力比多学院-心理学之家Libidos | 心理学考研,心理学考研学校排名,心理学考研参考书目,心理学考研科目


03 Foundations: Freud 基础课:弗洛伊德

2011-3-27 13:27| 发布者: 接受不齐| 查看: 7147| 评论: 0|原作者: 接受不齐


Professor Paul Bloom: Okay. The last class we talked aboutthe brain. Now we're going to talk a little bit about some foundations.So today and Monday we're going to talk about two very big ideas andthese ideas are associated with Sigmund Freud and B. F. Skinner and arepsychoanalysis and behaviorism. And I want to talk about psychoanalysistoday and behaviorism next week.
Now, one of these things--One of the things that makes thesetheories so interesting is their scope. Most of the work we're going totalk about in this class--Most of the ideas are narrow. So, we're goingto talk about somebody's idea about racial prejudice but that's not atheory of language acquisition. We'll talk about theories ofschizophrenia but they're not explanations of sexual attractiveness.Most theories are specialized theories but these two views are grandtheories. They're theories of everything, encompassing just abouteverything that matters, day-to-day life, child development, mentalillness, religion, war, love. Freud and Skinner had explanations of allof these.
Now, this is not a history course. I have zero interest indescribing historical figures in psychology just for the sake oftelling you about the history of the field. What I want to tell youabout though is--I want to talk about these ideas because so much restson them and, even more importantly, a lot of these ideas have criticalinfluence on how we think about the present. And that's there.[pointing at the slide]
Now, for better or worse, we live in a world profoundly affected bySigmund Freud. If I had to ask you to choose a--no, name a famouspsychologist, the answer of most of you would be Freud. He's the mostfamous psychologist ever and he's had a profound influence on thetwentieth and twenty-first century. Some biographical information: Hewas born in the 1850s. He spent most of his life in Vienna, Austria,but he died in London and he escaped to London soon after retreatingthere at the beginning of World War II as the Nazis began to occupywhere he lived.
He's one of the most famous scholars ever but he's not known for anysingle discovery. Instead, he's known for the development of anencompassing theory of mind, one that he developed over the span ofmany decades. He was in his time extremely well known, a celebrityrecognized on the street, and throughout his life. He was a man ofextraordinary energy and productivity, in part because he was a veryserious cocaine addict, but also just in general. He was just ahigh-energy sort of person. He was up for the Nobel Prize in medicineand in literature; didn't get either one of them; didn't get the prizein medicine because Albert Einstein--Everybody loves Albert Einstein.Well, Albert Einstein really wrote a letter because they asked foropinions of other Nobel Prizes. He wrote a letter saying, "Don't givethe prize to Freud. He doesn't deserve a Nobel Prize. He's just apsychologist." Well, yeah. Okay.
While he's almost universally acclaimed as a profoundly importantintellectual figure, he's also the object of considerable dislike. Thisis in part because of his character. He was not a very nice man in manyways. He was deeply ambitious to the cause of promoting psychoanalysis,to the cause of presenting his view and defending it, and he was oftendishonest, extremely brutal to his friends, and terrible to hisenemies. He was an interesting character.
My favorite Freud story was as he was leaving Europe during the riseof the Nazis, as he was ready to go to England from, I think, eitherGermany or Austria, he had to sign a letter from the Gestapo. Gestapoagents intercepted him and demanded he sign a letter saying that at nopoint had he been threatened or harassed by the Gestapo. So he signsthe letter and then he writes underneath it, "The Gestapo has notharmed me in any way. In fact, I highly recommend the Gestapo toeverybody." It's--He had a certain aggression to him. He was also--He'salso disliked, often hated, because of his views. He was seen as asexual renegade out to destroy the conception of people as good andrational and pure beings. And when the Nazis rose to power in the 1930she was identified as a Jew who was devoted to destroying the mostsacred notions of Christianity and to many, to some extent, many peoplesee him this way. And to some extent, this accusation has some truth toit.
Freud made claims about people that many of us, maybe most of us,would rather not know. Well, okay. What did he say? Well, if you asksomebody who doesn't like Freud what he said, they'll describe some ofthe stupider things he said and, in fact, Freud said a lot of things,some of which were not very rational. For instance, he's well known forhis account of phallic symbols, arguing certain architectural monumentsare subconsciously developed as penile representations. And related tothis, he developed the notorious theory of penis envy. And penis envyis an account of a developmental state that every one of you who isfemale has gone through, according to Freud. And the idea is that youdiscovered at some point in your development that you lacked a penis.This is not--This is a catastrophe. And so, each of you inferred atthat point that you had been castrated. You had once had a penis butsomebody had taken it from you. You then turn to your father and loveyour father because your father has a penis, so he's a sort of penissubstitute. You reject your mother, who's equally unworthy due to herpenis lack, and that shapes your psychosexual development.
