He’s going to say that he’s afraid that this will be the least interesting of these lectures on the history of psychoanalysis. But really, this one is perhaps the most interesting. This lecture series is amazing!
This lecture series is such a valuable resource. I agree with other commenters, this was a riveting lecture, and Dr Dimitrijevic is quite a star. Thank you!
Once more, wonderful lesson and worth listening more then once. I was just wondering, if we could even say, that the science itself fulfils the definition of science given by Dr. Dimitrijevic here. It should, don't get me wrong, but I do not think it does.
Great lecture. In my understanding, though, the use of effect size does not solve the problem of requiring a large sample (which is, of course, a problem for psychoanalysis). Rather, effect size solves the specific problem of very strict confidence levels and margins of error. In every day language, it allows social research to cope with the large amount of noise in what they're observing (contrary to lab based hard sciences where the noise is excluded from the research design). So by focusing on the effect size, non significant findings can still be considered if the effect size is large enough.
the content of this lesson is fantastic. the filming not so much. the camera follows him rather than the important information in the screen and it is distracting
I should say, as a white South African, that the characterisation of white Sith Africans as automatically having been slave owners is unfortunate. Many white South Africans were very opposed to Apartheid and racism and some paid dearly in many ways. I suggest keeping personal politics out of the otherwise excellent lecture
How are levels of consciousness measured? Is consciousness ever discussed? A successful analysis results in a high level of consciousness in the treated individual. Consciousness does not drop into the individual suddenly. It unfolds as levels of illusion are pierced. Has any psychoanalyst considered such concepts? I'm guessing not. 🤔 😮
It needs to be personal thoughts. Yet if not group think, there would be no career. Psychoanalyss is not for the masses, sadly. Clients should be carefully screened previous to treatment. No one could live in an illusion. If so, cracking that barrier is next to impossible. I wonder how hypnosis could alter one's illusionary childhood memories 🤔
I think you are idealizing Scientists and their Good Morals! And afraid - maybe - as Freud and Jung and... - that psychoanalysis will be less if not regarded as Science. .
In the old days, I once asked my analyst for sleeping tablets, having lifelong sleep issues. After much conversation from me, he finally consented. 😆 When I picked up the prescription, I found one tablet that cost me $20. 😂😅 I was furious, yet I got his message. But yes, these days, all professionals are eager to pass out anti depressants like Halloween 🍬. 😂😢😅
this person thinks of psychoanalysis as something distant from Freud, and also knows very little of his work...please, do not take him seriously, he is very wrong on what psychoanalysis is
"Psychoanalysis as a science" sounds like "religions as sciences" or "ramblings as philosophies" or "Disney movies as documentaries". Psychoanalysis is not a science, just like boogers are not food. Yes, some people eat boogers, but that doesn't make them food. Same with psychoanalysis-- some people study psychoanalysis, but that doesn't make it a science. Sorry psychoapologists and psychozealots, your beloved psychoanalysis is a dying belief system kept on life-support by true believers. Psychology on the other hand is alive and thriving.
So what if it isn't a science? It helps many people with seemingly intractable problems. And the fact that it isn't considered a science probably has more to do with the limitations that are placed on science making as it is done in universities - funding, who benefits from the results of a given study, etc. Aside from the irrelevance of the question of its status as science (irrelevant because the goal of therapy is to help people get better, not for the therapy to be a science): Fact is, we don't actually know if it has a scientific basis or not because nobody has tried to find out, not because it's a form of faith. There's just not much money to be made in testing psychoanalytic theory, whereas there's plenty to be made in validating therapies that only take 12 sessions and are thus palatable to insurance companies, or in showing that SSRIs have some small benefit in treatment of depression, and are quite marketable. That is a key part of what drives research decisions, and unfortunately, also drives theory adjudication in universities and private research firms these days. Read Kuhn's seminal history of science, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, read the Strong Programme in the sociology of scientific knowledge (Latour, Woolgar) for more about the problematics that surround the status of science as scientific. Kuhn is much less radical and more palatable so is a good place to start for someone who insists on the status of the hard sciences as hard sciences..
I think the work of neuropsychoanalysis makes your point particularly. The example of psychoanalytic theory guiding modern neuroscientific dream theory for example?
I have never listened to a more impressive lecture on the history of psychoanalysis.
He’s going to say that he’s afraid that this will be the least interesting of these lectures on the history of psychoanalysis. But really, this one is perhaps the most interesting. This lecture series is amazing!
Amazing indeed!
This guy is good--really, really good. He's a terrific teacher and puts things across wonderfully.
He said this was going to be boring, but really it was fascinating and just full of interesting information to follow up on!
Dr Dimitrijivic once again delivers a clear and confident overview. Something for me to learn from and aspire to when i give my lectures
This lecture series is such a valuable resource. I agree with other commenters, this was a riveting lecture, and Dr Dimitrijevic is quite a star. Thank you!
Once more, wonderful lesson and worth listening more then once.
