A conversation I had today

So, today I was chattin' with a christian, trying to pass the time. She claimed that Sigmund Frued was a fraud, and that everyone has a little voice inside them that tells them what they do is right or wrong, therefore there is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to morals. I asked her: What about the people who do bad things? Those who believe that what they do regarding the bible and jesus is right while you think them wrong? She claimed that those 'bad' christians are just decieving themselves. I asked how she knew she wasn't wrong, and they were right. She claimed that because she believes she's right.

So here's my questions:

What do you say to someone who says, "Everyone has a little voice inside them that tells them what they are doing is right/wrong, those who don't seem to have this conscience is simply denying it."

What do you say to someone who says: "I know I'm not gonna change your beliefs, as you know that your not going to change mine."

And what do you say to someone who says: "Frued was evil, he was just a persuasive speaker who was trying to subvert our society."

[Rhinoqulous]

snap crafter wrote

What do you say to someone who says, "Everyone has a little voice inside them that tells them what they are doing is right/wrong, those who don't seem to have this conscience is simply denying it."

Reply that there are a variety of medications that will make the voices go away, and if this person really is plauged by voices in hes head that tell them what to do, they should seek psychiatric care immediatly.

What do you say to someone who says: "I know I'm not gonna change your beliefs, as you know that your not going to change mine."

Do you do anal/oral/filthly sanchez?

And what do you say to someone who says: "Frued was evil, he was just a persuasive speaker who was trying to subvert our society."

Correct them by pointing out that Frued was a quack, not evil, and that the majority of psychological opinion has discredited him, based on that Frued's theories were constructed in such a way that they could not be verified as being true or false. That's not science, that's mysticism (hey, even the theists get one right evey now and then).

[Choobus]

I knew about the dirty sanchez, but this filthy sanchez you speak of intrigues me.....

[Rhinoqulous]

Choobus wrote

I knew about the dirty sanchez, but this filthy sanchez you speak of intrigues me.....

I think this is an instance of confusion over localization of terms, like some kids growing up playing "Duck Duch Greyduck" and others "Duck Duck Goose" (if you even played that game across the pond as a wee l'il choob).

[calpurnpiso]

When did Freud wrote about psychology?..yesterday?....last year? Didn't he hit the nail on the head by revealing religious beliefs as delusion causing illusions? His theories and observations have been proven by TODAY'S neurologists, people that DEAL with the BRAIN itself, as prophetic and ahead of their time. Not quackery here!!..Though Freud was a PRODUCT of his time, as was Darwin, and the science of Neurology DID NOT exist in those days, we can say with confidence he was on the right track!. I suggest for people to get EDUCATED on the upbringing, thinking and life of Dr Freud before showing ignorance and irrational thinking. Also it is important for those ignoramuses that know NOTHING about Neurology, Psychology or evolutionary biology ( YES, they are ALL connected) to put their brains in gear before their retarded mouths are confirming their ignorance.

I suggest for the retarded buffons, no doubt touched by Christ-psychosis, to get educated, connect the dots and begin to read:

The astonishing Hypothesis " by Crick. What's Thought" by Eric Baum and Quest for Consciousness" by Koch.

Freud is after all called the FATHER OF PSYCHOANALYSIS. This title is ususlly NOT given to quacks...except by the Christ-psychotic retards that accept invisible friends as real and refer to anyone that CAN tell the difference between myths and facts, as quacks!! Obviously the do not have mirrors in their homes.

http://www.freeessays.cc/db/39/pko217.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

From: http://www3.niu.edu/acad/psych/Milli...sfreudhome.htm

"It is common knowledge that Sigmund Freud was one of the fathers of clinical psychology. He did not always have this title.
Like Galileo, Darwin, and other original thinkers who were ahead of their time, they were ridiculed before they were revered.
We thought it might be interesting to simulate how people in this time would react to him and how our time would be affected if he had been born in this day and age and living in San Francisco. "

I hate ignorant people that due to their delusion propense brains, base their logic on ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTIONS without LEARNING the FACTS....:cool:

[Victus]

snap crafter wrote

"Everyone has a little voice inside them that tells them what they are doing is right/wrong, those who don't seem to have this conscience is simply denying it."

