I have the opposite problem. I ask for a table for sex but everyone thinks its a Freudian slip. I really am looking for a sturdy table to have intercourse on.
I had a Freudian slip the other day. I was eating dinner with my wife and I meant to say, "Please pass the salt," but what I actually said was, "YOU'RE RUINING MY LIFE YOU INSUFFERABLE SHREW!"
I once tried to say "Hi", but somehow it came out as "2147483647 is the maximum number for a 32-bit integer". This is what happens when you watch pannenkoek2012 a lot.
I think some Freudian slips do mean something. Not necessarily hidden desires, but what your mind is used to doing. These slips happen when your brain goes into "automatic" mode and says something it doesn't really mean. For example, often when my dad has to explain something to me over and over again (because I don't get it) and he gets exasperated, he calls me by my mother's name, because he usual finds himself in a similar situation with her. Anyways, those are just my two cents.
Unfortunately I've seen the early episodes of "WTFIWWY?", so that immediately brought that story to mind...about the guy...who made SIX DVD'S WORTH of...yeah. Bleh. Thanks, Sci-Show! Before the blur I thought the Freudian slipper just wanted a table to have sex _on_! :P
Oh you should do a video on why students have to learn fucking EVERYTHING about Freud even though he's wrong. It's a question I could never get the answer to.
I know Psychoanalytic therapy works but it isn't even 100% Freud and it relies on the pseudo effect that is trusting a therapist. Psychoanalistic therapy is still, however, a completely valid method somewhat akin to hypnotism. It relies on belief so the people asking for it will generally have it work for them.
Freud was wrong about a lot, yes. But very importantly, he popularized "the talking cure," the idea that talking about problems can be helpful in their resolution. (Although he was not the first to notice this.) The talking cure is the basis of most kinds of psychotherapy, and its utility cannot be understated.
Jeffrey Bernath, agreed... That's the one point about Freud I can actually appreciate. Today, unfortunately, there are too many who undervalue "the talking cure" to the point that they claim it's useless. The alternative is to drug the 'patient' into submission and eventually just lock them away because the drugs never actually solve anything.
Jess Icaa... and to be completely honest, at least some times, drugs can even be warranted. However, what is trending at the moment seems to be a huge great fandom for more drugs and more drugs instead of bothering to try to face your own problems (even with help)... My reservation on drugs originates from noticing that very rarely (if ever at all) do they actually "cure" anything or anyone. I've watched (instead) the far greater tendency for a basically strong and decent person start with "talking therapy" for one problem he or she simply didn't have a contextual solution for (good or bad) and eventually accept the (probably well meant) aid of an anti-depressant or some other drug to assist... Years later, the only difference is this same strong person is nearly catatonic without the drugs, and the dosages have steadily climbed. Sometimes the talking therapy is still ongoing, and others it simply is not... So I find it probably helpful to generate a modicum of caution in others about the subject. Whatever was wrong with crying it out away from people if things are so far out of hand? Take a couple days (depending on the severity of the actual problem's source) and let it out... You don't have to rush straight out at the first drop of tears to grab at another reassurance in a bottle, and just like the alcohol people keep telling me I've had too much of, it's just another demon in there seducing your mind into stupidity instead of actually fixing anything... Now, before you decide to roast me on this, notice I said "sometimes they can be warranted"... That does point to the admittance that some people in the world have an authentic chemical imbalance... Some syndromes can even be "caught" or are cultivated through life's usual series of tragedies and traumas, and with some chemical agents, those who suffer something they can otherwise never cure can at least find some respite or relief, either short-term or long... That's alright. If someone is indeed schizophrenic, and there's even a modest cocktail of chemicals that bring clarity and lucid thought, by all means, do it. I'd be happy to see someone get positive help