what a shit headline

> Do they not teach now that Research and Psychology are different than counseling and talk therapy?

Clinical psychology is and must be based on proper research...

Nobody said that you must tell patients to evaluate their life through a chi-squared test

> Different treatments, different environments for treatments... ignorance abounds, per usual.

That's why you must be accurate.

No goddamn single case studies in a private setting, which.. uh, a single person can fake and call it a day for half a century.

> YMMV and wokism won't heal your mind, tbh.

Wtf^2

Abstract: From the 10 commandments to the Buddhist eight-fold path,traditionally we looked to religion to provide moral rules and values to liveby. Today many would turn instead to self-help books, like Jordan Peterson's 'The 12 Rules for Life', but our need for and attachment to formalised rulebooks for life endures. Yet critics argue all such codes are mistaken attempts to reduce life to a set of ideals, and are doomed to failure.

This debate explores whether having rules to live by is useful and desirable, or oppressive and ineffective.

Sophie-Grace Chappell argues while life can’t be reduced to a rule book, rules are often a useful way of navigating the complexities of life. In particular, argues Chappell, we can use moral rules to help us develop the virtues.

Massimo Pigliucci concurs that we cannot condense how to live into a rule book, but argues that rules are more detrimental than helpful. The rigidity of rules renders them unhelpful in navigating human existence. Moreover, he argues that virtue ethics is not compatible with rule making; the answer to moral questions are often circumstantial.

Simon Baron-Cohen argues that we could reduce morality to the rule of ‘do no harm’. This rule, combined with a compassion-based approach to our experiences of others, could be an effective way of navigating life.

No, not literally.

Why do you say Nietzsche focuses more on the collective than the individual?

OH AND FYI: SUBCONSCIOUS DOES NOT = UNCONSCIOUS- PSYCH 101.

wtf is right. Black and white thinking is the curse of this time.

Do they not teach now that Research and Psychology are different than counseling and talk therapy? Different treatments, different environments for treatments... ignorance abounds, per usual. Treatments vs theory and self report "science"?

YMMV and wokism won't heal your mind, tbh.

[removed]

> Do we not still use the concept of the id, superego and ego?

No, not even tangentially.

> I just love how everybody has been jumping on the anti-Freud bandwagon for the last 30'40, years it's really laughable.

It's really laughable that it took so long for the cognitive revolution to spread.

> I'm so disappointed in the field that I wanted so to enter. It's obviously now driven by social trends and political party subgroups.

You meant peer-review, reproducibility and statistical rigour, dude. Wtf.

And I corrected prior to 3 minutes, how desperate are you to discredit rather than discuss?

> So are you denying that the concept of the ego, superego, and id are not part of the mainstream modern thinking about personality?

You have a double negative there, but yes, I am denying that modern psychology supports the hypothesis of an id, ego, or superego.

Misleading and bad beyond belief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind#Controversy_and_criticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressed_memory

There are probably thousands of people that were persecuted over this bullshit concept.

I didn't Google personality test I Googled personality theory.

I would suggest that you look up the required studies of a substance abuse counselor to answer your own question.

I believe I was discussing psychoanalytic theory as opposed to clinical research.

So are you denying that the concept of the ego, superego, and id are part of the mainstream modern thinking about personality?

It is absolutely amazing that you are both engaging in ad hominem attacks in the Philosophy subreddit, and also seem to think that Freud was the originator of the subconscious/unconscious. He was not, which a cursory google search, which you apparently use to judge the validity of scientific theories, would show you.

How do you know they were trained by psychologists? All the psychologists I know, people who were actually working in scientific research, said that Freud was never that important to actual psychology and was always much more popular in the public consciousness. Wilhelm Wundt and William James are the early pioneers of scientific psychology.

And googling personality test is not a good way to judge the support of scientific theories, as anyone intelligent might tell you.

Do you not get the very idea of a subconscious is due to Freud? Thanks for showing a perfect example of the modern psych student who tries to act like Freud wasn't a major part of the beginning of psychology.

They were trained by psychologists, genius. 🙄

All's I did was Google personality theory and the first one that came up with psychoanalytic which does contain id ego and the superego so I think you're wrong 🤷‍♀️

Where is your evidence that these ideas are at all ingrained in modern psychology? 3 discrete parts of the subconscious, each with their own purpose in guiding your behavior sounds like a very specific hypothesis and I have never encountered any modern psychology who purports that there is any evidence of it.

>And these were not trained psychologists they were treatment counselors

You are missing the conclusion that they believed in this unsupported hypothesis because they are not actual psychologists. Why would I trust them to actually know real psychology if they aren’t even psychologists!

I'm pretty sure the previous poster made it clear that the concept of these is so ingrained now in the modern thinking of psychology that we don't even recognize that anymore. The concept of the three actually exist not only Within the ideas of psychoanalysis but other treatment modalities as well. I remember my ex-husband in treatment coming home asking me about the" King baby" Id as was trying to be explained to him in substance abuse counseling. These were not trained psychologists they were treatment counselors.

Freud used the term unconscious mind, and thought it functioned in specific ways that modern psychology does not support. And to my knowledge, modern psychology does not support traumatic repression either.

> Do we not still use the concept of the id, superego and ego?

No. The modern consensus in psychology absolutely does not support in any way, the existence of an ID, Ego, or Superego.

"To annihilate or not to annihilate... that seems to be the question." To quote Hamletish.

I wish this was more widely understood...

Repression is also necessary for the development of culture and art. Repression for Freud wasn’t a good or bad thing, just a psychological phenomenon that could be harmful in certain cases.

e: my tired mind confused repression with instinctual renunciation, sorry!

Excellent point!