Frederick Crews is a model of intellectual integrity and honesty. He deserves a lot of praise for admitting his own errors in the early part of his career. His book is comprehensive and a great service to psychology. It's just sad and unfair that his work and motivations have been traduced by Freudians not 1/10th the scholar he is. Thanks for posting this interview.
Like Horgan, I derived a lot of joy from Crews' exchanges with his critics in The Memory Wars: Freud's Legacy in Dispute. Crews' two essays, which triggered the exchange, are brilliant in themselves. However, Crews' replies to his critics are extremely entertaining and beautiful examplars of clear and logical thought.
It's astonishing to me how these cult of personalities emerge around certain intellectuals and people in the academy, only to evaporate decades later. Kind of seems to validate Kuhn.
Freud was a theoretical thinker. He was fearful of his feelings and emotions,as far as I'm concerned. Both Freud and Jung were sketchy characters who had many lovers 😳 including multiple patients, and both being married. I believe those two were in a power struggle for fame and power. Men are typically very competitive, and they were no exception.😢😅😂
I reanalysed myself because my psychoanalysis was pathetic! They simply are on the wrong track. The majority of emotional problems originate in dysfunctional childhoods. My Freudian analyst never asked one question about my childhood. I did not need to "free associate." It was all in my memories! It's not that Freudian theory is incorrect. It's the psychoanalysis model of therapy that is superfluous! When I treated myself, my hangups had nothing to do with wanting to kill my mother so I could marry my father. She had no empathy! She was cold 🥶 and neglected me. This was the origin of my anxiety neurosis. 🙃 Now, Freudians are caught up in the scientific minutia of Freudian historical nonsense. 😮
Thank you so much for preserving his thought, he is such a good man and deserves it. I, too find intellectual honesty in short supply and that's why we're in such a cultural bind. What are his thoughts on Jung?
Thank you very much I appreciate your video. I've been studying psychology since I was 9. I eventually became a forensic music therapist/Autism Specialist. I enjoy the way you talk Mr Crews. I really don't like what he did to Carl. Makes me sad. And I'm really not a fan of his nephew, Sigmunds. He managed to get a whole generation of women addicted to cigarettes, amongst other things. Sub Definitely going to buy this book. Add it to my large psychiatric library. And I really need to get another copy of the Uber Novus, but it's so expensive. Your Metamucil comment was great. Beautifully lateral
We use words such as subjective and objective and tend to assume we can use these words in a coherent way. A great degree of coherence is possible under this assumption up to a point or up to where this division reaches its limit and starts to generate incoherent conclusions as well as incoherent questions. We begin to fool ourselves and have no way of knowing it. Taking the subject and object division as a complete way of knowing if left unexamined leaves us stuck not yet considering what the whole is before the division.
@@abramgaller2037 How can you empirically prove Freud's theories if they deal with the subconscious? I don't care for Freud's specific sexual and dream theories, but what is irrational about the concept of repression? The human condition is not scientific.
@@abramgaller2037 To me it sounded like you were saying that, since Freud's theories have not been proven in a lab, there was no merit to his ideas. I may have read into your comment too much though. I'm of the opinion that Freud's ideas are incredibly important and at least partially accurate and contain significant behavioral explanatory power.
At 42:54 Dr. Crews says that " The freudian concepts are very vague and that they mean diferent thing to diferent people ". Well...Heidegger, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre, etc will mean for sure diferent things in the U.S than in the U.K. and China , Japan and Russia...and tha's good that remanis like that in a way, or several ways... I think here too Dr Crew's argument it's not very sound also...with all due respect. To listen Mozart in his time was one experience, today is a complete diferent perception....
Just one thing; at 40:45 prof. Frederickj says that "psychoanalisys work to some and some don't ". Well, I don't think that's a very sound argument since many many things work for some people and others not ...since medicines till psychological treatments - pseudo or not...as you wish. And even going to a fortune teller. I don't mean by saying that to agree or disagree with Dr Frederick...I'm just thinking aloud here. Thank's
IT'S GOOD THAT IT'S MY FIRST COUSIN KARINA LEDESMA DEL ROSARIO WHO ASKED ME "WHAT ARE YOUR CONDITIONS EVEN IT WILL TAKE YOU A YEAR?" CLARISSA ANNE CHIA IS A GOOD INFLUENCE.
