You unresolved castration anxiety is on full display in this post. ;)

Haha. It could be that. But I wouldn't rule out the repressed sexual passion I have for my mother. At one point, apparently, I wanted to sexually have my way with her.

I just hope my superego contains me:--)

Or perhaps it is because, as the conservative blog folk have told me, I am a homo lib-tard.

Or maybe it is my repressed castration anxiety and passion for my mom that caused me to be deny the status quo and want men (but yet marry a women to appease by social norm driven superego.

Man, this crazy Frued theorizing is fun.

Perhaps there is a need to familiarize the population with the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual and the empirical evidence that now supports psychoanalyitic theory BEFORE proposing that Freud was off base and unsupported. Doubters and nay-sayers never see the entire perspective, only what supports repressing conflictual feelings. The above opinions serve the unconscious need of denial.

It might be helpful if you make some distinctions in psychology --neuroscience, experimental psychology, social psychology, etc. are all different than psychotherapy and psychological treatments. Freud had some purpose 100 years ago and some of his ideas remain relevant - resistances, unconscious, etc.

Dear anonymous:

1. Wow. I almost don't know whether this is a joke reply by a friend or a serious response.

2. Your re re re was off. The first commenter was being blatently sarcastic.

3. Some of Frued's ideas can sort of be tested. Like, Schimel has found evidence for defensive projection of unwanted traits and clearly the subconscious/unconscious whatever you want to call it is powerful. But most of Fruedian theory can't be tested or hasn't stood up to testing.

The irony is my entry seems so anti Frued, which I am not. I spend more time defending Frued than criticizing him. I think it is silly to dismiss all of his ideas off hand just because he made them (which a lot of people do).

But to place Fruedian theory on par with(or to rely on it more than) empirical evidence and supported theory is absurd and holds psych back.

Or maybe I am just exhibiting repressed nuerosis and psychosis stemming from the unresolved repression of the hostility I have for my dad for being so close to my mom. This of course leads to my denial and repressed conflictual feelings.

See above. Some of his ideas were dead on. I totally concur.

But even within psychotherapy, empiricism is needed, which fruedian theory doesn't lend itself entirely too (or even close).

I dont have a beef with Fruedian theory so much as Fruedians who believe it is the end all of the universe and in turn, passin it on to people as if it is fact or even supported.

Not another ignorant posting about psychoanalysis v. "real" psychology. Please! Do some serious research into this subject; it's not a frivolous issue that sets "real" science" against quack counterparts, even if that's the popular cliché. I'm sick and tired of psychologists with no real understanding of psychoanalysis acting as if they're authorities on the subject.

First, wake up to the scientific imposture of your psychology and psychiatry colleagues. Then a real conversation might begin.

Ok, sure. I made a post about how psych would be better off if people knew the difference between supported ideas and not supported ideas.

What was I thinkin writing such an "ignorant posting?" Why would we want therapists to use methods that have actual proof that they help people? Why would we want to emphasize basic research in other areas of psych that actually can demonstrate it is correct? The horror that would cause!

I'd better head off for a walk so I can clear out the cobwebs I had when I wrote this, apparently. Surely, I must've lost my mind.

Your humor is quaint. I fully enjoyed the postings.

Can't we all just get along?!

I think it should be made clear to the readers that you are a graduate student in social psychology. Not in clinical psychology. You are not a practicing psychotherapist or trained clinical psychologist. Now, that doesn't mean you don't have every right to your opinion about what "real" psychology or psychotherapy is. But what do you really know about psychotherapy? For example, have you ever had the personal experience that psychodynamic psychotherapy can be very helpful? What better empirical test could there be? Have you ever treated a patient (or, as in my case, thousands of patients) psychotherapeutically yourself and seen with your own eyes how existential depth psychology works to transform that patient. Or have you ever known anyone who has been helped by a Freudian or Jungian analysis? You must, as a graduate student, be aware that the meta-analytic studis of psychotherapy and psychotherapy outcome indicate that a)psychotherapy in general (meaning all orientations, not just what you deem "real" or valid) is effective; and b) no one orientation to psychotherapy is superior in efficacy to any other (that includes CBT). That is the empirical research. One explanation for this is that it is the therapeutic relationship rather than any particular theoretical or technical approach that makes tratment effective. Now, from my perspective, the kind of psychology or psychotherapy that you promote and value, so-called evidence-based treatment, is precisely what is killing psychology. People in droves are giving up on psychotherapists for help exactly because of this hyper-rational, pseudo-scientific, mechanistic influence. Psychology is moving in exactly the wrong direction. People seek spiritual meaning and a sense of purpose in life, not simply symptom reduction. You are right in that people need and deserve "real" psychotherapy. We just disagree on what real psychotherapy is. The recognition of and relationship to the unconscious is being lost. That isn't "real" psychotherapy at all. It is a diminishing or even "dumbing down" of psychology and psychotherapy. I would argue that, in the long-term, psychodynamic psychotherapy or what I call existential depth psychology is actually far more "real," efficacious and healing for many patients than cognitive-behavioral or other forms of therapy. Just because a method may be difficult to measure and quantify doesn't make it any less "real" or valuable. Lack of data doesn't equate to invalidity. Subjectivity is as important in psychology as objectivity. Having said that, I would encourage you and other graduate students to try to create methods for better measuring the efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy, depth psychology or existential psychotherapy. I would, for instance, certainly welcome a study of the efficacy of existential depth psychology as I practice it in comparison to CBT or other treatment methods.

