Comments
ronflair t1_iwmmhs6 wrote
He also personally used his success to buy and use cocaine. A lot. He really really loved cocaine.
FiestaBeans t1_iwmw8y9 wrote
If you read his examples, he wasn't talking about lack of health of successful people, but the let-down he observed in some individuals after they achieved a particularly arduous goal. Because of how we use the word "success" nowadays, I wonder if a better translation of what he said would be "wrecked by achieving a goal".
bigfor4 t1_iwnehz3 wrote
“we have refuted Freud” actually just refutes their misinterpretation of Freud Why is this so common?
Alrik t1_iwny1hf wrote
I am a former attorney.
I also taught undergraduate journalism at an R1 university.
Gave my students an article about legal research that mentioned how sometimes desirable documents will be unavailable because they are privileged.
My class could not move beyond a massive argument about how privilege is openly favored in the court system. This continued even after I stopped to explain that "privileged" in this context is a legal term meaning someone holds a right to prevent their disclosure.
Nope. It continually and repeatedly devolved until I declared that we would be getting a new article to read, whereupon the students still complained that I gave them such an openly classist and outdated article.
So yeah, I absolutely believe that modern researchers are unable to compartmentalize their understanding of things so as to fit the context.
mootmutemoat t1_iwonivk wrote
I teach stats, and now do a long introduction of the technique, what it does, and what it means before I introduce the term "discriminant analysis"
https://www.statisticssolutions.com/discriminant-analysis/
Otherwise getting them back on track is like taking a chew toy away from a dog
FiestaBeans t1_iwnmjnn wrote
Based on my experience in industry:
- People don't have great reading skills
- Critical thinking is rare (many people who make it into advanced fields do so by following instructions, not by questioning assumptions)
- Groupthink is common, especially in academia. One person suggests a study, gets approval and sponsorship, and nobody can question it from then on.
HouseOfSteak t1_iwpgzeg wrote
Where is groupthink less common? One might expect that it should be less common in academia and be disappointed that it isn't and thus percieve a greater amount due to the discrepency between expectations and reality, but I'm not getting any ideas that others are faring particularly better.
The-Magic-Sword t1_iwnlkyg wrote
Because modern psychology was founded on a rejection of psychotherapy (which Freud was a big part of) but the psychology that replaced it is now also having massive issues, and because the discipline was founded on that stance, people didn't learn Freud so much as they learned a caricature of Freud.
Senecatwo t1_iwnpa19 wrote
On top of that, it's uncomfortable to confront childhood traumas, primitive power dynamics, and sexual neuroses. Maybe for some people its a defensive reaction formation to discredit the idea of an unconscious mind or unconscious motivations for certain patterns of behavior to avoid being triggered into a confrontation with complex internal emotions.
Likewise if you had a relatively stable upbringing without any obvious dysfunction much of the material he brings up would just range from perverse to fantastical in how it must sound on its face.
The-Magic-Sword t1_iwnqysv wrote
There is a very very interesting dynamic in why modern psychology has been so fascinated with the chemical theory of depression and CBT. They 'sound' right and comfortable and dignified. There's something to be said for respectability politics in psychology.
mootmutemoat t1_iwonryt wrote
And now the serotonin hypothesis seems to be dead. Be careful what you hook your wagon to... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0
HouseOfSteak t1_iwphbl1 wrote
Because language evolved and we're getting different meanings off of what someone wrote over 80 years ago?
Without a proper primer on the meanings of very important terms and the differences in their definitions from 80 years ago and now, it's no surprise that people would naturally come to the wrong conclusions despite making no errors.
bigfor4 t1_iwrcmpj wrote
You assume a thorough or good-faith reading of the material when it hasn’t been demonstrated at all. You know that when you adjusted for differences in spelling court testimony form 400 years ago is just modern English? The KJV and Shakespeare leave a false impression on readers, they intentionally used already archaic language to give an impression to readers and listeners that they they were taking in something high brow. They effectively were using archaic English to model the difference between say contemporary Latin and classic Latin.
