The original paper has been cited 2000 times: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&scioq=...
That's a lot of citations for something they 'just do not care' about.
That's a lot of citations for something they 'just do not care' about.
Nothing Psychologists ever "find out" generally applies, but just happens in their little circle und their circumstances in their time.
Hopefully the discourse is shifting, but a culture can be dysfunctional (like allowing first cousin or even worse double first cousin marriages, for example) for a very long time before it collapses.
But seriously, if you don't like Freud, you're going to have to come up with a better response than just saying he's a kook; we all know he's a kook!
A) Talk therapy was the mode invented by Freud and is still the dominant modality of psychotherapy today, and
B) While you didn't mention it but, at the time, Cocaine was in common use as a near magical local anaesthetic and from it we derive procaine, lidocaine, any drug ending in -caine, which you certainly have been administered before, and
C)If all we have in our psychological and social lives are narratives, and the narratives bind us into certain patterns which we don't even realize we are following, then the counter to that cannot be another narrative which equally obscures its reproductive capacity (ie "the data"). Freud created stories that untied themselves at their roots, that put patients, not to mention regular people, ill at ease. Even sex with siblings is less taboo, certainly less universally taboo, than sex with one's parents, even if the latter is more genetically troublesome--is this an accident? The stories got to things at their base level, which was impossible by any other means. They might be a bit weird, but they force you to think, maybe even to act differently under the right circumstances (those of treatment), and the latter is what we'd call medical care, no?
I still don't know what's the holdup then. Freud constructed narratives as we all do but his were deranged so why bother even mention him as anything other than the butt of the joke?
I don't know what the trick is but surely there's some trick. It's like a trick that prevents people from immediately recognizing Trump for who he is. A blind spot for obvious derangement.
I just don't understand how can people lack such basic intuitive understanding of psychology to think than any Freudian narrative "might have a point" and still function as a person.
It is not easy to do psychology as a science, it is way less precise and less measurable then comfortable to geeks here. But it did made massive progress in between Freud and now where Freud was abandoned due to being non scientific.
We understand “shame” well enough and the principle of “unconditional positive regard” is central to much of modern talk therapy.
It’s important to understudy that 200 years ago people viewed sexuality very differently and even the notion of what is and is not sexually apporiate was not widely discussed.
Freud operated in less illuminated times than ours and it was necessary for him to operate in code to deliver his therapy. It is my reading of history that he got close to things in doing this that powerful people didn’t want and this is what led to the widespread attempts to discredit him.
Der_Einzige thinks Freud should be judged negatively because his ideas are discredited in detail and have been replaced by newer and better clinical approaches. Another person might have completely identical views with Der_Einzige about the current clinical worth of Freud's ideas yet judge Freud positively because he was a keen and empathetic observer of his patients, because he legitimized the concept of unconscious psychological processes in the public mind, and because he raised the profile of psychological medical care and made it more socially acceptable. The same person could even feel different ways on different days without changing their mind at all.
But do bear in mind, an intro textbook for a 101 class aiming to correct popular misunderstandings; or an experimental guide wanting to give examples of mistakes one should avoid; or an article on the replication crisis would also count as citations, even as they sneered at the original faulty work.
They do not actually care about it as something valid relevant to practice or to build new research on. Because it frequently fails to reproduce.