History Analysis / AllPsychologyIsFreudian

Since Freud's theories had a sizable impact on the arts, humanities and social science, and these days actual neuroscience, his model of psychology remains the most familiar and accessible, and remains highly influential, despite repeated criticism of his work as being "obsolete", at least in the Anglophone. Some of Freud's admirers, such as the literary critic Harold Bloom, argues that Freud is more of a philosopher than scientist, and feel that his work is best accepted in this fashion. [[http://discovermagazine.com/2014/april/14-the-second-coming-of-sigmund-freud Modern neuroscience]] argues that Freud's work is so singular that later psychological models have little to improve on him and to them this would very much be a JustifiedTrope, under the caveat that his work is more useful in neuroscience, and should be considered in that light. A lot of the problems with this concept stem from misunderstandings of Freud, whose body of work discussed a range of issues beyond the few stereotypes people still hold over him. Scientists such as Henri Laborit and Nobel Prize winner Eric Kandel believe that Freud came closer than anyone to understand how the human mind works. Classic psychoanalysis, updated remains dominant in France and parts of South America, especially under the influence of Lacan, whose work is mostly considered (as he considered himself) as a Freud 2.0 (with whole new features!).

Freudian concepts are still around in psychology, but ironically in the field of psychiatry, "classic" Freudian psychology is seen as outdated, at least in America (where during The40s to The80s it had been dominant). The most widely accepted Freudian theories like "The Talking Cure" (therapy) and the "FreudianExcuse" is still mainstream across the Anglophone but the basis for it is no longer grounded on the intuitive and interpretive model of Freud's. Much of the basic therapy techniques that most people are familiar with looks like Freud's theories and treatment. Also, most intro to psychology textbooks begin with a history section that often starts with Freud, and history textbooks often focus on Freud when psychology is discussed.

* Humanistic (a field that grew out of a combination of behavioral and psychoanalytic psychology, which holds that the best way to help the patient is to build a trusting relationship with them, and help them achieve self actualization and creative expression in life).

Freudian concepts are still around in psychology, but ironically in the field of psychiatry, "classic" Freudian psychology is seen as outdated, at least in America (where during TheForties to TheEighties it had been dominant). The most widely accepted Freudian theories like "The Talking Cure" (therapy) and the "FreudianExcuse" is still mainstream across the Anglophone but the basis for it is no longer grounded on the intuitive and interpretive model of Freud's. Much of the basic therapy techniques that most people are familiar with looks like Freud's theories and treatment. Also, most intro to psychology textbooks begin with a history section that often starts with Freud, and history textbooks often focus on Freud when psychology is discussed.

One important factor to consider in his biggest blunders is that Freud's patients were mostly people with mental disorders or internal conflicts severe enough to get them sent to the famous psychologist, and humans being humans control subjects for psychological analysis are hard to come by. Some of his more derided ideas border on AluminumChristmasTrees in that while he often over-generalized the issues of individual patients to humanity as a whole, those ideas were based on actual case studies with people who did have such issues. For instance, he traced at least one patient's issues to the fact that they felt they should have been born male, something they first realized in childhood. While incorrect in generalizing this to all women as "Penis Envy", he did identify [[{{Transgender}} the sense that one was born the wrong sex]] as the ''cause'' rather than the ''effect'' of that patient's emotional issues.[[note]]That is to say, he had the radical thought that they did not feel they were the wrong sex because they were emotionally disturbed- they were emotionally disturbed because of a lifetime of feeling they were the wrong sex and being told that this made them a bad person.[[/note]] Given the lack of other options available at the time, his attempts to help that patient accept being female put the whole matter in a very different light, with slightly less ValuesDissonance.