I CAN STILL REMEMBER THE TIME MY AUNT MARIA ROSA LOPEZ-VITO VAUGHAN GAVE ME 500PESOS IN SHAKEY'S KCC MALL ZAMBOANGA CITY, I WAS STILL WORKING FOR TOYOTA SELLING CARS AND SPARE PARTS. IT'S MY FIRST COUSIN KARINA LEDESMA DEL ROSARIO WHO WAS ASKING ME "HOW AM I DOING?" DOROTHY JOY ANG-MARQUEZ SNOBBED ME.
29:26 Trump does not read books''!!!!!-----------------Like famous Nobel Prize winner Lech Valensa (darling of the west) ''I have never read a single book in my life ''
I cringe when Hogan starts using the patently ridiculous term "mental illness" (a metaphor). That very term, because of the actual physical (biogenic) conditions it is applied to is antithetical to Frederick Crews' views. Even while in the depths of this conversation there is a failure to distinguish between the psychosocial mind and the brain's semblance of mind. So-called mental illnesses that psychiatry stupidly misnomers as "psychotic disorders" are brain function disorders - they are neurological. The brain's semblance of mind is the neuro-mechanics of the mind, its faculties, and so-called mental illnesses that involve delusions, hallucinations, anosognosia (all neurological symptoms) are truly hereditary encephalopathies. Love it that Crews bats away the typical "talking points' of the anti-reductionists, the psychologizers, the traumatologists, the biopsychosocial subscribers. He talks about how the traditional meds have not been very effective...as a conversational foil, albeit...I think. Well, why would that be? They were serendipitous, not the product of research, and moreover, they work about as well as most medications...given how little science understands the body, despite marvelous advances in science...with brute force and often with deadly side-effects. Why is Freud still around? The Mental Hygiene Movement for one thing...it systematized, operationalized, and platformed the proselytization of Meyerian and Freudian ideas. It is the reason the whole world is consumed with mental health madness...everyone now conflates the psychosocial (mental health) with physical health (brain disorders stupidly known as "mental illnesses"). This is the basis of why we have people with very serious brain disorders homeless and incarcerated. Crews is wrong, however, Freud is not dead, his ideas are just rebranded in the form of traumatology. We've all heard of "trauma-informed". Unpack that garbage and at hidden away at the bottom are the essential if not specifics of Freudian ideologies...i.e. not about what is wrong with you (biologically due to heredity) but what happened to you in your childhood.
Once Freudian always Freudian. One cannot life oneself by one's hair. Crews avoids the most disgusting aspects of Freudian character. Why is a good question. Most probably Freud was too cunning for Crews to understand what hides behind Freud's scientific façade. Schur, Freud's doctor, was the only one who revealed the true Freud.
@Jerzy: Completely false. He reveals all of Freud. Try reading his book-you'll start to educate yourself on how brilliantly Crews saw through Freud's strategems and deceptions. Then again, if you want to remain as ignorant as you are, then don't.
What a load of bs. Just because one person abandons a field, say medicine, doesn’t make the whole field invalid. Also, PA has advanced far beyond Freud . Finally, Lit Crit has nothing to do with the field of psychoanalysis.
Frederick Crews is a model of intellectual integrity and honesty. He deserves a lot of praise for admitting his own errors in the early part of his career. His book is comprehensive and a great service to psychology. It's just sad and unfair that his work and motivations have been traduced by Freudians not 1/10th the scholar he is. Thanks for posting this interview.
Like Horgan, I derived a lot of joy from Crews' exchanges with his critics in The Memory Wars: Freud's Legacy in Dispute. Crews' two essays, which triggered the exchange, are brilliant in themselves. However, Crews' replies to his critics are extremely entertaining and beautiful examplars of clear and logical thought.
In the sixties, at American Universities, there were only two paths: Freud or Skinner. I exaggerate, but only a little. Good for you Fred Crews.
It's astonishing to me how these cult of personalities emerge around certain intellectuals and people in the academy, only to evaporate decades later. Kind of seems to validate Kuhn.
