The Conspiracy Against Lovers: The Real Truth They Don't Want You To Know

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Why not? Like other guys I could mention *cough*Freud*cough* he generalized his own dysfunction to the whole damn population. Sure his theories apply to some: but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes really smart d-bags go to great lengths to justify their flaws rather than rectify them.

Your assessment may apply to Kinsey, but not to Freud. Kinsey most definately was a douche-bag, Freud on the otherhand understood the power of symbolism on the primordial and/or subconscious mind, and most often, while a cigar, is indeed a cigar, it is also phallic, and the phallus is a universal symbol recognised by the primordial subconscious. The problem that Freud identified, and what his body of work exemplifies, is the conflict that this recognition of phallus has within the conscious mind of the psycho-sexually repressed woman. Obviously, Freud's subjects were women of the upper classes, no such conflict existed, at that time, within the 'common people'. Freud, despite his own shortcomings, and more particularly the shortcomings in his work as a consquence of his limited understanding and exposure to women, was quite brilliant in his comprehension of the power of symbolism and it's universalism.

Kinsey on the otherhand weighted his research towards presenting abnormality as 'normal'. The vast majority of the subjects that he posed his questionnaires to, were either incarcerated for sexual deviance, engaged in sexual deviance, or victims of sexual deviance. Kinsey had no medical training, his previous work was the study of wasp galls I believe, or some such study of insects. His co-writer, Walter Pomeroy, was a practicing paedophile, and he paid other paedophiles to conduct 'research' for the Kinsey report. All of this was achieved with ample funding from the Rockefeller Institute.

reply to post by Biliverdin


The sexual abuse of children for research purposes is, of course, my primary objection to Kinsey. And I agree with you in part about the validity of Freud's work regarding symbolism and the unconscious. However, by reducing everything to a genital dyad, he deprives us of much symbolic richness and impoverishes our understanding of the subconscious and its processes.

You know, the sticking point for me when it comes to applying the theories of these dinosaurs is that so much of their research is drawn from subjects who were warped out of true by extreme cultural conditions (as you have pointed out. ). This distortion was further compounded by the privileged white male bias imposed on the results by the researchers.

Sometimes I think everything has shifted so far from the original conditions that spawned those theories, that we'd be best served by scrapping half the Developmental Psych. curriculum. Make the foundational stuff center more around brain development and neurobiology.

ETA: I would dearly love to boot Kinsey in the jimmy. Just sayin'.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
The sexual abuse of children for research purposes is, of course, my primary objection to Kinsey.

While that aspect of his research is abhorrent, the very fact that his research is given any weight at all, given his lack of experience and qualifications to conduct such research should be as alarming. Those alarm bells become all the louder when we appreciate that his research still forms the basis of the majority of sex education in the US, despite the fact that it has been repeatedly proven that his subjects were mostly made up of those considered sexually deviant. The vast majority of his female subjects were prostitutes, which by no means negates the valuable input that they can provide to the study of sexual behaviour, but to then present those subjects as women of 'normal' sexual activity does lead to a bias of perception. So, in short, we have a study, funded by the Rockefeller Institute, conducted by a scientist who's previous specialism was insects, who used statistical models to determine normal sexual behaviour, while actually presenting evidence drawn from subjects engaged in abnormal levels and activities of sexual behaviour. Further, numerous attempts to highlight Kinsey's clear agenda to distort the public's perception of human sexual behaviour have been quashed and suppressed.

I am not a huge fan of labelling differing tastes and expressions of sexuality as abnormal, but when presenting a statistical analysis of behaviour, one should present a clear cross section of the population, and such tastes in order to establish the 'norm' in order to correctly establish where the deviation from that norm lies. What Kinsey seemingly set out to do was to create the impression that a loving monogamus relationship was in fact the deviation from the norm, and he did so very well, especially given the intensity with which his studies were subsequently promoted to the public. As a conspiracy theorist that interests me intensely.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
And I agree with you in part about the validity of Freud's work regarding symbolism and the unconscious. However, by reducing everything to a genital dyad, he deprives us of much symbolic richness and impoverishes our understanding of the subconscious and its processes.

