The Mind/Brain: Crash Course History of Science #30 

Jean Vizueta Well, luckily crash course created an entire course for psychology if you want to look at that.

My problem is that it presents Freud's disproven theories as if he were right about everything - especially the idea of recovered memories, which is still ruining lives today 😢

Think about this: they didn't talk about Lacan LFMAO no one gets that man. I'm preparing my final and it's all about him and Freud and I wanna die BTW

Thats not irony

Can you elaborate on how freudian ideas are flawed?

@@italosantacruzrocha799 please let me know if you saw my comment. Idk how or if RU-vid blocks comments with links in them.

It seems like it does. I can't see any link or reference bro

@@italosantacruzrocha799 italo santa cruz rocha Ugh.. Here is what I said: @italo santa cruz rocha There's a nice Crash course about the problem with Sigmund Freud's methodologies by Hank Green (look up Crash Course Philosophy #8.) In essence, a lot of his claims are pseudoscience or at least not hard science because they can't really be falsified. It's almost entirely subjective and full of confirmation bias. You can take the example of childhood trauma. Ofc what happens in your youth affects your adulthood... But his purely psychological analyses don't really hone down on exactly what causes what effect, and largely invents the why based on what sounds sensational. Meanwhile, studies done on populations can show how kids raised in poor environments can and do make it more likely for them to grow up in poverty and never make more than their parents. The data is there and the cause is specific. The why is a matter of sociology, but it too is created around context that effects the population rather than trying to come up with a story for each individual. Another example is something like a car crash causing enough stress to actually impact your DNA. We call this epigenetics, and it's how you can gain traits or 'ancestral memories'. This is based on new studies, but at least it's something that can be directly disproven if it's incorrect.

@@italosantacruzrocha799 I wish RU-vid would at least tell me that my comment is blocked

I WAS SEARCHING FOR THIS COMMENT😂😂😂

OMG IT LOOKS JUST LIKE HIS HIGH SCHOOL PHOTO HE KEEPS SHOWING TO PROVE HE WAS GOOD AT CHEMISTRY!!!

Why am I laughing at this so much?

+

Jung

lol ikr

They did do an entire series on psychology.

Hi! I suspect you haven't actually been exposed to what psychological science looks like. This video isn't a great place to start, since it's a History of Science series, not a psychological science series. But SciShow Psych does great work. I think you'll find that psychological science is mostly about specificity-- for example, how does experience positive vs. negative vs. neutral emotion impact attention to local vs. global configurations of objects. We are also very focused on experimental control-- limiting the outside influences that could skew interpretation of effects. Definitely take a look at psychological science knowing that we actually are a science and do know what we're talking about!

@@alylight1899 Oh, don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to insinuate that psychology isn't a real science. I apologize if it came off that way. And I won't deny that I have much less experience with psychology then for example physics or chemistry. I'm just trying to pin down why I find myself looking at it differently then the "harder" sciences. That might just be it actually, being taught that there are "soft" and "hard" sciences may have led me to assume there was some kind of hierarchy of sciences. That, and the fact that I've had more time working with "hard" sciences could explain my bias. I'll have to look into that someday. I do like SciShow Psych though, maybe over time it will help me get over my baseless preconceptions about psychology.

Sounds gruelling, can you deal with it now or was there a point in hoping to improve your integration with "normal" behaviour /people? What would you recommend to improve mental health (care)?

