Children See Children Do ((video))

DarkStar

sponger wrote:

Do you not agree with the notion that science gets turned on its ass every couple of years?.

Ahnimus wrote:

No actually, I disagree. If you are referring to Freud's work. He pioneered psychology. A lot of what he said was true to a degree, but Freud believed that everyone was solely driven by sex and social status. Many people disagreed with him. I don't however. I just think he oversimplified people with that statement and people became defensive. Just as they are with the notion of free will. So, as for my concern, Science doesn't "get turned on it's ass" it evolves from what it already knows.

to Ahnimus, respectfully: i have no doubt that freud's work was pioneering...and while i see merit in some of his concepts, he remains a theorist in respect to his psychosexual development concept...which is what most folks liken to freud and think about when he is brought up. you may possibly disagree with me, but i don't see how you (Ahnimus) are equating freud's work as science.

ds

Ahnimus

DarkStar wrote:

to Ahnimus, respectfully: i have no doubt that freud's work was pioneering...and while i see merit in some of his concepts, he remains a theorist in respect to his psychosexual development concept...which is what most folks liken to freud and think about when he is brought up. you may possibly disagree with me, but i don't see how you (Ahnimus) are equating freud's work as science.

ds

Freud's work didn't follow the modern scientific method of psychology and thus why it was flawed.

sponger

Freud gets discounted because some of his views were "theoretical" at best. Yet, many of his views are still taught in colleges to this day. His findings are still considered essential to the foundation of psychology.

But, I'm not trying to tout Freud. I'm illustrating the fact that the psychology, even when coupled with the scientific aspects of neuroscience, is still just a psuedo-science.

What leads some people to mistakenly refer to modern psychology as having used "modern scientific methods" is the use of statistical analysis and a standardized use of controls and variables in experiments.

However, read just about any study and you'll always see that room for error. It is impossible to account for the infinite number of external and even internal factors that can affect the validity of a determination.

One thing to consider is that it is believed that people have an infinite number of variations in their emotions. The theory is that the mind's ability to remember things is based on its ability to organize its own thoughts, and that the organizational structure for these thoughts is built upon an infinitely diverse spectrum of emotions.

So, for instance, a commonly recognized emotion such as sadness has more variations than can be imagined. And each variation is used to categorize our thoughts and allow for their retrieval.

With that said, how it can be reasonably assumed that we know even a fraction of who we are? How can we be so ready to discard the common wisdom of the layman? I just don't see it is as reasonable to think that this propensity for uniqueness amongst every individual can be accounted for even by all of the world's psychology textbooks put together.

trappedinmyradio

Ahnimus wrote:

Actually the best thing Freud did was give rise to modern Psychology.

NO KIDDING...that's what i said!