Again, this is about perception, Freud's body of work as a whole, focuses very little on the phallus, or the genitals in general, but popular opinion has confined it to such, and given the general inaccessibility of Freud's work, it is very heavy going, this perception is allowed to pervade. Not only that, but in his own lifetime, most other psychoanalysts rejected many of his theories, particularly that relating to the Death Instinct, and subsequently, the Instinctivist Approach was overtaken by the Behaviouralists, but Freud's work has a heart that much of the later theoretical psychologists lacked, and moreover, from Freud we see a continuation of the philosophy of 'knowing thyself'. Behaviouralists, such as B F Skinner, would much rather that we didn't explore our inner world, and Carl Jung, would rather only those in the ruling elite do so, Freud on the other hand felt that we all have the power to use reason to overcome our instincts, and therefore to set ourselves free. He was a great man, ahead of his time, and sadly sidelined by dismissal as a pervert obsessed with genitalia, as you well demonstrate.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
You know, the sticking point for me when it comes to applying the theories of these dinosaurs is that so much of their research is drawn from subjects who were warped out of true by extreme cultural conditions (as you have pointed out.

). This distortion was further compounded by the privileged white male bias imposed on the results by the researchers.

They come from a time when only priviledged white males were able to receive an education, there are of course exceptions, but they are limited, however, I am not in favour of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Given that Freud came from a tradition of treating patients with mental disorders by various forms of torture, isolation and usually screaming at them to pull themselves together, I think that we have much to thank him for, he transformed the way in which the health professions approach the mentally ill and psychological disorders.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Sometimes I think everything has shifted so far from the original conditions that spawned those theories, that we'd be best served by scrapping half the Developmental Psych. curriculum. Make the foundational stuff center more around brain development and neurobiology.

The human condition is far more than mere mechanics, Freud's work is fundamental to our understanding of that. Get rid of Freud, and you may as well throw out Darwin too.

He was a great man, ahead of his time, and sadly sidelined by dismissal as a pervert obsessed with genitalia, as you well demonstrate.

Having witnessed you gutting folks for less, I realize that you are going pretty easy on me. Thanks.

I may be unreasonably dismissive of Freud, but when we are looking at what informs and warps results, we have to look at his ten-year infatuation with the therapeutic uses of coc aine, his distorted gender models, his skewed (and tiny) sample groups and -yeah- his psychosexual fixations.

As long as we are taking Kinsey to task over similar factors, we can't let Freud off without at least a light roasting. But I love his work on humor.

litmed.med.nyu.edu...

Written after he kicked the habit, it exhibits none of his usual monomanias, and offers invaluable insight into why comedy derives its power from sublimated discomfort.

The human condition is far more than mere mechanics, Freud's work is fundamental to our understanding of that. Get rid of Freud, and you may as well throw out Darwin too.

Okay, we'll keep the dinosaurs in. But leaven how we teach their theories with liberal amounts of information on the social context in which they were formed, and where more recent advances may contradict those theories.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Having witnessed you gutting folks for less, I realize that you are going pretty easy on me. Thanks.

Not at all, my response was completely impersonal.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
I may be unreasonably dismissive of Freud, but when we are looking at what informs and warps results, we have to look at his ten-year infatuation with the therapeutic uses of coc aine, his distorted gender models, his skewed (and tiny) sample groups and -yeah- his psychosexual fixations.

Again, if you consider his entire body of work, and as importantly, the work of those who preceded him, and his contemporaries, he exhibits no particular fixation. You have merely been led to believe that such a fixation exists.

And, if we were to dismiss the visions gained by those who had imbibed mind altering or inhibition shedding substances, we would be nowhere near the level of understanding of self, the world and the universe, as we are today. Cocaine is a great aid to concentration and detailed perception, until, ofcourse, it reaches the point of abuse and leads to psychosis, but that is often the fine line that genius has had to tread.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
As long as we are taking Kinsey to task over similar factors, we can't let Freud off without at least a light roasting.