from it... But, be careful, that sort of condition is rather rare, and the more "intense", likely the more rare the condition... Not everyone who "hears voices" has something wrong with them... For myself, I may hear voices (among other things)... Mostly they are generated as my mind's way to interpret other things (like text)... I can "visualize" on cue (not unlike meditation) and I am a lucid dreamer (a wonderful gift, that frankly I wish I could share)... Any of the delusional conditions that came along with that package haven't yet made my life even remotely intolerable. (even when I admit to being a paranoid, schizoidal personality, with bouts of low self esteem, and occasionally an utter lack of 'survival instinct') The total condition is (honestly) more powerful a tool for me than it has ever acted against me. I'm probably very lucky for that accountance, so for others who feel similar, I'd advise surrounding yourself with a few (yeah, paranoid remember) so a very few trusted and trustworthy friends. Let their advice (especially the closest) help you decide when to find a "therapist" and be watchful of the so-called "experts"... Just like too many medical doctors want the money, so they throw you a pain-killer for everything, too many psychiatrists just throw you some "fuzzy pills" for whatever ails you... Now, that's about as articulate and literal as I can make it... Hope you have a good one... :o)
What if I really wanted a table for sex? Do you know how much stress the table's going to have to undergo in that situation? You've got to be careful... safety third... :o)
And now I'm thinking of that old joke about: "There's nothing wrong about sex on television, as long as you don't fall off." ;) Of course at the time they were talking about those big furniture-like ones with the tops you could use as a decorative shelf, not the flatscreen ones of today...
I mess up a lot of my words, especially when I'm distracted. So i'm gonna save this video so I can instantly show it to people whenever I'm accused of a Freudian slip again.
People love to hate on Freud, but people often forget that he was literally the first psychologist. He didn't have anyone else to go to for help with his theories, which is why he had so many crazy ideas. Mostly because everyone back then had really crazy ideas. Thankfully we learned a lot since then.
GinSakurai damn it is an incredible defense mechanism of us to keep us relatively safe when our brain realizes we cannot scape neither fight so we zone out (dissociate) in order to avoid breaking down as you said .. unfortunately most of us if not all of trauma survivors will develop PTSD later in life ..
Oh my god, would you positivists please get over yourselves! Are really going to try to claim that Freud's emphasis on early childhood was worthless? This is the only bulletpoint, which won't be referencing research, as this claim is beyond absurd, and one which I won't entertain challenging... If the unconscious not "exist", how will you explain the uncountable instances if irrational, self-destructive, and so on, behaviour many people exhitit? (Shevrin & Dickman, 1980, one among countless studies regarding this concept) Only questionable support seems to have been found for his psychosexual stages, Oedipus Complex and especially the Electra Complex (Hunt,1979) Do you have a superiour frame of explanation for his defense mechanisms, as, as I have been taught, they (although repression is quite disputed) are possibly his most solid contribution to the field of psychology (Silverman, 1976; Cramer, 2000; Cassidy, 1988, and i really could go on...) Anxiety has been found to be very detrimental to physical and psychological health (do i really need a citation? Ok... Suinn, 2001) And yes, when I mentioned that I have been taught, it means that I ACTUALLY go to a university and did not simply come to this RU-vid-page to spout nonsense. Sorry for the hostility, but I can hardly imagine you people studying psychology while propogating such nonsense. It may neither have been proper of me to call you positivists, but that is quite simply the vibe, I am getting. I hope I have enlightened some of you.
My laptop is known to occasionally eff-ing up the audio. When you said "language is really hard", it played "language is really HAR-HAR-hard." It might have been the best non-human freudian slips I've heard.
I think it would be amazing if you guys could make a video about how people mentally survive SERE training in the US military. That would be extremely insightful.
