I could accept the argument that psychoanalysis is not scientific and do not deals with physical facts. But consider these two points:
1) main organ, examined by psychoanalysis (so as in psychiatry) is speech. And you can not speak about speech as you speak about physical organs.
2) I noticed that when it comes to discussions between 'scientific' and 'non-scientific' psychologists the most worried is the first one. I'm just interested why there is such strong anxiety if the position of scientific psychologist is so strong and can not be undermined by the psychoanalysis.

Videos were just some simple intuitions about two strategies of psychoanalysis. Jung style analysis is more like priest with the patient on the sacrificial altar. And when patient is forced to speak in this position it's natural that all this pretentious mythological discource is coming from patient's mouth. Patient becomes sort of painting for analyst's pleasure. That's why I believe Jung style analysis is more authoritarian, though it is considered as all about liberation somehow.

Thanks for reply and things to think about.

Both were more or less bourgeois.

I accept that their texts was influenced by the social context. But (even being kind of leftist) I must admit that our current 'democratic' psychology (I mean these group therapies and neurology) is huge step back of what Freud did.

I think Freud was wrong about a lot,

I actually don't understand how such statements works, how they are valid.

bhaha, nice.

Driven insane by being made to deny your own intuitions and accept someone else's about your own experiences.

Thanks for reply. But let's say you have a symptom. For example, you feel the need to wash your hands every 3 hours. Isn't it a sign that your own intuitions of how your desire works failed.

Neither, I vote Fromm or Rank.

Yep, Rank is pretty fundamental but I've never understand what people find if Fromm. Why Fromm is important for you ?

Honest answer. That's why I like philosophers: they don't make me guilty for not leaving :)

if violence is the right term to characterise human relations

Maybe not. But I don't think that the violence is something bad in itself, it just a fact. And by that reason I would probably choose the side of Freud, because Jung propose something worse than the violence - the (I believe) fake liberation from neurosis through myth. Freud is more honest and he don't play with hope of patient. I think that you are victim of the violence (in this context) when you feel guilt for not doing something. If someone force you to go to the dentist it is violence but it is obvious so you can confront it. But if you feel guilty for not visiting dentist is more like hidden violence and I believe it more effective.

Thanks for reply.

I think overall Freud's influence on society and culture has been strong and generally destructive — Wayfarer

I also don't understand this argument. It sounds like you are talking on political debates. What is this destruction specifically and why we are afraid of destruction in science (or philosophy) at all?

I don't pretend to be deep thinker but I think that there are some themes that structure public discussion in very strict way. If you, say, ask what democracy is you will get the very specific set of arguments from public (audience). That's how I understand violence (violence of discourse). I think In discussion if you don't want to produce violence, you should not to support discourse yourself. In practice it means to consciously avoid some obvious arguments and lines of thought.

seems to me to present a more person centred, relational, and thus open approach.

I've never understand this argument. Isn't it clearly political? This argument estimate psychological method by the liberal criterion

I am not a fan of scientific psychology

I'm too. And I've tried to show this in the "scenes". Psychoanalysis is presented as a form of violence in both of them. But difference is what and how victim speaks in those situations.

didn't bother to comment.

Well, sorry you feel that, but it's internet

Well it is my first post. What I'm interested in is the structure of public speech which replies to some urgent topics like "Jung vs Freud" without any clarification of this confilct. Sorry, I'm not a philosopher, just interested of what philosophically minded people think

I'm not philosopher, but It seems to me that Freud and Jung represents not only two ways of thinking but two "scenes" (I don't have better word) of method. I've tried to make the videos of how I understand these scenes and want to watch a reaction. Maybe some thoughts.

I've created this videos for discussion. You are too sceptical)