We are not taking Kinsey to task for similar factors, Freud engaged in qualitative scientific observation in order to formulate his theories, and, never proposed them to be anything other than theories. Kinsey used extremely biased quantative analysis, without any scientific basis, to formulate a study to determine human sexual behaviour that was then marketed to the public as reflective of the norm, and use as a formula for teaching sexuality. Kinsey was a tool of social engineering. The two, Freud and Kinsey, are incomparable.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Okay, we'll keep the dinosaurs in.

But leaven how we teach their theories with liberal amounts of information on the social context in which they were formed, and where more recent advances may contradict those theories.

The whole purpose of a theoretical perspective is to open debate, as you have ably demonstrated, Freud's theories have been besmirched beyond recognition and disregarded because of that slander. Freud never claimed 'rightness', he merely opened the debate, just as Darwin did. We have moved on since both of them, but would be nowhere without them. They are giants who lent their shoulders to be stood upon. Nothing more.

You seem to have disregarded the whole point of your own OP, The Conspiracy against Lovers. Kinsey is a very big part of that conspiracy in that he helped to distort not only the reality of human sexuality, but more importantly his work helped to create the atmosphere in which sensuality is seen as wrong, or inherently sexual, which is the primary factor in societal breakdown and the failure to bond.

Originally posted by Biliverdin
Not at all, my response was completely impersonal.

The thank you stands.

Again, if you consider his entire body of work, and as importantly, the work of those who preceded him, and his contemporaries, he exhibits no particular fixation. You have merely been led to believe that such a fixation exists.

I am open to that possibility. I was, admittedly, steeped in material w/ an anti-Freudian bias.

And, if we were to dismiss the visions gained by those who had imbibed mind altering or inhibition shedding substances, we would be nowhere near the level of understanding of self, the world and the universe, as we are today. Cocaine is a great aid to concentration and detailed perception, until, ofcourse, it reaches the point of abuse and leads to psychosis, but that is often the fine line that genius has had to tread.

I should have been clearer on this point. My reservations are not due to his addiction, although the psychological consequences of long-term coc aine use don't exactly make for a reliable observer. What throws the switch on the alarm klaxons for me is his skewing of much of his research to support his conviction that coc aine was a wunderdrug for curing -well- practically everything.

Good read on the subject:
psychcentral.com... aine/

We are not taking Kinsey to task for similar factors, Freud engaged in qualitative scientific observation in order to formulate his theories,

Although he worked in depth with his subjects, his sample sizes were tiny, and drawn from a very narrow socio-economic bracket. Both extremely big no-nos when it comes to the scientific method. Our beef with Kinsey is, in part, due to his flawed research methods. I believe the comparison is applicable.

Kinsey was a tool of social engineering.

And Freud isn't?

Kinsey is a very big part of that conspiracy in that he helped to distort not only the reality of human sexuality, but more importantly his work helped to create the atmosphere in which sensuality is seen as wrong, or inherently sexual, which is the primary factor in societal breakdown and the failure to bond.

The conflation of sensuality and sexuality has been with us in the West for a very long time, as has the perception of both as an evil. Kinsey was partially responsible for normalizing unhealthy and exploitative sexual behavior, but I hardly think we can lay the demonization of sexuality and sensuality at his door.

If you fail to take into account the tremendous variety of social, market, and cultural pressures on the pair bond (many of which have been touched upon in this thread), I'm afraid the point of the OP will likely escape you.

Originally posted by intrepid
This is what happens when we listen to others and not to ourselves. Everyone is different and love, sex, commitment, etc. means different things to different people of both sexes. AND at different ages. Throw Cosmo and Maxim out the window and look into yourself. One doesn't need someone else to tell you what is right for you. In fact it keeps you from being the person that you are.

No wiser words have ever been spoken. I'm glad this thread is still alive.

Most people though don't have the strength or self-confidence to look at themselves and not pay attention to others long enough to make a rational decision about what's best for THEM.