I really don’t think English or German has changed so much in the past 80 years that the excuse for the researchers is they couldn’t parse it’s actual meaning.
HouseOfSteak t1_iws5sx6 wrote
I'm not actually assuming that. I figured you meant 'so common' as 'regular people who read a thing and don't put much effort into it', or 'first-year philosophy students that think they know more than they do', as opposed to referring to researchers who supposedly should know what they're doing.
There was a comment somewhere in this post about how an entire class decided to argue about 'privileged' and class, when the entire hold-up was a misunderstanding of the word 'privileged' in a court room setting. I'm pulling this from memory from hours ago since I can't find the original comment.
I figured you were referring to something like that.
batiste t1_iwnjuev wrote
Ha yes the grand Master can never be wrong. Karl Popper explained it well!
abagofdicks t1_iwn7ebn wrote
Yeah I’ve always interpreted it that way. It’s like how people get rich and bored. Musicians finally get the gigs and they lose interest.
Protean_Protein t1_iwn3sxy wrote
Wrecked by excellence.
Or as Michael Hutchence of INXS once put it: “elegantly wasted”.
FiestaBeans t1_iwn6lnm wrote
Who am I to argue with Michael Hutchence, but I think the fame and achievement of that is more what Freud would have identified as the success of concern in his case. Not just being extremely talented.
[deleted] t1_iwn7gni wrote
[removed]
rarokammaro t1_iwnusra wrote
Don’t pull all of your goal eggs into one basket. It’s the fast track to losing purpose and meaning.
SpecificFail t1_iwngm41 wrote
Mercury in hats, lead mixed in cosmetics, a culture based around heavy narcotic usage, extremely rich diets and sedentary jobs... Can't imagine any of those things associated with the wealthy were particularly good for health.
CptCrabmeat t1_iwnvr52 wrote
Just the general social influence of health and looking healthy in the modern era in comparison to great excess, gluttony, alcoholism etc. that would have been the marks of wealth in his era are enough reason why this statement doesn’t stand true today. Money just allows people to show their wealth, people just want to display their excess differently now
Alfred_The_Sartan t1_iwmpj9d wrote
I as much of a household name as he is, I do wonder how many of his revolutionary theories are still kicking around.
mootmutemoat t1_iwonxlf wrote
There are a lot of modern takes. Attachment theory is one, schema therapy (a cbt) also has a lot of his theory in it, etc.
FiestaBeans t1_iwmw1hp wrote
I seem to be missing something. It doesn't look like they tested anything close to his theory at all. For the record, I'm not a fan of Freud, nor do I have any opinion about whether his wrecked by success theory is true, but Freud seems to believe that people who work exceptionally hard to achieve a goal fall into depression and a bad mental state after achieving that goal.
But in the study, it seems to suggest that they tested how healthy particularly talented people are based on a much broader definition of success, not the achievement of a specific goal.
"Freud gave several examples to illustrate his claim: A woman falling to mental illness after succeeding in a long struggle to become the legal wife of her partner; an academic who struggled for many years to take his mentor’s post after mentor’s retirement, only to lose confidence in own abilities and fall to depression after achieving this goal."
"To test for the existence of the “wrecked-by-success” phenomenon, Harrison J. Kell and his colleagues conducted two studies. In the first study they analyzed data on the three most talented cohorts from the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth..
The aim of the second study was to test the findings of the first study on a group consisting of 714 elite STEM doctoral students in 1992, with equal numbers of men and women...
In both studies, researchers asked participants about their income and to complete assessments of their physical and mental health conditions, psychological adjustment and health, attitude towards aging, relationships and family, and health behaviors (sleep, alcohol use, smoking and exercise). Participants were divided into two groups based on their income. 25% participants with highest income were considered the exceptionally successful group, while the remaining 75% of participants were considered less successful."
I think that what Freud is talking about is the let-down after achieving a particularly difficult goal--not about people who are successful relative to their peers after a long career in which they exert effort that is within the range of normal for people of the same social class.
