Are Humans Still Evolving?

i went back and read my long resonse.basically, i responded to your personal opinion that no one takes freud serious.i posted that jungian Functional Psychology is extensively used. The Briggs/Myers Test, the Luscher Color Analysis which I didn't mention,and the recent work by Howard Gardner supports freud's idea that archetypal motivators and even personifable entities are at work.I quoted scripture because your statement was directed at denigrating them. It must be obvious to anyone not biased in one way or another that scripture is about human behavior, and in fact concerned with collective human behavior in society.To interact with a person who days that some work in this field is great but they demeans other work takes us down another path. The work of freud, if you argued what it is that you think makes it passe', fine. I am not going to start supporting such a famous guy as if he needs me to defend him against your comments.See what I mean. You are nothing in that field. Freud is way up there. Why talk about it from that point of view.Again, the scriptures are Freudian...Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars, (the seven psychic "angels;" Id, Libido, EGO, Anima, Self, Superego, Harmony): and out of his mouth, (the words that He said) went a sharp (cutting) twoedged (secular and religious) sword (of argument): and his countenance, (The Word), was (as rational) as the sun shineth (everyday) in his strength (light upon the earth).

quote:

---

basically, i responded to your personal opinion that no one takes freud serious.

---

It isn't my personal opinion that, in general, only Freudians take Freud seriously anymore.Freudian mumbo jumbo is not cited in any non-Freudian Psychological research or in any of the professional Psychology journals.That's because what Freud did was make a bunch of stuff up.Scientific investigation of his claims has since shown him to be wrong about nearly everything he claimed.

quote:

---

i posted that jungian Functional Psychology is extensively used.

---

It's very much on the decline because it doesn't work very well compared to behavioral or psysiological (IOW, science-based) therapies.People go to Jungian or Freudian psychotherapy for decades and don't get any better. They go to the other kinds of therapies for months and do get better.

quote:

---

The Briggs/Myers Test, the Luscher Color Analysis which I didn't mention,and the recent work by Howard Gardner supports freud's idea that archetypal motivators and even personifable entities are at work.

---

Please provide some evidence of support from Psychologists other than Jungians or Freudians who give such support.

quote:

---

I quoted scripture because your statement was directed at denigrating them.

---

Excuse me?How?

quote:

---

It must be obvious to anyone not biased in one way or another that scripture is about human behavior, and in fact concerned with collective human behavior in society.

---

Sure.Freud's notions about the human psyche have nothing at all to do with the bible.

quote:

---

To interact with a person who days that some work in this field is great but they demeans other work takes us down another path. The work of freud, if you argued what it is that you think makes it passe', fine. I am not going to start supporting such a famous guy as if he needs me to defend him against your comments.

---

There are lots of famous wrong people. Newton was wrong, Linnaeus was wrong, Hitler was wrong, and Freud was wrong.

quote:

---

See what I mean. You are nothing in that field. Freud is way up there. Why talk about it from that point of view.

---

Freud was famous, and he was very influential, to be sure, but he was also, in large part, wrong.Science is great that way; it doesn't care if you were well-known or if lots of people supported you, if evidence comes to light through further research that shows you to be wrong, you are wrong.The following is a excerpt from a Psychology textbook:http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/freuddead.htm

quote:

---

Again, the scriptures are Freudian...

​

Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars, (the seven psychic "angels;" Id, Libido, EGO, Anima, Self, Superego, Harmony): and out of his mouth, (the words that He said) went a sharp (cutting) twoedged (secular and religious) sword (of argument): and his countenance, (The Word), was (as rational) as the sun shineth (everyday) in his strength (light upon the earth).

---

Again, you are making this stuff up, just as Freud did.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-07-2004 05:31 PM

ok
I understand you better now, ...1) You think that there really is empirical evidence in the field of psychology which supports certan ideas and current hypothesis.In my opinion there is none, and psychology remains a humanity, not a science.2) Yes. All but a very few systems of psychology died out with the death of the person who first ptomoted the system.Yes. Freud has been debased in the literature of these people to whom you refer.No. Functional Jungian Psychologies are still used clinically and in counseling, in particular, Briggs/Myers for example (do a search, there is plenty of info out there).3) Of course Freud and all the present and most current systems are way off, largely ineffectual. None is a much better bet to out last the originator of the system, as has been the history of all these psychologies over the last century.4) But, do you deny in spite of a lack of empirical evidence, that we have a psyche?Do you deny that we have a Pre-conscious Mind?Do you believe or do you dispute, inspite of a lack of empirical proof, that there exists states of mind that can be disceribly recognized as such entities as the Human Libido?
How about Ego?
I am sure you get my point.
Is this what you are saying?Freud was wrong about these fundamentals and he made up these concepts? I mean, are you saying, was Carl Jung the first to observe and define Intuition? Did these earliest of men in this discipline error in recognizing archetypal manifestations that influence human behavior?Or, are you merely saying that having recognized the subconscious archetypal entities, he was at a loss, as we basically so remain to this day, to utilize the insight in any dramatically practical way?He of scourse would not be alone in that failure, and he was certtainly wrong about many things he assumed, as was apparently immediately to him in that Eric Ericson and Carl Jung had a different take on the matter.