While quirks and [[FreudianSlip turns of phrase]] can reveal a lot about a person, sometimes a person just likes the color blue for no real particular reason, and other people just have weird but harmless fixations, fetishes, or recurring dreams for the same reason. Even the ones that do have meaning don't necessarily mean there's something wrong with a person, any more than [[TropesAreNotBad displaying a trope makes a story bad]]. They do, however, offer clues about what makes a person tick, and they can often be affected by underlying issues.

In other cases, his training as a doctor rather than a scientist caused him to discard important realizations because they weren't useful for the treatment of patients. In one of the most interesting examples, he sketched out a simple diagram and some musings in one of his notebooks. This diagram outlined the basis of both Skinner's behavior-reinforcement model of behavior and suggests a hypothesis nearly identical to the modern neurobiological synapse-entrainment explanation of learning and concept association. Lacking pragmatic utility, however, to Freud it was just an idle musing barely worth jotting down, let alone studying or sharing.

One important factor to consider in his biggest blunders is that Freud's patients were mostly [[CaptainObvious people with mental disorders or internal conflicts severe enough to get them sent to the famous psychologist]], and humans being humans control subjects for psychological analysis are hard to come by. Some of his more derided ideas border on AluminumChristmasTrees in that while he often over-generalized the issues of individual patients to humanity as a whole, those ideas were based on actual case studies with people who did have such issues. For instance, he traced at least one patient's issues to the fact that they felt they should have been born male, something they first realized in childhood. While incorrect in generalizing this to all women as "Penis Envy", he did identify [[{{Transgender}} the sense that one was born the wrong sex]] as the ''cause'' rather than the ''effect'' of that patient's emotional issues.[[note]]That is to say, he had the radical thought that they did not feel they were the wrong sex because they were emotionally disturbed- they were emotionally disturbed because of a lifetime of feeling they were the wrong sex and being told that this made them a bad person.[[/note]] Given the lack of other options available at the time, his attempts to help that patient accept being female put the whole matter in a very different light, with slightly less ValuesDissonance.

One important factor to consider in his biggest blunders is that Freud's patients were mostly [[CaptainObvious people with mental disorders or internal conflicts severe enough to get them sent to the famous psychologist]], and humans being humans control subjects for psychological analysis are hard to come by. Some of his more derided ideas border on AluminumChristmasTrees in that while he often over-generalized the issues of individual patients to humanity as a whole, those ideas were based on actual case studies with people who did have such issues. For instance, he traced at least one patient's issues to the fact that they felt they should have been born male, something they first realized in childhood. While incorrect in generalizing this to all women as "Penis Envy", he did identify [[UsefulNotes/{{Transgender}} the sense that one was born the wrong sex]] as the ''cause'' rather than the ''effect'' of that patient's emotional issues.[[note]]That is to say, he had the radical thought that they did not feel they were the wrong sex because they were emotionally disturbed- they were emotionally disturbed because of a lifetime of feeling they were the wrong sex and being told that this made them a bad person.[[/note]] Given the lack of other options available at the time, his attempts to help that patient accept being female put the whole matter in a very different light, with slightly less ValuesDissonance.

If a psychologist is asking about the patient's parents and childhood, sees sexuality as the lens to interpret everything the patient says, then he would be stereotypically Freudian. If he uses lots of projective tests like the Rorschach ink blot test or word association, you're probably looking at television's idea of Freudian psychology (since Freud never used these inkblots).

One important factor to consider in his biggest blunders is that Freud's patients were mostly [[CaptainObvious people with mental disorders or internal conflicts severe enough to get them sent to the famous psychologist]], and humans being humans control subjects for psychological analysis are hard to come by. Some of his more derided ideas border on AluminumChristmasTrees in that while he often over-generalized the issues of individual patients to humanity as a whole, those ideas were based on actual case studies with people who did have such issues. For instance, he traced at least one patient's issues to the fact that they felt they should have been born male, something they first realized in childhood. While incorrect in generalizing this to all women as "Penis Envy", he did identify [[UsefulNotes/{{Transgender}} the sense that one was born the wrong sex]] as the ''cause'' rather than the ''effect'' of that patient's emotional issues.[[note]]That is to say, he had the radical thought that they did not feel they were the wrong sex because they were emotionally disturbed- they were emotionally disturbed because of a lifetime of feeling they were the wrong sex and being told that this made them a bad person.[[/note]] Given the lack of other options available at the time, his attempts to help that patient accept being female put the whole matter in a very different light, with slightly less ValuesDissonance.