Post-race blues, the arrival fallacy / post-goal depression, and things like that would be a much better way to quantify what Freud was talking about.
RemoveTheSplinter t1_iwnhc1f wrote
This. And it’s supported by that dopamine depletion thing that Andrew Huberman is always going on about.
GiantAxon t1_iwqi9za wrote
Careful swinging big words like "proven" around
RemoveTheSplinter t1_iwqoatr wrote
You’re right. I edited to reflect the appropriate language.
nekogatonyan t1_iwnp6f9 wrote
>I think that what Freud is talking about is the let-down after achieving a particularly difficult goal--not about people who are successful relative to their peers after a long career in which they exert effort that is within the range of normal for people of the same social class.
I was thinking of it in terms of stress. Everything you cited, from a woman trying to get married and an academic getting a bigger job, these are major life events. We know all major life events, good and bad, are stressful and the more stressful events we experience within a year, the more likely we are to end up sick. The human body can only deal with so much stress before it begins to break down.
Iperovic t1_iwpm29g wrote
You mean to tell me someone went out and funneled evidence that fits their own hypothesis, narrowing research down to a small and controlled focus group, then put a historic name in the title for clickbait?
That's nEvEr been done before, especially not in social sciences
Moont1de t1_iwm6h6w wrote
I don’t even know where to begin with this, but I’ll guess the obvious first comment is that good methods cannot save us from bad hypotheses
FiestaBeans t1_iwmwdm9 wrote
I don't think the researchers understood what Freud was talking about at all. Their test cohort was not at all comparable to the examples given in the summary.
Alaishana t1_iwm9im1 wrote
You'll have to explain your meaning on this one.
Moont1de t1_iwmd9a3 wrote
> People with exceptionally successful careers tend to be healthier than their less successful peers
Is a terrible hypothesis for many reasons
Jewdoughchop t1_iwmivlx wrote
Yeah exactly, genetics, and environment also play a huge role in your health
FuzzyCrocks t1_iwmetih wrote
One does physical labor and the other doesn't have to?
Moont1de t1_iwmf39n wrote
It's more to do with actually defining "exceptionally successful" at a "career" level and then defining "healthier".
[deleted] t1_iwmfmmy wrote
[removed]
tornpentacle t1_iwmndi4 wrote
Physical labor invariably damages the body, it doesn't keep it fit.
FuzzyCrocks t1_iwmnruw wrote
Correct. You live with a damaged body and tell me how fit you are.
tornpentacle t1_iwmo1nn wrote
Believe me, I do, hahaha! It is not the most enjoyable way to be. The years doing physical labor before returning to college were not kind to me.
[deleted] t1_iwmp1sd wrote
[removed]
Praise_the_Ward t1_iwmjzs1 wrote
I wonder how much of this is skewed by modern medicine. Of course rich people are healthier these days, but It wasn't that long ago that being fat, pale, and constantly smoking were cultural signs of being wealthy.
Well, I guess everyone smoked in Freud's time, but that's not my point.
SnooPuppers1978 t1_iwmuv44 wrote
But the hypothesis that they tested was that "Exceptionally successful people are wrecked by their success". What you quoted was rather the results/findings.
Moont1de t1_iwmvtv3 wrote
> "Exceptionally successful people are wrecked by their success"
Also a bad hypothesis for the very same reasons
SnooPuppers1978 t1_iwmwodm wrote
Why is this hypothesis bad? If I was to become exceptionally successful, it seems like important piece of information to know if it's going to wreck me. If I'm ambitious and I want to get that success, could it hurt my health?
People often warn you about these things.
Moont1de t1_iwmxkvp wrote
> It's more to do with actually defining "exceptionally successful" at a "career" level and then defining "healthier".
SnooPuppers1978 t1_iwmz8n1 wrote
What about defining those?
Moont1de t1_iwmztkd wrote
For practical purposes, it is essentially impracticable to test a hypothesis such as this without narrowing down the definitions of these words into smaller parts that are better represented by other words (in the case of this study, "exceptionally well paid" vs. successful). Too many proxies for this to mean anything.