We can never know explicitly the exact things another person is experiencing. It's possible that everyone other than me actually has voices in their heads that tell them what to do. I only know that I don't, and infer from that that other people don't either. The point that "people who claim not to have these voices are simply in denial" is actually the same kind of catch-22 thinking that Freud used to in his theories, ie, "You want to have sex with your mother, if you say you're not then you're in denial". This is effectively the same as saying "even if you say you're not, you are, just because".

snap crafter wrote

"I know I'm not gonna change your beliefs, as you know that your not going to change mine."

Fair enough. People will never agree about everything and will interpret (or ignore) information as they wish. As such, there comes a point when you either have to agree to disagree, or conclude the person you're talking to is an idiot. I prefer the latter as it contributes to my sense of superiority.

snap crafter wrote

"Frued was evil, he was just a persuasive speaker who was trying to subvert our society."

Freud was one of the founders of what we now call psychology, which is what I study and put into practice at the lab I work at. That said, Freud was way off. His theories aren't testable and are, at their face, largely rejected by the current psychological community. There are only a small following of psychoanalysts remaining, and they're basically the "UFO-believers" of psychology.

You think Freud is evil? You should have seen him in his day. Victorian society practically wanted to lynch him for suggesting women's anxiety was caused by their lacking sex lives. Mentioning the word sex in Victorian Europe was a damned dangerous thing to do, and he even compramised his theories for the sake of playing nice with society.

Freuds like one of those guys in science that had a bad idea, but his bad ideas gave you a good idea. I wouldn't let him research in my lab, but he could be our mascot if he wanted.

[Rhinoqulous]

Sorry Cal, Freud's been discredited. No one really buys into psychotherapy anymore. But like Victus said, he may have had crappy ideas, but those ideas paved the way for the scientific ideas of modern psychology.

Yeah, Freud just kicked around the ideas he made up and never supported them with anything and if anyone was "fixated" on sex it was him. His reasons for being an atheist are terrible too...he's one of those "my daddy was mean" type atheists.

He probably shouldn't have snorted so much cocaine either.

[calpurnpiso]

Rhinoqulous wrote

Sorry Cal, Freud's been discredited. No one really buys into psychotherapy anymore. But like Victus said, he may have had crappy ideas, but those ideas paved the way for the scientific ideas of modern psychology.

What I'm saying is that he STARTED the whole thing. Alas, neurology was UNKNOWN thanks to Christ-psychosis intellectual stagnation. Freud was not a Know it all due to the knowledge of the time. The fact is that the Christ-psychotic retards starte a NEW way of thinking and looking at things! Those idiots thought the HEART was the organ of thinking for millennia. Aristarchors over 2300 years ago besides revealing the earth and other planets rotated around the sun, he also realized the BRAIN was the organ of thinking!!....What happen to all of that knowledge? Christ-psychosis in its delusional stupor wiped out all knowledge persecuted free thinkers and stablished the delusional way of thinking for which they are known! We all can go back to the 4th Century and see it. Their neurological ignominy and incalculable damage to humanity is well recorded.

One must not forget that even Einstein has been discredited in some ways. many scientists have. It comes with the territory. Knowledge is not steady and uniform. New discoveries replace old ones and new concepts stablish new truths, till better one replace them. This is what science is all about. Tempus Omnia revealt ( time brings all to light). The perverted, immoral and insane Christians have NO ROOM to talk specially when dealing with neurology, psychiatry ( this of course is under attack as is accupuncture and I do not blame the attackers, since aposteriori observations accompanied with evidence must backed up the claims, and it does not so far ) and other sciences.

Those delusional retards are almost never right in their assertions, since they are based on delusions and distorted thinking, not unlike the assertions of the schizophrenia or TLE sufferer. This ANYONE can see for themselves by attending a Sunday service then going immediately to a mental institution and discussing faith, healing and spirtualism with a schizophrenic!!!..Alas, their thinking and way of reasoning is IDENTICAL. I'm not a neurologist and I can see it!, for I 've done this experiment decades ago. Christians are SICK people there is no question about it. Though those under religious beliefs are also sick, Christians are the #1 NUTS.