Now, if that's the sort of thing you know about Freud, you are notgoing to have a very high opinion of him or of his work, but at thecore of Freud's declamation, the more interesting ideas, is a set ofclaims of a man's intellectual importance. And the two main ones arethis. The two main ones involve the existence of an unconscious,unconscious motivation, and the notion of unconscious dynamics orunconscious conflict which lead to mental illnesses, dreams, slips ofthe tongue and so on.
The first idea – the idea of unconscious motivation – involvesrejecting the claim that you know what you're doing. So, suppose youfall in love with somebody and you decide you want to marry them andthen somebody was asked to ask you why and you'd say something like,"Well, I'm ready to get married this stage of my life; I really lovethe person; the person is smart and attractive; I want to have kids"whatever. And maybe this is true. But a Freudian might say that even ifthis is your honest answer – you're not lying to anybody else –still,there are desires and motivations that govern your behavior that youmay not be aware of. So, in fact, you might want to marry John becausehe reminds you of your father or because you want to get back atsomebody for betraying you.
If somebody was to tell you this, you'd say, "That's totalnonsense," but that wouldn't deter a Freudian. The Freudian would saythat these processes are unconscious so of course you just don't knowwhat's happening. So, the radical idea here is you might not knowwhat--why you do what you do and this is something we accept for thingslike visual perception. We accept that you look around the world andyou get sensations and you figure out there is a car, there is a tree,there is a person. And you're just unconscious of how this happens butit's unpleasant and kind of frightening that this could happen, thatthis could apply to things like why you're now studying at Yale, whyyou feel the way you do towards your friends, towards your family.
Now, the marriage case is extreme but Freud gives a lot of simplerexamples where this sort of unconscious motivation might play a role.So, have you ever liked somebody or disliked them and not known why?Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you're doingsomething or you're arguing for something or making a decision forreasons that you can't fully articulate? Have you ever forgottensomebody's name at exactly the wrong time? Have you ever called out thewrong name in the throes of passion? This is all the Freudianunconscious. The idea is that we do these things--these things areexplained in terms of cognitive systems that we're not aware of.
Now, all of this would be fine if your unconscious was a reasonable,rational computer, if your unconscious was really smart and looking outfor your best interest. But, according to Freud, that's not the way itworks. According to Freud, there are three distinct processes going onin your head and these are in violent internal conflict. And the wayyou act and the way you think are products, not of a singular rationalbeing, but of a set of conflicting creatures. And these three parts arethe id, the ego, and the superego and they emerge developmentally.
The id, according to Freud, is present at birth. It's the animalpart of the self. It wants to eat, drink, pee, poop, get warm, and havesexual satisfaction. It is outrageously stupid. It works on what Freudcalled, "The Pleasure Principle." It wants pleasure and it wants itnow. And that's, according to Freud, how a human begins – pure id.Freud had this wonderful phrase, "polymorphous perversity," this puredesire for pleasure.
Now, unfortunately, life doesn't work like that. What you want isn'talways what you get and this leads to a set of reactions to cope withthe fact that pleasure isn't always there when you want it either byplanning how to satisfy your desires or planning how to suppress them.And this system is known as the ego, or the self. And it works on the"Reality Principle." And it works on the principle of trying to figureout how to make your way through the world, how to satisfy yourpleasures or, in some cases, how to give up on them. And the ego – theemergence of the ego for Freud--symbolizes the origin ofconsciousness.
Finally, if this was all there it might be a simpler world, butFreud had a third component, that of the superego. And the superego isthe internalized rules of parents in society. So, what happens in thecourse of development is, you're just trying to make your way throughthe world and satisfy your desires, but sometimes you're punished forthem. Some desires are inappropriate, some actions are wrong, andyou're punished for it. The idea is that you come out; you get in yourhead a superego, a conscience. In these movies, there'd be a littleangel above your head that tells you when things are wrong. Andbasically your self, the ego, is in between the id and thesuperego.
One thing to realize, I told you the id is outrageously stupid. Itjust says, "Oh, hungry, food, sex, oh, let's get warm, oh." Thesuperego is also stupid. The superego, point to point, is not somebrilliant moral philosopher telling you about right and wrong. Thesuperego would say, "You should be ashamed of yourself. That'sdisgusting. Stop doing that. Oh." And in between these two screamingcreatures, one of you; one of them telling you to seek out yourdesires, the other one telling you, "you should be ashamed ofyourself," is you, is the ego.
Now, according to Freud, most of this is unconscious. So, we seebubbling up to the top, we feel, we experience ourselves. And thedriving of the id, the forces of the id and the forces of the superego,are unconscious in that we cannot access them. We don't know what--It'slike the workings of our kidneys or our stomachs. You can't introspectand find them. Rather, they do their work without consciousknowledge.