* Psychodynamic-These days based ''loosely'' on the works of Freud and contemporaries of his like Jung, Adler, and Erikson, and the premise that childhood experiences shape the adult human.
* Behaviorism-Pioneered by people like Watson and Skinner, based on the premise that attempted objective research on internal mental processes is unreliable at best. They focused on rigorous scientific experimentation on outward behavior of organisms in response to stimuli. They believed that every human is born as a blank slate and must develop their personality and behavior entirely through their experiences. This outdated philosophy eventually fell out of fashion when the Cognitive Revolution began.

* Cognitive-A response to the Behaviorists' mostly ignoring internal mental states, it focuses on the ways people think, learn, and remember. Noam Chomsky's critique of Skinner was part of the paradigm change that was described as the Cognitive Revolution.
* Biological-Focusing on physiological causes of behavior and mental illness; most of the research into psychotropic drugs comes out of this field, but not much in the way of therapy.
* Evolutionary-Focused on determining which aspects of human behavior are genetic, and then tries to determine how those genes were naturally selected--a research-only field, with minimal therapeutic applications.
* Sociocultural-Focuses on how behavior is shaped by social and cultural influences--like evolutionary psych, is basically research-only.
* Systemic-Not technically a paradigm of its own but rather a type of therapy, also known as "Family Therapy." It treats all behavior as "making sense in context" of the system they're part of, and draws heavily on an eclectic mix of psychodynamic, behavioral, and humanistic psychology.
* Transpersonal-The study of spiritual and mystical experience, including altered states of consciousness, and how they relate to our everyday lives and choices.
* Neuropsychology-An emerging and ongoing synthesis of neurology and classic Freudian psychology, led by Erich Kandel. This is based on reclaiming Freud's original training [[https://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2014/mar/10/neuroscience-history-science as a neuroscientist]] and its connections to psychoanalysis.

There is also a tendency to use "psychology" and "psychiatry" interchangeably. The difference between the two is that psychiatrists are [=MDs=], board-certified neurologists with two to six years' added training in psychology, who can provide therapy and prescribe medication.[[note]]And charge about two hundred bucks per hour.[[/note]] Psychologists, on the other hand, spend from two to six years in graduate studies before being certified. They receive a Ph.D. or Psy.D. degree (one difference is the amount of statistical math required). They cannot prescribe medication--though most of them, if they feel it's necessary, will just write a referral for the client to a psychiatrist for a medication evaluation,[[note]]This is why most clinics employ several psychologists and one psychiatrist.[[/note]] or sometimes just a note to the patient's GP recommending one drug or another.

* All Behaviorism Is Pavlovian: The old behaviorist idea of psychology that thinks all learning, behavior, etc. is primarily founded on association of stimuli (reinforcement/reward and punishment), like for example Pavlov's dog learning to salivate when a bell paired with meat is rung, or Little Albert avoiding rabbits after being punished with loud noises. Said responses can then be exploited by dystopias for MindManipulation, as shown by ''Literature/AClockworkOrange'' and ''Literature/BraveNewWorld'' --while conditioning has been scientifically verified, and the Behaviorist movement did contribute to psychology's liberation from the HardOnSoftScience stigma, nowadays people acknowledge that conditioning does have its limits, the idea that "all behavior comes from reward and punishment" has been discredited (see also: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect Overjustification]] where, in sharp contrast to behaviorist experiments, ''rewards can actually kill intrinsic motivation''), and neo-behaviorists are willing to accept neuroscience, cognitive science and humanist influences.