Freud simply open the door to this realm of thinking. We must give the man credit for that. Many of his claims are YET to be proven wrong since there is NO EVIDENCE they are!...:cool:

I have yet to hear derogatory remarks about Freud from Koch, Baum, Crick, Ramachandran and other luminaries of the neurology field. Let's keep people's discoveries and thinking within their respective time frame shall we?..:cool:

freud didn't talk about the brain, he talked about "the mind". why would anyone in the neurology field talk about him?

[calpurnpiso]

darwinfish wrote

Yeah, Freud just kicked around the ideas he made up and never supported them with anything and if anyone was "fixated" on sex it was him. His reasons for being an atheist are terrible too...he's one of those "my daddy was mean" type atheists.

He probably shouldn't have snorted so much cocaine either.

Ridiculous. In those Christ-psychosis times EVERYONE was obsess with sex!! No CHRISTIANITY no obsession!!

I suggest you study the Victorian age, drug addicted Europe and Asia, the Christ-psychosis plague of Europe, the political religious rivalries, the luminaries and medical discoveries....from 1850 to 1950. Simply a 100 year spand. Then you'll understand Freud and his contemporaries...

Christianity introduced SEX OBSESSION, pedophilia, immorality, algolagnia, sadism, voyerism, homosexual sin, and rest of prudish idiotic retarded views of normal human life!! freud did not. He merely stated the OBVIOUS. Don't we want to hold our mothers and SUCK THEIR TITS?...when we are days old? Don't we want to EAT caves of creation? What's the purpose?...don't we subconsciously want to RETURN to the Cave where we lived in peace and tranquility, before we were EXPULSED into the world? Don't you ENVY guys with a bigger joy stick?....one must realize the imprinting period is FULL of SEX feelings. Freud simply did NOT have an MRI, and the technology to TEST his findings....if this was the case he would have known WHERE he was wrong!! and CORRECT his findings. When was Freud producing his ideas...1990's?.....:lol: I suggest you do some research....:lol:

[calpurnpiso]

darwinfish wrote

freud didn't talk about the brain, he talked about "the mind". why would anyone in the neurology field talk about him?

Because PSYCHOLOGY came first then NEUROLOGY that's why!....one science initiated the creation of the other...but he KNEW the brain produced the mind but WHAT was the brain? how did it work?,,how did it CREATE thoughts? ( READ BAUM)....again he did NOT have the TECHNOLOGY..he simply observed and hope for the best. He could ONLY study the EFFECTS of the brain which are thoughts, ideas, dreams, psychosis etc. Remember, synaptic connections, neurotransmitters, MRIs, etc etc etc were UNKNOWN!!....neurology came LATER...much later!! Freud's ignorance of an UNKNOWN science as it was neuorolgy doesn't mean he was a quack!..he was a genious and ahead of his time considering the KNOWLEDGE of the times in which he lived.

This is as saying people should have known the hurricaine was comming and evacuated Charleston in that 1900 catastrophy. Did they have weather satellites then?...:lol:

[Gnosital]

True, Freud's ideas were not scientific, but they still have some value in the field of psychology.

His was the first and most comprehensive attempt at a grand unifying theory of the mind. Nobody else has come close to providing such a detailed and complete conceptualization. While it is obviously not correct in a literal sense, the framework it provided stimulated the development of various therapeutic approaches, theories of personality, and even a perspective for studying the brain.

He was largely responsible for the idea that psychotherapy (a talking cure) could be used to effect behavioral change. This concept is very much supported by modern neuroscience. Almost all mental disorders have better outcome if treatment involves both pharmacological AND psychotherapeutic approaches. In fact, there is some evidence that psychotherapy (a general term, not synonymous with “psychoanalysis” which is the Freud brand name) works equally as well as drug therapy.
http://www.apa.org/practice/peff.html
http://www.healthyplace.com/communit...ch_vs_meds.asp
http://horan.asu.edu/cpy702readings/.../seligman.html
http://www.apsa.org/pubinfo/efficacy.htm
etc.