Sounds like you do though.

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


I am also very glad to see that this thread is still alive.

Some of the most stellar thinking I've seen on this site has gone down right here. I am humbled and awed by how much we can expand our understanding of such a deep topic when we put our minds together.

To all the Lovers who contributed: thank you from my heart.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
I should have been clearer on this point. My reservations are not due to his addiction, although the psychological consequences of long-term coc aine use don't exactly make for a reliable observer. What throws the switch on the alarm klaxons for me is his skewing of much of his research to support his conviction that coc aine was a wunderdrug for curing -well- practically everything.

Haha...you can hardly hold it against him that at the start of his career he jumped on the latest band-wagon...he was relatively young, and this was long before the formulation of his theories. Besides, he was hardly original in his enthusiasm for the drug, it had been in use both medicinally and recreationally since the 1600s in the West, and for much longer, obviously, by the Incas prior to that. It's refinement led to widespread 'pushing' and commercialisation, Freud was only joining a chorus of many in praise of the wonderous powers of coc aine. And, more significantly, the majority of his theoretical work was conducted long after his relationship with coc aine had ceased.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Although he worked in depth with his subjects, his sample sizes were tiny, and drawn from a very narrow socio-economic bracket. Both extremely big no-nos when it comes to the scientific method. Our beef with Kinsey is, in part, due to his flawed research methods. I believe the comparison is applicable.

Firstly, my 'beef' with Kinsey is that he used corrupt data to fulfill a predefined model. Secondly, since when has sample size been an determining factor of the value of 'scientific method'? Or Socio-economics for that matter? Qualitative methods do not require large sample groups. That is the point. And, if I was to find any definitive argument against Freud's data, it would be that he had sexual relations with some of his subjects, but given that most of his theories, and remember that that is all that he presented, not scientific facts, merely theoretical perspectives, were developed via self-analysis, the case studies that he presented simply helped him support the validity of psycho-analysis as a curative based on that self-analysis. Nothing more.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
And Freud isn't?

I don't see how he could be, can you explain to me why you do think so, please, I am intrigued?

Originally posted by Eidolon23
The conflation of sensuality and sexuality has been with us in the West for a very long time, as has the perception of both as an evil. Kinsey was partially responsible for normalizing unhealthy and exploitative sexual behavior, but I hardly think we can lay the demonization of sexuality and sensuality at his door.

As bolded is simply an affirmation of what I wrote, the rest is purely your interpretation of that statement and an incorrect one at that. I agree with the bolded text solely.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
If you fail to take into account the tremendous variety of social, market, and cultural pressures on the pair bond (many of which have been touched upon in this thread), I'm afraid the point of the OP will likely escape you.

It didn't escape me, which is why I mentioned the importance of the take over from the instinctivists, such as Freud, by the behaviouralists such as B F Skinner. The faith, for example, that you set in quantative studies over qualitative is demonstration of that. The vast majority of psychology students go into Human Resources, Marketing, Management and Advertising...why do you think that that is? Because statistical models seek to identify the lowest common denominator. Skinner, saw such indicators as tools to manipulate behaviour, and given the malleability of humans it is highly effective. The warp side of that though, by default, is it can be utilised to manipulate the individuals progress through the Hierarchy of Needs as identified by Abraham Maslow, and further by understanding, and restricting understanding of the Pleasure Principle identified by Freud, keeping we humans in a state of constant dissatisfaction, and therefore needing, perpetually, to repeat our negative reinforcing behaviour...that is what makes for the best consumers. And by default, maintains a level of social control the permits only the fittest (and most ruthless) from achieving self-actualisation. Security and belonging, become dependent upon conformity. And if you have read Huxley's Brave New World, or Orwell's 1984, you will see how such automation of social reinforcement leads to 'love' being a commodity of self-destruction...hence why I mentioned Freud's theory of Death Instinct...modern life, and consumerism, in essence, transposes, Eros and Thanatos.

reply to post by Biliverdin

Freud on the otherhand understood the power of symbolism on the primordial and/or subconscious mind, and most often, while a cigar, is indeed a cigar, it is also phallic, and the phallus is a universal symbol recognised by the primordial subconscious.

