Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!tedrick
From: tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Science and Freud
Message-ID: <13959@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sat, 24-May-86 00:46:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.13959
Posted: Sat May 24 00:46:10 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 25-May-86 17:27:07 EDT
References: <13695@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <457@gargoyle.UUCP> <260@spar.UUCP> <13849@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <8348@kestrel.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tom Tedrick)
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 83

(Ellis)
>>>Seriously, as one who, in the past, has held Freud's "distasteful" theories
>>>in low regard, I urge Matthew to reconsider his opinions about one of
>>>the most creative thinkers in history. 

(Tedrick)
>> Having personally had to deal with many unthinking dupes of
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> psychological brainwashing (there are LOTS of them in California),
>> I believe psychology is in some respects no more
>> valid than witchcraft

(Ladkin)
>Psychology is the study of human behaviour in general.
>I'm glad you hedged your statement.

Matthew first pointed out to me that I often use that method to
say whatever I want without really commiting a fallacy.

I think I will avoid going into this further, except to say that
I am interested in how witchcraft affects people, and that I have
noticed similarities between witchcraft and applied psychology.
I will probably get flamed for saying that, but what the heck.

>Just because you
>dislike some aspects of pop culture,

False! Fantastic! I caught Peter in a false statement! Great!

It is not just that I dislike some aspects of pop culture.
I have had to deal personally (as I explicitly said above)
with many people in the California psychological movements.
I don't feel its appropriate to go into this further, as
it is not appropriate to post certain types of information 
where it is available to the public. My personal life has been 
adversely affected in a significant way by psychological dogma,
in particular through Freudian dogma. It is not appropriate
to post particular details in a public forum.

>you blast the field
>in general?

I don't (and didn't) blast the field in general, did I? I thought
I made the point that disproportionate emphasis has been placed
on psychology and not enough on logic. (This was in the original
posting, not the excerpt above.)

>Michael is entirely right about Freud. Whether or not we
>currently like or dislike consequences of his work is only
>partly to be attributed to the originator.

I agree he was creative. I disagree about the value of what he created.

>> Pop psychology in the form of mass cultism (EST for example) has
>> misled millions of naive people, and is highly dangerous to society
>> as well as to the individual.

>I tend to dislike ESTish interactions, and avoid them. I have
>some friends who are the opposite. *Highly dangerous* is an
>extreme attribution, and one I cannot agree with. 

Well, they have been highly dangerous to me personally.

>There are common behaviour patterns that I dislike far 
>more than ESTishness. ESTishness in friends never hurt me. 

Wait until you have family members in EST, then let me know
if you still feel that way.

>Other behaviour has caused me grief for months
>(usually, you guessed it, with regard to lovers).

ESTians have caused me grief for many years (15 by now? Has EST
been here that long already?)

>Why do you feel so strongly?

Personal experience.

>Do you have an argument
>for this view, or is this another throwaway opinion?

I have an argument. I am not ready to put the details in public view.