* How do Neo-Freudians differ from Freud’s theories?
342943
Greatly. Neo-freudians are psychoanalysts who diverted from Freud and started their own schools of though. They accpet the main concepts of psychoanalysis but have modified the theory by placing the emphasis on e.g. social factors, ego psychology, interpersonal relations etc.
650632
Studying the works of Jacques Derrida will help to clarify this for you. Essentially, deconstructionism refers to different interpretations of the same story. For example, In the story Little Red Riding Hood we are taught that RH is good and the wolf is evil. Deconstructionism would say that it's not that simple--life is not a dichotomy. We can say that RH was petulant and rebellious by straying from the path in the first place. That the wolf was just a poor, starving animal doing what he had to to survive. The grandmother was cruel in insisting that poor, defenseless RH take the dangerous journey into the woods to bring her bread, and on and on. There are multiple stories within a story, and the reader is the one who brings meaning to a story through his/her unique interpretation. If you'd like an overview of post-modernisim and deconstructionism in a nutshell, check out the children's book "The Three Pigs" by David Wiesner.
147104
according to psychoanalytic theory, our refulated uncounscious desires and drives(usually sexual and aggressive ones)penetrate through dreams, a reason why part of the psychanalytic therapy relies on dream interpretation, trying to link the latent content to the manifest one.\nas far as my knowledge reaches, i think nowadays, knowing the fact that during the rem sleep our cerebral activity is similar to the one in the waking state, dreams are more likely to be images and situations which have troubled us during the day (or the past days) and which are somehow reintegrated into an entirely free "imaginary space" which lacks the boundaries of a syntax, as language does.
658566
When a person is describes as "Anal" It means the person is\n\nObsessively self-controlled: \n\nin Freudian theory, relating to adult personality traits that are considered to have originated during or be characteristic of the anal stage of development, e.g. obsessive neatness, stubbornness, and frugality
1137970
Logical levels of abstraction and specification exist in the realms of the social, mental and physical -> so yes such concepts are a smothering by politically minded people, but also concepts are maintained by those without time to consider such things or minds...... its also worth stating that biological, psychological and social differences do exist and are studied by psychologists, neurologists, sociologists and the like -> however these studies are usually stopped in this politically crazy era in order to stop 'socially sensititve implications' occuring and thus causing mindless racisism and homophobia - obviously we cant go into every element but i think these are key concepts
386395
I think you would get some better answers if this was asked in philosophy ;-)\nApart from that my first thought was; which reflex systems?\nAlso it don't make sense to me really.  Seems like some words are in the wrong place but then i am no good at proper philosophical lingo.\nIt's a two way sword, if you redefine mind from a scientific viewpoint you will need the evidence and then you end up in neurochemistry and what they call biological psychology.\nIf you redefine it from a philosophical viewpopint then it would come under philosophy of mind and have a look here what that is about: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/Metaphysics-and-Epistemology.
64977
Radical Criminology: Theoretical Origins.\nOne of the first things to note or understand is that "Marxism", as a theoretical\nperspective, involves a number of different variants (or "ways of seeing" the social\nworld). In this respect, although we often tend to talk about Marxism as if there were\nonly one kind (just as we tend to talk about other sociological perspectives - such as\nFunctionalism - as if it only involved one basic set of ideas), it is evident that\nMarxism, as a school of thought, has been interpreted in a number of different ways\nby various writers.\nHowever, just as it's important to realise that any sociological perspective will involve\nwriters who may interpret the social world in small, but important ways, it's also\nimportant not to go too far in the other direction and see the work of any writer as\nbeing "complete unto itself" (that is, to treat the work of individual sociologists almost\nas "perspectives" in their own right.\nWriters who call themselves Marxists do have a number of things in common and,\nwhilst it's important not to over-estimate this "Communality of ideas", it's also\nimportant to recognise that what they share is a broad set of basic assumptions\nabout both the nature of the social world and how to study that world.\nHaving noted the above, a brief discussion of the basic theoretical tradition that has\ninformed much Radical Criminology will be useful for a number of reasons:\n1. Firstly, because it will help you to recognise a couple of basic variations in\nMarxist thought.\n2. Secondly, the next Study Pack in this series concentrates on the work of\nMarxist Conflict theorists who have criticised Radical Criminology from\nanother Marxist perspective ("New Left Realism"). It will, therefore, be\ninstructive to look-at and understand the theoretical traditions that each draws\nupon in order to understand both the differences in interpretation involved\nand, most importantly, the basis of the "New Left Realist" rejection of Radical\nCriminology on theoretical - as opposed to ideological - grounds.