Is psychoanalysis real science? Are "defenses" and the unconscious real things, or it's all just a bunch of crap? Can you apply logic to it, to try and see how it works?
>>17058035>first sentence>"for real cheated on you"What kind of garbage are you reading?!>"it is probably possible"This is pedestrian, interview homeless people instead. They have more life experiences.
>>17058066Talk about defensive.
>>17058035>Is psychoanalysis real science?No> Are "defenses" and the unconscious real things, or it's all just a bunch of crap?Mostly a bunch of crap>Can you apply logic to it, to try and see how it works?NoT.psych degree
>>17058035Maybe, but I can't say I know what the experiment is here
>>17058066>What kind of garbage are you reading?!See filename. That does not make it easier to continue from that sentence.
The unconscious is far more of a real thing than this decades new hotness of superdeterminism. It's all just psychopaths rationalization. No you think you make decisions and it's all your fault.
>>17058035I think the appeal of psychoanalysis is that it delivers a story and humans love stories.
>>17058035Combustion is real. Phlogiston isn't. You can apply logic to something that's not real and maybe even arrive at some usable conclusions, to the extent that your misconceived entity encodes some of the laws governing the empirical observations it's based on, but it's still wrong.
>>17058035No, yes, no, and yes.Psychoanalysis is not a real science; the complexity of how the human psyche develops and the number of things that can fuck it up or interact in strange ways makes reliable reproducibility between patients almost impossible; there are things that people do reliably in response to trauma and bad experiences, but people need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and there's no one-size-fits-all approach to psychotherapy.BUT, as >>17058299 points out, humans are drawn to narrative; we crave catharsis and catharsis itself can be therapeutic. Being able to frame psychological problems around root causes and being able to say "this experience is why I have this problem and if I can work through the trauma of that experience I'll be better off" gives us a pathway towards mental wellness even if the actual cause of psychological problems is rarely that simple.Can I fix all of my problems simply by acknowledging that my dad smacked me around as a kid and that it wasn't my fault? No, of course not, my psychological problems as a 38-year-old man are far more complicated and interconnected than that, they're the culmination of decades of experiences, most of them small or unremarkable that nevertheless contribute to my current psyche... but talking and working through that big shit certainly makes it a lot easier to talk and work through the piles and piles of smaller shit.
>>17058381You could have written "no, no, no and no" and still followed it up with that slop. In particular, I don't see how any of what you wrote validates the fiction of "the subconscious".
>>17058384The "subconscious" isn't a hidden organ or a magical realm, but the necessary explanation for why people repeatedly act against their own stated beliefs and self interest while remaining completely convinced of their own rational justifications.You don't need to prove a biological subconscious to see the mechanism. The most effective place to hide a defense is inside what you consider "obviously true" because that's the one place you'll never have reason to doubt.
>>17058424>The "subconscious" isn't a hidden organ or a magical realm, but the necessary explanation for why people repeatedly act against their own stated beliefs and self interest while remaining completely convinced of their own rational justifications.It's neither a valid, nor necessary, nor an actual explanation.
>>17058424>>17058425I mean, what does it "explain"? You're just inventing a magical carpet to sweep what you're trying to explain under. Now instead of figuring out the actual dynamics driving the behavior you're observing, you just say "it's subconscious" and maybe add something about how your daddy beat you when you were 5 and none of it predicts anything about the behavior, nor tells you anything about how to alter it.
Man I fucking love tlp, best writer ever.https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/10/the_story_of_narcissus.htmlhttps://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/06/amy_schumer_offers_you_a_look.htmlhttps://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/09/real_men_want_to_drink_guinnes.htmlhttps://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/08/just_because_you_see_it_doesnt.htmlIf you can read any of those and not come out like "...hm. That was weird" I'll eat my hat, your hat and your mom's hat
>>17058431>She was 18, and was out with friends in NYC wearing "a miniskirt and a tube top-- my uniform back then." At the end of the night they pile into a cab. Amy sits in the front.>The cab driver was "gross, like the cab driver on MTV." "This was back when I used to do dangerous things, sexually," and littered throughout the story were exasperated sighs, like, "I can't believe I did those things." I sympathize, believe me I do.>So what does a drunk 18 year old coed do in the front seat of a cab that's worth sharing on the radio? She extends her leg over towards the cabbie...>At this point I should tell you that the title of this Opie & Anthony segment is "Amy Schumer Gets Fingered In A Cab" so of course I already know what's going to happen, which is why I'm parked behind a church.This is what k*kes write, talk about and read.
>>17058442If you didn't bother to read the rest, telling you what is about will be a waste.
>>17058153>See filenameWow, so that shit is even more badly written than I suspected. It totally reads like it's AI written, just utter slop without direction or purpose.>>17058035>having sex with a koboldThe hell
>>17058431yeah, absolute gemI have an archive of his site somewhereif I thought about people the way he does, I would also drink too much btw
>>17058474If you bothered to read the rest of this garbage you found at the bottom of the kosher bosher dumpster, I know what ethnicity you are and that your interest in Fraudian incest fantasies is not, in fact, a pure coincidence.
>>17058501If you loved that, you will love this:https://mondoweiss.net/2025/02/a-brief-history-of-israels-theft-and-trafficking-of-palestinian-organs/
>>17058553Man, being you must suck. Talk about being blinded by what you think is obvious. You're no better than a pink haired woman yelling MISOGYNY whenever anything happens; but just like her, telling you this won't have any effect whatsoever; you've found a single, all encompassing explanation that makes you feel smart without requiring you to think. It's the ultimate blind spot
>>17058559You realize you're barely sentient, right? For example, did you notice how the drivel frm OP's pic immediately goes for a primitive bait-and-switch tactic? Barely a few paragraphs in, the kike is already trying to swindle the reader. He makes no attempt at subtlety, wastes no time with misdirection. He just rams it in immediately and unceremoniously, because he knows his readership. By the time an 80 IQ like you gets to the fourth paragraph, he will have already forgotten what the first paragraph was even about.