Thank you dr.Crews🎉
Fantastic, many thanks. Intellectual honesty is really in short supply. Crews is a role model in that respect.
"Freud's negativism was not a principle of investigation, it was a tic."
Freud was a theoretical thinker. He was fearful of his feelings and emotions,as far as I'm concerned. Both Freud and Jung were sketchy characters who had many lovers 😳 including multiple patients, and both being married. I believe those two were in a power struggle for fame and power. Men are typically very competitive, and they were no exception.😢😅😂
A touch ironic that Crewes lapses into psychoanalysis at the end, finding the problem in Horgan's childhood!
I reanalysed myself because my psychoanalysis was pathetic! They simply are on the wrong track. The majority of emotional problems originate in dysfunctional childhoods.
My Freudian analyst never asked one question about my childhood. I did not need to "free associate." It was all in my memories!
It's not that Freudian theory is incorrect. It's the psychoanalysis model of therapy that is superfluous!
When I treated myself, my hangups had nothing to do with wanting to kill my mother so I could marry my father. She had no empathy! She was cold 🥶 and neglected me. This was the origin of my anxiety neurosis. 🙃
Now, Freudians are caught up in the scientific minutia of Freudian historical nonsense. 😮
Frederick Crews is amazing!!!! Thank you for this interview.
Thank you so much for preserving his thought, he is such a good man and deserves it. I, too find intellectual honesty in short supply and that's why we're in such a cultural bind. What are his thoughts on Jung?
Great listening, thanks.
i don't think freud is circular i think its speculation rooted in observation of biology and evolution, it's the post modern critique that is circular
Thank you very much I appreciate your video. I've been studying psychology since I was 9. I eventually became a forensic music therapist/Autism Specialist. I enjoy the way you talk Mr Crews. I really don't like what he did to Carl. Makes me sad. And I'm really not a fan of his nephew, Sigmunds. He managed to get a whole generation of women addicted to cigarettes, amongst other things. Sub Definitely going to buy this book. Add it to my large psychiatric library. And I really need to get another copy of the Uber Novus, but it's so expensive. Your Metamucil comment was great. Beautifully lateral
We use words such as subjective and objective and tend to assume we can use these words in a coherent way. A great degree of coherence is possible under this assumption up to a point or up to where this division reaches its limit and starts to generate incoherent conclusions as well as incoherent questions. We begin to fool ourselves and have no way of knowing it. Taking the subject and object division as a complete way of knowing if left unexamined leaves us stuck not yet considering what the whole is before the division.
👏👏👏 Amazing lesson in this video !
Taking a position for empirical rationality is not a way to make friends and influence people.
He said how much this contributed toward the Trump truth movt
@@keveongomera1842 People don't like their delusions broken ,but sometimes like their neighbors' delusions smashed.
@@abramgaller2037 How can you empirically prove Freud's theories if they deal with the subconscious? I don't care for Freud's specific sexual and dream theories, but what is irrational about the concept of repression? The human condition is not scientific.
@@ChannelHandler88 what is your disagreement?
@@abramgaller2037 To me it sounded like you were saying that, since Freud's theories have not been proven in a lab, there was no merit to his ideas. I may have read into your comment too much though. I'm of the opinion that Freud's ideas are incredibly important and at least partially accurate and contain significant behavioral explanatory power.
At 42:54 Dr. Crews says that " The freudian concepts are very vague and that they mean diferent thing to diferent people ". Well...Heidegger, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre, etc will mean for sure diferent things in the U.S than in the U.K. and China , Japan and Russia...and tha's good that remanis like that in a way, or several ways... I think here too Dr Crew's argument it's not very sound also...with all due respect. To listen Mozart in his time was one experience, today is a complete diferent perception....
Just one thing; at 40:45 prof. Frederickj says that "psychoanalisys work to some and some don't ". Well, I don't think that's a very sound argument since many many things work for some people and others not ...since medicines till psychological treatments - pseudo or not...as you wish. And even going to a fortune teller. I don't mean by saying that to agree or disagree with Dr Frederick...I'm just thinking aloud here. Thank's
Fascinating!
delightful
MY FIRST COUSIN KARINA LEDESMA DEL ROSARIO, FLORENTINO S. SUSALO III AND JOHN ROSS LU. CHIONG REALLY LOVES ME.