Sorry, to backtrack here, but I let this go at the time, and no longer feel inclined to. Paraphrasing Freud's theories (this being one of many examples in your work on this thread) and presenting them as fact is disingenuous. It's also funny, in that you later assert that Freud himself never presented his findings as any more than theories.

This tact also locks the unwary reader into some nasty circular reasoning.

Obviously, Freud's subjects were women of the upper classes, no such conflict existed, at that time, within the 'common people'.

Not inclined to let this one slide, either. A bare modicum of research will reveal that female sexual repression was in no way the exclusive province of upper-class women. Careful, your (considerable) class bias is showing.

Behaviouralists, such as B F Skinner, would much rather that we didn't explore our inner world...

Good God. Skinner was in no way against exploring the inner world- he believed it could not be objectively measured and entered as data as the inner world is completely subjective. Behavioralism is all about accurately measuring observable phenomena. And now that neuroscience is starting to catch up, we stand a good chance of being able to correlate formally unquantifiable inner states with their neurobiological correlates.

and Carl Jung, would rather only those in the ruling elite do so.

Please cite for this, as I have never run across the faintest whiff of class hatred in his work. Which cannot be said of your darling Freud.

Again, if you consider his entire body of work, and as importantly, the work of those who preceded him, and his contemporaries, he exhibits no particular fixation.

If the whole of his work is based on sexual repression, and sex in general, it may not qualify as a fixation; but it's certainly narrow in its scope and fails to address other basic factors of human development.

Haha...you can hardly hold it against him that at the start of his career he jumped on the latest band-wagon...he was relatively young, and this was long before the formulation of his theories.

Ho ho, I've seen the same reasoning used as an apologia for racism. Following a fad in no way alters the impact of long-term usage of coc aine (the effects of which would have persisted long after discontinued use), and cultural relativism doesn't alter the palpable negative impact of certain beliefs and practices.

I don't see how he could be, can you explain to me why you do think so, please, I am intrigued?

Uh-huh. Yeah, you’re totally unfamiliar with Bernays and Tavistock. (I am practicing sarcasm lately, and that seemed like a good opportunity to flex it around a little.)

Here's some reading for folks who genuinely aren't aware of how Freud's theories have been used to keep the population in a pre-operative daze.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1334415306&sr=8-3
www.barefootsworld.net...

The vast majority of psychology students go into Human Resources, Marketing, Management and Advertising...why do you think that that is? Because statistical models seek to identify the lowest common denominator.

God forbid our understanding of the psyche should be derived from studying the "common people", huh? Although, we can thank Bernays (and Freud, by way of his nephew) for the bulk of public opinion manipulation and marketing theory.

Look Ms. B. , if the Psychoanalysts and the Behavioralists have yet to sort out their differences, I'm rather afraid we will do no better. It may be best to agree to disagree, and try and fumble our way back on topic. Although, the schism underlying our differences may simply amount to humanism vs. misanthropy.

Don't worry, Freud didn't think much of our species either.

"I have found little that is good about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think."

-Sigmund Freud

Originally posted by Biliverdin

Oh, I forgot:

Secondly, since when has sample size been an determining factor of the value of 'scientific method'? Or Socio-economics for that matter? Qualitative methods do not require large sample groups.

This is precisely the kind of thinking that has lead to the social sciences being sneeringly dismissed as "soft". If you're attempting to isolate a generalized trend (and not just an interesting aberration), of course you want as large a sample group as possible, thus ensuring a greater chance of external validity. Which, until recent tech advances has been a hard nut to make for social scientists.

