I don't trust them fuckers. Behaviorism, and introspection are not reliable enough. Multiple different causes can manifest the same symptoms. Think about all of the things that could cause you to be worried, and how little you could infer beyond symptoms based on their behavior. We can then ask people why they're worried, and they can be wrong, or lying. Not that I don't think that anything interesting comes out of there, but just as a supposed medical profession, they should be looking for physical causes, and things they can reliably check, and prove.

As a system of formalized morality, not at all based on any supposed or even speculated upon physical abnormalities, but entirely based upon social, or spiritual causes, which are nearly impossible to confirm or deny.

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.

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.

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

What statement -- the one about Freud being wrong about a lot? Not complicated.

For Example:

Freud's error was not in identifying infantile sexuality; the error was in magnifying it's importance way too much. Sexuality continues from infancy forward, but Freud found the cause of too many neurosis, odd behaviors, and so forth in sexuality.

Take gayness. Freud can't be blamed for not identifying genetic or pre-natal maternal influences on the development of sexual deviance. He had neither the chemical nor genetic tools to even begin thinking about such things. He found the cause of homosexuality where he happened to be looking -- mostly in the neurotic lives of Viennese middle class hausfraus. Had he examined the histories of 1000 more or less happy, reasonably successful homosexuals, he would likely have come up with a different theory -- but he wasn't (could hardly) review a thousand cases of out, happy, successful homosexuals in late 19th/early 20th century Vienna, or anywhere else.

Freud is one thing. Freudians are something else. Sort of like Marx and Marxists, or Christ and Christians. The followers are not always clear reflections of the leader.

I don't trust them fuckers. Behaviorism, and introspection are not reliable enough. Multiple different causes can manifest the same symptoms. Think about all of the things that could cause you to be worried, and how little you could infer beyond symptoms based on their behavior. We can then ask people why they're worried, and they can be wrong, or lying. Not that I don't think that anything interesting comes out of there, but just as a supposed medical profession, they should be looking for physical causes, and things they can reliably check, and prove. — Wosret

OKAY, don't trust them. Fine by me.

Yes, many 'psychological' or psychiatric problems are presumably caused by physical causes. Unfortunately, the means to look for causes in the brain (or elsewhere I'm the body) just haven't existed until relatively recently. Researchers have found no physical marker in the brain for bi-polar disease. It does seem to be inherited, but the means by which genes trigger an attack is just not known at this point. Same for a number of other major mental illnesses.

I believe we will eventually get to the point where we can say "This person is bi-polar, or paranoid schizophrenic, because xyz gene is overactive or xyz chemical is metabolized too quickly (or not quickly enough. But... we aren't there yet.

As for ordinary depression, there might be causes; or maybe depression is mistaken for something less clinical like: to much alcohol, chronic debt, working too much (or not nearly enough), bad relationships, bad on the job working conditions, and so on.

I believe we will eventually get to the point where we can say "This person is bi-polar, or paranoid schizophrenic, because xyz gene is overactive or xyz chemical is metabolized too quickly (or not quickly enough — Bitter Crank

We know, by definition, that there is no gene for PTSD. We know, as Freud started to know, that childhood trauma in the form particularly of physical and sexual abuse is a major contributor to various mental illnesses. And we already know that genes play only a contributory part in schizophrenia.

So your belief is ill founded.

So your belief is ill founded — unenlightened

Not ill founded. Of course there is no gene "for" PTSD and child abuse or gunshot wounds. These are caused by experiences of extreme violence, often repeated and prolonged. Schizophrenia, OCD, bi-polar disorder, and other major mental illnesses have entirely different origins.

There are either defective genes which produce certain disorders in the body (like Huntington's disease or bi-polar disorder), there are structural malformations which occur in utero (like mental retardation), or there are external causes of disease such as prions, viruses, bacteria, metallic poisonings, radiation, pesticide/herbicide exposures, etc. There are also diseases of aging which are caused by exhausting the body's capacity to renew itself.

[We have recently learned that the British are eating a lot of burnt toast and scorched potatoes. Whether the inability to operate a toaster is inherited or not, hasn't been determined. The descendants of the English in the US and Canada seem to be capable of toasting bread properly.]

we already know that genes play only a contributory part in schizophrenia — unenlightened

Your link doesn't support your view that my belief is ill-founded. There seems to be a genetic connection between genes and schizophrenia. Granted, it's not a genetic slam dunk as genes are for Huntington's disease or a couple dozen other specific genetically caused diseases. That there are other factors as well is also the case.

I believe we will eventually get to the point where we can say "This person is bi-polar, or paranoid schizophrenic, because xyz gene is overactive or xyz chemical is metabolized too quickly (or not quickly enough. — Bitter Crank

it's not a genetic slam dunk ... there are other factors ... — Bitter Crank

That modification is a lot more acceptable.

Psychoanalysis is presented as a form of violence in both of them. — disspeach

I think I see the "violence" you are talking about. In each clip you are asked to speak when the question asked is difficult to answer. The forcing you to speak when it is difficult to speak I suppose is some sort of violence. But there is no true violence here, because you always have the option of not replying. The scenarios created are not real, so it's not like you must reply in order to save your life, or to save your friends life, so whatever violence that may be there, it is not real, it's artificial, an illusion.

So I don't think that either technique is very useful, because they assume to put you into a specific situation to see how you would respond, when you are not really in that situation. This means that you'll have many factors such as how committed and how capable, an individual is to putting oneself in that situation, to deal with,

"cynical" was the word you were looking for...

The video responses would have been interesting to compare, but there was only one. Any response would have had one shed a little light on one's own personality and views/values/philosophy.

For the Jung/Cannibal test, there are two answers the the question "What kind of God are you and why do you come to our land?"

My answer was, "Come with me and your questions will be answered." This would not only save you from being cooked, but it would benefit them.

For the Freud/Coma test, and the instruction, "Say something traumatic to the person in a coma", that depends on what kind of person is in a coma. The first 'type' of person that came to my mind was a vain and petty female, so I said, "Your hair is a mess and badly needs shampooing" which would be traumatic to such a person.

As for self-analysis based on my responses, my Jung response reflects my desire to communicate my new philosophy of survival for higher consciousness to the world (me being in 'instructor' mode). My Freud response is more hazy - it probably reflects my still searching for my first true love, and my continued frustrations with a general mental paradigm driven by pettiness and vanity.