction theory) as evidence that he was misogynistic and that the abandonment is proof that it was a bad theory, but that to me is proof that he was willing to grow and change. His years of practice demonstrate a willingness to abandon and revise. One thing I want to point out about your video is that it relies solely on secondary sources. You took editorialized analyses of his letters and research and reported on those rather than reporting on the primary sources. This causes multiple problems throughout your video, but one notable instance is in claiming that his abandonment of seduction theory was due to social pressure. We actually don't know about what led to that abandonment beyond a couple documents written in 1987. He didn't publicly renounce seduction theory until 1906 -- if he were backpedaling due to social pressure, then why did it take 9 years? Overall, this video is a swing and a miss. I'm not expecting academic rigor in a TH-cam video, but I would hope that you would admit that you are not a historian or very well-versed in the history, context, and nuances of psychoanalytic theory. Freud had a lot of problems, yes. He also was very committed to making radical changes to how we treat marginalized people in society.
She repeatedly said a lot of the stuff is conjecture and opinion. This is youtube, not a peer reviewed journal. The fact that you're gonna go this far and take so much time typing up a criticism to something that's meant to be entertaining... Bro you ok?
@@nothanks9912 I explicitly said, "I'm not expecting academic rigor in a TH-cam video." What I expecting is responsible discussion from a fellow therapist. The fact that you're gonna go this far and take so much time reading and responding to my criticism... Bro you okay? (And in case you're wanting to keep white-knighting, just remember she's not gonna fuck you.)
I’ve always thought he was a deviant who was falsely glorified in the MH field. True some of his ideas have value, but do to us a broken clock correct twice a day.
You can't compare modern standards to the past. Judging from the past he was pretty much the least mysogistic person you could find also you drag things out way too much and your facial expressions show that you're trying to instill your belief into others that's called manipulation to a degree. Bad review
I believe our capability to vilify Freud stems from his idolization. He was capable, in his time, of creating a theoretical approach around ideas that were being expressed but didn't have focus. He wasn't born in a vacuum but rather expressed things that were considered important at that time. I would assume this is largely a reason for his success, despite many failures. People didn't just see a man spouting off ideas but rather saw someone that they agreed with, enough to follow and work under. I imagine his idolization became a sort of "Ring of Gyges" for him and created a path and a history where he could do "no wrong" which, as we can see now, is deeply problematic. I wonder then how I might hold competing thoughts about this man in my own mind, recognizing that much of the current field of psychology is a rebranding of Freud and Jung's work, while also recognizing this horrific past where I feel confident in saying that in many ways both the man and the time he came from dishearten me.
This is somewhat unrelated to the content it the video,but do you know if it's legal for a therapist to refuse to work with men? I've wanted to be a therapist for a long time, but I'm not willing to work with men (or trans women who still be appear to be men)
Unless you take insurance, you are not required to work with anyone who you do not think is a good fit and who you think you can help. Many therapists specialize in working with men or woman, so I do not see why you can not. It is not uncommon for therapists in private practice to refer clients on to other services if we do not think we can help them--in fact it would be unethical to work with someone whom we do not think we can help. I would encourage you to be clear in your marketing who your target population is (woman) and if/when someone reaches out who is not within that, refer them to an appropriate therapist. As long as you are not taking insurance where they have regulations that require you to work with anyone referred, you should be fine.
Victorian Era Wealthy White Men from Europe are coveted ground ... I hope you leave this up and continue on this line of content. Already, I see butt hurt people who say, "how dare you!" in the comment section ... probably not people who studied the history and systems of the field. I think you're doing an amazing job Doc!
While Freud was not free from ethical problems, it’s super important to acknowledge that Freud and his family were literally persecuted by the Nazis for being Jewish. He had to flee Vienna to Britain. During his time, his whiteness would not have been viewed as the same as today, and that is very important to remember when situating Freud historically.
@@alysongriedl547 Do you believe that his background pressured him to cultivate a wrong theory? He was a sign of the times for sure. The entire time influenced him but so did his need to be right (looking at how he treated his own students when they questioned him)... IMO, the important part for today, in 2023, we can acknowledge that his work was deeply flawed and dangerous to many many people in the 21st century. I don't think anyone in the field of psychology would dispute the historical nightmare times he lived in. Including his Jewish influence or the atrocities of the Victorian era Europe from 1920's-1940's.
@@henryhealing444 I agree a lot with your points about Freud’s pressure to be right and to evangelize about psychoanalysis to a fault. I only take issue generally when I hear Freud outright dismissed as a ‘wealthy old white victorian man’ for the reasons in my original reply. I do think that many of Freud’s critics or even the way that he is taught in psychology classes to omit the cultural and historical factors around him to a fault.