SnooPuppers1978 t1_iwn0yym wrote
Do you mean that the hypothesis would've been better if they used the word "exceptionally well paid" instead of "successful"?
Their full wording was:
> We examined the wrecked-by-success hypothesis. Initially formalized by Sigmund Freud, this hypothesis has become pervasive throughout the humanities, popular press, and modern scientific literature. The hypothesis implies that truly outstanding occupational success often exacts a heavy toll on psychological, interpersonal, and physical well-being.
Not necessarily a hypothesis by them, but examining what Sigmund Freud meant by that hypothesis and whether it's true.
Moont1de t1_iwn1irb wrote
Yes, but there are other things to fix, such as better defining "healthier" (in what timeframe?), and better defining "peers" . Presumably, if you change to exceptionally well-paid, peers would be everyone else that gets paid.
"People who make more money usually present better overall health indicators" doesn't make for a very striking headline, though.
thruster_fuel69 t1_iwn76ht wrote
It's just like, some psychology, man.
Moont1de t1_iwngliw wrote
It’s bad psychology
thruster_fuel69 t1_iwni1ze wrote
Science confirms or refutes obvious things all the time, that's still not bad science, just boring to some.
Isn't that your same point here, that it's boring/pointless, and that makes it bad?
Moont1de t1_iwnixi9 wrote
This is a waste of resources that could've been spent somewhere actually productive for advancing the frontier of human psychological knowledge
thruster_fuel69 t1_iwnkird wrote
Knowing a truth isn't a waste, they add up to greater discoveries. Are you sure it's not a personal grudge against psychology?
Moont1de t1_iwnlv35 wrote
Resources are limited and this has already been studied before, it is entirely wasteful.
It is precisely and exactly why I respect psychology as a field of scholarly work that I am calling this bad psychology
thruster_fuel69 t1_iwnm6vh wrote
I see. Well then.
VegetableMindless260 t1_iwnigaa wrote
Yeah that's Sigmund Freud for you.
Alaishana t1_iwm9ai4 wrote
Freud was a fantasist. Sat in his armchair and made up 'facts' from whole cloth.
As far as I know, nothing he ever said is still accepted science.
The interesting and fascinating and INFURIATING bit though is, how many so-called psychologists and psychotherapists still adhere to his teachings. (Yes, it kind of works, bc every kind of psychotherapy 'kind of' works... espc if you don't look too closely.)
Yes, he kick started psychology... so?
egregiouscodswallop t1_iwmd1a5 wrote
Exactly! I wouldn't get in a Wright Brothers prototype so why would I go to a psychologist using pre-Atomic psychology?
noweezernoworld t1_iwmhchx wrote
You get in planes that operate based on improvements from Wright brothers prototypes. You go to psychologists that operate based on improvements from Freudian insights. That’s how science works.
tornpentacle t1_iwmlrd0 wrote
Everything Freud ever said (except one thing) has been thoroughly refuted, debunked, and ridiculed by genuine empirical science.
The only thing that has carried over is the concept of the subconscious—the mental events occur of which we are not aware.
And he didn't even start the field of psychology.
Edit: Since you had such a problem with the colloquial language used to write the comment, I added the parenthetical aside.
I also would like to add that modern psychology is not composed of improvements on Freud's nonsense, again except in the case of the subconscious (but only its existence). Modern psychology is basically entirely composed of refutations of Freud's ideas. And yes, that is how science works, and that's precisely why his ideas shouldn't be given attention in popular discourse.
onlinebeetfarmer t1_iwmrumo wrote
The contribution of the unconscious was huge though! He was also the first to popularize actually listening to patients (psychoanalysis) which gave way to talk therapy. Of course, many of his ideas about sexuality and repression are incompatible with what we know now.
