![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 36. Go back in thread:
Posted by caraher on December 3, 2005, at 1:57:30
In reply to Any tips on how to find articles?? » Gee, posted by orchid on December 3, 2005, at 1:07:59
Wikipedia is usually a good place to start for... well, anything.
Also, Gee, I think it would be best to start a new thread for a particular discussion lest this one become a ridiculously-long, confusing catch-all. But thanks for kick-starting this with a specific topic! :)
Posted by orchid on December 3, 2005, at 7:44:06
In reply to Any tips on how to find articles?? » Gee, posted by orchid on December 3, 2005, at 1:07:59
I just thought of something which makes me re think this whole idea.
Folks here are as it is too much involved with psychology and introspecting. I am wondering if it would do folks here any good to go into even more depths. It might just worsen the condition, and make people more introspecting.
A fun and outgoing kind of discussion might be better rather than getting into all the dark depths of our soul and mind ?:-) Any thoughts?
Posted by Dinah on December 3, 2005, at 9:12:46
In reply to On second thoughts - it may not be a great idea, posted by orchid on December 3, 2005, at 7:44:06
> I just thought of something which makes me re think this whole idea.
>
> Folks here are as it is too much involved with psychology and introspecting.I'm sorry that's your feeling about us. But introspection is a trait, not a fault, IMHO.
Posted by 10derHeart on December 3, 2005, at 14:32:59
In reply to On second thoughts - it may not be a great idea, posted by orchid on December 3, 2005, at 7:44:06
And remember, too, Orchid, although I *know* you have a kind heart and good intentions....you don't have to take care of other posters' needs.
If any one person thinks they need a break from Babble, from examining their life, from psychological issues, or from introspecting, hopefully they will recognize and act on this on their own, in their own unique ways.
I think you should post whatever YOU'D like to post at the time, and those who are interested and up for that depth or type of discussion will join in. Those who aren't, won't. (Pretty much like most threads, if you think about it.)
But no worries on your part about *their* needs in that regard. Is there perhaps a bit of projection happening for you around this idea? I only wonder this aloud because several times a few months ago, you seemed to express frustration around *you* doing too much looking inward all the time, and that maybe it was not helping you. Are you maybe inadvertently assuming others must also struggle with that as a negative experience, when in fact, they don't?
Does this make sense?
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 18:45:03
In reply to Re: Anyone up to more serious psychological debates?, posted by Gee on December 2, 2005, at 23:00:05
> So, what do you think of the Freudian Theory.
I think...
It is a theory...
I'm not too sure how to take it...> These are the basic stages
(Is this supposed to describe 'normal development'?)
> First Year-- the oral stage -- the mouth is the focus of pleasureable sensations as the baby sucks and bites
> Second Year---anal stage--- the anus is the focux of pleasureable snesations as the baby learns to control eliminations
> Third to Sixth Year---Phallic Stage--- Children develop sexual curiosity and obtain gratification when they masturbate. They have sexual fantasies about the parent of the opposite sex and feel guilty about their fantasies> Seventh Year through Puberty --- Latency --- Sexual urges are submerged. Children focux on mastery of skills valued by adults
> Adolescence--- Genital Stage--- Adolescents have adult sexual desires, and they seek to satisfy them.
> You must remember that Freud thought that all this was going on subconsciously.
Hmm. How are we to test his theory? Would there be findings that would show it to be false?
> Or do we want to go more with his whole Id, Ego and Superego? Though, in a round about way, they do influence the different stages.
Dunno...
I guess...
If you accept the Freudian framework...
Then you have an 'explanation' for different things.
What I wonder about...
Is whether we should / why we should accept that framework to start with.But I dunno...
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 18:46:39
In reply to On second thoughts - it may not be a great idea, posted by orchid on December 3, 2005, at 7:44:06
> A fun and outgoing kind of discussion might be better...
You can do that over on social...
Posted by Dinah on December 3, 2005, at 21:31:54
In reply to Re: Anyone up to more serious psychological debates?, posted by Gee on December 2, 2005, at 23:00:05
I guess I'm a bit wary of dogma. But that doesn't mean I don't admire Freud. He observed behavior and tried to formulate explanations for it. And succeeded so well that we've absorbed a lot of his concepts into our cultural accepted wisdom.
And maybe he didn't do such a bad job of observing and categorizing types of people. I know more than a few oral types, or anal types.
For his time, and given the state of psychological knowledge in his time, I think he did very well. After all, very few theories are initially formulated as they eventually end up. Successors test and refine the ideas.
I guess I don't necessarily buy his notions of how traits developed. I give a lot more credit to nature, as opposed to nurture.
I don't know many women today who would endorse the idea of penis envy. (Well, I might. But only for recreational purposes.) But given the society of his day, maybe he wasn't too far off with it. I'm sure the role women were expected to play may well have influenced how and why women displayed some of their symptoms. And maybe they did indeed envy some of the qualities that at the time were limited to men by cultural constraint.