\n3. Finally, by understanding some of the theoretical assumptions of Radical\nCriminology it should make it easier for you to carry-out an evaluation of this\nparticular brand of Marxist Conflict theory.\nWhat I want to do in the following couple of pages is:\na. Outline some of the basic ideas involved in the theoretical tradition upon\nwhich Radical Criminology is based.\nb. Evaluate these ideas in relation to criticisms put-forward by Marxists\nworking within a rather different theoretical tradition (if this all sounds a bit\ncomplicated, things should become a bit clearer as we start to look at the\nabove ideas in more detail).\nAs I've previously said, an overall evaluation of Radical Criminology will be included\nat the end of these Notes\nInitially, the most important idea to note is that Radical Criminology was / is based\nupon the theoretical tradition of a variant of Marxism which we can term "Instrumental\nMarxism".\nIf you are particularly interested in looking at this tradition in more depth, Ralph\nMilliband's book "The State In Capitalist Society" is a good example here.\nThe basic idea to understand in this respect is that "Instrumental Marxists" argue that\nthe operation of all social institutions (for example, work, family, education, legal\nsystems and so forth) and specific agencies of social control (the police, mass media\nand the like) can be linked - either directly or indirectly - to the needs, purposes and\nbasic interests of a Capitalist "ruling class".\nIn this respect, all institutions in our society are seen to "function" in a more-or-less\nseamless way to promote the interests of a ruling class.\nWhilst it's important to note that Instrumental Marxists do not use the concept of\n"function" in the same
616722
INTRODUCTION\nFor starters, psychology must be distinguished from behavioural science and psychiatry from neuromedicine. Psychology and psychiatry are subtly different to each other but it's important to realise that neither are scientific disciplines- they are pseudosciences.\n\nWHAT PSYCHOLOGY IS NOT\nPsychology is not behavioural science. Behavioural science is about observing the behaviour of living creatures and drawing conclusions about that behaviour and its causes and its consequences. The context of the behavioural science could be anything from criminology to neuromedicine.\n\nWHAT PSYCHIATRY IS NOT\nPsychiatry is not neuromedicine. Neuromedicine is about healing a physical, observable anomoly in tissue that is causing a problem with the nervous system resulting in observable, behavioural symptoms such as tardive dyskinsea, motor disfunction, etc. or at the very least treating the conditions and problems that arise from the neurological problem if it cannot be mended. Neuromedicine is genuine medicine and it is entirely scientific. Genuine neurophysicians are not psychiatrists.\n\nWHAT PSYCHOLOGY IS\nPsychology comes from the Greek word "psuche" which refers to the soul, spirit or mind of a person. Behavioural studies are science but making suggestive comments about the mind, soul and spirit is the realm of religion. Psychology is not science; it is pseudoscience. Psychology, by making statements about the mind, soul and spirit- in unbiblical terms- is simply another false religion. The ideas in psychology (i.e. the religious ideology) is all about "self-" me me me. It is ideological in the very same way that communism, naziism and all other fascist movements are ideological. The ideology is pushed down people's throats but made to look "gentle." So "psychotherapy" is made to look helpful and dressed up as medicine. But it has NO FACTUAL BASIS. It is a false religion. Because it has no factual basis, coersion is utilised to ensure people follow it. This is where psychiatry comes in.\n\nWHAT PSYCHIATRY IS\nPsychiatry is a coersive, controlling regime. It is witchdoctoring under the guise of medicine. The religious ideology of psychology is pedalled but it is rammed down people's throats with threats of terrible torture, mutilation, poisoning, incarceration, segregation and deprivation of livelihood. Psychiatrists lie to people. They make out that man ought to be a self-serving entity and that he has no need for God. Hypnosis using mind-altering drugs is practiced to weaken people's resolve. The Greek word for this hypnosis is "pharmakeia" which is translated in The Bible as witchcraft (Gal 5:20). The drugs in psychiatry are usually seen as different to the drugs on the street but in fact they do the very same thing as the street drugs people use "illegally" to get high. In fact sometimes the drugs in psychiatry are the very same drugs as the ones on the street. The coersion and control doesn't just stop with poisoning people with drugs. Incarceration without trial is routinely used and, in the context of psychological indoctrination, this is just inquisition. Other tactics are used which are equally violent. The victim of psychiatry is usually branded for life in a way that makes him out to be subhuman, a "diseased" subcitizen, a criminal with a record but no evidence of a crime, a punishable target for bullies on fat salaries with no moral backbone but great tendency to judge others.\n\nCONCLUSION\nSo here's your answer: psychology and psychiatry are witchcraft and witchdoctoring. They come under the collective term "witchery" which is just plain and simply false religion. It is a violent, coersive regime and a load of rubbish.
242375
The neo-con philosophy ? Hmm. Depends on who you ask.\n\nThe "Neo-Conservative" movement was founded by former Democrats who in the 60's and 70's were Hawkish" on foreign policy. Some of the fathers of Neo-conservatism were  Sen. "Scoop" Jackson, Irving Kristol, and  Jeane Kirkpatrick.\n\nthe positive view: "liberal mugged by reality" \nthe negative view: a bunch of mostly Zionist Jews who take a simple good vs. evil view of the world.