@@alysongriedl547 I don't know what gender, education, or economic place you have in the world. I do know that I was very close to my great grandmother who was born in the 1800's and lived until she was 90. I was 10. I saw what that life did to women as a whole. Freud's influence has hurt people, more than helped. Her conversations and description of that repressed era had a very profound impact on me as a person. A female person born to a misogynistic, patronizing, conservative family who repressed, silenced, and devalued women, people of color, the BIPOC and LGBTQIA people for many generations and decades to come. I am not theorizing, but instead, siding with the modern era to stop putting so much pressure on our field as an influence on our current citizens. The origins of psychology if taught or theorized today would be crushed. I stand by that. As someone who lived through the tail end of it. Lived experience is a powerful educator. My own grandmother was not allowed to go outside while she was a 35 year old pregnant woman because "what would people think. They would know she had had sex." The impact of male suppression was astounding. I won't go on, but could write volumes in defense of what Marie posted.
@@henryhealing444 I really do appreciate you sharing more of your background, and I do think we agree more than disagree that the origins of the field are misogynistic, racist, etc. I also agree a lot with Marie’s video and her followup video, but I simply wished there was more historical and cultural context in her criticism. As a German-American, I take it upon myself to acknowledge the historical atrocities of the Nazi’s, wherever its ugly head comes up, and Freud’s history is no exception me. Also, as a psychodynamic psychotherapist myself, I do think we can still learn from and apply many ideas of psychoanalysis to greatly benefit clients from all backgrounds. I have also found that as a queer woman, experiencing psychodynamic therapy myself has been transformative. That being said, I also respect your (and many other’s) reluctance of embracing many of Freud’s ideas for the reasons you stated.
I don’t think you see how many so called influential therapists today are saying what Freud already said. One therapist being Gabor Mate. You should read more Freud, and then read others who brought his work forward. The fact that your heard hurt at the end of the video and how heavy it was for you proves you’re not a good source on the topic.
Are you crazy? Why would a person being disturbed by weird sexual ideas and potential medical malpractice be a sign that they're not a good source of information on psychology?
@@ceinwenchandler4716I don’t think you understand those “weird sexual ideas”. The fact you call them weird means you haven’t read the context. Again, actually read Freud.
@@ceinwenchandler4716Freud never claimed it to be a medical practice. Freud believed in a collective racial memory, a language of dreams, and didn’t want psychoanalysis to be confined to psychiatry. He uses the eye of a poet to look deeply into the soul of every person.
@@ceinwenchandler4716also, therapists today take the ideas of transference and apply it to their work. We would have the idea of transference if it weren’t for Freud. Freud gets gets the idea of transference from the neurotic sexual subject. You can’t cherry pick.
I find your critique shallow and cherry-picked. In fact, you picked a few random (the exception being the Anna O case, which is relevant) pieces of information purely to cast a shadow on the guy. This is borderline stinky, if not else. I understand a matter of taste, if you don't like the guy or his story, perhaps his manners or approach or quotes or whatever. Most of the things (misogyny, views on families, duties, and possession) are banally coming by the fact that he WAS a late 1800s person, Jew of Jewish descent, trying to make his way into a MUCH less sophisticated world than the one we live in. Eckstein's case it is just that, they believed in things that are absurd with our lens of analysis, in today’s standard, like the masturbation/menstrual pain stuff or the cure via nasal surgery. But by not considering it, or easily dismissing it, you’re actually working to draw conclusions about dishonesty again because of your likes or dislikes. Doctors make mistakes, 1895 or 2023, yep, and the context does matter. For example, let’s take the husband/child quote: cherry-picked. He wrote EXTENSIVELY about sexuality, his whole system revolves around it. Pulsions, development of the libido, his own model of development, many key concepts like defense mechanisms, transfert, abreaction, regression, Super Ego (and MANY others) and you just trivialized it all by depicting him as a weirdo that has/liked/promoted role-playing fetishes. Honestly, I don't like it at all coming from a therapist, woman, or man. About the seduction theory: yeah, he stood by it 'til the end and perhaps all along, but the point is that when he came to the conclusion that many rape stories were indeed fantasies, he made a huge statement for the times, connecting the trauma theories of times with the functioning of memory archiving and retrieving functions. Ideas were confirmed much later by neuroscience, by the way. He was decades ahead of his time. If you would have studied well his work and model of development of the mind, and REALLY understood it, you'd understand where that consideration and modification stemmed from. Let’s come to the Anna O case. It is true that she didn’t get well in the end, although you made a critical mistake there: the Pappenheim case illustrates how his approach works, by bringing the clinical case as a tool. That case introduces Freud's future works: the theory of neuroses, transference, free associations, talking cure, the exploration of the unconscious, and insights into traumatic experiences. It failed on a personal level, however, it worked (and works today) on many others and there are tons of recent papers to prove it. The fact is, though, you wouldn't be doing your job (nor I) without him and his body of work. Sigmund Freud is so heavily renowned and quoted simply because he: - Invented the whole system of Psychoanalysis from the ground up; - Theorized different models of the mind, human motivation, goal setting, and energy; - Gave fundamental importance to the realm of the Unconscious, de facto dethroning human reason from the pyramid of our way of perceiving human nature, and behavior; - Revolutionized how we treat mental disorders, laying the foundations for the practice of analysis as we know it (or as we did in the 90s, more accurately); - Founded the *Vienna Psychoanalytic* Society; - He was a terrific writer (lol the copy/plagiarism accusations cracked me); - His knowledge was immense, and not only of psychology, but of classic culture, myths, sociology, and theology. He wrote extensively about God, society, tradition, and of course families and individuals; And by the way, I’m not even a hardcore Freudian, I prefer other authors, but I despise this kind of content, as I despise the tentative of downgrading an author’s importance by taking into the equation his private life. “A lot of his ideas were totally bogus”. YES! But also a lot of his ideas are still Genius today and still stand the proof of time. Many, indeed. He snorted cocaine, who cares.