While his psychosexual stages seem ridiculous from a modern perspective, his descriptions of ego defense mechanisms are among the most useful therapeutic concepts in psychology, and a fair amount of empirical support has accumulated for the mechanisms he described as ego defenses. Many of the terms and concepts he defined in his perspective have evolved into common use, e.g., ego-maniac, mama’s boy, daddy’s girl, penis envy, Oedipal complex, being defensive, being neurotic, overactive libido, projection, denial, repression, suppression, being anal, oral fixation, etc. Those were some pretty good ideas for a crackpot cokehead fraud.

Freud was instrumental in getting psychology to consider the role of the unconscious, and he was definitely right about unconscious factors regulating behavior, even if he conceptualized it in a weird way. In fact, neurobehavioral studies are constantly finding evidence for unconscious processes regulating/initiating behavior. VS Ramachandran (among others) is convinced of human's abilities to selectively repress memories (1995, "Anosognosia in parietal lobe syndrome", Conscious Cognition, 4,22-51). M. Solms (2004, "Freud Returns" Scientific American, 290(5), 83-89) presents an argument from brain imaging and lesion studies relating a functional map of the human brain to Freud's concepts of id (brainstem & limbic system) ego (ventral frontal and posterior cortex) and superego (dorsal frontal cortex). Neuroscience and Freud are not strange bedfellows at all.

The most frequent criticisms of Freud’s ideas focus on his overemphasis on sexuality and aggression as motivating factors in human behavior. Maybe his belief that human nature has a fundamentally violent aspect had something to do with growing up in late 19th century anti-Semitic Europe as a Jew. Or maybe living in the post-Victorian era of intense but hypocritical sexual repression, then hearing repeatedly from his patients that they had been sexually abused as young children, had something to do with his belief that sexuality has an inherent role in the motivation of human behavior.

Freud was neither a crackpot nor a cokehead. He was a serious philosopher of the mind and he was navigating uncharted mental waters. He spent many lonely years working to establish his professional reputation and a means of providing for a family, and wouldn’t marry his fiancée until he had accomplished that objective. When cocaine was isolated from coca and became widely available in Europe, he used it to keep working late into the evenings and to overcome depression. Cocaine really did seem like a miracle cure at the time, and it was legal and freely available and no one understood how dangerous it was at first. When Freud realized that cocaine wasn’t the panacea he thought is was, he promptly quit. He was however, addicted to tobacco, which rotted his jaw and throat away with cancer and resulted in his untimely physician-assisted suicide.

To maintain that a significant figure in the history of psychology like Freud was a fraud or was crazy makes no sense, insofar as the man’s conceptualization of the human psyche is still taught in every major introductory psychology textbook out there on the market, and it isn’t just covered in the history chapters. The concepts of his psychoanalytic/psychosexual perspective aren’t literally correct, but the model provides a useful means of describing and predicting human behavioral tendencies.

Peter Gay wrote a definitive biography on Freud for anyone is interested in facts rather than popular misconceptions.

[Gnosital]

snap crafter wrote

So, today I was chattin' with a christian...

There's your first mistake.

What do you say to someone who says, "Everyone has a little voice inside them that tells them what they are doing is right/wrong, those who don't seem to have this conscience is simply denying it."

I think Rhinoqulous had the best idea for this one.

What do you say to someone who says: "I know I'm not gonna change your beliefs, as you know that your not going to change mine."

See my first comment.

And what do you say to someone who says: "Frued was evil, he was just a persuasive speaker who was trying to subvert our society."

Tell the little dumbass to read something besides chick tracts.


Man, I hope she was cute, cause she sure was stooooopid.

[calpurnpiso]

scathach wrote

True, Freud's ideas were not scientific, but they still have some value in the field of psychology.

His was the first and most comprehensive attempt at a grand unifying theory of the mind. Nobody else has come close to providing such a detailed and complete conceptualization. While it is obviously not correct in a literal sense, the framework it provided stimulated the development of various therapeutic approaches, theories of personality, and even a perspective for studying the brain.