What do you think of symptoms being associated with different developmental phases?
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 21:43:17
In reply to Re: Anyone up to more serious psychological debate » Gee, posted by Dinah on December 3, 2005, at 21:31:54
> I don't know many women today who would endorse the idea of penis envy. (Well, I might. But only for recreational purposes.) But given the society of his day, maybe he wasn't too far off with it. I'm sure the role women were expected to play may well have influenced how and why women displayed some of their symptoms. And maybe they did indeed envy some of the qualities that at the time were limited to men by cultural constraint.
I read about that somewhere :-)
Apparantly... In the time he was writing girls were treated very differently from boys indeed. Girls were supposed to cook clean etc etc and be 'good wives' and not encouraged to study or be independent or whatever...and boys got lots of privaledges (like an education and not having to run around after their sisters)
so... from the little girls perspective...
'how come he gets treated better than me?!'
'oh. he has a penis...'
'hmm. i wish i had one of those because then i'd be allowed to do (whatever)'so... apparantly (given our culture today) penis envy would be fairly rare, yup.
:-)
> What do you think of symptoms being associated with different developmental phases?what would you have to find to show this to be false???
Posted by caraher on December 3, 2005, at 21:47:39
In reply to Re: Anyone up to more serious psychological debate » Gee, posted by Dinah on December 3, 2005, at 21:31:54
I don't take seriously at all any of the details of the theories of Freud. I think his chief contribution was observing that there's a lot more going on in the psyche than what the conscious mind allows us to voice. The choice of metaphors used to articulate his ideas are so tied in time and place to a limited slice of humanity that I find it hard to imagine that there's anything genuinely universal about his explanations of... well, just about anything.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 21:47:42
In reply to Re: Anyone up to more serious psychological debate » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 21:43:17
though i don't know whether freud would have agreed with that...
or whether that is other people attempting to engage in apologetics so people (women in particular) aren't put off him because of that...
Posted by Dinah on December 3, 2005, at 22:07:47
In reply to Re: Anyone up to more serious psychological debate, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 21:47:42
I'm thinking he wouldn't have agreed with that. He was, after all, a product of his time.
I do think he discovered a cultural truth, but didn't recognize it for what it really was.
Posted by Dinah on December 3, 2005, at 22:09:21
In reply to Re: Freud, posted by caraher on December 3, 2005, at 21:47:39
My opinion is the same as yours.
But I give him credit for trying. :)
Posted by Gee on December 3, 2005, at 23:09:01
In reply to Re: Freud » caraher, posted by Dinah on December 3, 2005, at 22:09:21
I can't say I totally agree with Freud, or really agree at all. I respect him though because he was the first real person to put forth any ideas on the topic of development. Many idea's that people have now, or have had have been influenced in some part by Freud. Either they totally dont' agree and take the opposite side or they agree and go along with him. Well, not really anymore.
I forget where I was going.. if I remember I'll post the rest
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 23:43:39
In reply to Re: Freud, posted by Gee on December 3, 2005, at 23:09:01
he is a legandary figure...
i've never read any of his stuff.
just heard about his theories.
mostly... in experimental psychology type classes where they are fairly hostile(because they evaluate it more as a science than an art)
i might go on about science at times...
but then CBT is supposedly 'most scientific'
and yet...
CBT doesn't do it for me...
and i think i'd do better in something psychodynamic
and i'd love to have a go at analysis (maybe)
so...i'd be interested to learn more...
Posted by orchid on December 4, 2005, at 1:19:42
In reply to Re: Freud » Gee, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 23:43:39
Well, I haven't read Freud. But just have heard people who claim they have read Freud.
And from what I heard and the little I read, sometimes I found he made everything based on sex, and it seems too simplistic of a view to take about the world and the development of a personality.
But I have to appreciate the part about his courage in bringing into focus the role sex plays in personality development.
But a great thinker definitely. He dared to think beyond what is accepted !!! and for that I respect him.
Posted by orchid on December 4, 2005, at 1:21:34
In reply to Re: On second thoughts - it may not be a great idea, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 18:46:39
Agreed - And people can choose to stay away if it triggers them !!!Always for the freedom of speech :-)
Orchid
Posted by orchid on December 4, 2005, at 6:57:01
In reply to Orchid, posted by Dinah on December 3, 2005, at 9:12:46
> I'm sorry that's your feeling about us. But introspection is a trait, not a fault, IMHO.Yep - sorry. I was as 10derHeart perhaps projecting :-)
I always thought I was much too introspective, to the extent that it was pulling my happiness down. So I assumed it the same for everyone.
Posted by orchid on December 4, 2005, at 6:58:32
In reply to Re: On second thoughts - it may not be a great ide » orchid, posted by 10derHeart on December 3, 2005, at 14:32:59
That is true. I think I was projecting my own negative experience from too much introspection.
Thanks for pointing it out.
And since I started the idea, I also assumed a little bit of responsibility for it when I thought of it influencing the board in wrong ways too!
