> At the moment, there is no canonically useful model of the mind that is established in the consensus of those who study it.
I'd personally go with either one that shown promise, i.e. can be used to cure people and can make testable predictions. I know it's hard, this is psychology. I think a lot of theories that shown promise are computational theories of mind.
> I think you are conflating Freud's model of the mind with a couple of particulars.
I've never read a book about Freud's model without id/ego/superego or Oedipus/Elektra complex, etc.
Like, ok. He hit the mark with conscious/unconscious. What else?
> why is it that it "probably doesn't exist?" Is it because Feynman doubted it?
Because I'm neither a psychologist nor a fortune teller. I'm not aware of any modern theory really propagating id/superego/ego as some form of structure of the mind (I could be wrong here), nor am I able to say that in future we won't discover exactly three precise parts of the mind.
So no. It's not about Feynman. It's about how Freud came with his theory of the mind and the "evidence" for it.
First. He didn't look at data and then synthesized a solution. He basically said, yeah, this looks like it, lets make conscious and subconscious. Oh, and different desires. And different parts of mind. And make them three.
Second. Psychoanalysis is essentially science based on hearsay i.e. therapist reporting their view on the patient. Yeah, no way that could be biased or distorted. I'm pretty sure I cured cancer in that one guy. He had symptoms of common cold, but I definitely cured him of cancer. Yup.
That's not how you do science. Like I know psychology is hard to do, because it's not like you can debug a person (in clear conscience).
------
But Feynman is onto something. Frank Wilczek defined a beautiful theory as one you get more than you put in, or as he put it exuberance of productivity.
In lieu of that, for having all these parts and urges and egos and complexes, what does psychoanalysis do that other disciplines can't?
I'd personally go with either one that shown promise, i.e. can be used to cure people and can make testable predictions. I know it's hard, this is psychology. I think a lot of theories that shown promise are computational theories of mind.
> I think you are conflating Freud's model of the mind with a couple of particulars.
I've never read a book about Freud's model without id/ego/superego or Oedipus/Elektra complex, etc.
Like, ok. He hit the mark with conscious/unconscious. What else?
> why is it that it "probably doesn't exist?" Is it because Feynman doubted it?
Because I'm neither a psychologist nor a fortune teller. I'm not aware of any modern theory really propagating id/superego/ego as some form of structure of the mind (I could be wrong here), nor am I able to say that in future we won't discover exactly three precise parts of the mind.
So no. It's not about Feynman. It's about how Freud came with his theory of the mind and the "evidence" for it.
First. He didn't look at data and then synthesized a solution. He basically said, yeah, this looks like it, lets make conscious and subconscious. Oh, and different desires. And different parts of mind. And make them three.
Second. Psychoanalysis is essentially science based on hearsay i.e. therapist reporting their view on the patient. Yeah, no way that could be biased or distorted. I'm pretty sure I cured cancer in that one guy. He had symptoms of common cold, but I definitely cured him of cancer. Yup.
That's not how you do science. Like I know psychology is hard to do, because it's not like you can debug a person (in clear conscience).
------
But Feynman is onto something. Frank Wilczek defined a beautiful theory as one you get more than you put in, or as he put it exuberance of productivity.
In lieu of that, for having all these parts and urges and egos and complexes, what does psychoanalysis do that other disciplines can't?