@@kimkmetz9673 And where exactly do you see me doing what you accused me of? There's nothing referring to me being a male, nothing arrogant about my stance, it is just a longerish paragraph on Freud. I could be disagreeing with Marie on that, pro to pro, but this has nothing to do with that.
I've been teaching psych. for 20+ years ... and yes! To all of what you say. It made me unpopular, but it's about time that more and more are calling out the Euro-old white guys (said by a Euro-old white lady). :) Next, I hope you cover Jung's bigotry.
You should have a more specific description of the people you are happy others are calling out. Is “Euro-old white guys” really the most accurate description of the people you are talking about?
And while we're at it let's do Billy Graham's (NIXON TAPES)and John Wayne's(PLAYBOYS INTERVIEW) past as well, yea?..........................................
![...Did Freud Suck? [CC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IVICxoBxBuY/mqdefault.jpg)
![...Did Freud Suck? [CC]](/img/tr.png)
Candace Owens mentioned him at a FVD conference in Amsterdam yesterday, so I decided to do a little research myself. So here I am; less than 10 mins. underway, but: Wow. Just Wow!
My life was literally destroyed by a psychoanalyst who had me free associating, only talking about childhood (which wasn't even that traumatic, by the way) dream analysis, etc. My mom was dying of cancer when I was only 19 and I wanted one appointment with a therapist to verify that my feelings were called anxiety, which I'd heard about but never had much (I'm an actress, extrovert, not much fear, etc.). She took advantage of me and my parents money, and one appointment turned into years, and literally, she destroyed my life. I can't move on because I can't believe someone like this is even allowed to practice! How is it possible that this field has so many quacks? When I finally dumped her, the next therapist didn't know what anxiety was either, and the next one professed his love for me after rescheduling our appointment for an even session when the building was vacant. He sobbed and tried to hug and kiss me. Then after he died I wrote an anonymous Yelp review and one of his other victims wrote me saying it happened to her too. I feel like I need to do something to help others to know that there are so many quacks. But I also just wish my life hadn't been destroyed. You seem like one of the very rare competent therapists, but I think most are nuts and I'm in so much pain after having been abused by these horrible people.
Read Totem and Taboo.
That is absolutely horrible and horrific. All of them are licensed and should be reported to their state board.
@@frankstared Why would I read a book written by a crazed lunatic Sigmund Freud?
@@theZMINY Thank you so much.
Your life wasn't 'destroyed' by any of this. You're being absurd and melodramatic and unfairly blaming others for your problems.
Doing my own research on Freud after watching Candace Owens.
Haha I’m here for that same exact reason. You must of watched her last show lol
Candace opened my eyes too!
Bro was _seriously_ disturbed.
Say this to Argentinian Psychologists. A lot of them still glorify him and Lacan, which in a way is even worse.
Same in Brazil.
Freud reminds me of medieval alchemists who thought they could turn lead into gold via chemical processes. They were dead wrong about that, of course. But they invented many useful techniques along the way. Freud may have been a "quack" in a lot of ways, but he helped change mental health treatments from torture chambers called "asylums," to much less harmful practices, such as putting people "on the couch."
Hey I am a therapist who very much has appreciated your videos! You may enjoy the magazine Parapraxis which is very much psychodynamic, while also not shying away from the ghosts in the psychodynamic closet. Psychodynamic approaches often get conflated with freud. However, glad to see you expanding your horizons on content! Best of luck!
This was so interesting, please keep going with this series! I would love to hear more about Anna Freud as well
Thank you for sharing this deconstructing video! I started to read the biography of Freud "The Making of an Illusion" recently and had to put it down multiple times. It's deeply disturbing! It makes me wonder if this field as a whole draws in a disproportionate number of narcisstic character structures, much like the character you've described.
Any field based upon holding influence over others will attract narcissistic character structures. Law, law enforcement, healthcare, government... local restaurant or retail store managers...
If Freud was a woman, this video would be a completely different story. That being said, if it wasn't for Freud and his intense psychology studying, we today would be absolutely clueless on how to treat patients and their illnesses. Appreciate Freud and what he's accomplished.
Yeah, i think of him as just a fraud. Seeing people believe in that whole transactional psychology thats based off of fraud makes me question it as well. His name associated with anything makes me think its pure bs.
The whole field of psychotherapy may be the placebo effect at best
Therapists are quacks. They need people on their weekly calendars to make money and then harm people with their incompetence.
Even to me as a man the guy is disgusting. Also I cannot find good evidence of psychoanalysis being therapeutic... i mean group control vs pther ways pf treatments and such. To me is some kind of a cult.
I studied psychology when I went to college. Was on my way to getting a psychology degree and almost finished it. I didn't get it, but that's a different subject.