1. Blah. I just typed quite a hefty reply and my computer froze.

2. I appreciate your comments, and that isn't just PC crap.

3. My research deals primarily with death anxiety, including people that are terminally ill. My main theoretical framework is Terror management theory, which is based on a thick line of existential thinkers (Becker, Frued, Rank, Yalom, Lifton, and to a lesser extent, Fromm and Frankl). My mentor's lab is called the experimental existential psych lab. So I am far from anti existential; I am the opposite. I don't know how many debates I have had with CBT folk in the dept about how superficial it seems to me in certain cases, or how many times I have heard, "oh like implicit measures matter" from them and wanted to blow my squeeze sense into them.

4. So, I totally concur about therapy needin to be existential, but is that the same as psychodynamic? And is psychodynamic necessarily traditional Frudian stuff? To me, I was only comin after people who put forth theories of humanity that can be explained by other, simpler, ideas that can be tested. This doesnt exclude a whole host of unconscious based therapies.

5. I posted this on the back of those Frued and Jung break up posts. They were, quite frankly, BS to me. Repressed homosexuality? Come on, they broke up because Jung split from Frued's ideas and Frued didn't like that. And they didn't have much consensus on anything. Fued hated religion, Jung saw the spiritual as primary and fundamental to humanity. Kind of hard to reconcile that, you know?

6.So yeah, we have more shared ground than it seems.

Nate

Wow...."blow my squeeze sense into them"....haha. I need an editor.

Thanks for telling me a little more about your work. Wow! What a pleasant surprise! That is very interesting, and (synchronistically!) places you in a perfect position to do what I suggested re: researching the efficacy of existentially-oriented psychotherapy. If you wanted to, that is. My approach (existential depth psychology) derives from my having been a pupil of existential analyst Rollo May, as well as Freudian and especially Jungian influences. So it is a synthesis of these approaches. If you want a little more info about what I do, I would be happy to provide some references to articles I have published on this subject. Or you could check out my book, Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic. Psychodynamic psychotherapy is a generic term (like "psychotherapy" itself, which was popularized by Otto Rank)that refers to a modified, some might say watered-down version of Freud's psychoanalysis. It doesn't necessarily focus on infantile or childhood sexuality as much, but does conern itself with intrapsychic conflict and the unconscious. Even in existential psychotherapy, we still need a way to acknowledge and address the phenomenon that Freud called the "unconscious." I appreciate your clarification of your critique, which, frankly, needed clarification. As for the recent posts by Professor Schultz and myself, you seem to concur with my view regarding the reasons Freud and Jung split, though, as I said, that was a very complex relationship in which both their complexes (yes, complexes are real, phenomenologically speaking) and daimonic genius (yes, the daimonic is phenomenologically real) were at play.

Mr. Heflick, I was wondering if you could write another post to clarify what just occurred in the exchange between you and Dr. Diamond. What you agree on, what it was exactly that you disagree about, etc. There seems to be some distinction science and medicine, i.e. between psychology and psychotheraphy. I guess in general I don't really understand what went on here. Maybe even just an overview of the many different approaches to psychology would be helpful, if you're up for it.

I would also request that you tone down the sarcasm in your post, since it doesn't really convince people who disagree with you. I don't exactly disagree, but such disdain is distracting and doesn't let the reader understand the basis of your arguments. At least not to me, anyway.

Thx for your reply. I may just do that.

My brother in law was recently shot + killed, so it could be a while before I do it, however.

I am way, way behind on stuff I have to do because of this (like my comprehensive exams, journal submissions etc). Unfortunately, I only can attend to psychtoday stuff when I have at least severely dented all of the "have to do" stuff.

I replied (left a comment) to Dr. Schultz's response to what I wrote (see above comment by him), which may interest you.