Well, nowadays, we may have another look at this. E.g., when it comes to Freud's interpretation of dreams, think of an embedded semantic field with some activation, probably in another dimensionality than that of the field itself, much like a multi-head attention header. Now imagine a RLE enhancing some of the possible productions and suppressing others, due to training (Freud's Vorbewusstsein). What we get are productions that are still pointing to the same hot spots in the embedded field, but with minute vectorial shifts and changes in attention (compression and displacement), resulting in legitimate productions that are able to pass the controlling RLE instance. The result is pretty much the "dream text" and the process is very similar to Freud's dream work (Traumarbeit).

In other words: I'd argue, you can't believe in transformers actually doing some work and entirely dismiss psychoanalysis at the same same time.

I'm of the same conclusion. Freudian analysis is the chiropracty of the mind.

I’m surprised to see you downvoted. Just read his works, people! They’re utter nonsense.

Freuds methods are as effective as CBT. Methods based on his theories are one of the most common forms of therapy here in Germany

Regardless of what you believe about his theoretical constructs, it works

EDIT: you should also consider how this aligns with the analytic vs continental divide. In the Anglosphere we historically have a very limited view on what constitutes meaningful knowledge, partly as a reaction against British Hegelianism

> Freud was a conman and charlatan,

Freud has left an everlasting impressions on the field of psychology with frameworks to interpret and analyze human behavior and cognition. It is not a hard science, and thus things will fall out of fashion and be disregarded, that makes him no less of a pioneer, and his research stands.

I didn't know that.

Why are there so many psychologists practicing psychoanalysis today, then? Has modern psychoanalysis evolved so far beyond Freud's psychoanalysis that it became a serious branch of psychology? If so, why is it still called "psychoanalysis"?

From my understanding he was starting a radical new thread of ideas that ran counter to the hard empiricism at the time that was going nowhere, or at least too slowly to help a significant portion of people (which remains the case today in my opinion). You can read the late 19th century state of neuroscience which sounds eerily close to today's views -- and the distaste for Freudianism espoused in your comment.

I have read a lot of Freud and still remain skeptical of some of the overall thrusts. But reading it and get the full context makes you realize that the modern interpretations of his thought are wildly reductionistic.

About his behavior with those in his following: It is true that he had many moments of harshness/weakness, but he was also surprisingly modern in his liberalism and self-scrutiny. I've read that he was extremely concerned about being taken seriously in the face of the large amount of reaction from society to uncomfortable ideas. So his method was to be hyper organized and disciplined.

One thing I really like about Freud is his openness to changing his ideas in the face of new evidence and his commitment to making sure there were people working on treatment/solutions to suffering that was currently happening. He was open to the idea of biological interventions in the future replacing his own interventions, but he wanted to do something that would help people now in the meantime. I don't think we've adequately established that more modern therapies and interventions work better in all types of cases and think his work is still very relevant, especially in certain types of cases. Not to mention that most of the modern therapeutic practices are based on his work in a way you can't easily tease out and cast out as irrelevant.

It seems much more likely to me that the fate of Freud's ideas were not as much discounted as integrated. Most bits of discounting was more because of other developments in society, industry, and academia. One easy example is that it's quite difficult to perform Freudian therapy at multiple times a week given modern billing and scheduling.

Again, I remain cautious about the utility of many of the ideas, but I'd recommending reading a serious book like Revolution in Mind (Makari) to ground you in the actual history of psychoanalysis. Almost everything I've read on internet blogs, articles, and some otherwise-serious writers are missing woefully important context.

Ok don’t know whether Freud was a charlatan or simply one of many explorers of his time, who believed in his theories. (Consider Lysenko and others.)

But his nephew EDWARD BURNAYS in the USA is the reason Freud came to USA and we even know about Freud. And Burnays was far more successful using methods of mass psychology — very meta, he renamed Propaganda to PUBLIC RELATIONS.

Burnays got women to smoke, and helped promote the public stock market, which now is used for IPO of many startups. Google “Century of the Self” for a great documentary.

> banished from the DSM

Are you referring to the DSM classification instrument for mental disorders (where Freud never even was mentioned), or is there another three-letter-acronymed organisation in psychology/psychiatry I am unaware of?

>Freud was a conman and charlatan, and the Horace Frink affair best illustrates his character

On the one hand I can certainly agree that Freud's psychoanalytical theories were full of logical inconsistencies and holes and his publication of them marred the intellectual development of the 20th century in every field it touched, especially literature which I find particularly galling. And anyone familiar with Freud's malpractice and manipulation of patients over the years would find the Frink affair relatively tame, the guy was an absolute twisted scumbag.

On the other hand he did a lot of important work in biology when younger https://www.embrc.eu/newsroom/news/sigmund-freud-eel-testis-....

A shame he did not continue on with that.