◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲ ▼Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Steve Sailer posted an item on Freud, and my short comment in reply grew too long, so here it is as a very brief post.
Here are some quick reflections. I think that commentator Discordiax is right that the First World War is part of the explanation for the rise of Freudianism. “Thoughts for the Times on War and Death” had a big impact. Freud was a good essayist, and gave an explanation of sorts for a catastrophic event. He linked sharp observation with an attractive, all purpose hydraulic system, in which pressure which did not come out of one pipe had to come out from another. Pavlov, on the other hand, who was a real experimentalist, used the telephone exchange analogy, which was far better.
So why is Pavlov nowhere in comparison? The answer was that he was a real scientist (Nobel for Physiology) and reading science is hard. You have to know stuff. Most of us read Einstein and then struggle somewhat, but we know it led to a bomb, and some other stuff (satnavs in part). He keeps being proved right.
With Marx and Freud you can go anywhere. They defy falsification.
The really interesting question is why New York, Chicago, Buenos Aires and one part of North London still worship the Freudian flame. More of that later.