** Some such experiments do still take place--but they only involve low-level shocks (and this in the context of studying fear conditioning).

One important factor to consider in his biggest blunders is that Freud's patients were mostly [[CaptainObvious people with mental disorders or internal conflicts severe enough to get them sent to the famous psychologist]], and humans being humans control subjects for psychological analysis are hard to come by. Some of his more derided ideas border on AluminumChristmasTrees in that while he often over-generalized the issues of individual patients to humanity as a whole, those ideas were based on actual case studies with people who did have such issues. For instance, he traced at least one patient's issues to the fact that they felt they should have been born male, something they first realized in childhood. While incorrect in generalizing this to all women as "Penis Envy", he did identify [[UsefulNotes/{{Transgender}} the sense that one was born the wrong sex]] as the ''cause'' rather than the ''effect'' of that patient's emotional issues. Given the lack of other options available at the time, his attempts to help that patient accept being female put the whole matter in a slightly different light with a bit less ValuesDissonance.

One important factor to consider in his biggest blunders is that Freud's patients were mostly [[CaptainObvious people with mental disorders or internal conflicts severe enough to get them sent to the famous psychologist]], and humans being humans control subjects for psychological analysis are hard to come by. Some of his more derided ideas border on AluminumChristmasTrees in that while he often over-generalized the issues of individual patients to humanity as a whole, those ideas were based on actual case studies with people who did have such issues. For instance, he traced at least one patient's issues to the fact that they felt they should have been born male, something they first realized in childhood. While incorrect in generalizing this to all women as "Penis Envy", he did identify [[UsefulNotes/{{Transgender}} the sense that one was born the wrong gender]] as the ''cause'' rather than the ''effect'' of that patient's emotional issues. Given the lack of other options available at the time, his attempts to help that patient accept being female put the whole matter in a slightly different light with a bit less ValuesDissonance.

In other cases, his training as a doctor rather than a scientist caused him to discard important realizations because they weren't useful for the treatment of patients. In one of the most interesting examples, he sketched out a simple diagram and some musings in one of his notebooks. This diagram outlined the basis of both Skinner's behavior-reinforcement model of behavior and suggests a hypothesis nearly identical to the modern neurobiological synapse-entrainment explanation. Lacking pragmatic utility, however, to Freud it was just an idle musing barely worth jotting down, let alone studying or sharing.

* The theory of the stages. Character X constantly smokes, drinks or [[YumYum eats lollipops]]? Uh-oh, seems something went wrong with his oral stage, and by that we mean that his mother didn't [[ThanksForTheMammary breastfeed]] him enough. Or too much, who knows. And better don't ask about anal-retentive or anal-expulsive characters. Then, there's also the phallic stage (what, no DistaffCounterpart?).

** Sadly, this was TruthInTelevision when the science was in its infancy. See also: BedlamHouse and the infamous [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment Stanford Prison Experiment]].

Despite what the name says there are actually several models of psychology, which include:

If a psychologist is asking about the patient's parents and childhood, sees sexual imagery in everything the patient says, and uses lots of projective tests like the Rorschach ink blot test or word association, you're probably looking at television's idea of Freudian psychology.

While Freudian concepts are still around in psychology, "classic" Freudian psychology is pretty much to the field as [=MS-DOS=] [[AnalogyBackfire is to computing]]. Some of Freud's theories turned out to be correct, like "The Talking Cure" (therapy) and the "FreudianExcuse", but he was RightForTheWrongReasons; because of this, much of the basic therapy techniques that most people are familiar with looks like Freud's theories and treatment. Also, most intro to psychology textbooks begin with a history section that often starts with Freud, and history textbooks often focus on Freud when psychology is discussed. When added together, all of these things combine to give the layman a rather exaggerated view of Freud's significance to the field.