He was largely responsible for the idea that psychotherapy (a talking cure) could be used to effect behavioral change. This concept is very much supported by modern neuroscience. Almost all mental disorders have better outcome if treatment involves both pharmacological AND psychotherapeutic approaches. In fact, there is some evidence that psychotherapy (a general term, not synonymous with “psychoanalysis” which is the Freud brand name) works equally as well as drug therapy.
http://www.apa.org/practice/peff.html
http://www.healthyplace.com/communit...ch_vs_meds.asp
http://horan.asu.edu/cpy702readings/.../seligman.html
http://www.apsa.org/pubinfo/efficacy.htm
etc.

While his psychosexual stages seem ridiculous from a modern perspective, his descriptions of ego defense mechanisms are among the most useful therapeutic concepts in psychology, and a fair amount of empirical support has accumulated for the mechanisms he described as ego defenses. Many of the terms and concepts he defined in his perspective have evolved into common use, e.g., ego-maniac, mama’s boy, daddy’s girl, penis envy, Oedipal complex, being defensive, being neurotic, overactive libido, projection, denial, repression, suppression, being anal, oral fixation, etc. Those were some pretty good ideas for a crackpot cokehead fraud.

Freud was instrumental in getting psychology to consider the role of the unconscious, and he was definitely right about unconscious factors regulating behavior, even if he conceptualized it in a weird way. In fact, neurobehavioral studies are constantly finding evidence for unconscious processes regulating/initiating behavior. VS Ramachandran (among others) is convinced of human's abilities to selectively repress memories (1995, "Anosognosia in parietal lobe syndrome", Conscious Cognition, 4,22-51). M. Solms (2004, "Freud Returns" Scientific American, 290(5), 83-89) presents an argument from brain imaging and lesion studies relating a functional map of the human brain to Freud's concepts of id (brainstem & limbic system) ego (ventral frontal and posterior cortex) and superego (dorsal frontal cortex). Neuroscience and Freud are not strange bedfellows at all.

The most frequent criticisms of Freud’s ideas focus on his overemphasis on sexuality and aggression as motivating factors in human behavior. Maybe his belief that human nature has a fundamentally violent aspect had something to do with growing up in late 19th century anti-Semitic Europe as a Jew. Or maybe living in the post-Victorian era of intense but hypocritical sexual repression, then hearing repeatedly from his patients that they had been sexually abused as young children, had something to do with his belief that sexuality has an inherent role in the motivation of human behavior.

Freud was neither a crackpot nor a cokehead. He was a serious philosopher of the mind and he was navigating uncharted mental waters. He spent many lonely years working to establish his professional reputation and a means of providing for a family, and wouldn’t marry his fiancée until he had accomplished that objective. When cocaine was isolated from coca and became widely available in Europe, he used it to keep working late into the evenings and to overcome depression. Cocaine really did seem like a miracle cure at the time, and it was legal and freely available and no one understood how dangerous it was at first. When Freud realized that cocaine wasn’t the panacea he thought is was, he promptly quit. He was however, addicted to tobacco, which rotted his jaw and throat away with cancer and resulted in his untimely physician-assisted suicide.

To maintain that a significant figure in the history of psychology like Freud was a fraud or was crazy makes no sense, insofar as the man’s conceptualization of the human psyche is still taught in every major introductory psychology textbook out there on the market, and it isn’t just covered in the history chapters. The concepts of his psychoanalytic/psychosexual perspective aren’t literally correct, but the model provides a useful means of describing and predicting human behavioral tendencies.

Peter Gay wrote a definitive biography on Freud for anyone is interested in facts rather than popular misconceptions.

GRATIAS TIBI AGO!!!!! Thank you. Thank you,!!! that's exactly what I was trying to say..but YOU are the expert and the authority since this is your field.

The rest of the retards SHOULD study Freud, neurology and the period of time when he was alive. One can NOT meassure Freud's accomplishments and thinking by using 21st Century standards. Even a dumb artist like me knows that!!.They forget Freud was the FIRST, non Christ-psychotic thinker who was curious about the mind and origin of thinking.......:lol: