Isolated Blurt Thread

[scheherazade_79]

Crazy's good. We like crazy around here.

I'm sure that's why we all get along so well!

 

[Fallenfromgrace]

I am shocked to find that the theories of a cokehead who lacked even a basic understanding of scientific rigour are no longer to be considered acceptable in modern psychology.

LMFAO! well in all fairness to the man, some of his stuff is still pretty important. Defense mechanisms, dream imaging, the unconcious, the effect of childhood- admitedly they are all important today, no?

The point of critiquing freud is you've got to realise his strengths as well.

Also the use of 'talk-therapy'

Can't slam him too much, yes his theories were oversexed, and yes he was stoned a lot but he did good in some fields.

Now as for 'scientific rigour' that's a debate unto itself with or without Freud. Psychology is arguably not a natural science- it's a social science, but what makes a science? Theories have to be falsifiable, quantifiable and variables need to be operationalised. This is difficult in psych. But there are some who consider that psych research hold's enough impirical validity to be classed as a science.

There are most certainly theories that are UNfalsifiable- due to lack of research methodology- this would suggest that this is not really testing anything- or at least not scientifically.

Ok, im done

 

[damppanties]

LMFAO! well in all fairness to the man, some of his stuff is still pretty important. Defense mechanisms, dream imaging, the unconcious, the effect of childhood- admitedly they are all important today, no?

The point of critiquing freud is you've got to realise his strengths as well.

Also the use of 'talk-therapy'

Can't slam him too much, yes his theories were oversexed, and yes he was stoned a lot but he did good in some fields.

Now as for 'scientific rigour' that's a debate unto itself with or without Freud. Psychology is arguably not a natural science- it's a social science, but what makes a science? Theories have to be falsifiable, quantifiable and variables need to be operationalised. This is difficult in psych. But there are some who consider that psych research hold's enough impirical validity to be classed as a science.

There are most certainly theories that are UNfalsifiable- due to lack of research methodology- this would suggest that this is not really testing anything- or at least not scientifically.

Ok, im done

Psycho-babbler psycho-babbling.

 

[rise_again]

where are you?

 

[impressive]

Time to sweat.

 

[Belegon]

Time to sweat.

Now? But I was just saying naughty things about you to Carson...

 

[impressive]

Now? But I was just saying naughty things about you to Carson...

Make me a better offer, stud.

 

[Fallenfromgrace]

Psycho-babbler psycho-babbling.

There aint nothing better sweetheart

Some people like big words, but somehow i dont think i could find it in myself to say 'epistemology' or 'hypothetico deductivism' or 'unfalsifiable' etc etc mid-sex (that's not even getting into Pscyhobiological and neurocognitive wording!! )

 

[Belegon]

Make me a better offer, stud.

Actually, sweating was a part of my offer...

 

[impressive]

Actually, sweating was a part of my offer...

Well, then, stop rolling your damned eyes & get over here! Sheesh!

 

[Trombonus]

I'm sure that's why we all get along so well!

I'm sure you're right.

 

[Belegon]

Well, then, stop rolling your damned eyes & get over here! Sheesh!

I'd say "Yes, Mistress" but judging from your AV it's my turn to be the director..."switchy"

 

[impressive]

I'd say "Yes, Mistress" but judging from your AV it's my turn to be the director..."switchy"

For now.

 

[Belegon]

For now.

I'm sorry, did I give you permission to speak?

back

ya know, I wouldn't really be a very effective Dom...I'm too worried that my actions are truly desired...

 

[Trombonus]

(unrelated) Words cannot express how much I want to kick your ass right now.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

No fair.

I never get to play.

*sigh*

 

[impressive]

I'm sorry, did I give you permission to speak?

back

ya know, I wouldn't really be a very effective Dom...I'm too worried that my actions are truly desired...

There are more effective ways to stop me from speaking, anyway.

 

[Belegon]

No fair.

I never get to play.

*sigh*

Yeah. there's such a shortage of people here that want to play with you

Just sayin'

 

[Belegon]

There are more effective ways to stop me from speaking, anyway.

*shiver*

 

[Trombonus]

No fair.

I never get to play.

*sigh*

I know the feeling only too well.

 

[Equinoxe]

LMFAO! well in all fairness to the man, some of his stuff is still pretty important. Defense mechanisms, dream imaging, the unconcious, the effect of childhood- admitedly they are all important today, no?

The point of critiquing freud is you've got to realise his strengths as well.

Also the use of 'talk-therapy'

Can't slam him too much, yes his theories were oversexed, and yes he was stoned a lot but he did good in some fields.

Now as for 'scientific rigour' that's a debate unto itself with or without Freud. Psychology is arguably not a natural science- it's a social science, but what makes a science? Theories have to be falsifiable, quantifiable and variables need to be operationalised. This is difficult in psych. But there are some who consider that psych research hold's enough impirical validity to be classed as a science.

There are most certainly theories that are UNfalsifiable- due to lack of research methodology- this would suggest that this is not really testing anything- or at least not scientifically.

Ok, im done

It does depend upon one's views, but I am decidedly not a fan of Freud: if one insists upon not distancing oneself from the prehistory of the discipline, I much prefer James. Having said that, with regard to many of the basic ideas Freud presented, some are of debatable value: defence mechanisms are perhaps to be considered important and relevant, dream imaging is highly suspect however fascinating, the unconscious is likewise a difficult one, and the effects of childhood upon one's adult mental state are hard to attribute wholly to Freud. He is, however, foundational in the development of the discipline as a studious and serious field, even if he was none too scientific himself: not actually unlike Brothers Grimm in the study of mythology and folklore.

I am quite aware of the debate over the level of actual science in psychology: which, especially when considered as paired with the medical aspects of psychiatry, is the most dangerous element of the discipline, although arguably also instrumental to its being remotely successful (as is often the case, it's not so much a matter of one extreme, the other extreme, or moderation as it is a matter of both extremes or moderation). Psychology, as a discipline (science or not), is indeed necessarily somewhat fluid. The whole field is a bit of a hodgepodge of ideas and philosophies and historical influences, which makes it a very fractured and fragmented area of study: clearly negative influences are visible as well as clearly positive influences. It is very difficult to arrive at conclusions which are true, useful, and helpful -- for example, much research has been done on memory and the overall conclusions are that memories may or may not represent actual events and that false memories can be induced. This is true and useful to know, but not particularly helpful, since it provides absolutely no way of knowing whether or not a given memory is true.

Suffice it to say, I have some serious misgivings about the usefulness of the field.

Out of curiosity, what are your plans with studying, what do you intend to do with it?

(I'm done, too, really.)

 

[Fallenfromgrace]

It does depend upon one's views, but I am decidedly not a fan of Freud: if one insists upon not distancing oneself from the prehistory of the discipline, I much prefer James. Having said that, with regard to many of the basic ideas Freud presented, some are of debatable value: defence mechanisms are perhaps to be considered important and relevant, dream imaging is highly suspect however fascinating, the unconscious is likewise a difficult one, and the effects of childhood upon one's adult mental state are hard to attribute wholly to Freud. He is, however, foundational in the development of the discipline as a studious and serious field, even if he was none too scientific himself: not actually unlike Brothers Grimm in the study of mythology and folklore.

I am quite aware of the debate over the level of actual science in psychology: which, especially when considered as paired with the medical aspects of psychiatry, is the most dangerous element of the discipline, although arguably also instrumental to its being remotely successful (as is often the case, it's not so much a matter of one extreme, the other extreme, or moderation as it is a matter of both extremes or moderation). Psychology, as a discipline (science or not), is indeed necessarily somewhat fluid. The whole field is a bit of a hodgepodge of ideas and philosophies and historical influences, which makes it a very fractured and fragmented area of study: clearly negative influences are visible as well as clearly positive influences. It is very difficult to arrive at conclusions which are true, useful, and helpful -- for example, much research has been done on memory and the overall conclusions are that memories may or may not represent actual events and that false memories can be induced. This is true and useful to know, but not particularly helpful, since it provides absolutely no way of knowing whether or not a given memory is true.

Suffice it to say, I have some serious misgivings about the usefulness of the field.

Out of curiosity, what are your plans with studying, what do you intend to do with it?

(I'm done, too, really.)

James...the very James who talked of Infant Farms? If so, then though i can't comment too much as i haven't studied him at length yet (if), i am a bit skeptical of some of his views. That is however, all i wish to say regarding him- i know it's vague but currently that is the best i can offer.

I had wanted to go into the other things you said, but in all fairness to you, (although we have slightly different slant's on Freud and Psych as a science and its ties in Psychiatry) i think you put forward arguements that are correct in their basis and i have no reason to dispute much of it with you.

I do agree by the way, that the link Psychiatry has tentatively forged between Psychology and Human Medicine is a rather fragile one, and dangerous too. I don't wholly agree with the use of psycho-supressants and the like in regulating mood and so on, but i am well aware that such medication has been fundamental in treating many around the world. There are however implications with this that many (professionals and non) should consider- instead of waving a bottle of anti-depressants at every person who walks in the door showing mild symptoms. There are other routes.

As for what i plan to do, first of all i need to pass my degree! (i am exactly half way right now, and being one of the youngest in the year i will be sittng my finals at the age of 20, but graduate when im 21!)

I've been lucky in the sense that i've already worked as a research assistant for my uni over the summer between my 1st and 2nd year (its unheard of for a 1st year to get that position!)

I am also lucky as i have a close family friend who is the manageress of a Hospice and is interested in hiring me to assist the psychologist on the team. So i have to have talks about that and arrange to start .

Perhaps i will work there for a couple of years after my degree to get more experience i don't know.

I want to do my masters, and circumstance permitting do a PhD. My main interest is social psychology as a feild, but as a career im somewhat interested in counselling.

*shrugs* who knows at the end of the day, i may change my mind

~~ now im done

 

[rgraham666]

An interesting overview of modern mind science, its schools of thought and its limitations.

The Undiscovered Mind

 

[AppleBiter]

I'm in love with who you are.

Are you good with mustard?

Back at ya, babe!

Only if it's Grey Poupon.

 

[Trombonus]

(also unrelated) Of all the people in all of lit, why'd it have to be him?