Interestingly, recent surveys by various psychological associations show that the vast majority of therapists favor a combined approach; for example, the vast majority of therapists use humanistic and systemic techniques, and most modern behaviorists (or "neo-behaviorists") blend cognitive and biological elements into their work, rather than treating the brain as an unknowable quantity and working only from visible actions, as their forerunners did.

There is also a tendency to use "psychology" and "psychiatry" interchangeably. The difference between the two is that psychiatrists are [=MDs=], usually board-certified neurologists with two to six years' added training in psychology, who can provide therapy and prescribe medication.[[note]]And charge about two hundred bucks per hour.[[/note]] Psychologists, on the other hand, spend from two to six years in graduate studies before being certified. They receive a Ph.D. or Psy.D. degree (one difference is the amount of statistical math required). They cannot prescribe medication--though most of them, if they feel it's necessary, will just write a referral for the client to a psychiatrist for a medication evaluation,[[note]]This is why most clinics employ several psychologists and one psychiatrist.[[/note]] or sometimes just a note to the patient's GP recommending one drug or another.

Psychologists also do nearly all of the research in the field of psychology. Psychiatrists tend to view psychologists as "mumbo-jumbo mystics" while psychologists tend to view psychiatrists as "total quacks."[[note]]The psychiatrists who went for the [=MD/PhD=] route are, presumably, just enjoying the show.[[/note]] Interestingly, both Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were medical doctors (Freud trained as a neurologist, as did most early psychiatrists). Their methods of working and researching would probably count as psychology today, but back then psychology didn't really exist as its own field, belonging to philosophy instead (as in, having insights about human thinking and human nature; [[Creator/FriedrichNietzsche Nietzsche]] often wrote about "psychology" in this sense, which is how his calling [[Creator/FyodorDostoevsky Dostevsky]] "the only psychologist from whom I have anything to learn" makes any kind of sense).

Note that some universities still take Freud seriously, which tends to create tensions between them and those considering him obsolete. Also note that some others, particularly in France and parts of South America, teach Lacan, whose work is mostly considered (and probably considered himself) as a Freud 2.0 (with whole new features!).

It's also a major part of [[HardOnSoftScience why hard scientists consider psychology a pseudoscience.]]

That said, a lot of the problems with this concept stem from misunderstandings of Freud, whose body of work discussed a range of issues beyond the few stereotypes people still hold over him. Scientists such as Henri Laborit and Nobel Prize winner Eric Kandel believe that Freud came closer than anyone to understand how the human mind works and consider him important in the field of neuroscience.

* Psychodynamic (these days based ''loosely'' on the works of Freud and contemporaries of his like Jung, Adler, and Erikson, and the premise that childhood experiences shape the adult human)
* Behavioral (pioneered by people like Watson and Skinner, based on the premise that attempted objective research on internal mental processes is unreliable at best. They focused on rigorous scientific experimentation on outward behavior of organisms in response to stimuli. They believed that every human is born as a blank slate and must develop their personality and behavior entirely through their experiences. This outdated philosophy eventually fell out of fashion when the Cognitive Revolution began)
* Humanistic (a field that grew out of a combination of behavioral and psychoanalytic psychology, which holds that the best way to help the patient is to build a trusting relationship with them, and help them achieve self actualization, and creative expression in life.)
* Cognitive (a response to the Behaviorialist's mostly ignoring internal mental states, it focuses on the ways people think, learn, and remember. Noam Chomsky's critique of Skinner was part of the paradigm change that was described as the Cognitive Revolution)
* Biological (focusing on physiological causes of behavior and mental illness; most of the research into psychotropic drugs comes out of this field, but not much in the way of therapy.)
* Evolutionary (focused on determining which aspects of human behavior are genetic, and then tries to determine how those genes were naturally selected--a research-only field, with minimal therapeutic applications)
* Sociocultural (focuses on how behavior is shaped by social and cultural influences--like evolutionary psych, is basically research-only)
* Systemic (not technically a paradigm of its own but rather a type of therapy, also known as "Family Therapy." It treats all behavior as "making sense in context" of the system they're part of, and draws heavily on an eclectic mix of psychodynamic, behavioral, and humanistic psychology)
* Transpersonal (the study of spiritual and mystical experience, including altered states of consciousness, and how they relate to our everyday lives and choices)