The-Magic-Sword t1_iwnmq4e wrote
Even his ideas about sexuality are kind of interesting, viewed in the light that he first went forward with the finding that many women were experiencing sexual abuse and intended to expose that, and was then shut down and ridiculed by the establishment at the time-- you can read his theories that followed as a circular means to trick the establishment into allowing those women a space to talk about it and tools to somewhat cope with it, which was probably better than the nothing they would get before.
Strazdas1 t1_iwp9nrn wrote
>Everything Freud ever said (except one thing) has been thoroughly refuted, debunked, and ridiculed by genuine empirical science.
You mean to say a caricature of everything Freud ever said has been refuted, debunked and rodiculed by science that turned out to be false (see seratonin theory for example).
[deleted] t1_iwmmo28 wrote
[removed]
tornpentacle t1_iwmnsdp wrote
You don't seem to interpret language in the same way as the rest of the English-speaking world. Most people understand the concept of hyperbole.
It makes for a stronger point to have two separate sentences than to say "everything (except one thing)" in one go.
If that's your entire argument, I guess the overwhelming consensus among scientists is doing pretty well.
Edit: the guy deleted an unreasonable comment; this is a response to it. Just had to call him out on a fallacious argument.
bit1101 t1_iwmbm96 wrote
So psychology is still accepted in science.
Any_Geologist9302 t1_iwmgzhi wrote
Mainstream psychology doesn’t accept Freud’s work as scientific. That shouldn't be a controversial statement for anyone who took an intro psych class, but some people seem to take exception to it.
[deleted] t1_iwmpguh wrote
[removed]
Strazdas1 t1_iwp9sch wrote
Anyone who took an intro psych class has only see n a caricature version of Freud. Mainstream psychology is based on psychoanalisis which was started by Freud.
Any_Geologist9302 t1_iwry9ae wrote
>Mainstream psychology is based on psychoanalisis
The dominant paradigm is cognitivism, which does not trace its theoretical roots to psychoanalysis or Freud.
Alaishana t1_iwmdrre wrote
Well, like everything to do with humans, or worse, human behaviour, or even worse than that, human thought, psychology tries to tackle an extremely complex field, where the number of variables is far too big to allow for easy if-then relations.
One of the soft sciences, definitely.
The word 'science' derives from an indo-european root meaning 'to cut' (sky, ski, scissors), and it is very difficult, maybe impossible, to cut thoughts into easy pieces that lend themselves to analysis.
bit1101 t1_iwmelzd wrote
I can glean from your writing that you are very fond of your own thoughts.
tornpentacle t1_iwmmzrn wrote
The opinion expressed in his comment is pretty well representative of the opinion of basically every modern researcher, even in psychology. The only people who still like Freud are Freudian psychoanalysts, who are taking advantage of his continued romanticization in the popular imagination.
For the love of God, if you interpreted that person's comment as narcissistic, read one of Freud's works...you'd think he was touching himself fervently while he wrote it.
6d86d9 t1_iwmumwr wrote
I can determine through empiricism that the smell of your own arouses a latent desire for copulation with maternal figures.
bit1101 t1_iwmx3kc wrote
Not all maternal figures. Just your mum.
Alaishana t1_iwmoukx wrote
I like to put some effort into what I write, yes. It is rather difficult to convey one's meaning in the shorthand style that prevails on the web.
I'm sorry if I have overtaxed you. You can look up words you don't know, I'll wait.
tornpentacle t1_iwmqrar wrote
I was with you until the end...you didn't seem too haughty until the ad hominems :-p that person just didn't have a real argument. But don't get baited! These people are fanatics. Freud's ideas are easy to understand, which is probably why they're still so popular. Most people don't seem to like being told that their understanding of things is wrong. For some reason laypeople who are "into psychology" get especially defensive about Freud and Jung, even though they've been considered irrelevant by the field for decades and decades.
bit1101 t1_iwmvzid wrote
The extent of my love for Freud extends as far as occasionally saying 'Freudian slip'. I was just responding to the comment.
decolored t1_iwmitpp wrote
Psychology is a complicated hypothetical chamber of variables. The best of us use it pretty well and the majority of us are simply products to be assessed
kuyo t1_iwmjacx wrote
Boy, Freud would have loved to study you. Freud is much more than a fantasist, which is why he will be immortalized in human history. You will be forgotten rather quickly.
tornpentacle t1_iwmmjwo wrote
Freud would have loved to study that guy, and his unconscious biases (against someone with a negative opinion of him, Freud) and his irrational, fevered brain would have led to him saying that guy really just wants to sleep with his own mother.