828385
A scientific theory is very, very different from a layman's theory.\n\nA scoentific theory has gone from a hypothesis (which is closer to the layman's term theory) to having been tested repeatedly and having been proven correct. However, the difference between a theory and a law is falsification, which is a crazy word to define.\n\nBasically, a theory cannot be made into a law until it has been proven that the *opposite* of that theory is false.\n\nFirst law of thermodynamics, for example. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant. This has been proven. It has also been proven that the opposite is NOT true--the total energy of the universe not remaining constant is false.\n\nTheory of evolution. People and so on evolved from lower organisms. This is provable. However, "people did not evolve from lower organisms" has not yet been proven false.\n\nBoggles the mind, doesn't it?
1118707
That actually depends.  If I remember correctly, the Rorschach is meant to tell the Doc about your unconscious.  Some people believe that there is an unconscious (the Id in Freudian terms), other people do not believe in the unconscious.  Psychoanalysis was "invented" by Freud, mainly based upon his Id, Ego, Superego theory(s).  Basically your Id is your primitive side which drives you, your Superego is where your morality lies, and your Ego gets the wonderful job of finding a middle ground for the two opposing sides.  With that being said, there is no scientific evidence that the unconscious even exists, because you cannot study something that you do not know about.  That is why most of Freud's theory's have been (for a lack of better words) thrown out of the Psychological world, because they cannot be tested, they cannot be proven or disproven, which goes against the scientific theory.  So, if you believe in the unconscious, the Id and all things like that, then the inkblots probably will help you.  If you don't believe in the unconscious, then nope...he/she is a quack.
283827
I suggest you look at both these journals: they are very good at looking at both sides of the argument:\n\n\n Frith U, Emanuel Miller lecture: confusions and controversies about Asperger syndrome.\nJ Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2004 May;45(4):672-86. Review. \n \n\n Macintosh KE, Dissanayake C. The similarities and differences between autistic disorder and Asperger's disorder: a review of the empirical evidence.\nJ Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2004 Mar;45(3):421-34. Review. \n\nBriefly, my impressions are that they are similar, but have separate etiologies (causes) leading to similar behaviural phenotypes to classic autism.
193225
one is based on concepts-reality. the other is based on theory's-something unproven
1183168
Zadanliran, I keep using the male third person singular because most narcissists (75%) are males and more so because there is little difference between the male and female narcissists.\n\nIn the manifestation of their narcissism, female and male narcissists, inevitably, do tend to differ. They emphasise different things. They transform different elements of their personalities and of their lives into the cornerstones of their disorder. \n\nWomen concentrate on their body (many also suffer from eating disorders: Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia Nervosa). They flaunt and exploit their physical charms, their sexuality, their socially and culturally determined "femininity". They secure their Narcissistic Supply through their more traditional gender role: the home, children, suitable careers, their husbands ("the wife of…"), their feminine traits, their role in society, etc. \n\nIt is no wonder than narcissists – both men and women – are chauvinistic and conservative. They depend to such an extent on the opinions of people around them – that, with time, they are transformed into ultra-sensitive seismographs of public opinion, barometers of prevailing social fashions, and guardians of conformity. The narcissist cannot afford to seriously alienate his "constituency", those people who reflect his False Self back to him. The very proper and on-going functioning of the narcissist's Ego depends on the goodwill and the collaboration of his human environment.\n\nTrue, besieged and consumed by pernicious guilt feelings – many a narcissist finally seek to be punished. The self-destructive narcissist then plays the role of the "bad guy" (or "bad girl"). But even then it is within the traditional socially allocated roles. To ensure social opprobrium (read: attention), the narcissist exaggerates these roles to a caricature. \n\nA woman is likely to label herself a "whore" and a male narcissist to self-style himself a "vicious, unrepentant criminal". Yet, these again are traditional social roles. Men are likely to emphasise intellect, power, aggression, money, or social status. Women are likely to emphasise body, looks, charm, sexuality, feminine "traits", homemaking, children and childrearing – even as they seek their masochistic punishment.\n\nAnother difference is in the way the genders react to treatment. Women are more likely to resort to therapy because they are more likely to admit to psychological problems. But while men may be less inclined to DISCLOSE or to expose their problems to others (the macho-man factor) – it does not necessarily imply that they are less prone to admit it to themselves. Women are also more likely to ask for help than men.\n\nYet, the prime rule of narcissism must never be forgotten: the narcissist uses everything around him or her to obtain his (or her) Narcissistic Supply. Children happen to be more attached to the female narcissist due to the way our society is still structured and to the fact that women are the ones to give birth. It is easier for a woman to think of her children as her extensions because they once indeed were her physical extensions and because her on-going interaction with them is both more intensive and more extensive. \n\nThis means that the male narcissist is more likely to regard his children as a nuisance than as a source of rewarding Narcissist Supply – especially as they grow older and become autonomous. Devoid of the diversity of alternatives available to men – the narcissistic woman fights to maintain her most reliable Source of Supply: her children. Through insidious indoctrination, guilt formation, emotional sanctions, deprivation and other psychological mechanisms, she tries to induce in them a dependence, which cannot be easily unravelled.\n\nBut, there is no psychodynamic difference between children, money, or intellect, as Sources of Narcissistic Supply. So, there is no psychodyn