Anyway, when I was learning about Freud in class, the biggest impression I got of him is that he loved to project. It seems he liked to assume that his own issues were everyone's issues. Projection, projection, projection. Lot's of projection. I think a lot of his "theories" came from him projecting his issues onto others.
Granted, lots of those who studied psychology and named certain theories may have discovered their conclusions based on their own life experience. But, there's a difference between a psychologist who bases their theories not solely on personal experience, but also repeated, quantifiable, studies with consistent results. Whereas, it seemed like Freud was mostly basing his conclusions by projecting his personal experiences on others without any other objective studies to back up his claims.
I don't know... the more I learn about Freud, the more I think, "are you serious? THIS joker is the "father of psychology"?" Granted, no one is perfect. But really... him, of all people??
Late response - but it's ironic you use the term "projection" to describe Freud. Freud introduced the concept of projection to psychology. So yes, he is the father of psychology because even in shooting him down, you use the terms and frameworks that he invented.
@@thetomhousecat, the concept was around. And Feuerbach might be the first who introduced a term for the concept. "The rabbit laughs at the donkey for its long ears" is an eastern European proverb. "The pot calls the kettle black." is another.
Plenty of proverbs about hipocrisy and blame shifting. The thief who wants to deflect from his own wrongdoing blaming someone else is a theme in a lot of fairytales.
The Babylonian Talmud notes the human tendency toward projection and warns against it: "Do not taunt your neighbour with the blemish you yourself have." In the New Testament, Jesus warned against projection: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Let's stop making a superhuman out of Freud, as if only he has observed something hidden for all humanity and nobody ever, ever had a clue about blame shifting and then came this god named Freud and unveiled hidden human behaviour.
Nearly all concepts Freud used had been around for centuries. To be honest his contribution is that he really perverted them to the point they mean everything and nothing.
I agree with the comment about taking a lot of what we read about Freud with a grain of salt. I think it might be helpful to get a well rounded view of Freud and Psychoanalysis from his actual biographer Ernest Jones who began writing about Freud when he was still alive. Peter Gay also wrote a well detailed, documented, and fact supported biography about Freud. I think these books although lengthy put Freud into context. We need to remember Freud was trying to create a new form of therapy/science so there were bound to be mistakes in his approach. He was absolutely not a perfect person and was prone to tantrums, depression, and anxiety as well as cutting people off if he felt betrayed. However, let's not throw the theory out with the person. There were many analyst who built off of his work and made psychoanalysis a very helpful form of treatment--Heinz Kohut comes to mind when he brings empathy into the theory. Last, there are many analyst as myself using what was helpful from Freud's beginnings and adapting analysis to fit the current culture with open-mindedness, empathy, curiosity, and warmth.
Really love your perspective! It will stay with me for sure
Oh Marie, you are brave. I had a feeling that the guy was screwed up for a long time just from his ideas.
Would love a part two of this with more info. Really enjoyed this!
Yes! Thank you for digging into the misogynistic past of Freud and therapy. Would love more of these!
@@TempleKnightTVWeirdo...
it's not so much misogyny as it's down to the nose job a typical overindulged and emotionally brutalized Jewish boy self therapy attempt. these days they often call it emotional Inzest
🤡
This was very interesting, Marie, even though I had never heard a lot of glorification of Freud, at least in my studies (I'm in Northern Europe). We were taught to treat whatever we read of and about Freud with many, many grains of salt, so I couldn't emotionally react to these newer facts since I never saw Freud as a perfect human being. He was, undoubtedly, a very interesting and very intelligent human being, and his contribution is invaluable, but this video made me interested more in Jung's approach. (I've been taught to see Jung as this woo woo mystic, but over the years I see more and more of Jung's approach seep into my psychology practice).
As for the style of the video - I'm happy whenever you post a video, Marie, regardless of what it's about. I enjoyed the longer video. I do, however, see you more of an expert in the organization and business side of a psychology practice than a teacher of theories and history. There were things in this video I really really would love to see a video about - like the words that you beeped out. I have no idea what words TH-cam considers demonetezable (that's not a word, i'm sure, and I see demons there :D ). And another thing I'd love to hear you talk about is where, how and whether you (or any practicing psychologist) keep up with research and studies once the university is well behind you. I'd be really interested to hear how others deal with this. I'm sure I'm not the only psychologist who really misses their university library and APA, EBSCO etc. database subscriptions that were once available to me in the university. I can't keep studying there forever, but I really don't know HOW to keep up with the latest research and schools of thought in our field.
And I would love to see a video like this about Jung.
THANKS, MARIE! For everything. I love your videos, I cherish and enjoy them immensely.
Sadly, there is such thing. In Brazil, Argentina and France, he is still relevant and don't you dare say anything about Freud, the psychoanalysis cult will call you out.
PLEASE do more videos like this!! I need to learn more psychologist and their theories and I feel like this helps me remember them more
None of this impacts his brilliance and the fact that his constructs are still in play… he also postulated, as a physician, that he hoped that in the future psychiatry would be enabled to embrace ‘a medical model’-which we see happening in the present…
As well, your focus is set on a deflection away from his major ideologies and conceptual ideologies…
I felt sure you would pound the drum of penis envy…
Again, psychoanalytic theory AFTER Freud, including Object Relations, attachment-based, etc are incredibly helpful sometimes significantly more so than cognitive therapies.