Now, Freud developed this. This is the Freudian theory in broadoutline. He extended it and developed it into a theory of psychosexualdevelopment. And so, Freud's theory is, as I said before, a theory ofeveryday life, of decisions, of errors, of falling in love, but it'salso a theory of child development. So, Freud believed there were fivestages of personality development, and each is associated with aparticular erogenous zone. And Freud believed, as well, that if youhave a problem at a certain stage, if something goes wrong, you'll bestuck there. So, according to Freud, there are people in this room whoare what they are because they got stuck in the oral stage or the analstage. And that's not good.
So, the oral stage is when you start off. The mouth is associatedwith pleasure. Everything is 禁用词语ing and chewing and so on. And theproblem for Freud is premature weaning of a child. Depriving him of thebreast, could lead to serious problems in his personality development.It could make him, as the phrase goes, into an oral person. And hisorality could be described literally. Freud uses it as an explanationfor why somebody might eat too much or chew gum or smoke. They'retrying to achieve satisfaction through their mouth of a sort theydidn't get in this very early stage of development. But it can also bemore abstract. If your roommate is dependent and needy, you could thengo to your roommate and say, "You are an oral person. The first year ofyour life did not go well."
A phrase even more popular is the anal stage and that happens afterthe oral stage. And problems can emerge if toilet training is nothandled correctly. If you have problems during those years of life, youcould become an anal personality, according to Freud, and your roommatecould say, "Your problem is you're too anal." And, according to Freud,literally, it meant you are unwilling to part with your own feces. It'swritten down here. I know it's true. And the way it manifests itself,as you know from just how people talk, is you're compulsive, you'reclean, you're stingy. This is the anal personality.
Then it gets a little bit more complicated. The next stage is thephallic stage. Actually, this is not much more complicated. The focusof pleasure shifts to the genitals and fixation can lead to excessivemasculinity in females or in males or if you're female a need forattention or domination. Now, at this point something reallyinteresting happens called the "Oedipus Complex." And this is based onthe story, the mythical story of a king who killed his father andmarried his mother. And, according to Freud, this happens to all of usin this way. Well, all of us. By "all of us," Freud meant "men."
So, here's the idea. You're three or four years old. You're in thephallic stage. So, what are you interested in? Well, you're interestedin your penis and then you seek an external object. Freud's sort ofvague about this, but you seek some sort of satisfaction. But who isout there who'd be sweet and kind and loving and wonderful? Well, Mom.So the child infers, "Mom is nice, I love Mom." So far so--And so thisis not crazy; a little boy falling in love with his mother. Problem:Dad's in the way.
Now, this is going to get progressively weirder but I will have tosay, as the father of two sons, both sons went through a phase wherethey explicitly said they wanted to marry Mommy. And me – if somethingbad happened to me that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. So,there's this. But now it gets a little bit aggressive. So, the idea isthe child determines that he's going to kill his father. Every three-and four-year-old boy thinks this. But then because children, accordingto Freud, don't have a good sense of the boundary between their mindand the world, which is a problem – the problem is they don't – theythink their father can tell that they're plotting to kill him and theyfigure their father is now angry at them. And then they ask themselves,"What's the worst thing Dad could do to me?" And the answer iscastration. So, they come to the conclusion that their father is goingto castrate them because of their illicit love for their Mom. And thenthey say, "Dad wins" and then they don't think about sex for severalyears and that's the latency stage.
The latency stage is they've gone through this huge thing with Momand Dad, "fell in love with Mom, wanted to kill my father, Dad wasgoing to castrate me, fell out of love with Mom, out of the sexbusiness." And then, sex is repressed until you get to the genitalstage. And the genital stage is the stage we are all in – the healthyadult stage. Now that you're adults and you've gone through all thedevelopmental stages, where do you stand? You're not out of the woodsyet because unconscious mechanisms are still--Even if you haven't gotfixated on anything, there's still this dynamic going on all the timewith your id, your ego and your superego. And the idea is yoursuperego--Remember, your superego is stupid. So, your superego isn'tonly telling you not to do bad things, it's telling you not to thinkbad things. So, what's happening is your id is sending up all of thisweird, sick stuff, all of these crazy sexual and violent desires, "Oh,I'll kill him. I'll have sex with that. I'll have extra helpings on mydessert." And your superego is saying, "No, no, no." And this stuff isrepressed. It doesn't even make it to consciousness.
The problem is Freud had a very sort of hydraulic theory of whatgoes on and some of this stuff slips out and it shows up in dreams andit shows up in slips of the tongue. And in exceptional cases, it showsup in certain clinical symptoms. So what happens is, Freud described alot of normal life in terms of different ways we use to keep thathorrible stuff from the id making its way to consciousness. And hecalled these "defense mechanisms." You're defending yourself againstthe horrible parts of yourself and some of these make a little bit ofsense.