Hi Schrafinator, You are correct in this. I had forgotten about all those Ruben's paintings of 'big ladies'. I agree with you a large part of what humans consider beautiful is cultural. And there seems to be a biological factor as well. Is that not the way everything seems to be, part nature part nurture? Thanks for the redirection. Thats why I like this board, such open minded people.

quote:

---

1) You think that there really is empirical evidence in the field of psychology which supports certan ideas and current hypothesis.

​

In my opinion there is none, and psychology remains a humanity, not a science.

---

Um, no.I think maybe you do not realize how incredibly diverse the field of Psychology is.My husband and several of our friends are in the Cognition and Perception area of a major University's Psychology department.Currently, many of them are doing functional MRI work, in which people look at a computer screen and do reaction time tasks while they are inside an MRI imager that takes pictures of their brain activity during the various tasks.Through this work, they can predict what kinds of activations they will get and where they will be in the brain.This is quite scientific, as are experiments of the same kind done without the MRI.

quote:

---

2) Yes. All but a very few systems of psychology died out with the death of the person who first ptomoted the system.

---

Good science doesn't die because it's promoter dies, but because the ideas are not sound.

quote:

---

Yes. Freud has been debased in the literature of these people to whom you refer.

---

Are you going to address the specific reasons he is rejected?

quote:

---

No. Functional Jungian Psychologies are still used clinically and in counseling, in particular, Briggs/Myers for example (do a search, there is plenty of info out there).

---

It is generally understood in research Psychology that personality tests are of limited usefulness because the results are subjectively judged and scored, making bias a problem.

quote:

---

4) But, do you deny in spite of a lack of empirical evidence, that we have a psyche?

---

What is a psyche?

quote:

---

Do you deny that we have a Pre-conscious Mind?

---

What is a Pre-conscious mind?

quote:

---

Do you believe or do you dispute, inspite of a lack of empirical proof, that there exists states of mind that can be disceribly recognized as such entities as the Human Libido?
How about Ego?

---

Do we have a sex drive? Yes.What's an ego?

quote:

---

Freud was wrong about these fundamentals and he made up these concepts? I mean, are you saying, was Carl Jung the first to observe and define Intuition? Did these earliest of men in this discipline error in recognizing archetypal manifestations that influence human behavior?

---

As Jung describes them, I do not agree that intuition and archetypes exist.

quote:

---

Or, are you merely saying that having recognized the subconscious archetypal entities, he was at a loss, as we basically so remain to this day, to utilize the insight in any dramatically practical way?

---

I think that he developed an interesting philosopy, but that's all it is. It's not based upon emperical evidence, so it's nice if you want to believe it, but it isn't based upon fact.

No problem.

Yeah, that good.You don't have to accept that we have psychological complexes like the Libido and such, its just hypothesis. You can re-invent or hypothesize brand new ideas. That's what science is all about, right?Not religion, tho'. Most of the young people I speak with today immediately connect with the ancient observations and reports of seven apparati of the mind at work. They see the meaning of these "spiritual" entities as the seven archetypal entities they observe in each other.(You might do well to add the university work in MRI analysis taking place in France today and around the world. I believe that what will gradually be confirmed, beyond the first few reports from these people, is that the brain actually has a place for everything, a storage center where information is collected and retrived. They will find that the decompartmentalized pattern to this "temple" of our thinking has twelve parts, beginning with the Twelve Cortex Functional Areas. The physiology you mention has analogy in the mysterious and never specifically identified verses found in Revelation. Here are a few, even though you are unimpressed with archaic insights and endeavor to set at anew, as have all the most recent investigators.Rev. 4:1 After this, (having shown me the sociological development of the seven church stages), I looked, and, behold, a door (of understanding) was opened in heaven (within my mind): and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things, (insights into that) which must be hereafter (the formation of the seventh church, Laocidea, in the Age of Christian Enlightenment).Rev. 4:2 And immediately I was in the spirit (of deep thought): and, behold, the throne (of the mind, the human brain) was set in heaven (appearing in my thoughts), and one, (who is the mind), sat on the throne, (the Cerebrum).Rev. 4:3 And he that sat, (the ancient predecessor of cerebral thought) was to look upon like, (two hemispheres abutted), a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow (of nerves interfacing) round about the throne, (the Corpus Callosum of its anatomy), in sight like unto an emerald.Rev. 4:4 And round about the throne, (the Cerebrum), were four and twenty seats, (twelve paired Cranial Nerves): and upon the seats, (these nerves), I saw four and twenty elders, (the senory inputs) sitting, clothed in (sheathes of) white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold, (the symbol of spiritual enlightenment).Rev. 4:5 And out of the throne (of the Cerebrum) proceeded lightnings (of electomagnetic radiations) and thunderings (of thoughts) and voices (of understandings): and there were seven (subconscious centers of communication as if) lamps of fire burning before the throne (of this Cerebrum), which are the seven (Archetypal) Spirits of God, (the Homoousios Mind).