It feels irresponsible of you to diminish psychoanalysis to this problematic man. Yes he started things, but it has been HEAVILY revised since then.
When I was in training we had to obviously learn about Freud as a pioneer in psychotherapy. Our program taught him as a historical figure and that maybe his desire to give a client insight into problems MIGHT be useful to some clients, but that most clients want to move on to something like Person Centered, CBT, or Motivational Interviewing. So, insight may be important to help the client explore his or her beliefs, but the client will move into the action stage at some point and the "Why do I do that?" will become "How can I move on and change." The funny part is that the Chair of our Department did a "genetic" analysis of his supervisor, who supervised him and then who supervised the supervisor of the supervisor and they wound up at Josef Breuer Freud's academic crush. This person (our Dept. Chair) taught that Freud's main use is to help a client understand his/her motivation if he or she feels inclined to it, and then move on to more scientific modalities which he believed can actually promote change and well being.
Thank you for being so open and vulnerable. This seriously will make us better therapists and people to call out what's (terribly) wrong and preserve the goodness. ❤
Your content is amazing. So thought provoking and informative. You are AWESOME. Thank you thank you for the great content and please do keep it up. You've (obviously and easily) earned yourself a subscriber.
I'm convinced Freud was a narcissist or worst 😮 the way he structured psychoanalysis itself creates everything about human existence as a problem ❤ thanks for calling it out... as someone who's experienced adult abuse sending you love ❤
People talk as if Freud were alive only a few years ago.
@@airsplat490thank you. Freud started a theoretical revolution at the turn of the 20th century that provided following analysts to use what was helpful and have enough a discerning eye to identity what is historically important but no longer meets the client’s needs or needs reworking. Fried started the discussion and while he misses a lot, he also deserves immense amount of credit for his work in the first part of the 20th century.
A very helpful video. The only thing wrong with it is your apology at the end. No, you were in no way tiresome, nor was the subject matter "too heavy," particularly considering all the damage that Freud, his theories, and subsequent generations of "practioners" (dare I say "witch doctors"?) have been responsible for. A most illuminating book is Frederick Crews's "Freud: The Making of an Illusion." As a highly-regarded English professor (now retired) who at one time had totally embraced Freud's theories, his research is both exhaustive and most illuminating. There are also many fascinating interviews of him discussing this book and his views on Freud on YT. Highly recommended!
Oh Yeah, reading private letters between a husband and wife from 100 years ago and judging their statements by using terms such as "bad" to dismiss an entire body of knowledge and science (not the popperian kind), very logical and honest!!
what kind of science is psychoanalysis if it's not popperian?
Love these experimental videos!
This is the case of separating the artist from the art for me. I'm all about contemporary psychodynamic therapy. I appreciate Freud for starting the conversation of the unconscious, but he isn't necessarily a model citizen.
This doesn’t seem “too long” to me. Thanks for the video. I got my bachelors in psychology in 1992 and I can’t believe he is still handled with reverence in curriculum. But then we shouldn’t be holding anyone up to godlike status. That would help with a lot of cultural ills. Such as women continuing to not be believed about menstrual pain. (I found out at 49 that I had severe endometriosis. Hardly “hysterical”.
Read ‘Why Freud was wrong’ by Richard Webster - detailed academic research into all of Freud’s dubious practices and unevidenced theories.
"the one who shall not be named" of today. Almost every school of therapy is still standing on the ground of his theories, terms etc. Peaople just dont want to know itband hear his name, because it would mean they are getting influenced by some of his views to this day under the table und would be GUILTY! GUILTY OF ENJOYING THE BENIFITS OF THIS FRAUDS RESEARCHES AND POSTULATES!
Not to write a book, but some history of psychology can be very dark. Just pick one area😅 However, along the way many in the field had enough integrity to say, "hey hey hey don't do that!" And the field is growing and has gotten much better 😊 It is still very important to know the truth as well, so this video was awesome! Thanks, I know it was heavy.
King of all king narcissists!!....
Yes excellent video. There is a lot in the psychiatric and psychotherapy world that needs a closer look.
This is a fine video in terms of the style, but I hope that if you do similar "takedowns" that they'll be founded on stronger arguments. All you present here is just an extended *ad hominem* argument. Is it simple name-calling? No, it's more well-researched than that. But the premise of your argument is ultimately that Freud's morality does not match your own, and that he deserves to be dismissed solely on those grounds.
Right out the gate, you make a lot of general statements about Freud and all the "icky stuff" he's done. I know you "can't cover all of it," but just dropping a moral statement and then saying "there's so much that I can't cover all of it and that's proof that he's a bad dude" is really not fair. It would be like me making a response video and saying "wow, Marie's video is terrible and there are so many wrong things with it" and then just making a face at the camera.