There's a reason science ignores him today. Literally the only thought of Freud's that has carried over is the concept of the subconscious mind—that mental events occur of which people are not aware.
If you are not aware of how thoroughly the rest of Freud's ramblings have been debunked, then I'm afraid you haven't been exposed to even a 101-level of information.
[deleted] t1_iwmndxw wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwmo8h9 wrote
[removed]
noweezernoworld t1_iwniyj6 wrote
>a 101-level of information
And I’m pretty sure that’s where you stopped based on your uninformed commentary
splasherino t1_iwwi9si wrote
Its called "unconscious", not "subconscious". Since you claim to know so well about how Freud is wrong about everything else, it's somewhat surprising that you don't even know the correct word for what you accept him to be right about.
Any_Geologist9302 t1_iwn0be2 wrote
>which is why he will be immortalized in human history
Yes - he'll be immortalized for what he inspired, not for contributions to scientific literature.
[deleted] t1_iwmg87p wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwmr0ed wrote
[removed]
MrNifty t1_iwmtvzm wrote
I believe it. I can afford the highest quality food, afford to buy ad-hoc medical services, can afford to go to a gym, can afford to take trips, have a sense of financial security, and can afford to live alone. All of which together greatly reduce my stress.
Apprehensive-Face-81 t1_iwnbpck wrote
Sigh.
We already know what leads to feelings of happiness and fulfillment.
It’s financial security (NOT wealth). Once a person’s financially secure in their life, the happiness money brings drops sharply.
[deleted] t1_iwmkqpe wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwmqluq wrote
[removed]
Norian24 t1_iwnwyq9 wrote
Yeah, others are right, they didn't even get what the initial statement/theory was about. When the point made is "in the aftermath of achieving something that required a lot of effort people become depressed or otherwise their mental health takes a hit", you don't prove much by testing "are rich people more healthy".
How does making more money tell you anything about the goals somebody has set and their devotion to them? You might as well have somebody talented who just cruised through their career without it being the most important thing in their life. Or people who just climb up without a set goal so they never have that moment of achieving a specific endgame.
I dunno how you'd select for people who devoted significant effort towards a specific goal and have reached it, but it sure isn't what they've tried here.
[deleted] t1_iwmlq6a wrote
[removed]
boxsmith91 t1_iwo5rdq wrote
I think it's important to note that, in our modern age, it is very possible to literally buy good health.
A personal chef who knows how to make tasty meals that are also nutritious, personal trainer, top grade nutritional supplements. The best doctors money can buy, who have the knowledge to treat basically any symptom. Technology to treat those symptoms. Liposuction.
And that's just the legal stuff. Most of this didn't exist or wasn't common in Freud's day.
Xboarder84 t1_iwo81pg wrote
When Freud made his study, the wealthy couldn’t buy their health back, nor were medical advancements nearly as profound as they are today. Plus “success” today is not the same as it was back then.
anor_wondo t1_iwpx378 wrote
agreed
in some bigger cities in India. You literally need to be wealthy to experience fresh air and experience greenery in neighborhood.
These factors are simply very large and would distort a study like this
doktaphill t1_iwoln8e wrote
What a pointless and irrelevant study. "Successful" people now often battle drug addiction, familial fracturing and fragile social lives. It's a completely different and more focused conversation than this isolated theory of Freud's. Also, as others have pointed out, Freud did loads of coke despite living a tenuously middle class life on the verge of poverty. "Health" cannot be measured on a scale.