Hey Hank and Co! I study psychology in Argentina, where psychoanalysis is still very much on demand and very well respected (mostly because of how psychology started in our country and historical reasons I won't bore you with). In most prestigious public national universities the subjects seen throughout the career are very very very "freudian". While I do not agree that this is necessarily the best way to go for the public education's curricula, and many have been fighting for years for a more diverse way of teaching that is closer to how it is done in the rest of the world, this has given me enough information about Freud's theory (I've studied it A LOT) to know that what is said in this video is, at least, partly untrue. Freud's theory does in no way imply that if you say "table for sex" that is because you actually want to have sex on that table but didn't know it. That kind of misrepresentation is partly what leads people to believe that he was a nut job (what he may have been, but let's at least judge him for actual things he said or did). The same goes with "he thought that sexual pleasure is the main motive for everything we do": that is a coarse oversimplification of his very complex way of explaining the human mind (VERY complex believe me). It would be more like he defined every human energy as sexual but in a WAY larger "freudian" definition that isn't really what we think of when we talk about it in everyday life, but it would take hours of writing to actually explain it thoroughly. Plus, the experiments you have mentioned actually could be perfectly explained inside of Freud's theory and in no way proves it wrong (actually, one of the biggest criticism to Freud is that pretty much nothing he said can be proven right or wrong in a lab, thus isn't scientific). What you explain as an artifact of how the brain processes language Freud did too, only he went further and tried to understand why it processes it one way and not another instead of seeing it a a "default" word that just pops up. But everything on that lab test is perfectly in accordance with the theory behind "freudian slips". I love everything you do in sci show and all over youtube and was kind of anxious when this channel came out: I was pretty sure you wouldn't take Freud's theory seriously but was pretty confident that you would do it with real information and knowledge on the subject, and was looking forward to seeing that (I am not that much of a fan of the Freudian theory either, but have honestly never seen anyone prove anything wrong without being misleading). I would suggest maybe you talked to a freudian psychoanalyst to have a more thorough idea of what it was that he said, or just not talk about his theory if you believe it isn't worth it. But misleading information is usually all over the place concerning this, we should all do our best to not reproduce misinterpretations that in no way help psychology or science thrive!! Critical thinking about Freud can be done without twisting his words! Still, I really appreciate this channel and a lot of the others on which I see you every day! I hope no one interprets this as hate mail or "f**k you Freud was awesome shut up". We all have to pitch in to make sure our beloved internet has the most accurate infromation. Tanks for your face on the screen and best wishes!
Thanks for this. Knew this would be a biased video the moment the narrator claimed that Freud said that kids "should" be attracted to their parents. The word choice 'should' is very misleading as it includes a moral judgment of right and wrong. Freud may have said it's 'common' for kids to be attracted to their parents, which is just descriptive. So, word choices matter and I'm afraid this whole video chose a particular point of view to push.
I also study Psychology in Argentina and I agree with Gabriella. This interpretation of Freud's theory is kind of vague. Freudian slips not only refer to some letter or syllabe substitution but even to full words. A slip could be a substitution of the word "father" for the word "uncle" or it could even be a more crazy idea that means something in the history of the person who is talking. Substitution in Psychoanalysis is not only arranged by homophony. You can think slips as more complex substitutions that say something wich the one who said it didn't know about himself. Or that slip can even open a forgotten episode of the life of that person. Freudian slips are also a product of a struggle or a conflict between the instances ego, superego, and id, they are not just a product of language. Also, about kids being sexual attracted to their parents... That's called Oedipus Complex and it's not that simple as you say in this video. I suggest, as many other people do in these comments, to get more information. Freud's theory isn't that simple.
El psicoanálisis tiene mucha credibilidad en Argentina por lo mismo que el horóscopo: A los argentinos les gusta fingir que saben cosas y que están en control de sus patéticas vidas tercermundistas. Por algo somos tan opinólogos, nos colgamos de las bolas de los pocos argentinos que tienen éxito (Messi, por ejemplo) y tomamos cualquier oportunidad para negar la realidad de nuestra naturaleza mediocre y creernos los mejores del mundo en lo que sea que se pueda. Freud era un merquero boludo, pero los psicólogos no van a querer admitir nunca que se pasaron años estudiando al pedo.
The "Freudian slips of pen and tongue" are not solely about words... it's when someone intentionally or not intentionally express(via speech, act, pose) something oddly/eerie information/image, sometimes malevolently and unconsciously generating/producing those Freudian slips are. Sometimes those are towards other people that surrounding that person who's doing it, and some people got hurt by certain forms of it. But not always.
