Dispensing with Psychoanalysis?

[Lark]

Because of break throughs in sociobiology, neuropsychology and memetics is it possible to dispense with psycho-analysis or psycho-dynamic theories or relegate them to topics of literary interest an value only?

 

[Stanton Moore]

What are those breakthroughs?

 

[Loliz]

I would say no. Psychoanalysis seems to give more "qualitative" information, where these harder sciences bring something more "quantitative." I guess it is arguable that qualitative information really only has literary value, but I am not inclined to think so. I also do not think that these other sciences have advanced enough to take the place of psychoanalysis in a real way.

I might not be understanding the question fully either. Replace psychoanalytic theory or psychoanalysis? With what exactly? What happens to the couches?

 

[Lark]

What are those breakthroughs?

Neuropsychology, sociobiology, memetics.

 

[Stevo]

I have been getting the feeling in the professional circles I've been in touch with that psychoanalysis is starting to become out of date. I'm no psychologist, so I couldn't explain why, but it seems to me to me that Scratch that, I had the thought while writing that sentence that we may be at a misunderstanding on this topic.

Are you referring to psychoanalysis as taught by Freud, or some more modern brand?

 

[Lark]

I have been getting the feeling in the professional circles I've been in touch with that psychoanalysis is starting to become out of date. I'm no psychologist, so I couldn't explain why, but it seems to me to me that Scratch that, I had the thought while writing that sentence that we may be at a misunderstanding on this topic.

Are you referring to psychoanalysis as taught by Freud, or some more modern brand?

Well what do you mean by more modern brand?

Freud, Jung, even critics Adler and Rank, the revisionists like Sullivan, Fromm, Horney are all treated as a single entity now by most integrative theorists, although some integrative theorists will also seek to incorporate behaviourists, cognitivists, social learning theories and other more recent theories.

However, many of the evolutionary psychologists, sociobiologists, memetic theorist (even some cognitive behaviourists, person centred theorists) dismiss psychoanalysis as an insight theory, as useful as reading Balzac or Proust.

See I dont think that they could be rendered useless for the reasons that Jung didnt think that the most obscurantist or arcane theories where not useless because they deal with perenial human concerns you just need to be able to recognise the symbolism or conceptualisation processes.

I also think that Freud hasnt been done many favours and the critiques of both Freud and Jung are pretty shallow and manage to misunderstand the theories and writing of each of the men themselves. Then again I think that's a problem which is as old as the hills, it could be said about any philosopher, thinker or great thinker since the beginning of time.

If you take Freud for example, the Oedipus complex seems bizarre and perverse but if you appreciate that he is talking about immature and infantile minds/brains theorising, that it is a lived, confused and quickly forgotten or repressed process it is more plausible.

I think he could have exaggerated his claims and been reductive, the importance of instinct for instance appears arcane even if it has some accidential congruence with evolutionary theories, sociobiology etc. Its not irrelevent.

 

[Stevo]

Well what do you mean by more modern brand?

I mostly meant anybody who was not Freud, whose theories are the ones I am most familiar with. I think that Freud's thoughts on Psychoanalysis are very important in the history of psychological analysis, but have now become rather outdated by the advances you have previously mentioned.

He does capture several important insights into the human psyche, but I think his methods are not the most robust and his explanations are a little too narrow-minded.

However, denying that he is one of the most important thinkers in psychology would be foolish and I am not about to do that. It's just that I believe that psychology, like any good scientific discipline, has taken his theories, corrected them, expanded on them, and moved on.