Gordossa t1_iwnnjn0 wrote
We didn’t have gyms and the nutritional information and health centred focus we have today. Rich men drank good alcohol, ate rich meals, and finished with a good cigar.
hextanerf t1_iwo7fce wrote
They got more money to get better healthcare and lifestyle, and that's different from 100 years ago
jormungandr32 t1_iwobf9p wrote
Wealth more frequently, and more consistently ensures health. We live in a pay to survive world. It’s simple
AutoModerator t1_iwm4z11 wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_iwm6dvy wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwmex8h wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwmv1lb wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwmzff0 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwn0lv0 wrote
[removed]
Gill03 t1_iwncf3p wrote
A lot of this can be attributed to social cultural reasons I feel. I.e. having a personal trainer and nutritionist is a flex now. Their personal chefs are cooking healthy food and being fat is not a good thing anymore.
I don’t think Freud was “rebutted”necessarily, he just lived in a different time.
ionian12 t1_iwnyuei wrote
Have wd really reached this point already? Wherd every capitalist success is getting backed up by echo chamber science. Trump politics has moved into science, what a joke.
dimmu1313 t1_iwo3gzv wrote
so is the new psychology asserting that successful people are healthier, or less healthy??
Ok-Masterpiece-1359 t1_iwoaqho wrote
What were Freud’s sample size? Methods?
[deleted] t1_iwoavbf wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwp5wrv wrote
[removed]
Pudding_Hero t1_iwpwj9e wrote
Success is such a hogwashed term I don’t really understand it
anor_wondo t1_iwpwv5d wrote
I'd be more happy with an indestructible source of income for next 100 years than become rich today by some event.
Due to the way fiat economy works. Success does not always mean financial security, and financial security would be the primary factor behind health over other superficial parts of someone's career
DooDooSlinger t1_iwpy2ya wrote
Freud is a fraud. None of his work was evidence based, and beyond the concept of speech as a means for therapy, most of his theoretical work has been completely debunked. This man and his disciples have probably set psychiatry back decades and muddled it with theories which match astrology in scientific merit.
[deleted] t1_iws2pst wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwmeqi2 wrote
[removed]
AcademicGuest t1_iwmeut0 wrote
And his mother theory thing is absurd.
Sudnal t1_iwmhqcz wrote
r/oddlyspecific
AcademicGuest t1_iwmhxtq wrote
That’s what’s he’s known for shrug
Strazdas1 t1_iwp9vnx wrote
no, hes know for unconciuosness theory and spearheading psychoanalysis. Also not known for but he was the first psychiatrist who tried to expose spousal abuse and got shut down by the establishment.
kuyo t1_iwmmge9 wrote
This bothers you wildly for some reason I assume ? Hmm what could that reason ever be ?
MalleableCurmudgeon t1_iwmyu6g wrote
Was health care as tied to employment as much as it is now (in the US)? Seeing as how the only people who can afford healthcare are the wealthy, let alone the higher cost of healthy eating compared to the cheap junk most of us are sustaining ourselves on, circumstances have changed since Freud was hypothesizing.
ernSOFTLtd t1_iwnhjuy wrote
Other than his name this guy does not need the accolade for anything.
PDXalreadtused t1_iwo3x4h wrote
And they tend to be more sociopathic.
[deleted] t1_iwp5xd0 wrote
[removed]
boyaintri9ht t1_iwpbjbe wrote
What's your definition of success?
_baundiesel_ t1_iwn1bep wrote
Almost nothing that Freud thought is still taken seriously. He founded the science but was wrong about basically everything.
ginga_bread42 t1_iwp74mz wrote
He's not even considered the founder of the field psychology, just psychoanalysis.
[deleted] t1_iwmhvcb wrote
[removed]
xXAridTrashXx t1_iwnktcs wrote
Yeah totally... Yep... Sure... That's why half of Hollywood touches children... Can I go back to my universe now. Supercollide me back, earth 267 sucks ass
egregiouscodswallop t1_iwmako6 wrote
"Wrecked with success"
Freud died two years before top hats no longer contained mercury. It may be that success led to poisoned hats and that wealthy men of that time really were wrecked by the effects.