Always fun to hear from these apostates
IT'S GOOD THAT IT'S MY FIRST COUSIN KARINA LEDESMA DEL ROSARIO WHO ASKED ME "WHAT ARE YOUR CONDITIONS EVEN IT WILL TAKE YOU A YEAR?" CLARISSA ANNE CHIA IS A GOOD INFLUENCE.
John, re: suffering...you might look at Liberated Mind by Steven C Hayes (and then do an interview!).
I CAN STILL REMEMBER THE TIME MY AUNT MARIA ROSA LOPEZ-VITO VAUGHAN GAVE ME 500PESOS IN SHAKEY'S KCC MALL ZAMBOANGA CITY, I WAS STILL WORKING FOR TOYOTA SELLING CARS AND SPARE PARTS. IT'S MY FIRST COUSIN KARINA LEDESMA DEL ROSARIO WHO WAS ASKING ME "HOW AM I DOING?" DOROTHY JOY ANG-MARQUEZ SNOBBED ME.
29:26 Trump does not read books''!!!!!-----------------Like famous Nobel Prize winner Lech Valensa (darling of the west) ''I have never read a single book in my life ''
IT'S MY FIRST COUSIN KARINA LEDESMA DEL ROSARIO AND FLORENTINO S. SUSALO III WHO ARE GIVING ME STRENGTH.
I cringe when Hogan starts using the patently ridiculous term "mental illness" (a metaphor). That very term, because of the actual physical (biogenic) conditions it is applied to is antithetical to Frederick Crews' views. Even while in the depths of this conversation there is a failure to distinguish between the psychosocial mind and the brain's semblance of mind. So-called mental illnesses that psychiatry stupidly misnomers as "psychotic disorders" are brain function disorders - they are neurological.
The brain's semblance of mind is the neuro-mechanics of the mind, its faculties, and so-called mental illnesses that involve delusions, hallucinations, anosognosia (all neurological symptoms) are truly hereditary encephalopathies. Love it that Crews bats away the typical "talking points' of the anti-reductionists, the psychologizers, the traumatologists, the biopsychosocial subscribers. He talks about how the traditional meds have not been very effective...as a conversational foil, albeit...I think. Well, why would that be? They were serendipitous, not the product of research, and moreover, they work about as well as most medications...given how little science understands the body, despite marvelous advances in science...with brute force and often with deadly side-effects. Why is Freud still around? The Mental Hygiene Movement for one thing...it systematized, operationalized, and platformed the proselytization of Meyerian and Freudian ideas. It is the reason the whole world is consumed with mental health madness...everyone now conflates the psychosocial (mental health) with physical health (brain disorders stupidly known as "mental illnesses"). This is the basis of why we have people with very serious brain disorders homeless and incarcerated. Crews is wrong, however, Freud is not dead, his ideas are just rebranded in the form of traumatology. We've all heard of "trauma-informed". Unpack that garbage and at hidden away at the bottom are the essential if not specifics of Freudian ideologies...i.e. not about what is wrong with you (biologically due to heredity) but what happened to you in your childhood.
Once Freudian always Freudian. One cannot life oneself by one's hair. Crews avoids the most disgusting aspects of Freudian character. Why is a good question. Most probably Freud was too cunning for Crews to understand what hides behind Freud's scientific façade.
Schur, Freud's doctor, was the only one who revealed the true Freud.
A literary critic has no idea what goes on in the mind of a psychopath
@Jerzy: Completely false. He reveals all of Freud. Try reading his book-you'll start to educate yourself on how brilliantly Crews saw through Freud's strategems and deceptions.
Then again, if you want to remain as ignorant as you are, then don't.
MY FIRST COUSIN KARINA LEDESMA DEL ROSARIO IS A TRUE FRIEND.
What a load of bs. Just because one person abandons a field, say medicine, doesn’t make the whole field invalid. Also, PA has advanced far beyond Freud . Finally, Lit Crit has nothing to do with the field of psychoanalysis.