Interestingly, recent surveys by various psychological associations show that the vast majority of therapists favour a combined approach; for example, the vast majority of therapists use humanistic and systemic techniques, and most modern behaviourists (or "neo-behaviourists") blend cognitive and biological elements into their work, rather than treating the brain as an unknowable quantity and working only from visible actions, as their forerunners did.

There is also a tendency to use "psychology" and "psychiatry" interchangeably. The difference between the two is that psychiatrists are [=MDs=], usually board-certified neurologists with two to six years' added training in psychology, who can provide therapy and prescribe medication[[note]]and charge about two hundred bucks per hour[[/note]]. Psychologists, on the other hand, spend from two to six years in graduate studies before being certified. They receive a Ph.D. or Psy.D. degree (one difference is the amount of statistical math required). They cannot prescribe medication--though most of them, if they feel it's necessary, will just write a referral for the client to a psychiatrist for a medication evaluation[[note]]this is why most clinics employ several psychologists and one psychiatrist[[/note]], or sometimes just a note to the patient's GP recommending one drug or another.

Note that some universities still take Freud seriously, which tends to create tensions between them and those considering him obsolete. Also note that some others, particularly in France and parts of South America, teach Lacan, whose work is mostly considered (and probably considered himself) as a Freud 2.0 (with whole new features!)

* Behavioral (pioneered by people like Watson and Skinner, based on the premise that every human is born as a blank slate and must develop their personality and behavior through their experiences)
* Humanistic (a field that grew out of a combination of behavioral and psychoanalytic psychology, which holds that the best way to help the patient is to build a trusting relationship with them)
* Cognitive (the study of how people think, learn, and remember)
* Biological (focusing on physiological causes of behavior and mental illness; most of the research into psychotropic drugs comes out of this field, but not much in the way of therapy)
* Evolutionary (focused on determining which aspects of human behavior are genetic, and then tries to determine how those genes were naturally selected--a research-only field, with minimal therepeutic applications)

* Behavioural (pioneered by people like Watson and Skinner, based on the premise that every human is born as a blank slate and must develop their personality and behaviour through their experiences)
* Humanistic (a field that grew out of a combination of behavioural and psychoanalytic psychology, which holds that the best way to help the patient is to build a trusting relationship with them)

* Biological (focusing on physiological causes of behaviour and mental illness; most of the research into psychotropic drugs comes out of this field, but not much in the way of therapy)

* Sociocultural (focuses on how behaviour is shaped by social and cultural influences--like evolutionary psych, is basically research-only)
* Systemic (not technically a paradigm of its own but rather a type of therapy, also known as "Family Therapy." It treats all behavior as "making sense in context" of the system they're part of, and draws heavily on an eclectic mix of psychodynamic, behavioural, and humanistic psychology)

Psychologists also do nearly all of the research in the field of psychology. Psychiatrists tend to view psychologists as "mumbo-jumbo mystics" while psychologists tend to view psychiatrists as "total quacks."[[note]]The psychiatrists who went for the [=MD/PhD=] route are, presumably, just enjoying the show.[[/note]] Interestingly, both Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were medical doctors (Freud trained as a neurologist, as did most early psychiatrists). Their methods of working and researching would probably count as psychology today, but back then psychology didn't really exist as its own field, belonging to philosophy instead (as in, having insights about human thinking and human nature; [[Creator/FriedrichNietzsche Nietzsche]] often wrote about "psychology" in this sense, which is how his calling [[Creator/FyodorDostoevsky Dostevsky]] "the psychologist from whom I have anything to learn" makes any kind of sense).