fiona fiona art. Find a medium and completely apply it to your life and don't bound yourself with universal duties of the modern world. It's easy to get lost in the illusion that you have to do life the same way they do. My philosophy is that The "abstract minded " are not a blight of society, but instead are just always off autopilot . The structure isn't built for people like us and we want our own. To a world moving in one direction we want to express, we want to be unbound, we want a world free of predguduce and where we only work for the things we want, we want to think differently, we want to use substances, travel, paint, sing, over throw the government, we are the red crayons in the pencil box. We are not "crazy" we are abstract. We are not a dignosses Before We are our environment. I knew a boy named Deven when I was in foster care, quiet and always in black sweats . He never showered once unless forced after a month. Everyone called him autistic, his psych had him on all kindsa meds ( we used to trade) Turns out the whole time him not taking a shower was his way of having some control in his life. That's my entire integration, have control, in your own life. Take it violently or peacefully but make it yours. You are a free individual. We need to find out what's the paracidic origin of thought or trama and deal with it in any way you want. Watch people speak to each other and learn social ques to apply when you just don't understand people, adapt further, don't choke that cat, take a breath, smoke a bowl , sit in the dark and sing to yourself, anything. Whatever you want. Attach that pain and throw it into the mental fuckit bucket for later. But the best advice I can have, Is watch and listen to people communicating, the best time not to talk is when you feel the urge to. I mean don't get stepped on either, crush their head, hell they'll think you crazy anyway. Seriously though, it all starts with self reflection. Make a plan, apply yourself to yourself positively and theraputicly. And by therapeutic I mean whatever it means for you. Get a thesaurus, get the mirakee app or vent and just have at it. Experiment, study, learn,paint , carry a pocket fulla baked beans

I was pretty passionately drunk whenever I wrote this and the response to it. I cringe at the spelling errors

Being crazy would be an example of having a different type of brain

a lot of artists are crazy, you know how many great music composers were insane?

@@lincolnpepper816 Not as many as the stereotypes make them out to be.

You just used up most of it with your question.

Writing 2x more k's than ok's.

Writing "K." is legit the most rude and aggressive thing someone can write. Especially via text message.

That's why it should be done in an informal conversation.

They write 'you' instead of 'u' then.

The human brain is one of the most important organs in a human body. It helps us think, reason, remember, and learn new things. Since brain controls vital functions such as breathing, swallowing, digestion, eye movement and heartbeat, there can be no life without it. But the rest of the brain is obviously capable of some remarkable feats, with onepart able to compensate for deficiencies in another.

yup I thought they were going to be a bit less ethnocentric in general. It's sounds just a bit like, oh yeah and long ago many peoples did stuff to inspire the magic that those famous western boys brought upon this world

What do you mean by "most people", all of us have massive parts of our cognition unavailable for us grasp through introspection

Freud attempted to systematize the study of the part of the mind he called "the unconscious." His work in that realm was very preliminary and has been effectively discarded by the scientific community. In addition, there have been many harsh (and largely deserved) criticisms of Freud's work, including extensive effort to point out the problems inherent in his approach to women. For these and other reasons, since Freud's time his ideas have never been seriously reworked or extended. This is unfortunate, since a systematic study of what Freud called the unconscious might be of great benefit given our confused social systems.

@@RalphDratman There's actually TONS of research on non-conscious processing in social and cognitive psychology! If anything, I'd say that the presumption that portions of processes occur outside of conscious awareness is an inherent component of most research.

​@@alylight1899-- Thank you for your reply. I think your point is correct. What I was trying to express, awkwardly, was that Freud's concept of a single, integrated unconscious, something like a second mind working at cross purposes with everyday awareness, seems not to have been considered in recent years. ("Processes outside of conscious awareness" is not quite the same idea.) Now, I don't think Freud's original concept of one single unconscious (rather than many scattered, unheard voices) is likely to be correct, but there may be some integration that we are not tracking. As an example, some dreams are only vague meanderings, but others unfold surprisingly coherent narratives that presumably extend over many minutes, possibly even hours, at night. Some form of organization other than our usual waking awareness must be holding those often surprising stories together. I would like to know how that works. As I see it, many of our lifelong narratives are not necessarily more sensible than dreams. I wonder if dreams, as in night-time, and dreams, as in, say, "The American Dream," might be related.

Turn on captions!

what?

i'm sorry, what?

I'm not going to go through to find them all, but "hysteria" and "madness." There may have been others. We have words that describe conditions, but we don't like them, so "we used to call it [that]." Go back to "eugenics." We stopped using the word, and now stigmatize the person who coined the term, because it was poorly understood and turned into a non-scientific "movement" that lead to some bad things. But we still do it, we just make sure we use different words and toss hatred at those who came before.