>>17058563>did you notice how the drivel frm OP's pic immediately goes for a primitive bait-and-switch tactic?Don't know about that retard but I did notice. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Like, what if the little freak is actually talking about your daughter cheating on you? You never know with muddled slop from a muddled mind.
>>17058035It's slightly more retarded than whatever goes for "real" psychology nowadays, but it's a lot more fun.
>>17058035is that psychoanalysis in your pic? it sounds like the ramblings of a schizophrenic. i'd feel a bit worse about my girlfriend cheating on me "out of lust" because that hurts my self-esteem. the other option hurts my esteem of her. no, i don't care which option is better for her. and no, i don't care what option the moron who wrote that thinks reflects worse on me
>>17058573>your daughter cheating on youPlease learn to read
>>17058594>low IQ gets completely filtered
>>17058594Don't bother arguing with them, they can't parse sentences longer than 5 words.
>>17058603>another low IQ gets completely filtered by a simple jokeSee >>17058563>By the time an 80 IQ like you gets to the fourth paragraph, he will have already forgotten what the first paragraph was even about.It's just this playing out. You can't figure out what he's referring to because your biotbot context window isn't large enough to even include the previous post as context.
>>17058573>what if the little freak is actually talking about your daughter cheating on you?kek. that WOULD make the schizobabble follow a more coherent trajectory. bet freud has something about this
>>17058607Give the poor thing a break, he got laughed out of /lit/ and he's looking for a new home.
>>17058035The explanation is wack and I've always hated the whole "if you deny it, that proves it!1" thing in psychology. Still, it was an interesting read. Funny enough, I reacted to both questions exactly the way he predicted.
>>17058648>Funny enough, I reacted to both questions exactly the way he predicted.Funny enough, a 6th grader could've made the same predictions, just without all the pseudointellectual slop.
>>17058653Didn't sound like slop to me. A reach? sure, but it holds
>>17058659Yes, but we've already established that you're an 80-IQ imbecile in your last few attempts to defend this kosher diarrhea.
>>17058659You know what? Humor me here for a second: if this isn't pseudointellectual slop, why does the author pose a hypothetical about your girlfriend cheating you and then try to prove something by comparing your answer to a hypothetical where your daughter bangs someone you don't approve of? In your own words, explain how these situations are in any way analogous.Protip: you won't.
>>17058664eh, it says it right there. If she cheats and I feel bad about it, it's because I don't want her to have sex with that guy, put it simply. If I wanted my gf to have sex with the guy, it wouldn't be cheating.So to use my daughter in the analogy she'd have to have sex with someone I don't want her to have sex with, pretty obvious. The "you're angry because she chose" part I have no idea tho, that one I can't follow
>>17058669You can't be serious.
>>17058673I'll simplify it more for you>person A has sex with person B>I like person A>I dislike the fact that it had sex with B>Question: is it better if person A did it with lust or with 0 lust?I don't know about you, but if I put "my gf" in A, then I'd rather she had sex with someone I don't want her to, with no lust. If she lusted after the guy I'd feel worse, like "damn"But if I put any other person I like in A, like a friend or my daughter, it's the reverse. I don't want to think of my kid just going along and fucking some guy I wouldn't want her to have sex with like "eh sure, fill my pussy whatever". Maybe you'd answer differently I don't know, can't really argue much against a "u cant be serious"
>>17058682I'm not reading a post by someone THAT fucking retarded. Sorry. For what it's worth, I think you just might be the target audience for such a book.
>>17058683Another flawless argument. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you're not saying anything to prove you are right
>>17058684It takes him 6 entire paragraphs to make the following "argument":>in general, if you don't approve of A fucking B, isn't it worse if A isn't even into B?>then why does this apply to everyone except your wife?>you married a woman who expresses her agency and self-respect by lustfully cucking you with Chad?>that doesn't necessarily say anything bad about you!>but a floorwipe of a woman who just gets dragged along? what kind of a man marries THAT?>so why would you feel worse if she chose Chad over you?>no, no, no... it's not because her cucking you with Chad makes you feel insufficient and inadequate>it's because she CHOSE! you just can't stand a woman CHOOSING!>she's not even a real person to you! you can't even accept her lust!>you just want to decide her motivations for her, convince yourself she wasn't really into Chad!That's his actual "argument". The kike who wrote this meandering drivel is actually deranged and the people who read it are too stupid to follow, which makes them feel like they're reading something intelligent.
>>17058705What you say kinda makes sense but I'm not sure what you think is correct, I kinda lose it with the sarcasm. Sounds like you think the message is too "woman" positive, as if the author is letting them get away with something, like a feminist?
>>17058708>>17058708>Sounds like you think the message is too "woman" positive, as if the author is letting them get away with something, like a feminist?That's not the point at all. The point is that this vile worm latches onto the most basic, generic and understandable insecurities and then starts trying to spin it like he knows some deep, dark truths about you and the ulterior motives behind your thoughtless answer to a dishonest, childish question. And he specifically insists that you pull out an answer without reflection (don't want the reader rationalizing!) because he's there to tell you how your mind REALLY works. You're just supposed to blindly follow his schizobabble like cattle and be dazzled by his insights.
>>17058717you've just described all of psychoanalysis since its inception lol