You spend a sizable chunk of the video criticizing his marriage and personal life, justifying that ad hominem argument with the statement that "being a person of integrity at home...translates over to how you do your work." While I don't disagree with this, I figure there are ways to separate the art from the artist, so to speak. Are there nasty things that bleed through into his work? Of course. But the same could probably be said of your evangelical background; I can imagine a number of ways that this background still influences your work in ways that limit client growth. Hell, many of your criticisms involving misogyny are a hallmark of evangelical Christianity! We all have histories where we are socialized to fall into a particular power dynamic, and we're all putting varying degrees of effort to shift that power dynamic to something more equitable. We also make many missteps, and both Christianity and psychotherapy are built on the assumption that people can change and grow.
Rather than considering that Freud was genuinely trying to alter the way we view and treat women, you focus exclusively on the missteps, reinforcing a caricature of him that has been pervasive since at least the 1980s. He failed A LOT, but he was trying to fight against hundreds of years of faulty medical practice...using a skillset built on hundreds of years of faulty medical practice. You mention *Verführungstheorie* (seduction theory) as evidence that he was misogynistic and that the abandonment is proof that it was a bad theory, but that to me is proof that he was willing to grow and change. His years of practice demonstrate a willingness to abandon and revise.
One thing I want to point out about your video is that it relies solely on secondary sources. You took editorialized analyses of his letters and research and reported on those rather than reporting on the primary sources. This causes multiple problems throughout your video, but one notable instance is in claiming that his abandonment of seduction theory was due to social pressure. We actually don't know about what led to that abandonment beyond a couple documents written in 1987. He didn't publicly renounce seduction theory until 1906 -- if he were backpedaling due to social pressure, then why did it take 9 years?
Overall, this video is a swing and a miss. I'm not expecting academic rigor in a TH-cam video, but I would hope that you would admit that you are not a historian or very well-versed in the history, context, and nuances of psychoanalytic theory. Freud had a lot of problems, yes. He also was very committed to making radical changes to how we treat marginalized people in society.
She repeatedly said a lot of the stuff is conjecture and opinion. This is youtube, not a peer reviewed journal. The fact that you're gonna go this far and take so much time typing up a criticism to something that's meant to be entertaining... Bro you ok?
@@nothanks9912 I explicitly said, "I'm not expecting academic rigor in a TH-cam video." What I expecting is responsible discussion from a fellow therapist. The fact that you're gonna go this far and take so much time reading and responding to my criticism... Bro you okay?
(And in case you're wanting to keep white-knighting, just remember she's not gonna fuck you.)
Love this! Tell us about Jung :)
Yes, that's what I thought too!
Hey Marie! Appreciate you sharing this
Did you read the Atlantic article? It seems like you misinterpret the relationship between Freud and Fliess
And Freud and Breuer
He redacted the theory because he was loosing 💰. It seems his “supporters” were the abusers.
Thank you for making this video. Its so informative.
I’ve always thought he was a deviant who was falsely glorified in the MH field. True some of his ideas have value, but do to us a broken clock correct twice a day.
Wow! I guess he wrote always while on that white powder he loved.
Yes!! And thank you, Marie, for sharing about your own experiences!!!!
Love the new content!
Just because you do not agree does not mean Freud wrong. Perhaps he was right. Perhaps the truth is more complicated.
Thank you for the information! I enjoyed this video!
very good video the approach to attempt to correct the incorrection of history is can be very empowering for the field of psychotherapy.
THANK U!
love this type of video!
Good stuff! Thanks Marie.
why are the words "sexual", "abuse" and "masturbation" muted in this video? Not allowed to talk about these things? uptight insanity
Is it just my ignorance, or does Emma Eckstein's problem sound kinda like endometriosis?
You can't compare modern standards to the past. Judging from the past he was pretty much the least mysogistic person you could find also you drag things out way too much and your facial expressions show that you're trying to instill your belief into others that's called manipulation to a degree. Bad review
Freud is the most overrated con artist
I thought Freud was “cancelled”decades ago?
In the west world well know fact, but Eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa different.
I believe our capability to vilify Freud stems from his idolization. He was capable, in his time, of creating a theoretical approach around ideas that were being expressed but didn't have focus. He wasn't born in a vacuum but rather expressed things that were considered important at that time. I would assume this is largely a reason for his success, despite many failures. People didn't just see a man spouting off ideas but rather saw someone that they agreed with, enough to follow and work under. I imagine his idolization became a sort of "Ring of Gyges" for him and created a path and a history where he could do "no wrong" which, as we can see now, is deeply problematic. I wonder then how I might hold competing thoughts about this man in my own mind, recognizing that much of the current field of psychology is a rebranding of Freud and Jung's work, while also recognizing this horrific past where I feel confident in saying that in many ways both the man and the time he came from dishearten me.
Thank you for your work! I like how this has helped me to think deeper today!
Assault on the truth. Great book.
Sorry, below was sent by accident 🙂
Freud is one of the three most written about human beings. His ideas, if anything, have become even more relevant today.