331052
Whoa, deep stuff and big words!\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho-Cybernetics
52545
Religion, in Freud's view, was simply a poor attempt to resolve the needs that often go unmet in human relationships. He developed this idea over 30 years in his enormous body of work, making it the main focus of his 1927 book, The Future of an Illusion, and extending his arguments from individual to society in his long 1930 essay, Civilization and Its Discontents. "Religion may be altogether disregarded," he wrote in the latter work, "Its doctrines carry with them the stamp of the times in which they originated, the ignorant childhood days of this human race." To be truly civilized, he believed, humanity had to be set free of its delusions and construct a better order than religion could give it.\n\nFreud's atheism was not shaken by personal tragedy, though he experienced plenty of it. The proud father of six children, Freud saw two of his sons sent to fight in World War I and lost his daughter Sophie to the flu epidemic shortly thereafter. Cancer of the mouth plagued him for most of his adult life, and led to over 30 operations, through which he never stopped smoking. Freud's Jewish heritage made him a target of the rising anti-Semitism under Hitler's regime, and ultimately forced him to flee with his family to London in 1938. In response, Freud worked all the more fervently on what was to be his final work, Moses and Monotheism. This 1939 book was a retelling of the Hebrew Scriptures that casts Moses as a secular Egyptian hero whom the Israelites reject because his beliefs are too radical, paralleling the psychologist's feelings about his own work in the world.
234681
This is a large question, and the source of much controversy, conflict, anger, and hilarity for all of recorded history. Aristophanes' Lysistrata is merely one of the earliest in a long literary tradition exploring the question. James Thurber is only one of the most recent, and funniest, of those writing in English.\n\nOnly in the last few decades has there been any scientific evidence which even begins to explain why the so long observed differences exist. \n\nIt is clear that there are, on average, anatomic differences between female and male brains. For instance, in the connection between the two hemispheres. And imaging studies of working brains ('PET scans') have shown some apparently characteristic differences in the areas of the brain used by males and females when their brains are ostensibly doing the same thing. There is even enough of such evidence that there are now centers for the study of gender differences. \n\nFrom a behavioral viewpoint, the field of evolutionary psychology (or sociobiology) has produced a series of testable hypotheses about differences between female and male behavior. These are essentially unique in the field because they suggest experiments which can test them. Thus far, this approach has shown promise in accounting for some of the non-cultural non-religious behavior differences. Thus far, even such things as the clothing styles chosen when going to dance clubs have been accounted for to some extent by this approach. Much of this work is controversial amongst one or another group since it deals with issues (eg, sex, reproduction, mating behavior, ...) which are of great importance socially or religiously.\n\nThe most reasonable account of behavioral differences between the sexes is based on reproductive success. Males who behaved this way (or these ways) tended to have more descendants (more children who survived to have children themselves), and females who behaved that way (or those ways) also had more children who survived to have children of their own. Much of the reasoning on these matters is based in the fact that, in humans, females cannot have more than a small number of children, given the underlying biology. We humans are born far from able to cope with life, and require a long period of maturation before we can. We share some of this extended infancy with some other species (such as chimpanzees and orangutans) and, to some extent, they show similar sex linked behavioral differences. Males, on the other hand, are capable of having a great many children. But, because of the long term helpless infancy period, together with typical human female awkwardness during much of pregnancy, it seems likely that males who stayed with the female increased the chances that children (half of whose genes came from him) were more likely to survive to child-bearing age. This pattern may also account for male jealousy (only if the female is sexually exclusive can he be sure the child is his) and female interest in male resource control. If he's rich (however rich is measured in a society), he will likely be able to increase the chance that her children will survive to have children of their own. Some of these suggestions (hypotheses) are subject to test in humans and some other species; the evolutionary approach has illuminated some hitherto opaque behaviors.\n\nThese matters are very near to the center of much conflict in traditional (and some other not so traditional) societies, many of whose citizens are made uneasy by new and different behaviors and by research which either 'endorses' some of those behaviors or 'undermines' some of their existing or traditional behaviors. In fact, the science is still in its infancy, and those who claim it endorses this or that don't understand it, and those who fear the science would be better advised to concentrate on policy makers of various kinds who don't understand the nature of science, nor much of this emerging scien