One way to describe this in a non-technical, non-Freudian way is,there are certain things about ourselves we'd rather not know. Thereare certain desires we'd rather not know and we have ways to hide them.So, for instance, there's sublimation. Sublimation is you might have alot of energy, maybe sexual energy or aggressive energy, but instead ofturning it to a sexual or aggressive target what you do is you focus itin some other way. So, you can imagine a great artist like Picassoturning the sexual energy into his artwork.
There is displacement. Displacement is you have certain shamefulthoughts or desires and you refocus them more appropriately. A boywho's bullied by his father may hate his father and want to hurt himbut since this would--this is very shameful and difficult. The boymight instead kick the dog and think he hates the dog because that's amore acceptable target.
There is projection. Projection is, I have certain impulses I amuncomfortable with, so rather than own them myself, I project them tosomebody else. A classic example for Freud is homosexual desires. Theidea is that I feel this tremendous lust towards you, for instance,and--any of you, all of you, you three, and I'm ashamed of this lust sowhat I say is, "Hey. Are you guys looking at me in a sexual manner? Areyou lusting after me? How disgusting," because what I do is I take myown desires and I project it to others. And Freud suggested, perhapsnot implausibly, that men who believe other men--who are obsessed withthe sexuality of other men, are themselves projecting away their ownsexual desires.
There is rationalization, which is that when you do something orthink something bad you rationalize it and you give it a more sociallyacceptable explanation. A parent who enjoys smacking his child willtypically not say, "I enjoy smacking my child." Rather he'll say, "It'sfor the child's own good. I'm being a good parent by doing this."
And finally, there is regression, which is returning to an earlierstage of development. And you actually see this in children. In timesof stress and trauma, they'll become younger, they will act younger.They might cry. They might 禁用词语 their thumb, seek out a blanket or soon. Now, these are all mechanisms that for Freud are not the slightestbit pathological. They are part of normal life. Normally, we do thesethings to keep an equilibrium among the different systems of theunconscious, but sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes things go awryand what happens is a phrase that's not currently used in psychologybut was popular during Freud's time: hysteria.
Hysteria includes phenomena like hysterical blindness and hystericaldeafness, which is when you cannot see and cannot hear even thoughthere's nothing physiologically wrong with you – paralysis, trembling,panic attacks, gaps of memory including amnesia and so on. And the ideais that these are actually symptoms. These are symptoms of mechanismsgoing on to keep things unconscious. It's a common enough idea inmovies. Often in movies what happens is that somebody goes to ananalyst. They have some horrible problem. They can't remember somethingor they have some sort of blackouts and so on. And the analyst tellsthem something and at one point they get this insight and they realizewhat--why they've blinded themselves, why they can't remember, and forFreud this is what happens. Freud originally attempted to get thesememories out through hypnosis but then moved to the mechanism of freeassociation and, according to Freud, the idea is patients offerresistance to this and then the idea of a psychoanalyst is to get overthe resistance and help patients get insight.
The key notion of psychoanalysis is your problems are--actuallyreflect deeper phenomena. You're hiding something from yourself, andonce you know what's going on to deeper phenomena your problems will goaway. I'm going to give you an example of a therapy session. Now, thisis not a Freudian analysis. We'll discuss later on in the course what aFreudian analysis is, but this is not a pure Freudian analysis. AFreudian analysis, of course, is lying on a couch; does not see theirtherapist; their therapist is very nondirective. But I'm going topresent this as an example here because it illustrates so many of theFreudian themes, particularly themes about dreams, the importance ofdreams, about repression and about hidden meaning.
So, this is from a television episode and thecharacter's--Many--Some of you may have seen this. Many of you will nothave. The character is suffering from panic attacks. [Professor PaulBloom plays a short episode from the Sopranos]
Freud's contributions extend beyond the study of individualpsychology and individual pathology. Freud had a lot to say aboutdreams as you could see in this illustration. He believed that dreamshad a manifest content, meaning; "manifest" meaning what you experiencein your dream. But dreams always had a latent content as well, meaningthe hidden implication of the dream. He viewed all dreams as wishfulfillment. Every dream you have is a certain wish you have eventhough it might be a forbidden wish that you wouldn't wish to have, youwouldn't want to have. And dreams had--and this is an idea that longpredated Freud. Dreams had symbolism. Things in dreams were often notwhat they seemed to be but rather symbols for other things. Freudbelieved that literature and fairy tales and stories to children andthe like carried certain universal themes, certain aspects ofunconscious struggles, and certain preoccupations of our unconsciousmind. And Freud had a lot to say about religion. For instance, heviewed a large part of our--of the idea of finding a singular,all-powerful god as seeking out a father figure that some of us neverhad during development.
