Freuds psychoanalysis vs. Hypnosis

[Daniel]

In school i learn about how Freud developed the psychoanalysis, after trying with hypnosis and katharsis. It seems like, hypnosis didn't work very well. But what about today? Did hypnosis got better, or is the psychoanalysis still able to do things hypnosis can't?

[Don]

You're sort of right, Daniel. Hypnosis didn't work well for Freud. He was incompetent as a hypnotherapist. Also, he realized that hypnotherapy was what we call "brief" therapy and he wanted to create something that would take a long time [so he could keep screwing people out of money?]. He allegedly said that psychoanalysis was only for the wealthy who could afford it.

[Daniel]

You're sort of right, Daniel. Hypnosis didn't work well for Freud. He was incompetent as a hypnotherapist. Also, he realized that hypnotherapy was what we call "brief" therapy and he wanted to create something that would take a long time [so he could keep screwing people out of money?]. He allegedly said that psychoanalysis was only for the wealthy who could afford it.

Are you sure he wanted money? In the book Im reading, about psykology, it seems more like, he wanted to do some research. And since hypnosis effects only lasted, for 3-4 months, on hysteria patients. He concluded it wasn't very effective. You still think thats the case?

[Don]

Read some other biographies of Freud. He was tired of being poor and wanted something that would bring in a lot of money. One reason he abandoned research for private practice is that there simply wasn't enough money in it.

[skip]

I dont know if Freud's motivation was just money, although money generally follows prestige and fame.

I do know that he was an inept hypnotist, and that is why he concluded that hypnosis didnt work. He was correct in that it didnt work for his hypnosis clients. He completely ignored the results that his contemporaries were getting with hypnosis.

But it makes sense that he would ignore them. These guys openly argued and atempted to discredit each other, each attempting to advance their theory ot method. So you have the stage set for Freud to attempot to discredit hypnosis, irreagrdless of its effectiveness, in favor of his own personal pet project called psychoanalysis.

But you know, it really doesnt matter what Freud thought, or even said. His theories have been so thouroughly discredited between then and now that it is actually an advantage to have been denounced by Freud.

Where have you been doing your reading?

skip

[Don]

As we have discussed on this board, susceptibility to hypnosis is based on the skill of the hypnotist, not on the client. Freud was unable to easily hypnotize all of his patients. It has been suggested that this may have been, in part, due to his horrible bad breath! But whatever reason, he abandoned his training with Charcot and the Nancy school to develop something that could achieve the same results with everyone but take a much greater time to achieve the same results.

[Daniel]

Well. I've read about it at school. In a book called psycological perspektives. Its a danish book. If Freud was wrong about all those things. Why is he then the most known person within psycology?

[Terry (existing)]

If you keep reading, you will find that Freud later recanted his claims that hypnosis didn;t work and admitted that he has failed to use it properly. Why is his name so well known? Because he is the Father of psycoanalysis, and many people benifit from this, most of them practitioners....... Hypnosis has its place, but in many instances has been replaced by what is easier, not what is better. Chemical anasthesia requires little or no skill to apply, so to hell with those who are resistant to it, or have an unfortunate reaction to it. After all they are rare, so don't count. Psycoanalysis takes months or even years for results, but someone profits from this, so who cares about the client? Frankly, I agree, it is always a buyer beware situation, and if the client fails to investigate options and gets caught out, so be it. We do suspect that chemical anasthesia can be blamed for problems with babies who are born under circumstances were anasthesia is required during birth, and the baby is later found to have mental problems, but such is hidden from the public, and of course proof is difficult to find anyway. Keep studying, you will be amazed..............

[Merlin]

>In school i learn about how Freud developed the psychoanalysis, after trying with hypnosis and katharsis. It seems like, hypnosis didn't work very well.

For him

[Merlin]

>since hypnosis effects only lasted, for 3-4 months, on hysteria patients...

Again you point out Freud's incompetence and failure as a hypnotist.

[Merlin]

>Why is he then the most known person within psycology?

Because the movie makers in Hollywood found him a good charater to portray.

[Jack]

Freud had some really great ideas, and those ideas along with those of Jung and Adler created debate and moved along our understanding of the human psyche.

But he also had some really cr*p ideas and many misunderstandings, so you have to pick the wheat from the chaff.

One of his misunderstandings was about hypnosis. He neither understood what it was, or what it was for because he was stuck in a rigid theory about ego, superego and id and couldn't see the wood for the trees.

Jack

[betlamed]

Remember, the method is infallable. So it has to be the practitioner who is to blame. Needless to say, blame is needed to help lift up our egos.

Of course, instead of mindreading evil motives into one another (Freud just wants the money, while Don is of course a fierce antisemite), one might argue that Freud was trying to transform the unconscious into conscious awareness. That means, he saw the unconscious as a threat. Perhaps his preocuppation with classic education was getting in the way. His method is distinctly "paranoid" in the sense of detective work. He alwas wanted to uncover the hidden truth. Sophokles' Oedipus is the first known detective story!

Well, but then, Vienna's tourism is partly relying on Freud, so I'm defending him only for the money myself, even though I'm not a jew...

bl
(Viennese)

[Don]

I'm a fierce antisemite? That would probably suprise my Rabbi!

[Merlin]

BL,

Don's post come across (to me) as more Jewish than Antisemite.

[Merlin]

>That would probably suprise my Rabbi!


Guess I wasn't too far off :)

[betlamed]

That just proves my point, doesn't it?

bl

[Mentalius]

Well. I've read about it at school. In a book called psycological perspektives. Its a danish book. If Freud was wrong about all those things. Why is he then the most known person within psycology?
What´s the name of this book? Don´t worry about trying to translate the title :-)

[Daniel]

What´s the name of this book? Don´t worry about trying to translate the title :-)

In danish: Psykologiske Perspektiver. By Ole Schultz Larsen.

But i don't think you can buy it outside Denmark.

[Mentalius]

In danish: Psykologiske Perspektiver. By Ole Schultz Larsen.

But i don't think you can buy it outside Denmark.

Ærgerlig, ærgerlig;-)

[Daniel]

Ærgerlig, ærgerlig;-)

Har du selv læst den da?

[Mentalius]

Har du selv læst den da?

Nej, jeg deler nok opfattelse med de fleste her på siden, at der er andre der har andre måder at anskue psyken på, der er mere i tråd med hypnose, ikke mindst Milton Erickson.

Lidt flabet er jeg mere entrprenør end psykoarkæolog, omend jeg mener der er behov for begge.

Jeg var nok bare lidt nysgerrig efter om vi kunne få de andre til at undres over de magiske tegn, i det mytologiske sprog der pludselig optræder på deres skærme :o)

[Merlin]

Might I suggest that if you wish to have a conversation which will exclude others, that you use the private messaging service available here?

[betlamed]

Merlin,

my point is that it is equally absurd to accuse Freud of having merely financial goals, as it is to accuse Don of being antisemitic.

bl

[Merlin]

Well, I'm staying out of that aspect of the Fraud discussion as I don't know him.

Thanks BL