Thank you
Was Freud a Fraud
Hello
The dark truth , remove this too 👍
This is somewhat unrelated to the content it the video,but do you know if it's legal for a therapist to refuse to work with men? I've wanted to be a therapist for a long time, but I'm not willing to work with men (or trans women who still be appear to be men)
I think you'll likely run into discrimination issues. Therapists can't really turn down clients simply because we dont like their population.
Unless you take insurance, you are not required to work with anyone who you do not think is a good fit and who you think you can help. Many therapists specialize in working with men or woman, so I do not see why you can not. It is not uncommon for therapists in private practice to refer clients on to other services if we do not think we can help them--in fact it would be unethical to work with someone whom we do not think we can help. I would encourage you to be clear in your marketing who your target population is (woman) and if/when someone reaches out who is not within that, refer them to an appropriate therapist. As long as you are not taking insurance where they have regulations that require you to work with anyone referred, you should be fine.
According to the ACA you can’t discriminate - self-pay or insurance.
Yeah. Don’t be a therapist. Be a life coach!
@@fanshentno she's clearly mysogistic she said men as a whole not someone specific
Without Freud we won’t have Jung!
Without Freud we wouldn’t have bernays!
Most people who casually dismiss Freud never read him.
Thanks for this, very informative. It's awful how women have been viewed and treated in history.
Therapy writ large is pseudoscientific crap. I'd apologize but I think you studied enough to conclude the truth. Now please apologize.
Victorian Era Wealthy White Men from Europe are coveted ground ... I hope you leave this up and continue on this line of content. Already, I see butt hurt people who say, "how dare you!" in the comment section ... probably not people who studied the history and systems of the field. I think you're doing an amazing job Doc!
While Freud was not free from ethical problems, it’s super important to acknowledge that Freud and his family were literally persecuted by the Nazis for being Jewish. He had to flee Vienna to Britain. During his time, his whiteness would not have been viewed as the same as today, and that is very important to remember when situating Freud historically.
@@alysongriedl547 Do you believe that his background pressured him to cultivate a wrong theory? He was a sign of the times for sure. The entire time influenced him but so did his need to be right (looking at how he treated his own students when they questioned him)... IMO, the important part for today, in 2023, we can acknowledge that his work was deeply flawed and dangerous to many many people in the 21st century. I don't think anyone in the field of psychology would dispute the historical nightmare times he lived in. Including his Jewish influence or the atrocities of the Victorian era Europe from 1920's-1940's.
@@henryhealing444 I agree a lot with your points about Freud’s pressure to be right and to evangelize about psychoanalysis to a fault. I only take issue generally when I hear Freud outright dismissed as a ‘wealthy old white victorian man’ for the reasons in my original reply. I do think that many of Freud’s critics or even the way that he is taught in psychology classes to omit the cultural and historical factors around him to a fault.
@@alysongriedl547 I don't know what gender, education, or economic place you have in the world. I do know that I was very close to my great grandmother who was born in the 1800's and lived until she was 90. I was 10. I saw what that life did to women as a whole. Freud's influence has hurt people, more than helped. Her conversations and description of that repressed era had a very profound impact on me as a person. A female person born to a misogynistic, patronizing, conservative family who repressed, silenced, and devalued women, people of color, the BIPOC and LGBTQIA people for many generations and decades to come. I am not theorizing, but instead, siding with the modern era to stop putting so much pressure on our field as an influence on our current citizens. The origins of psychology if taught or theorized today would be crushed. I stand by that. As someone who lived through the tail end of it. Lived experience is a powerful educator. My own grandmother was not allowed to go outside while she was a 35 year old pregnant woman because "what would people think. They would know she had had sex." The impact of male suppression was astounding. I won't go on, but could write volumes in defense of what Marie posted.
@@henryhealing444 I really do appreciate you sharing more of your background, and I do think we agree more than disagree that the origins of the field are misogynistic, racist, etc. I also agree a lot with Marie’s video and her followup video, but I simply wished there was more historical and cultural context in her criticism. As a German-American, I take it upon myself to acknowledge the historical atrocities of the Nazi’s, wherever its ugly head comes up, and Freud’s history is no exception me. Also, as a psychodynamic psychotherapist myself, I do think we can still learn from and apply many ideas of psychoanalysis to greatly benefit clients from all backgrounds. I have also found that as a queer woman, experiencing psychodynamic therapy myself has been transformative. That being said, I also respect your (and many other’s) reluctance of embracing many of Freud’s ideas for the reasons you stated.
rubbish ideas stolen from confessionals
I don’t think you see how many so called influential therapists today are saying what Freud already said. One therapist being Gabor Mate.
You should read more Freud, and then read others who brought his work forward.
The fact that your heard hurt at the end of the video and how heavy it was for you proves you’re not a good source on the topic.
Are you crazy? Why would a person being disturbed by weird sexual ideas and potential medical malpractice be a sign that they're not a good source of information on psychology?
@@ceinwenchandler4716I don’t think you understand those “weird sexual ideas”. The fact you call them weird means you haven’t read the context. Again, actually read Freud.
@@ceinwenchandler4716Freud never claimed it to be a medical practice. Freud believed in a collective racial memory, a language of dreams, and didn’t want psychoanalysis to be confined to psychiatry. He uses the eye of a poet to look deeply into the soul of every person.