What I want to spend the rest of the class on is the scientificassessment of Freud. So, what I did so far is I've told you what Freudhad to say in broad outline. I then want to take the time to considerwhether or not we should believe this and how well it fits with ourmodern science. But before doing so, I'll take questions for a fewminutes. Do people have any questions about Freud or Freud's theories?Yes.
Student: [inaudible]
Professor Paul Bloom: So, that's some question. The questionis: The conflicts in psychosexual development that Freud describesis--always assumes that a child has a mother and a father, one of each,in a certain sort of familial structure. And the question then is,"What if a child was raised by a single parent, for example?" What if achild was never breast fed, but fed from the bottle from the start? AndFreudians have had problems with this. Freud's--Freud was very focusedon the family life of the people he interacted with, which is ratherupper class Europeans, and these sort of questions would have beendifficult for Freud to answer. I imagine that what a Freudian wouldhave to say is, you would expect systematic differences. So, you wouldexpect a child who just grew up with a mother or just grew up to be afather--with a father to be in some sense psychologically damaged bythat, failing to go through the normal psychosexual stages. Yes.
Student: [inaudible]
Professor Paul Bloom: The issue--The question is, "Do modernpsychoanalysts still believe that women do not have superegos?" Freudwas--As you're pointing out, Freud was notorious for pointing, forsuggesting that women were morally immature relative to men. I thinkFreud would say that women have superegos, they're just not the sort ofsturdy ones that men have. I think psychoanalysts and psychoanalyticscholars right now would be mixed. Some would maintain that therereally are deep sex differences. Others would want to jettison thataspect of Freudian theory. Yes.
Student: Do you define sublimation as being displacement?Does that make it sort of a subgroup of displacement?
Professor Paul Bloom: Well, what sublimation is--A lot ofthese--It's a good question. The question is sort of, what issublimation? How does it relate to the other defense mechanisms? A lotof defense mechanisms involve taking a desire and turning it. Now, whatdisplacement does is it takes it from you to her. I'm angry at you butmaybe that's forbidden for some reason, so I'll be angry at her. Whatprojection does is takes a desire from me and then puts it on somebodyelse heading outwards. And what sublimation does is it just gives upthe details and keeps the energy. So, you stay up--Your roommate staysup all night working and you say to your roommate, for instance,"That's just because you haven't had sex in a long time and you want tohave sex so you devote all your energy to your math exam." And then yousay, "That's sublimation. I learned that in Intro Psych." And yourroommate would be very pleased. One more question. Yes.
Student: What kind of evidence is there for cross-culturalvariation?
Professor Paul Bloom: The question is, which is related tothe issue--extending the issue of the two-parent versus one-parentfamily is, "To what extent are these notions validatedcross-culturally?" And that's such a good question I'm going to deferit. I'm going to talk about it in a few minutes because that'sactually--That speaks to the issue of the scientific assessment ofFreud so I'm going to try to get to your question in a little bit.
Freudian theory is now, at this point of time, extremelycontroversial and there is a lot of well-known criticisms and attackson Freud. This is just actually an excellent book onThe MemoryWarsby Frederick Crews, which--and Frederick Crews is one of thestrongest and most passionate critics of Freud. And the problems withFreud go like this. There are two ways you could reject a theory. Thereare two problems with the scientific theory. One way you could reject atheory is that it could be wrong. So, suppose I have a theory that thereason why some children have autism, a profound developmentaldisorder, is because their mothers don't love them enough. This was apopular theory for many years. It's a possible theory. It just turnsout to be wrong but another way--And so one way to attack and address ascientific theory is to view it as just to see whether or not it works.But there's a different problem a theory could have. A theory could beso vague and all encompassing that it can't even be tested. And this isone of the main critiques of Freud. The idea could be summed up by aquotation from the physicist Wolfgang Pauli. And Pauli was asked hisopinion about another physicist. And Pauli said this: "That guy's workis crap. He's not right. He's not even wrong." And the criticism aboutFreud is that he's not even wrong.
The issue of vagueness is summarized in a more technical way by thephilosopher Karl Popper who described--who introduced the term offalsifiability. The idea of falsifiability is that what distinguishesscience from non science is that scientific predictions make strongclaims about the world and these claims are of a sort that they couldbe proven wrong. If they couldn't be proven wrong, they're notinteresting enough to be science. So, for example, within psychologythe sort of claims we'll be entertaining throughout the course includeclaims like, damage to the hippocampus causes failures of certain sortsof memory, or everywhere in the world men on average want to have moresexual partners than women, or exposure to violent television tends tomake children themselves more violent. Now, are they true or are theyfalse? Well, we'll talk about that, but the point here is they can befalse. They're interesting enough that they can be tested and as suchthey go to--they might be wrong but they graduate to the level of ascientific theory.
