I’m not a fan of Freud’s theories, not for any other reason than someone who was as nuts as he was shouldn’t be the foundation for anyone trying to understand the way they think and why.
Was Freud ahead of his time and a scientific genius or was what he taught the stuff that babies are made of?
At this point I can almost feel the anger raging up in people who believe that Sigmund Freud was a hero but once they have finished reading my blog they might just change their mind.
Sigmund was a keen Shakespeare reader and Wikipedia claims that it might have been Shakespeare’s writings that inspired his study of human behavior but was he original and how great was he in his field?
I am a great believer in instinct being a more exacting and trustworthy science than science itself for many different aspects of life, and when we look at the world around us science feels the need to document and explain often the unexplainable.
Psychology is more of an instinct than it is a science. Let me explain.
Babies and children are better qualified psychologists than those adults with a degree. These youngsters spend their every waking moment studying human behavior and understanding what makes a human tick. A baby studies every single movement and voice tremor and tone, every movement and what that movement means not just on an objective scale such as Freud has taught but on a subjective level where each person as an individual expresses themselves.
When a baby grows up into a child they continue to study human behavior and can tell you much about an individual from those studies. It is only once we reach a certain age, each his own, that we stop studying human behavior and it is at this age that the instinct stops and science takes over. Most adults wont choose to study the science of human behavior and if they have never come into contact with a person of a different psychological state than they have been exposed to while growing up, that person becomes alien to them and often feared, the reason being, that this new psychological pattern doesn’t match anything in their mental database.
A baby or child might not be able to tell you why someone behaves a way they do but the do know the way that humans behave, especially those inside their own home. What one child finds family bonding such as play fighting another child finds threatening simply because they did not grow up with it in their own family life so fighting is seen as aggression to one child invoking adrenaline and fear while another child finds comfort and feelings of love from the otherwise aggressive acts.
The science of psychology reminds me a little of horoscope reading, where if you say to someone who they suffered a traumatic experience in life this is self-evident as trauma can be induced from any experience that an individual personally found traumatic, even something such as believing their toy drowned in the bath because their imagination believed the experience was real. Making assumptions of general human experiences might be like placebo medication where a person feels much better about life because they have spoken to someone who was able to excuse their behavior as a mentally induced procedure based on “some sort of experience” from their past, which goes without saying.
A child or baby doesn’t need to know why you behave a certain way they act in instinct and give you what you need which is always fundamentally love. If you have children you will find that a child’s answer for most things is love, if you are sad your child will usually give you a hug or a kiss or a gift to help cheer you up which will mostly be of help, if you are cross because someone cut you up on the road they will often show you a sign of love in order to help you ease your temper. In many of these instants a youngster or a woman will know how to exhibit the emotional natural instinct option, perhaps learned by their childhood psychological degree or perhaps as in a womans’ case emotional instinct but rarely science.
Freud’s teaching might well be outdated and even in need of change simply because when he wrote his understandings he lived in very different times and cultures affect conclusions. In this modern era I think that an exact science such as psychology no longer holds any weight for a simple reason, culture! If you are a psychologist in England your findings might be very different from those of someone studying psychology of those in a hidden tribe across the world somewhere but that is if you can determine the cultural history of an individual you are studying. Let us say that someone who has been exposed to a real melting pot of cultures living in modern England the psychological basis for answers might be very different from someone in London 100 years ago. So if time and culture has a bearing on human psychology then it can not be an exact science.
Evolution also means that psychology can not be an exact science because we will never know who is the lesser or more evolved and how their thinking and acting is affected by slight states of micro evolution, after all we can not assume that just because we all look the same on the outside that some of us aren’t at different stages of the evolution scale, this would in turn make psychology not an exact science.
What about organic matter, each human is an organic matter and that organic nature means that subtle differences in that matter will inevitably affect the results of an exact science such as psychology.
The best place to earn our psychological degree is from our childhood but failing that I guess an undergraduate qualification such as psychology would do.
Instinct will get it right where science gets it wrong but rarely vice versa.
FYI if you are on a path of psychology, this is far from an attack against your reading it is merely an opinion based on my own understanding and might be worth something to someone at some point.