I was just wondering, if we could even say, that the science itself fulfils the definition of science given by Dr. Dimitrijevic here. It should, don't get me wrong, but I do not think it does.
These series of lectures are awesome. So much value in them.
Brilliant lecture
Greetings from Colombia, in south América. And tjank you
Great lecture. In my understanding, though, the use of effect size does not solve the problem of requiring a large sample (which is, of course, a problem for psychoanalysis). Rather, effect size solves the specific problem of very strict confidence levels and margins of error. In every day language, it allows social research to cope with the large amount of noise in what they're observing (contrary to lab based hard sciences where the noise is excluded from the research design).
So by focusing on the effect size, non significant findings can still be considered if the effect size is large enough.
Does anyone have the professor´s email?
I do. But you can contact him via the international psychoanalytic university of Berlin.
To say another being has a mind and experiences can this ever truly be scientific
Amazing lecture. Very interesting
Great education thank you.
Thank you so much , amazing lecture.
the content of this lesson is fantastic. the filming not so much. the camera follows him rather than the important information in the screen and it is distracting
What is "mad pride"?
I should say, as a white South African, that the characterisation of white Sith Africans as automatically having been slave owners is unfortunate. Many white South Africans were very opposed to Apartheid and racism and some paid dearly in many ways.
I suggest keeping personal politics out of the otherwise excellent lecture
Warning fart at 16:27
Shame one cannot listen to que audience's questions
1:24 1:25:30
Spellbinding. This dude is Ah. Maze. Ing.
How are levels of consciousness measured?
Is consciousness ever discussed? A successful analysis results in a high level of consciousness in the treated individual. Consciousness does not drop into the individual suddenly. It unfolds as levels of illusion are pierced. Has any psychoanalyst considered such concepts? I'm guessing not. 🤔 😮
Psychoanalysis is a science of universal thoughts.
It needs to be personal thoughts. Yet if not group think, there would be no career.
Psychoanalyss is not for the masses, sadly. Clients should be carefully screened previous to treatment. No one could live in an illusion. If so, cracking that barrier is next to impossible. I wonder how hypnosis could alter one's illusionary childhood memories 🤔
I think you are idealizing Scientists and their Good Morals! And afraid - maybe - as Freud and Jung and... - that psychoanalysis will be less if not regarded as Science.
.
Psychoanalysis started to disappear because of of pharmaceutical 🥺😥
In the old days, I once asked my analyst for sleeping tablets, having lifelong sleep issues. After much conversation from me, he finally consented. 😆
When I picked up the prescription, I found one tablet that cost me $20. 😂😅 I was furious, yet I got his message. But yes, these days, all professionals are eager to pass out anti depressants like Halloween 🍬. 😂😢😅
The remark on communism was unnecessary
the persistent questioner is a tad annoying now
Amen👍😂🤣😂
this person thinks of psychoanalysis as something distant from Freud, and also knows very little of his work...please, do not take him seriously, he is very wrong on what psychoanalysis is
What is the 'is' you are refering to?
He really despises Freud.
"Psychoanalysis as a science" sounds like "religions as sciences" or "ramblings as philosophies" or "Disney movies as documentaries". Psychoanalysis is not a science, just like boogers are not food. Yes, some people eat boogers, but that doesn't make them food. Same with psychoanalysis-- some people study psychoanalysis, but that doesn't make it a science. Sorry psychoapologists and psychozealots, your beloved psychoanalysis is a dying belief system kept on life-support by true believers. Psychology on the other hand is alive and thriving.
So what if it isn't a science? It helps many people with seemingly intractable problems. And the fact that it isn't considered a science probably has more to do with the limitations that are placed on science making as it is done in universities - funding, who benefits from the results of a given study, etc.
Aside from the irrelevance of the question of its status as science (irrelevant because the goal of therapy is to help people get better, not for the therapy to be a science): Fact is, we don't actually know if it has a scientific basis or not because nobody has tried to find out, not because it's a form of faith. There's just not much money to be made in testing psychoanalytic theory, whereas there's plenty to be made in validating therapies that only take 12 sessions and are thus palatable to insurance companies, or in showing that SSRIs have some small benefit in treatment of depression, and are quite marketable. That is a key part of what drives research decisions, and unfortunately, also drives theory adjudication in universities and private research firms these days. Read Kuhn's seminal history of science, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, read the Strong Programme in the sociology of scientific knowledge (Latour, Woolgar) for more about the problematics that surround the status of science as scientific. Kuhn is much less radical and more palatable so is a good place to start for someone who insists on the status of the hard sciences as hard sciences..
I think the work of neuropsychoanalysis makes your point particularly. The example of psychoanalytic theory guiding modern neuroscientific dream theory for example?
Psychology is, indeed, thriving. The human psyche not so much.
@@TheBlidget Besides, the recent evidence about the effectiveness for psychoanalysis psycotherapy for several mental disordes is quite huge.
Dude, you need to watch the video.
Amazing lecture