This should be contrasted with nonscientific programs and the bestexample of a nonscientific program is astrology. So, the problem withastrological predictions is not that they're wrong. It's that theycan't be wrong. They're not even wrong. I did my--I got my horoscopefor today on the web. [reading from a slide] "A couple of negativeaspects could make you a little finicky for the next few days." Okay.I'm going to watch for that. "The presence of both Mars and Venussuggests you want to box everything into a neat, ordered, structuredway but keeping a piece of jade or carnelian close will help you keepin touch with your fun side." And starting this morning I got from mywife a little piece of jade and I have been sort of in touch with myfun side. The problem is, a few days aren't going to go by and say,"God. That was wrong." It can't be wrong. It's just so vague. I got abetter horoscope fromThe Onionactually: "Riding in a golf cartwith snow cone in hand, you'll be tackled by two police officers thisweek after matching a composite caricature of a suspected murderer."Now, that's a good prediction because "wow." If it turns out to betrue, I'm going to say, "Those guys really know something." It'sfalsifiable.
Arguably, Freud fails the test because Freudian theory is often sovague and flexible that it can't really be tested in any reliable way.A big problem with this is a lot of Freudian theory is claimed to bevalidated in the course of psychoanalysis. So, when you ask people,"Why do you believe in Freud?" they won't say, "Oh, because of thisexperiment, that experiment, this data set and that data set." Whatthey'll say is, "It's--The Freudian theory proves itself in the courseof psychoanalysis – the success of psychoanalysis." But it'sunreliable. The problem is, say, Freud says to a patient, "You hateyour mother." The patient says, "Wow. That makes sense." Freud says,"I'm right." The patient--Freud says, "You hate your mother," and thepatient says, "No, I don't. That's titillating. That's disgusting."Freud says, "Your anger shows this idea is painful to you. You haverepressed it from consciousness. I am right."
And the problem is the same sort of dynamic plays itself out even inthe scientific debate back and forth. So Freud--Freudianpsychologists--I'm putting Freud here but what I mean is well-knowndefenders of Freud will make some claims like: adult personality traitsare shaped by the course of psychosexual development; all dreams aredisguised wish fulfillment; psychoanalysis is the best treatment formental disorders. Scientists will respond, "I disagree. There's littleor no evidence supporting those claims." And the Freudian response is,"Your rejection of my ideas shows that they are distressing to you.This is because I am right." And this is often followed up, seriouslyenough. "You have deep psychological problems."
And now, I don't want to caricature Freudians. A lot of Freudianshave tried and made a research program of extending their ideasscientifically, bringing them to robust scientific tests. But theproblem is, when you make specific falsifiable predictions they don'talways do that well. So, for instance, there's no evidence that oraland anal characteristics, the personality characteristics I talkedabout – about being needy versus being stingy – relate in anyinteresting way to weaning or toilet training.
And there's been some efforts cross-culturally, to go back to thequestion this young man asked before – looking at cross-culturaldifferences in toilet training and weaning, which are really bigdifferences, to see if they correspond in any interesting way topersonality differences. And there's been no good evidence supportingthat. Similarly, Freud had some strong claims about sexuality, for whysome people are straight and others are gay. These have met with verylittle empirical support. And the claim that psychoanalysis provesitself by being--by its tremendous success in curing mental illness isalso almost certainly not true. For most--Maybe not all, but for mostpsychological disorders, there are quicker and more reliable treatmentsthan psychoanalysis. And there's considerable controversy as to whetherthe Tony Soprano method of insight, where you get this insight andthere's discovery, "Oh, now I know," makes any real difference inalleviating symptoms such as anxiety disorders or depression.
This is why there's sort of--often sort of a sticker shock whenpeople go to a university psychology department where they say, "Look.Hey. Where is--So I'm in Psych. How could I take classes on Freud?Who's your expert on Freud?" And the truth is Freudian psychoanalysisis almost never studied inside psychology departments. Not thecognitive or developmental side, not the clinical side. There are someexceptions but, for the most part, even the people who do study Freudwithin psychology departments do so critically. Very few of them wouldsee themselves as a psychoanalytic practitioner or as a Freudianpsychologist.
Freud lives on both in a clinical setting and in the university butFreud at Yale, for instance, is much more likely to be found in thehistory department or the literature department than in the psychologydepartment. And this is typical enough but, despite all of the, sortof, sour things I just said about Freud, the big idea, the importanceof the dynamic unconscious, remains intact. We will go over and overand over again different case studies where some really interestingaspects of mental life prove to be unconscious.