Things have changed. We now have the data acquisition and computing power to do some very exciting stuff with truly massive sample groups. And as much as some who have a proprietary attachment to their academic stake may resist the trend, there is an ever greater emphasis on interdisciplinary research. Which means we can get the neurobiologists in on the party once we start to bring the tech to the social sciences in a big way.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Sorry, to backtrack here, but I let this go at the time, and no longer feel inclined to. Paraphrasing Freud's theories (this being one of many examples in your work on this thread) and presenting them as fact is disingenuous. It's also funny, in that you later assert that Freud himself never presented his findings as any more than theories.

I don't get your point. I wasn't paraphrasing for a start. That was my opinion, nasty though it may be. All that I have said is my opinion. Hence why I haven't used quotation or citations. Is that a problem?

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Not inclined to let this one slide, either. A bare modicum of research will reveal that female sexual repression was in no way the exclusive province of upper-class women. Careful, your (considerable) class bias is showing.

Clearly this has been playing on your mind, but again, no particular bias. His case-studies are from a certain demographic which he clearly describes. The lower classes, as a whole, at that time, as popular literature and music hall songs and the such-like, tend to celebrate the bawdiness of sexual innuendo and double entendre. They are well aware, and rejoice in phallic symbology. No bias, just observation of culture.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Good God. Skinner was in no way against exploring the inner world- he believed it could not be objectively measured and entered as data as the inner world is completely subjective. Behavioralism is all about accurately measuring observable phenomena. And now that neuroscience is starting to catch up, we stand a good chance of being able to correlate formally unquantifiable inner states with their neurobiological correlates.

Yes exactly, hence why it is important to differentiate between psychoanalysis, which is subjective self-exploration aimed at unleashing the restraints set by nature and nurture on the individual, and behaviouralism which is aimed at the social environments effect on the individual for the purpose of identifying normality.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Please cite for this, as I have never run across the faintest whiff of class hatred in his work. Which cannot be said of your darling Freud.

I don’t actually like Freud, but I don’t allow that to get in the way of my gaining the insights that are available from some of his works. And I certainly don’t dismiss everything because I don’t agree with some of it. That would be foolish. For Jung’s personal opinions I recommend, his autobiography, ‘Memories, Dreams, Reflections’...as well as his work for the Allen Institute, and his role as psychotherapists to both the Dulles and Rockefeller families. He was never particularly shy of his voicing his own sense of superiority certainly.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
If the whole of his work is based on sexual repression, and sex in general, it may not qualify as a fixation; but it's certainly narrow in its scope and fails to address other basic factors of human development.

The whole of his work is not based on sex, I have already made that point, so I don’t understand what you mean. His work was based upon instincts, some of which he classed under sexuality. I have already pointed this out. Just as his predecessors James and McDougall did, and his contemporary Lorenz. So he was in line, relatively speaking, with accepted thought, at that time.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Ho ho, I've seen the same reasoning used as an apologia for racism. Following a fad in no way alters the impact of long-term usage of coc aine (the effects of which would have persisted long after discontinued use), and cultural relativism doesn't alter the palpable negative impact of certain beliefs and practices.

You seem to have got your knickers in quite a twist. Anyway, when looking at any perspective, especially one as outdated as the therapeutic use of coc aine, as well as Freud’s theories in general it is necessary to take them into context. That is all I did, but you seem blinded to that. I wasn’t saying he was right, I was saying that his perspective was understandable at the time. Everyone knows now the effects of coc aine, they didn’t then, that was all I was trying to explain. Is that hard for you to understand, you seem to be taking this very personally?

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Uh-huh. Yeah, you’re totally unfamiliar with Bernays and Tavistock. (I am practicing sarcasm lately, and that seemed like a good opportunity to flex it around a little.)

Well it is the lowest form of humour. Bernays used some of Freud’s ideas in combination with crowd psychology...your point? He built upon Freud, but Freud was a pioneer of psychoanalysis that is what he set out to do...are you now blaming Freud for how others used his insights?