@@ceinwenchandler4716also, therapists today take the ideas of transference and apply it to their work. We would have the idea of transference if it weren’t for Freud. Freud gets gets the idea of transference from the neurotic sexual subject. You can’t cherry pick.
I find your critique shallow and cherry-picked. In fact, you picked a few random (the exception being the Anna O case, which is relevant) pieces of information purely to cast a shadow on the guy. This is borderline stinky, if not else. I understand a matter of taste, if you don't like the guy or his story, perhaps his manners or approach or quotes or whatever.
Most of the things (misogyny, views on families, duties, and possession) are banally coming by the fact that he WAS a late 1800s person, Jew of Jewish descent, trying to make his way into a MUCH less sophisticated world than the one we live in. Eckstein's case it is just that, they believed in things that are absurd with our lens of analysis, in today’s standard, like the masturbation/menstrual pain stuff or the cure via nasal surgery. But by not considering it, or easily dismissing it, you’re actually working to draw conclusions about dishonesty again because of your likes or dislikes. Doctors make mistakes, 1895 or 2023, yep, and the context does matter.
For example, let’s take the husband/child quote: cherry-picked. He wrote EXTENSIVELY about sexuality, his whole system revolves around it. Pulsions, development of the libido, his own model of development, many key concepts like defense mechanisms, transfert, abreaction, regression, Super Ego (and MANY others) and you just trivialized it all by depicting him as a weirdo that has/liked/promoted role-playing fetishes. Honestly, I don't like it at all coming from a therapist, woman, or man.
About the seduction theory: yeah, he stood by it 'til the end and perhaps all along, but the point is that when he came to the conclusion that many rape stories were indeed fantasies, he made a huge statement for the times, connecting the trauma theories of times with the functioning of memory archiving and retrieving functions. Ideas were confirmed much later by neuroscience, by the way. He was decades ahead of his time. If you would have studied well his work and model of development of the mind, and REALLY understood it, you'd understand where that consideration and modification stemmed from.
Let’s come to the Anna O case. It is true that she didn’t get well in the end, although you made a critical mistake there: the Pappenheim case illustrates how his approach works, by bringing the clinical case as a tool. That case introduces Freud's future works: the theory of neuroses, transference, free associations, talking cure, the exploration of the unconscious, and insights into traumatic experiences. It failed on a personal level, however, it worked (and works today) on many others and there are tons of recent papers to prove it.
The fact is, though, you wouldn't be doing your job (nor I) without him and his body of work. Sigmund Freud is so heavily renowned and quoted simply because he:
- Invented the whole system of Psychoanalysis from the ground up;
- Theorized different models of the mind, human motivation, goal setting, and energy;
- Gave fundamental importance to the realm of the Unconscious, de facto dethroning human reason from the pyramid of our way of perceiving human nature, and behavior;
- Revolutionized how we treat mental disorders, laying the foundations for the practice of analysis as we know it (or as we did in the 90s, more accurately);
- Founded the *Vienna Psychoanalytic* Society;
- He was a terrific writer (lol the copy/plagiarism accusations cracked me);
- His knowledge was immense, and not only of psychology, but of classic culture, myths, sociology, and theology. He wrote extensively about God, society, tradition, and of course families and individuals;
And by the way, I’m not even a hardcore Freudian, I prefer other authors, but I despise this kind of content, as I despise the tentative of downgrading an author’s importance by taking into the equation his private life.
“A lot of his ideas were totally bogus”. YES! But also a lot of his ideas are still Genius today and still stand the proof of time. Many, indeed.
He snorted cocaine, who cares.
I'm Italian, pardon for my poor Eng.
Enrico, your English isn’t a problem. Recommend you reflect on the arrogant mansplaining, perhaps with your psychoanalyst.
@@kimkmetz9673 Manswhat? Did you read what I wrote, at least?
@@enricoginelli3405 every word
@@kimkmetz9673 And where exactly do you see me doing what you accused me of? There's nothing referring to me being a male, nothing arrogant about my stance, it is just a longerish paragraph on Freud. I could be disagreeing with Marie on that, pro to pro, but this has nothing to do with that.
I agree the behaviors and writings are abhorrent. It was a different time. The culture was different.
I disagree they were completely fine and justified as well apart from the experiments
I've been teaching psych. for 20+ years ... and yes! To all of what you say. It made me unpopular, but it's about time that more and more are calling out the Euro-old white guys (said by a Euro-old white lady). :) Next, I hope you cover Jung's bigotry.
Where have you been teaching psychology? Yes to "ALL" she said? That raised my eyebrow.
You should have a more specific description of the people you are happy others are calling out. Is “Euro-old white guys” really the most accurate description of the people you are talking about?
Lets dig into Martin Luther King's past next.
Is he a therapist?
@@sundayschoolteacher1383he's a civil rights activist which is way more serious and impactful.
And while we're at it let's do Billy Graham's (NIXON TAPES)and John Wayne's(PLAYBOYS INTERVIEW) past as well, yea?..........................................
Really...?
His work was not meant for you. No one cares!
A dangerous superstitious perishing predator seek the son