@@Tfin i'm sorry but it seems silly to take issue with words like hysteria falling out of use. the concept of hysteria was a mess in the first place, it's not like we just changed the name of the condition to make it sound nicer, our understanding evolved and so did the language we use. i can't debate you on the eugenics thing because i'm not educated enough on it but if you elaborated on how we still do it that'd be nice because it sounds very concerning

bipolar is some centuries newer than hysteria, and Borderline is a even newer way to understand those symptoms.

"Borderline" is the most vague and imprecise word found for it to date, so... yeah.

@@Tfin In practice, it's actually one of the better understood personality disorders, and one of the most treatable through empirically-supported Dialectical Behavioral Therapy.

Psychoanalysis is not a pseudoscience, at least no more than any of the other psy-disciplines. I get how folks in the US might think that, but in much of the rest of the world it has continued to grow as a discipline and clinical practice. Interestingly in neuroscience, the purported savior of psy-disciplines through legitimization as a "hard" science, there is growing interest in psychoanalysis. Eric Kandel, a Nobel laureate whose work has been instrumental in advancing our understanding of memory, has called for a greater alliance between neuroscience and psychoanalysis. There's a whole field of neuropsychoanalysis that's been growing for over a decade now. Of course, virtually all of these folks are from outside of the US, precisely because of the mistaken notion that psychoanalysis is somehow "pseudoscience", but they're doing really interesting work.

@@johnbltz It seems you're misunderstanding what defines science. The fact that many people believe it is science does not make it science (That is the fundamental issue with pseudoscience: Many or most people believe it to be science, when in fact it is not). The fact that some people who otherwise adhere to scientific principles support it does not make it science. The fact that psychoanalysis is becoming more popular or accepted, even if it's within the scientific community does not make it science. The fact that it is of use in clinical practice (Which I'd say is arguable and probably placebo) or in the study of psychology (Which seems fundamentally wrong since psychoanalysis is not scientific). The fact that neuroscience is being applied to psychoanalysis does not make it science. The only way in which psychoanalysis can be considered a science is if it applies the scientific method and produces falsifiable results through empirical evidence. It does not do this, and therefore it is NOT science. If you believe the rest of psychology is not science because of the same reasons, so be it, I do not object, but anyone who believes the nonsense that is psychotherapy is science is being completely ignorant about what science is and what it does. This kind of ignorant thinking is what allows pseudoscience to continue to thrive and discredit real science to the detriment of all mankind.

@@SBKWaffles You have a rather impoverished view of science.

@@SBKWaffles well, Freud used to see psychoanalysis as a "meta science", but you need to put that in the context of his time. All that you are a talking about shows how little aknowledge you have about it and what his theory have done to the clinical aspect of psychology until nowadays . But that's a limitation you will live for sometime with such a way of thinking. You probably got the wrong idea of placebo too.

Hi! Psychological scientist and professor here! Much of psychoanalytic theory has not stood up to modern scientific inquiry. Moreover, many of the claims of psychoanalytic theory are inherently unfalsifiable-- Freudians had a tendency to say that any evidence of sexual or aggressive motivations were "repressed", so of course you wouldn't see any evidence of it. This means that we could never test such theories under the current scientific paradigm. Though I find cases where psychoanalytic theory influenced ideas that later were supported by scientific inquiry to be very interesting-- one example would attachment theory, and although it's controversial at this point, teaching about psychoanalytic theory helped me to understand why ego depletion has the word "ego" in it. That said, this is not Crash Course Psychology-- it's History of Science, which inherently involves a discussion of ideas that were influential, even if they were ultimately amended or even discarded. This series has also discussed the four humors, and geocentric models of the solar system. Being more critical of psychology's discarded ideas would be a biased take on the field.

Such as?

Thank u friend I love it

Did Luke had any kind of sexual experiences before that moment?

wat

The person is ill but psych/pharma really does have a habit of over diagnosis for cash

@@kyalucero7977 The person is not always "ill" though. When the basis of diagnosing someone is vague enough then anybody can be deemed as "ill".