I'd like to add that Freud's work isn't only valuable clinically, it's a deeper understanding of humanity, aggression and motivation etc.. that are discussed in other disciplines. Plus that he's heavily quoted in philosophy and political studies. So if you want to be a therapist/counselor you can dismiss a lot and still have your own valid methods. I don't really think his work should be taken that scientifically, however, still intriguing and thought-provoking.
Or when I want to type shirt but my "r" goes missing. Fortunately, "t-shit" as far as I know is a meaningless term, so I can correct myself without much embarrassment
Haha, the white bear thing. I used to do that to my brothers as a kid when we were playing video games and they were trying to concentrate. I'd start saying "dont concentrate on the sound of my voice. whatever you do, dont concentrate on my voice." ect. Worked every time.
it isn't as interesting. most of the things are "so they made this experiment and we know something is happening, but we don't know how it works or why"
I had a purple elephant with an umbrella, that’s how I always beat the “white bear problem” (we say “don’t think of a hippo” most of the time). I just flash to a completely different animal & add crazy elements to keep my focus off the bear
I wonder what parapraxis/Freudian Slips were called before Sigmund Freud and formal psychological study. It's funny; I suspect the enduring belief that parapraxis somehow reveals things about those who experience it is mostly due to pop culture depictions of it as such. Ironically, I wouldn't be at all surprised that when experiencing it themselves, people totally get that parapraxis is nothing revealing, but when experiencing it from others it's almost like people forget that in favor of using it to embarrass or belittle the one experiencing it.
It's great that the first SciShow Psych episode I watch is making the clear point that Freud was wrong about everything. I was worried before watching when I saw the title. :) Subscribed.
There is this guy I like and I believe he likes me as well. Recently he was talking about what he'd do with their SO in a specific situation and went from saying "her", to "you" a couple times and back to "her" without realising and I noticed that, but didn't call it out lol.
probably a better way to test language slips like that in accordance to the immediate anxiousness of the patient within a circumstance is to show a room with ambient surroundings of a subject and measurement the related slips without having immediate threats of embarrassment and shock throuw these thoughts to the forefront
I'm curious as to how communication-based disorders would affect responses. For example, you had said that "vocabulary is roughly organized by how similar words sound." However, it's (fairly?) well known that some disabilities (such as ASD) result in differences in the mental categorization and storage of information...
I have a tendency to say the wrong word at times, but they're often quite unrelated. Not long ago I asked my husband to get me a little spoon. Only instead of saying spoon, it came out "yogurt." I mean, I do eat yogurt with a spoon, but that's quite a substantial difference in meaning, and the two words don't even sound remotely alike.
he totally didnt mention psychoanalysis as a way to discover all the interwoven meanings a freudian slip can have and how that helps understand our subjectivity from a first person perspective
You guys messed up what id, ego and superego are. Ego is not a mediator - it drives a person toward realistic expressions of id's desires, and superego persuades the ego to turn to moralistic goals instead of merely realistic. It's like you got this off of wikipedia, which is also wrong.
I used to work at a doctor's office and one time I tried to ask a gentleman if he wanted text message reminders and instead I said 'sext messages'. He had a good sense of humor about it and brightly said 'sure!" while I turned beet red.
I'm a psychology student in France, one of the last 2 countries in the world where Freud is still taken seriously by psychologists: thank you so, so much, it is so exhausting to have to listen to my teachers talk about about his theories uncritically, so every voice against him is a badly needed bowl of fresh air !
Stop reading too much into something people. Your brain and its flow of information is complex and imperfect, and sometimes it just misplaces things and uses the wrong word. Nothing to do with revealing unconscious/subconscious feelings like some of you have been led to believe.
gotta have an ex to call your current significant other by that name. or have a significant other in the first place even. gg 40 year old virgins are real
I think if someone asks for a table for sex that it might not be some hidden desire in their subconscious, but if it wasn't just the slip of the tongue, it could be that they were seriously just thinking about that before being asked a question that broke their train of thought. In that case, there would be a sort of truth to your word slip ups being entangled with your thoughts, but not really as deeply as previously believed.
