Jung vs. Freud - Writers Forum

Lusastrium · 05-01-2005, 01:22 PM

The battle is set in the U.C.L.A. Coral. There are two scientists in white trenchcoats with cowboy hats, shoes, and two colt Peacemakers. They draw their guns and shoot each other. Which one will win? Will it be Freud or Jung? So the question is which psycoanalytic account are you with, Freud- the bastardization of this is sex is everything or Jung- the bastardization is symbolism is everything. Tell which you empathize with and why and soon there shall be a winner in the physcolanytic question of Sex vs. Symbolism.

Hodge · 05-01-2005, 01:29 PM

They're both right. Not completely, I'm sure (especially in Freud's case), but they both had very important insights into the human mind that can and are applied very effectively.

**Penelope** · 05-01-2005, 02:08 PM

How did they reach their conclusions? Who did they base their findings on? Why does anyone believe they have the answers? I know symbolism plays a huge part in my writing but only because people keep telling me so. I prefer Jung's theories because they are all encompassing rather than restrictive.

cyberspecter · 05-01-2005, 02:16 PM

Have to agree with Hodge. I think Freud has gotten a bum rap in modern times. Yes. He was a bit obsessed, as were most people in that time period, with sexual repression. But, he did have another quote other than "What was your relationship with your mother like?"

That quote was: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Drzava · 05-01-2005, 03:17 PM

AND SOMETIMES IT'S A BIG BROWN DICK

quoth Carlin.

I tried to read one of Jung's books, practically bored me to death.

horrorcrafter · 05-01-2005, 03:27 PM

you know this is not entirely fair to either of these great men. Both relied heavily on symbolism, not just Jung. I voted for Jung purely because he has more to do with writing. I still have deep admiration for the genius of Sigmund Freud, the inventor of Psychological thinking.
Horrorcrafter

NeverHeardOfHer · 05-01-2005, 04:47 PM

Both were products of their times, as we all are. They provided material for later scholars to jump off from. Both were wrong in the sense that the details of their work have not stood the test of time; but they were pioneers, and deserve credit for that.

Hodge · 05-01-2005, 05:06 PM

Penelope: it's very hard to find concrete evidence in the social sciences because they deal with the human mind and other things we can only observe indirectly. So when psychological or social theories are invented, they usually don't push aside other existing theories so much as they supplement them, because none can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, they can all be successfully applied to humans and their behaviors.

As to Freud, almost all of his theories have been revised, but not discarded. A couple have not, though, and are accepted by nearly every social scientist. The notion that we have both a conscious and unconscious mind is one, and the other one is that we all have instincts and social conditioning that tend to conflict with each.

See a buffet table? Your Id says, "eat it all before someone else does!" while your superego says, "no, stupid, sit down and don't act like a glutton. Be sure to wipe your mouth and use your silverware. And do NOT spill anything!"

**Penelope** · 05-01-2005, 11:14 PM

um... my reaction to a buffet is: I want a waiter so I don't have to cart my own food! I can do that at home!

What I was getting at is most of the theories were developed from 'treating' 'troubled' minds. Are they a viable basis for logical conclusions?

I spend a lot of time trying to figure out why people say and think what they do.

One thing I have discovered is that, if someone accuses a person of unthought of acts, it's probably because that is what they would do. They judge people on the basis of their own bias. An amazing conclusion for me but it got me past being puzzled.

Pawn · 05-02-2005, 07:38 AM

Truly. The primary criticism of contemporary psychology regarding Freud is just what you stated: he wrote and applied theories to the entire world based on studies on very small numbers of mentally ill people. For my part, I think he was probably fairly deranged himself. That said, he is possibly the most significant psychologist ever - credit where credit's due. Jung for me though.

mammamaia · 05-02-2005, 08:49 AM

i never met a shrink who didn't need one!

veinglory · 05-02-2005, 10:26 AM

I'm actually a behaviourist--but I prefer Jung for useful symbolism and ideas that can be used in fiction.

Hodge · 05-02-2005, 02:43 PM

Skinner is right as well. They're all right. The mind does work in symbols... What do you think language is? We know that biologically, the brain stores memories in an associative way. It's a set of instructions leading to a small database of images in your mind. Say you see a chair. A week later you may remember that chair, but the image in your mind will be that of some other chair you've already seen, usually the first. If you have a photographic memory then it's different...

But my point is that the human mind works entirely in symbols.

Now I do prefer Jung to Freud because Freud did spout a lot of BS. Oedipus complexes aren't normal, and his reasoning that people can't remember being a baby because the memories are represses is completely wrong (the brain simply can't store the memories). Freud still pioneered modern psychology and had some very brilliant insights, though.

mammamaia · 05-03-2005, 08:49 AM

so, has anyone here considered adler?