> And remember, too, Orchid, although I *know* you have a kind heart and good intentions....you don't have to take care of other posters' needs.
>
> If any one person thinks they need a break from Babble, from examining their life, from psychological issues, or from introspecting, hopefully they will recognize and act on this on their own, in their own unique ways.
>
> I think you should post whatever YOU'D like to post at the time, and those who are interested and up for that depth or type of discussion will join in. Those who aren't, won't. (Pretty much like most threads, if you think about it.)
>
> But no worries on your part about *their* needs in that regard. Is there perhaps a bit of projection happening for you around this idea? I only wonder this aloud because several times a few months ago, you seemed to express frustration around *you* doing too much looking inward all the time, and that maybe it was not helping you. Are you maybe inadvertently assuming others must also struggle with that as a negative experience, when in fact, they don't?
>
> Does this make sense?
Posted by rainbowbrite on December 4, 2005, at 20:50:36
In reply to Re: Freud, posted by Gee on December 3, 2005, at 23:09:01
this is directed at noone in particular and i have only read a few posts so i apoligize if this is totally irrelevent, just a freud thought I had to release LOL
Freuds patients were disproporionatly female, and they were mostly wealthy with husbands who didnt satisfy their needs.
or they were his daughters. I think Freud had MAJOR issues but at the same time had some great ideas. he isnt all about sex, but a little. Imagine the work he would have produced if he had a broader sample population
Posted by rainbowbrite on December 4, 2005, at 20:51:40
In reply to Freud thoughts » Gee, posted by rainbowbrite on December 4, 2005, at 20:50:36
Posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2005, at 20:59:10
In reply to Freud thoughts » Gee, posted by rainbowbrite on December 4, 2005, at 20:50:36
yeah.
what i find 'amusing' sort of sort of...
is his views on female sexuality.
i know people have developed other views since then...
but it was all about females having a 'lack' or a 'cavity' and they needed it filled to feel complete or something like that...whereas...
not so for guys.
its funny.... i think he said something somewhere about... not knowing what women really wanted. i wonder if he thought he had it sussed for guys?
Posted by daisym on December 5, 2005, at 0:23:08
In reply to Re: Freud thoughts, posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2005, at 20:59:10
I think we all have to remember that just prior to Freud physicians thought that the female uterus could move around the body causing a variety of symptoms and mental illnesses -- hence the term hysterical. So the fact that Freud considered other explanations was progress in and of itself.
I think I have the biggest trouble with the "blank screen" no response therapist advocated by Freud. I think it must have caused no end of frustration for his patients. I much prefer the humanistic view of optimal frustration.
And while Freud's developmental stages correlate to what can be observed it has long been shown that progression through these states may not be linear and may never be completed. We now know that Piaget, who based a lot of his work on Freud, was wrong about what infants and toddlers can learn and how they think. We have the technology to watch brain growth now, and it fascinates me that experience shapes this growth and development. So it is nurture as much as nature and perhaps more.
Posted by happyflower on December 5, 2005, at 15:03:35
In reply to Re: Freud thoughts » alexandra_k, posted by daisym on December 5, 2005, at 0:23:08
My T said one time that most of Freuds thoughts are f*cked up. LOL
Posted by Gee on December 5, 2005, at 20:05:08
In reply to Re: Freud thoughts, posted by happyflower on December 5, 2005, at 15:03:35
Kay, I was reading my psych text and came a long this and thought it was kinda neat, so I'll post it:
"Freud believed that humor is a mechanism for coping with sources of anxiety such as repressed sexual deires"
I really don't think so, but it's an interesting perspective. I can't say I really agree with Freud's views, but they are very interesting, and rather simple, which makes them easy to grasp
He was the first one to prepose many of his ideas, and like said before, his patients were richer, which makes them very different.
Piaget, who was one of the first child developmentalists also has some very neat ideas, but like Freud, many of his ideas are really weird, and they don't (dang, what's the word???) ______ for all the different aspects of a child.
Kay, that's my two bits for now...
Funny joke from text book (that a four or five year old might enjoy)
Why did the farmer name is hog Ink?
Because he kept running out of the pen!
Posted by rainbowbrite on December 6, 2005, at 21:07:35
In reply to Re: Freud thoughts, posted by Gee on December 5, 2005, at 20:05:08
>
> Funny joke from text book (that a four or five year old might enjoy)
> Why did the farmer name is hog Ink?
> Because he kept running out of the pen!
>ugh, I have so many thoughts on Freud but Im trying to ocntrol my urges hehe oops was that a Freudian slip.
grr anyway lots to say but not enough time.
he's a msart guy, with lotsa problems, and he is so very misunderstood. Really, he isnta ll about sex. His theories apply to everything. You know I was replying to your joke and that was it lol I was just going to post haha that was cute. what happened? Anyway, Im not a Freud advocate, at all!! But I do agree that he is slightly misunderstood and it needs to be viewed a little differnetly considering his clientele. Im not sure what i just replied to. Oh well more thoughts from rain
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.