James Regli a lot of slips seems to be sexual in nature, I yelled out "orgasm" instead of organism in class once... I guess I wasn't thinking about science :p I like a lot of Freuds theories. They may not be all backed up with fact, but I feel like they give an interesting way of thinking about the subconscious
This video is almost completely wrong on everything related to Freud, even the Oedipus complex is taken lightly and out of context,. You can't say a thing you do not understand is wrong. Freudian slips are only analyzed in a clinical context, where the instruction is to speak freely, therefore there is no warning to avoid a topic. Thats why they may or may not mean something, it depends on each case and on each person. Freud's discovery was the unconscious mind and an idea on how to access it through speech, not an oversexualized theory on the mind... And again, it is done one by one, case by case...
Freud inspired research like blowing up a city inspires people to rebuild. We've pretty much had to fix everything he did, & the laws & reactions based on his ideas caused widespread psychological suffering for decades & all because it was himself that had the sexual problems he ironically 'Psychologically Projected" upon his subjects. p.s. I don't like the man much, can ya tell?
Fraud has intention & there is little doubt that Freud was not fraudulent (say that 5 times fast). You can ascribe many things to Freud but intention is not one of them. It was ignorance & that he was 1st. Were Tesla's failed experiments fraudulent? Were every attempt at making the lightbulb prior the 1st working model, fraudulent? We make false assumptions all the time, they cannot be intrinsically connected to intent especially dealing in a virgin field & we do have the scientific method to test those assumptions ... the ones that make it were the ones that were right .. all others are not considered fraudulent. Why do you have to learn it? - So you don't make the same mistake in a field that involves subjective perceptions. - So you know just how innocent & easy it is to get it wrong & cause widespread suffering. - To show you the evolution of the thoughts of thought before your '1st working model' that we accept now as foundational & have built on to now offer so many variances of approach. - & that when applied to the appropriate areas, psychoanalysis is as important as any other approach in providing the best outcome solution for the patient. We don't learn about the evolution of the car starting with Henry Ford. We don't learn about evolution by starting halfway through the story.
MilitantPeaceist I would argue that people are suffering now because we have abandoned much of Freud's ideas. Clinical psychology has become about treating symptoms rather than finding root causes. Freud showed us how much childhood experiences effect our relationship with others and the world- and our current science backs that up. But today we are too afraid to criticize anyone's parenting choices or home structure or the structure of society, so we see a child acting out and we give them meds or just teach them how to cope with stress. We treat it as a biological defect rather than the expression of some tension. Freud didn't get everything right, but he gave us a lot of new information to work with.
MilitantPeaceist Example, he may have psychologically projected his ideas onto some of his patients, but he also helped in understanding this concept of doctor-patient projection.
"Clinical psychology has become about treating symptoms rather than finding root causes." All of medicine changed focus & started treating the patient & not the paradigm. It is an assumption there are faults occurring that we need to fix & classify as a 'root cause'. It is our assumption that we know the true order of things to have a template to know what is normal & what is not. This was Freud's mistake as well. It's only been recently since we dropped the idea that Adam & Eve is the natural order of gender/sex which had the entire field working & believing the right course of action was to perform sex changes on intersex infants, but not only that, to make a male is 1st priority & if that failed, then a female. This is fashioning gender/sex, not working with it. The damage this alone did to those intersex people was catastrophic. This is precisely how we know gender identity exists & consider the ramifications of that. We are talking 100 years of lobotomies & electro shock therapies based on 'curing' a 'root cause' based on an assumption. You would know the impetus to this malpractice by the name "Tabula rasa" (Locke) which Freud used within his framework so he was hardly insightful as far as childhood experiences are concerned. Freud just took a very bad idea & made it mainstream. "Freud showed us how much childhood experiences effect our relationship with others and the world" Like Napoleon showed us how severe & widespread oppression leads to revolution, rebellion & eventually, human rights. Yaaay for Napoleon.