A major part on [[HardOnSoftScience why hard scientists consider psychology as a pseudoscience.]]

That said, a lot of the problems on this concept stems from misunderstandings of Freud, whose body of work discussed a range of issues beyond the few stereotypes people still hold over him. Scientists such as Henri Laborit and Nobel Prize winner Eric Kandel believe that Freud came closer than anyone to understand how the human mind works and consider him important in the field of neuroscience.

* NinetyPercentOfYourBrain: Early psychologists are prone to invoking analogies similar to this. A famous one is the Freudian "iceberg" analogy for the Unconscious Mind (in an iceberg, only a small part is in the surface, the rest is underwater). Today, psychologists take to refer to thatlarger-than-consciousness object called "the unconscious mind" not due to Freudian repression analogies or PsychicPowers, but for simply that larger part of our mind that is literally ignored by our own awareness (like how to process sensory information).
* All Behaviourism Is Pavlovian: The old behaviourist idea of psychology that thinks all learning, behaviour, etc. is primarily founded on association of stimuli (reinforcement/reward and punishment), like for example, Pavlov's dog learning to salivate when a bell paired with meat is rung, or Little Albert avoiding rabbits after being punished with loud noises, said responses can then be exploited by dystopias for MindManipulation, as shown by ''Literature/AClockworkOrange'' and ''Literature/BraveNewWorld'' --while conditioning has been scientifically verified, and the Behaviourist movement did contribute to psychology's liberation from the HardOnSoftScience stigma, nowadays people acknowledge that conditioning do have its limits, the idea that "all behaviour comes from reward and punishment" has been discredited (see also: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect Overjustification]] where, in sharp contrast to behaviourist experiments, ''rewards can actually kill intrinsic motivation''), and neo-behaviourists are willing to accept neuroscience, cognitive science and humanist influences.

** Some such experiments do still take place--but they only involve low level shocks (and this in the context of studying fear conditioning).

** It should be noted that, while the use of potentially hazardous electric shocks as part of an experiment is simply not done, ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) still remains a valid form of therapy. It's neither the most common nor preferred form of psychotherapy in this day and age, but a valid one nonetheless. Even if only used in rather extreme cases. Much of the confusion surrounding unethical ''electrical'' experiments can be attributed to this. It should also be noted that real electro-shock therapy is nearly painless and not the torture and convulsion-inducing barbarism shown on TV and Winston's torture in ''Literature/NineteenEightyFour''. Indeed, electro-shock therapy is now used only in severe cases of depression that are unresponsive to any other form of treatment. The patient is fully anaesthetized before the treatment now, and every precaution is taken to ensure that the treatment is safe and humane. It works beautifully, but does have short-term memory loss as a potential side-effect, which is usually temporary but occasionally permanent; most patients with depression that is severe enough to need ECT consider this an acceptable trade off. Much of the controversy today concerns patients receiving ECT against their will.

* The theory of the stages. Character X constantly smokes, drinks or [[YumYum eats lollipops]]? Uh-oh, seems something went wrong with his oral stage, and by that we mean that his mother didn't [[ThanksForTheMammary breastfeed]] him enough. Or too much, who knows. And better don't ask about anal-retentive or anal-expulsive characters. Then, there's also the phallic stage (what, no DistaffCounterpart?)

Psychologists also do nearly all of the research in the field of psychology. Psychiatrists tend to view psychologists as "mumbo-jumbo mystics" while psychologists tend to view psychiatrists as "total quacks."[[note]]The psychiatrists who went for the [=MD/PhD=] route are, presumably, just enjoying the show.[[/note]] Interestingly, both Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were medical doctors (Freud trained as a neurologist, as did most early psychiatrists). Their methods of working and researching would probably count as psychology today, but back then psychology didn't really exist as its own field, belonging to philosophy instead (as in, having insights about human thinking and human nature; [[Creator/FriedrichNietzsche Nietzsche]] often wrote about "psychology" in this sense, which is how calling [[Creator/FyodorDostoevsky Dostevsky]] "the psychologist from whom I have anything to learn" makes any kind of sense).

