Posted by Adam on December 7, 1999, at 16:04:50
In reply to "Therapy's Delusions", posted by Morose on December 7, 1999, at 12:45:03
I was once inclined, based on my lack of success with psychodynamic therapy, to
take a very dim view of it. I honestly haven't studied Freud or psychdynamic
theory with much depth, but what little I do know of his theories leaves me with the
impression that he was brilliant and creative but not altogether scientific. Same
with Jung. I've studied them a little in the context of the philosophy of religion,
and they were roundly savaged by my professors. Freud especially was regarded as
a perverse, sexist, neurotic psuedoscientist who projected his own patholigies on
his hapless patients, probing and manipulating them rather than trying to treat them.
"Sigmund Fraud" was the typical epithet used. This always struck me as a rather
inauspicious foundation for a branch of social science. Perhaps my preference for
CBT had something to do with these influences and the fact that it diverged from
psychodynamics so thoroughly. In retrospect, I guess extreme liberal politics had
as much to do with this critique of Freud as the historical facts. Certainly
fin-de-siecle Vienna spawned a monster or two, but I'm sure Freud was not one of them.
A phallocrat to be sure, but who wasn't back then.I personally have found CBT to be of more help, but that's just me. It seems many
people here have benefitted greatly from analysis, so regardless of the personal
philosphy of some intellectuals, it has value, and, clearly, some efficacy, which
has been demostrated scientifically with the usual statistical methods. Since
individual needs and preferences vary so widely, what works for such a large number
of them is worthy of persuit and development.>
> In a nutshell, the book states that all psychodynamic therapy is nonsense, and that mental ailments can be treated only with drugs. Here is an extract, taken from the website:
>
poster:Adam
thread:16382
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/19991123/msgs/16387.html