was Sigmund Freud credible?

[-United Islamic Emirate-]

I know that it may sound crazy and all but was he really? Of course we wouldn't have modern day psychology with out him. But as I do recall he was addicted to Opium/Heroin he was a pedophile and was on the perverted side. I herd today in a conversation I had that he toyed with his feices. So with all these things adding up does he seem credible I say no personally I find this disturbing and a lot of his theories disturbing and how his mother problems played a roll in it too. So what say you NS? Do you agree or disagree?

[The Serbian Empire]

The fact he blamed almost everything on mothers is a bit disturbing.

[Cyrisnia]

OP obviously has a problem with his dad and penis.

[Mushet]

Funny guy, I think people take him too seriously.

[Scomagia]

You need to source the pedophile bit, even though it isn't relevant to his credibility at all.

[Scomagia]

The fact he blamed almost everything on mothers is a bit disturbing.

It's also not exactly true unless we're only focusing on the pop-culture version of Freud.

[-United Islamic Emirate-]

Funny guy, I think people take him too seriously.

It was all satire HAHA

[Natapoc]

No of course not. Modern psychologists reject his theories as pseudoscience. His method of creating un falsifiable psudoscientific claims to justify his preconceived conclusions is reminiscent of the methods of modern evolutionary psychologists.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

Just because he was an absolute madman (probably with a mental illness of sorts) doesn't change the fact that he was an astonishing neurologist, or the fact that many of his ideas and works helped shape neurology today.

[Margno]

Freud's problem was that he wanted to have sex with his mother, and the first time he saw a naked woman he got super paranoid that his father was gonna cut his penis off. Everything else he did pretty much stemmed from that.

[-United Islamic Emirate-]

No of course not. Modern psychologists reject his theories as pseudoscience. His method of creating un falsifiable psudoscientific claims to justify his preconceived conclusions is reminiscent of the methods of modern evolutionary psychologists.

He is the base of modern psychology and psychology no matter what thought/school exists has some root to him.

[-United Islamic Emirate-]

Just because he was an absolute madman (probably with a mental illness of sorts) doesn't change the fact that he was an astonishing neurologist, or the fact that many of his ideas and works helped shape neurology today.

So being high and having mental problems dosnt bring red flags to you?

[Benuty]

They helped found the beginnings, but most of their theories are rubbish, and the man was a drug addict, historically ignorant about religion, and a fucking quack.

[Scomagia]

No of course not. Modern psychologists reject his theories as pseudoscience. His method of creating un falsifiable psudoscientific claims to justify his preconceived conclusions is reminiscent of the methods of modern evolutionary psychologists.

That still doesn't change the fact that he's one of the foundations of psychology, just as medieval alchemists are the foundation of early chemistry.

[Benuty]

Freud's problem was that he wanted to have sex with his mother, and the first time he saw a naked woman he got super paranoid that his father was gonna cut his penis off. Everything else he did pretty much stemmed from that.

Of-course then we have the feminist who came up with Womb/ Vagina envy.

[Zakuvia]

His original theories have been discounted, but like Einstein, he was a pivotal historical figure who would go on to influence those with more tightly focused ideas and theories. Now, the analogy isn't 1 for 1, but psychology isn't as hard a science as astrophysics. Additionally, the idea of formalized mental health was nebulous at this point, a stone's throw from witchdoctors. Of course his ideas, formed without a generation and a half's worth of study, formal analysis, and neuropsychological research, fall fairly easily to modern techniques.

TL;DR? Good start, not relevant anymore.

[Scomagia]

Just because he was an absolute madman (probably with a mental illness of sorts) doesn't change the fact that he was an astonishing neurologist, or the fact that many of his ideas and works helped shape neurology today.

So being high and having mental problems dosnt bring red flags to you?

Not especially, no. Some of the brightest minds have been mentally ill, high, or both.

[-United Islamic Emirate-]

They helped found the beginnings, but most of their theories are rubbish, and the man was a drug addict, historically ignorant about religion, and a fucking quack.

He was only useful in the fact that he based psychology and theories other wise he's just useless.

[Natapoc]

No of course not. Modern psychologists reject his theories as pseudoscience. His method of creating un falsifiable psudoscientific claims to justify his preconceived conclusions is reminiscent of the methods of modern evolutionary psychologists.

That still doesn't change the fact that he's one of the foundations of psychology, just as medieval alchemists are the foundation of early chemistry.

Yes. And just as chemists have rejected the more "magical" explanations of chemical interaction, so also modern psychologists reject the magical thinking that formed the basis of his "theories"

[Dracoria]

Was: yes.

Is: not so much.

[Benuty]

They helped found the beginnings, but most of their theories are rubbish, and the man was a drug addict, historically ignorant about religion, and a fucking quack.

He was only useful in the fact that he based psychology and theories other wise he's just useless.

Hence my first part about the "founding the beginnings". It is any wonder Carl Jung, and his Neo-Freudian lot tried to move toward "Pyscho-Social" instead of "Psycho-Sexual".

[Scomagia]

That still doesn't change the fact that he's one of the foundations of psychology, just as medieval alchemists are the foundation of early chemistry.

Yes. And just as chemists have rejected the more "magical" explanations of chemical interaction, so also modern psychologists reject the magical thinking that formed the basis of his "theories"

That was sort of my point.

[Benuty]

That still doesn't change the fact that he's one of the foundations of psychology, just as medieval alchemists are the foundation of early chemistry.

Yes. And just as chemists have rejected the more "magical" explanations of chemical interaction, so also modern psychologists reject the magical thinking that formed the basis of his "theories"

I am not sure their Cocaine highs which probably influenced their thoughts on psychology could be considered magical.

[Tsaraine]

Freud was influential, but he wasn't particularly correct. He was apparently considered credible at the time, but I think calling him credible now - given how much more we know about psychology and neurology - would be wrong.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

Just because he was an absolute madman (probably with a mental illness of sorts) doesn't change the fact that he was an astonishing neurologist, or the fact that many of his ideas and works helped shape neurology today.

So being high and having mental problems dosnt bring red flags to you?

It does 'bring red flags', but it doesn't change anything about his work or his ideas. Freud greatly improved psychology and neurology and without him, psychology/neurology would not be what it is today.