Now, there's one question. I'm actually going to skip over this forreasons of time and just go to some examples of the unconscious inmodern psychology. So, here's a simple example of the unconscious inmodern psychology: Language understanding. So, when you hear a sentencelike, "John thinks that Bill likes him," in a fraction of a second yourealize that this means that John thinks that Bill likes John. If youheard the sentence--Oops--"John thinks that Bill likes himself," in afraction of a second you would think that it means "John thinks thatBill likes Bill." And as we will get to when we get to the lecture onlanguage, this is not conscious. You don't know how you do this. Youdon't even know that you are doing this but you do it quickly andinstinctively.
So much of our day-to-day life can be done unconsciously. There aredifferent activities you can do – driving, chewing gum, shoelace tying– where if you're good enough at them, if you're expert enough at them,you don't know you're doing them. I was at a party a few years ago fora friend of mine and we ran out of food so he said, "I'll just go pickup some food." An hour later he was gone--still gone and it was aroundthe corner. And we called him up on his cell phone and he said, "Oh. Igot on the highway and I drove to work." Yeah. He works an hour awaybut he got on the highway "drive drive drive." And these--some versionof these things happen all of the time.
Maybe more surprising, Freud's insight that our likes and dislikesare due to factors that we're not necessarily conscious of has a lot ofempirical support--a lot of empirical support from research into socialpsychology, for example. So, here's one finding from social psychology.If somebody goes through a terrible initiation to get into a club,they'll like the club more. You might think they'd like it less becausepeople do terrible things to them. But actually, hazing is illegal buta remarkably successful tool. The more you pay for something the moreyou like it and the more pain you go through to get something the moreyou like it. From the standpoint of politics for instance, if you wantloyal people in a political campaign, do not pay them. If you pay them,they'll like you less. If they volunteer, they'll like you more. Andwe'll talk about why. There's different theories about why, but mypoint right now is simply that people don't necessarily know this butstill they're subject to this.
Another example is some weird studies done in a discipline of socialpsychology known as terror management which involves subliminal deathprimes. The idea of subliminal death primes is this. You sign up foryour human subjects requirement and then you--they put you in front ofa computer screen and then they tell you, "Oh, just sit in front of thecomputer screen and then we'll ask you some questions." And then thequestions come out and they're questions like, "How much do you loveyour country?" "What do you think of Asians?" "What do you think ofJews?" "What do you think of blacks?" "What do you think ofvegetarians?" "What do you think of people's political views differentfrom yours?"
Here's the gimmick. What you don't know is on that computer screenwords are being flashed like that but they're being flashed so fast itlooks like that--You don't see anything--words like "corpse," "dead,""dying." The flashing of these subliminal words, "subliminal" meaning –a fancy term meaning below the level of consciousness, you don't knowyou're seeing them – has dramatic effects on how you answer thosequestions. People exposed to death primes become more nationalistic,more patriotic, less forgiving of other people, less liking of otherraces and people from other countries. Again the claim--the explanationfor why this is so is something which we'll get to in another class.The point now is simply to illustrate that these sort of things canhave--that things you aren't aware of can have an effect on how youthink.
The final example I'll give of this is a short demonstration. To dothis, I'm going to cut the class in half at this point so you'll be onthis side of the class, the right side, my right, and this will be onthe left side, and I simply want everybody to think about somebody youlove. So, think about somebody you love, your girlfriend, yourboyfriend, your mom, your dad. Think about somebody you love. Justthink. Okay. Now, on this screen is going to be instructions but I wantto give the instructions to this half of the class [pointing to hisright]. I'm going to ask everybody in this half of the class [pointingto his left] please either turn your head or shut your eyes. Okay?Teaching fellows too. Okay. And everybody on this half obey [pointingto his right]. Okay. Has everybody read that [pointing to the slide]?Okay. Now, turn your head, this group [pointing to his right]. Now thisgroup [pointing to his left]: Look at this [pointing to instructions onthe slide] and take a moment. You don't have to do it on paper but takea moment to do it in your head. You--Each group had instructions. Somepeople might have seen both instructions. Follow the instructions yougot for you.
Now, this was research done by Norbert Schwarz and here's thequestion I want you to ask yourself, "How much do you like thisperson?" And here's the effect: Half of you were asked to list threefeatures of the person. Half of you were asked to list ten. Thefinding, which is not a subtle finding, is that liking goes up in thethree group and liking goes down in the ten group. And here is why. Ihave to think about three positive features of somebody so I thinkabout my girlfriend. I have a girlfriend. I think about my girlfriend,"but oh, she's smart, she's beautiful and she's kind. Good. How muchdo--What do I think of her? "Pretty, good, smart, beautiful, kind,smart, beautiful, oh, yeah." But the problem--;Now, Schwarz is cleverthough. He says, "List--" The other group gets ten positive features,"smart, beautiful, kind… really nice… good cook… punctual, smart… No, Imentioned that." The problem is nobody has ten positive features! Andthe effect of being asked to do ten positive features is people findthis hard. And then those people, when asked, "How much do you likethis person?" say, "Couldn't really make it that ten. I guess I don'tlike them very much."