Originally posted by Eidolon23
God forbid our understanding of the psyche should be derived from studying the "common people", huh? Although, we can thank Bernays (and Freud, by way of his nephew) for the bulk of public opinion manipulation and marketing theory.
Again, I don’t see your point. If you have one, please make it.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Look Ms. B. , if the Psychoanalysts and the Behavioralists have yet to sort out their differences, I'm rather afraid we will do no better. It may be best to agree to disagree, and try and fumble our way back on topic. Although, the schism underlying our differences may simply amount to humanism vs. misanthropy.

As I have already said, clearly, we have moved on since Freud. I was trying to keep it on topic, on the otherhand you seem to have launched some strange vendetta against Freud, and by default, me.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Don't worry, Freud didn't think much of our species either.

"I have found little that is good about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think."

-Sigmund Freud

That is clear enough from the majority of his work. His regard for most women, for example, is one of contempt, but that is not unusual at that time. As I said, I have no fondness for the man, but some of his findings did aid the individual’s ability to understand and seek reconciliation with themselves. I certainly found him very helpful in that respect. As already stated, I am not a fan of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

edit on 14-4-2012 by Biliverdin because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Eidolon23
This is precisely the kind of thinking that has lead to the social sciences being sneeringly dismissed as "soft". If you're attempting to isolate a generalized trend (and not just an interesting aberration), of course you want as large a sample group as possible, thus ensuring a greater chance of external validity. Which, until recent tech advances has been a hard nut to make for social scientists.

Haha, you really are taking this very personally...I wonder why...anyway, Freud was attempting to identify interesting aberrations, therefore the qualitative method was appropriate. Quantative methods are appropriate at other times, especially for locating the lowest common denominator and particular trends. Which, as I stated, in the context of this thread, which is what I find alarming, and since you raise Bernays, and Tavistock, in using such tools as mean of controlling behaviour, not simply for studying for the benefit of making people happier or better able to live with such problems as overcrowding, but for instead creating dissatisfaction that only exacerbate isolationism, lack of trust or insecurity, etc.

Originally posted by Eidolon23

Things have changed. We now have the data acquisition and computing power to do some very exciting stuff with truly massive sample groups. And as much as some who have a proprietary attachment to their academic stake may resist the trend, there is an ever greater emphasis on interdisciplinary research. Which means we can get the neurobiologists in on the party once we start to bring the tech to the social sciences in a big way.

Yes, I agree. However, that in no way devalues the benefit for the individual of seeking solutions for themselves, and for the benefit of their own mental health. We are not all of us, keen to be herded, or treated like guinea pigs or lab rats. Freud therefore, to the individual can be beneficial, as can be more qualitative forms of study. Subjectivity is not necessarily a bad thing, and as I was originally trying to point out, Freud believed that humans could use reason to overcome many of societies problems, he didn't believe that brainwashing, and other means of mass-manipulation were necessary. That is really all I agree with, and I think that that is the main point that is detracted from by the smearing of Freud and the excessive focus of his presumed sexual fixation, which as I have pointed out, was completely in context with current thought at that time, and therefore nothing unusual. His theories of self-exploration though were.

And I suppose, since you seem eager not to let things slide, I should point out that it is unlikely that a frontal lobe seizure would prove an effective means of god communicating...in the case of the message reportedly recieved by Paul, god would have had to stimulate the occipital and the temporal lobes, possibly even the parietal too. The frontal lobe is really only an emotional control centre, and cannot be stimulated to create visions of the audio-visual type that Paul is said to have experienced on the road to Damascus.

Originally posted by Biliverdin

Haha, you really are taking this very personally.

Why madam, I've starred every one of your posts. Until this last one. "U mad, bro?" is not an effective rebuttal. Nor is reversing your stance on almost every one of the "opinions" you've expressed thus far.

ETA: In re St. Paul:

Paul's story is interesting not just to biblical scholars, but to neuro-scientists as well. Some scientists claim that the account of this conversion, found in the book of Acts, contains enough evidence to diagnose Paul with temporal lobe epilepsy. The flash of light, the voices and the fall to the ground are the evidence of a seizure, according to these neuroscientists, with the blindness a result of the postictal state that follows a seizure.

tlc.howstuffworks.com...

reply to post by Eidolon23


How have I reversed them, I may have, by necessity expanded upon them? You are changing the parametres of what was previously a very narrow point.