Psychologists also do nearly all of the research in the field of psychology. Psychiatrists tend to view psychologists as "mumbo-jumbo mystics" while psychologists tend to view psychiatrists as "total quacks."[[note]]The psychiatrists who went for the [=MD/PhD=] route are, presumably, just enjoying the show.[[/note]] Interestingly, both Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were medical doctors (Freud trained as a neurologist, as did most early psychiatrists). Their methods of working and researching would probably count as psychology today, but back then psychology didn't really exist as its own field, belonging to philosophy instead.

There is also a tendency to use "psychology" and "psychiatry" interchangeably. The difference between the two is that psychiatrists are [=MDs=], usually board-certified neurologists with two to six years' added training in psychology, who can provide therapy and prescribe medication[[hottip:*:and charge about two hundred bucks per hour]]. Psychologists, on the other hand, spend from two to six years in graduate studies before being certified. They receive a Ph.D. or Psy.D. degree (one difference is the amount of statistical math required). They cannot prescribe medication--though most of them, if they feel it's necessary, will just write a referral for the client to a psychiatrist for a medication evaluation[[hottip:*:this is why most clinics employ several psychologists and one psychiatrist]], or sometimes just a note to the patient's GP recommending one drug or another.

Psychologists also do nearly all of the research in the field of psychology. Psychiatrists tend to view psychologists as "mumbo-jumbo mystics" while psychologists tend to view psychiatrists as "total quacks."[[hottip:*:The psychiatrists who went for the [=MD/PhD=] route are, presumably, just enjoying the show.]] Interestingly, both Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were medical doctors (Freud trained as a neurologist, as did most early psychiatrists). Their methods of working and researching would probably count as psychology today, but back then psychology didn't really exist as its own field, belonging to philosophy instead.

* All Behaviourism Is Pavlovian: The old behaviourist idea of psychology that thinks all learning, behaviour, etc. is primarily founded on association of stimuli (reinforcement/reward and punishment), like for example, Pavlov's dog learning to salivate when a bell paired with meat is rung, or Little Albert avoiding rabbits after being punished with loud noises, said responses can then be exploited by dystopias for MindManipulation, as shown by ''Literature/AClockworkOrange'' and ''Literature/BraveNewWorld'' --while conditioning has been scientifically verified, and the Behaviourist movement did contribute to psychology's liberation from the HardOnSoftScience stigma, nowadays people acknowledge that conditioning do have its limits, the idea that "all behaviour comes from reward and punishment" has been discredited, and neo-behaviourists are willing to accept neuroscience, cognitive science and humanist influences.

** Sadly, this was TruthInTelevision when the science was in its infancy. See also: BedlamHouse.

** It should be noted that, while the use of potentially hazardous electric shocks as part of an experiment is simply not done, ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) still remains a valid form of therapy. It's neither the most common nor preferred form of psychotherapy in this day and age, but a valid one nonetheless. Even if only used in rather extreme cases. Much of the confusion surrounding unethical ''electrical'' experiments can be attributed to this. It should also be noted that real electro-shock therapy is nearly painless and not the torture and convulsion-inducing barbarism shown on TV and Winston's torture in ''NineteenEightyFour''. Indeed, electro-shock therapy is now used only in severe cases of depression that are unresponsive to any other form of treatment. The patient is fully anaesthetized before the treatment now, and every precaution is taken to ensure that the treatment is safe and humane. It works beautifully, but does have short-term memory loss as a potential side-effect, which is usually temporary but occasionally permanent; most patients with depression that is severe enough to need ECT consider this an acceptable trade off. Much of the controversy today concerns patients receiving ECT against their will.