Now, the point of this illustration, again, is that it shows thatyou don't know this. Subjects who were asked to do ten positivefeatures and then later ranked the person lower and then asked, "Whydid you rank the person lower?" Don't say, "'Cause you told me to listten." Typically, we are oblivious to these factors that change ourpoints – what we like and what we dislike – and this is, in fact, asubstantial and an important part of the study of psychology, andparticularly, for instance, the study of racial and sexual prejudice.Where--One of the big findings from social psychology, and we'll devotealmost an entire lecture to this, is that people have strong viewsabout other races that they don't know about and that they don't knowhow to control their actions.
So, to some extent, this rounds out Freud because to some extent theparticulars of Freud are--for the most part have been rejected. But thegeneral idea of Freud's actually been so successful both in the studyof scientific psychology and in our interpretation of everyday lifethat, to some extent, Freud's been a victim of his own success. We tendto underestimate the importance of Freudian thought in everyday lifebecause he's transformed our world view to such an extent that it'sdifficult for us to remember if there's any other way to think aboutit. So, to some extent, he's been the victim of his own success.
We have time for some further questions about Freud and aboutscientific implications of Freud. I took a class once on how to teachwhen I was a graduate student. And I just remember two things from thisclass. One thing is never grade in red pen. Those--People don't likethat. The second thing is never ask any questions, because presumablyit is very frightening to ask, "Any questions?" and people find it'sintimidating. I'm supposed to ask, "What are your questions?" So, whatare your questions? Yes, in back. Sorry.
Student: Did Freud believe in [inaudible]
Professor Paul Bloom: Did Freud believe in [inaudible]
Student: Medication
Professor Paul Bloom: Medication. Freud had an--It's a goodquestion. The question was, "Does--did Freud believe in medication?"Medication, of course, being a major theme of how we deal with certaindisorders now, particularly depression and anxiety disorders. On theone hand, Freud made his start as a neuroscientist. Freud studied themind and the brain and was intensely interested in the neural basis ofthought and behavior. But the answer to your question in the end is,"no." Although Freud was very sensitive to the brain basis of behavior,Freud was totally convinced that the method through which to curedisorders like depression and anxiety would not be medication butrather through the sort of talk therapy and insight. Moreover, moderntherapists, including some people who aren't psychoanalyticallydefined, will say, "Look. These drugs are all well and good but whatthey do is they mask the symptoms." So, if you have panic attacks, say,it's true that drugs might make the panic attacks go away, but thepanic attacks are actually not your real problem. And by making them goaway you don't get to the root of your problem. So, the answer is bothFreud and modern day psychoanalysts would think that medications aresubstantially overused in the treatment of mental disorders. Yes.
Student: Are there any [inaudible]
Professor Paul Bloom: The question is, "What about researchon dreams?" "Dreams" is such a fun topic that I'm going to devote halfa class to sleeping and dreams. So, for instance, I will answer thequestion "What is the most common dream?" I will also answer thequestion "Who thinks about sex more in dreams, men or women, and whatproportion of--" Oh. There's so many great questions I will answer.Dreams from a Freudian standpoint. There's been some evidence thatdreams do, and some often do, have some relationship to what you'rethinking about and worrying about through the day. But the strongFreudian view about symbolism and wish fulfillment has not beensupported by the study of dreams. What are your other questions? Yes,whoever Erik is pointing to.
Professor Paul Bloom: Purple shirt. Yes.
Student: [inaudible]--Electra complex?
Professor Paul Bloom: The Electra complex? The Electracomplex is the penis envy story. Freud developed--This is a crudesummary, but Freud developed the Oedipal complex, "Mom, I love Mommy,Dad." And then it's as if somebody reminded him, "Sigmund, there arealso women." "Oh, yeah." And that story I told you with the penises andthe penis envy and the replacement is sort of a very shortened versionof the Electra complex. I think it's fair to say that the Electracomplex was a sort of add-on to the main interest of Freud's Oedipalcomplex. One more, please. Yes.
Student: [inaudible]
Professor Paul Bloom: According to Freud, the--there's not afixation in the stage, in the same sense as an oral or anal stage, butyes. The claim that Freud would make is that the woman's discovery thatshe lacks the penis plays a fundamental role later on determining herallegiances in life and in fact her own sexual preferences andinterests. So, it's not the sort of thing that affects her just for ashort period.
[end of transcript]

刚表态过的朋友 (0 人)

转播到腾讯微博
关闭

新闻推荐上一条 /3 下一条

返回顶部