Originally posted by Eidolon23

ETA: In re St. Paul:

Paul's story is interesting not just to biblical scholars, but to neuro-scientists as well. Some scientists claim that the account of this conversion, found in the book of Acts, contains enough evidence to diagnose Paul with temporal lobe epilepsy. The flash of light, the voices and the fall to the ground are the evidence of a seizure, according to these neuroscientists, with the blindness a result of the postictal state that follows a seizure.

tlc.howstuffworks.com...

There you go, even the pros agree with me...to an extent...I was identifying all the lobes that combined would produce the belief that such a 'vision' was caused by an external event...but close enough...either way, confirmation that your appraisal was indeed incorrect...

Originally posted by Eidolon23

Put another way: If I were God, and I wanted to talk to Paul of Damascus, I might use a frontal-lobe seizure to do it.

Wow are you two having a literal quip battle.

I said it before this thread though informative is pretty nutty. There is no conspiracy against lovers, not now nor back then, nor was there ever one. Well except for one thing but that aint here or there..yet.

And People just do what they want or whatever fetish gets them off. It is true now and it was true back then, Freud and company just gave people what they wanted there newest trends to follow. There little mind tricks and populous control would not work if the people really did not want it. Kind of like how you can not hypnotize anybody if they really truly did not want to be hypnotized or mesmerized.

In fact they were all salesmen, and there greatest trick is that they knew who wold buy the # they spewed. It's literally is going out and looking for buyers and finding out what makes them tick, then making up that thing which they want to buy, kind of like how the priest class has been selling then something they wanted to believe in because of there fears or lack of knowledge of the unknown, ie organized religions.

But then again it ain't all that hard to make the populous buy into a trend no matter how stupid or pointless, even to the point of there determent they would still buy it as long as its dressed in the right closes and decked out in the things they want to see and hear. Not much of a trick to it really it is all in the suit.

The individual is the newest creation on this planet, cant be surprised when they all followed the newest trends like sheep now can we. Really the whole of this is taking advantage of the herd animal instincts, and to guide it into the right tracks, usually those that make $$$ for the pushers and handlers. In a lot of way it's the equivalent of what maxim magazine is and does, only it caters to a bit different tastes.

If we have to make ourselves play these games through such wayward, deceptive, illusory means and ways. That says something profound about this whole thing and about humanity both as whole and a individual.

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
The individual is the newest creation on this planet, cant be surprised when they all followed the newest trends like sheep now can we. Really the whole of this is taking advantage of the herd animal instincts, and to guide it into the right tracks, usually those that make $$$ for the pushers and handlers. In a lot of way it's the equivalent of what maxim magazine is and does, only it caters to a bit different tastes.

This is actually my point in a (relatively) simplified form. If you don't look at what other people are doing, if you don't follow trends, read magazines, watch TV and 'popular' films, things are considerably more simple...and in short, you please yourself and you do what makes you happy. Too many people expend far too much energy and worrying about where they fit into society and tred on others, judge and covet, in order to ensure that they don't fall to the bottom. And it is this factor of 'self' that makes us so very malleable, we don't so much fear failure, as we fear being perceived by others as a failure. Know thyself and you can more accurately determine what you need as opposed to looking for external affirmation or reinforcement of who you are. So many choose to quantify themselves on what they 'have' as opposed to what they 'are', and the consumeristic, material world just loves it that way. Erich Fromm's To Have or To Be offers a very good discourse on the subject.

And, it has to be said, knowing that, and acting accordingly, does not make relationships any easier, understanding and accepting others is whole different kettle of fish. You can only work on yourself, and have to give others the space and freedom to act according to what they want out of life...and sometimes, the twain will not meet and you have to accept that and let go. Or change yourself accordingly. That very much depends upon what is more important to you, or them, or both...etc, etc ad infinitum....