I have always heard it as the "pink elephant" problem. I have built up a lifetime of resistance to thinking about pink elephants, you just can't make me do it. But dammit if I can't not think about white bears now.
the other day my history teacher said king philip was a visionary and later in the class she asked what king philip was. I answered missionary. I said "King Philip was a missionary." Godspeed, Freud.
I'm sure I'm not the first to ask this, but: Has anyone graphed whether Hank misspoke statistically more often while filming this episode than he usually does? ;D (Kidding aside, keep up the great work, SciShow team! #DFTBA)
Yeah, Freud wasn't actually wrong about everything. I'd like to see some legit sources about that, not BBC or psychology today, neither of which are very thorough or careful when it comes to psychology.
Freud was basically a pseudo scientist and psychoanalysis is a bunch of bullocks, still people take them seriously to this day. I wonder if this is because of the same reason so many believe in messiahs and all that. 😮
"psychoanalysis is a bunch of bullocks"[sic] This is the same as saying "thinking is a bunch of bollocks". We all psychoanalyse to make sense of the people around us, we just have better facts under our belts now which leads us to better conclusions than in the day of Freud. When you wonder why a machine works the way it does, that is called analysing. When you wonder why a person works they way they do, that is called psychoanalysing. When people psychoanalyse correctly based on current facts/knowledge, they are called doctors. (that might be an indication for you to go see one)
MilitantPeaceist I don't understand why someone would still use psychoanalysis when it's been proven to be pseudo science. I'm all up for analyzing stuff, as you said in the first half of your comment, but why use outdated or non functional tools?
Because it wasn't the tool (psychoanalysis) that was faulty, it was the instructions that led to faulty conclusions (ie: Freud's faulty assumptions that turned into instructions for others). There would be 0/zero diagnoses without analysing the patient to see what the best course of action to be, based on the observations of that patient behaviours & what thoughts they associate with, that trigger such behaviours. Same as we used to kill our 1st born for Goldilocks weather. Now we watch the weather report from people who know more than us. It doesn't mean all meteorologists are always right, but are never always wrong like killing a 1st born was. Not because we use different tools, it is because we have developed better instructions that give us more accurate conclusions.
Freud can be criticized for plenty of things, but this video was intellectually lazy. Where in Freud's work does he write about the "subconscious"? Pre-conscious? Yes. Unconscious? Yes. Subconscious? No. Id, ego, superego? Those are terms foisted on Freud by his English translators. The veiled reference to the Oedipus complex managed to be both vague and a caricature at the same time. C'mon SciShow, your need to take potshots at Freud tells me more about the insecurities of your writers (probably underemployed psych majors) than it does about an intellectual who, for better AND worse, shaped the discipline of psychology from the 19th century onwards.
pgunders1973 I completely agree with you. The video lacks A LOT, and I really mean A LOT of what Freud actually wrote. I guess it's easier to take popular and bastardized "knowledge" of Freudian concepts and make a video about what the brain (not the mind) does when slips are sort of forced out of groups of people, rather than actually taking a deep look into Freud's enormous amount of writings (where he actually corrects himself several times) and making a video debating his real theory.
Im not sure what you mean when you say that the terms "id, ego and superego" are foisted by his English translators.. i mean.. we can look at his original writing in german and he cals them "es, ich and Überich", so ya, they where translated, but he did use those terms... he even writes a paper called The Ego and the Id ( in German "Das Ich und das Es") in 1923. The thing with subconscious, in his early works he uses subconscious (das Unterbewusste) and unconscious (das Unbewusste) interchangeably, untill he stuck with the second one, so you are kind of right there, but not completelly... anyway this video just says that most of freud theories are wrong, wich is true, not that all of them are, and he even aknowledge that he did shaped the discipline of psychology... so I don't really understand the problem!
I know he was a medical doctor initially but compared to what it is available to us today in 2017 as far as neuroscientific literature goes, he basically just gave us speculation and pure conjectures about the "human psyche".
