Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • Professor Paul Bloom: Okay.

  • The last class we talked about the brain.

  • Now we're going to talk a little bit about some

  • foundations. So today and Monday we're going

  • to talk about two very big ideas and these ideas are associated

  • with Sigmund Freud and B. F.

  • Skinner and are psychoanalysis and behaviorism.

  • And I want to talk about psychoanalysis today and

  • behaviorism next week. Now, one of these things--One

  • of the things that makes these theories so interesting is their

  • scope. Most of the work we're going to

  • talk about in this class--Most of the ideas are narrow.

  • So, we're going to talk about somebody's idea about racial

  • prejudice but that's not a theory of language acquisition.

  • We'll talk about theories of schizophrenia but they're not

  • explanations of sexual attractiveness.

  • Most theories are specialized theories but these two views are

  • grand theories. They're theories of everything,

  • encompassing just about everything that matters,

  • day-to-day life, child development,

  • mental illness, religion, war,

  • love. Freud and Skinner had

  • explanations of all of these. Now, this is not a history

  • course. I have zero interest in

  • describing historical figures in psychology just for the sake of

  • telling you about the history of the field.

  • What I want to tell you about though is--I want to talk about

  • these ideas because so much rests on them and,

  • even more importantly, a lot of these ideas have

  • critical influence on how we think about the present.

  • And that's there. Now, for better or worse,

  • we live in a world profoundly affected by Sigmund Freud.

  • If I had to ask you to choose a--no, name a famous

  • psychologist, the answer of most of you would

  • be Freud. He's the most famous

  • psychologist ever and he's had a profound influence on the

  • twentieth and twenty-first century.

  • Some biographical information: He was born in the 1850s.

  • He spent most of his life in Vienna, Austria,

  • but he died in London and he escaped to London soon after

  • retreating there at the beginning of World War II as the

  • Nazis began to occupy where he lived.

  • He's one of the most famous scholars ever but he's not known

  • for any single discovery. Instead, he's known for the

  • development of an encompassing theory of mind,

  • one that he developed over the span of many decades.

  • He was in his time extremely well known, a celebrity

  • recognized on the street, and throughout his life.

  • He was a man of extraordinary energy and productivity,

  • in part because he was a very serious cocaine addict,

  • but also just in general. He was just a high-energy sort

  • of person. He was up for the Nobel Prize

  • in medicine and in literature; didn't get either one of them;

  • didn't get the prize in medicine because Albert

  • Einstein--Everybody loves Albert Einstein.

  • Well, Albert Einstein really wrote a letter because they

  • asked for opinions of other Nobel Prizes.

  • He wrote a letter saying, "Don't give the prize to Freud.

  • He doesn't deserve a Nobel Prize.

  • He's just a psychologist." Well, yeah.

  • Okay. While he's almost universally

  • acclaimed as a profoundly important intellectual figure,

  • he's also the object of considerable dislike.

  • This is in part because of his character.

  • He was not a very nice man in many ways.

  • He was deeply ambitious to the cause of promoting

  • psychoanalysis, to the cause of presenting his

  • view and defending it, and he was often dishonest,

  • extremely brutal to his friends, and terrible to his

  • enemies. He was an interesting character.

  • My favorite Freud story was as he was leaving Europe during the

  • rise of the Nazis, as he was ready to go to

  • England from, I think, either Germany or

  • Austria, he had to sign a letter from the Gestapo.

  • Gestapo agents intercepted him and demanded he sign a letter

  • saying that at no point had he been threatened or harassed by

  • the Gestapo. So he signs the letter and then

  • he writes underneath it, "The Gestapo has not harmed me

  • in any way. In fact, I highly recommend the

  • Gestapo to everybody." It's--He had a certain

  • aggression to him. He was also--He's also

  • disliked, often hated, because of his views.

  • He was seen as a sexual renegade out to destroy the

  • conception of people as good and rational and pure beings.

  • And when the Nazis rose to power in the 1930s he was

  • identified as a Jew who was devoted to destroying the most

  • sacred notions of Christianity and to many,

  • to some extent, many people see him this way.

  • And to some extent, this accusation has some truth

  • to it. Freud made claims about people

  • that many of us, maybe most of us,

  • would rather not know. Well, okay.

  • What did he say? Well, if you ask somebody who

  • doesn't like Freud what he said, they'll describe some of the

  • stupider things he said and, in fact, Freud said a lot of

  • things, some of which were not very rational.

  • For instance, he's well known for his account

  • of phallic symbols, arguing certain architectural

  • monuments are subconsciously developed as penile

  • representations. And related to this,

  • he developed the notorious theory of penis envy.

  • And penis envy is an account of a developmental state that every

  • one of you who is female has gone through,

  • according to Freud. And the idea is that you

  • discovered at some point in your development that you lacked a

  • penis. This is not--This is a

  • catastrophe. And so, each of you inferred at

  • that point that you had been castrated.

  • You had once had a penis but somebody had taken it from you.

  • You then turn to your father and love your father because

  • your father has a penis, so he's a sort of penis

  • substitute. You reject your mother,

  • who's equally unworthy due to her penis lack,

  • and that shapes your psychosexual development.

  • Now, if that's the sort of thing you know about Freud,

  • you are not going to have a very high opinion of him or of

  • his work, but at the core of Freud's

  • declamation, the more interesting ideas,

  • is a set of claims of a man's intellectual importance.

  • And the two main ones are this. The two main ones involve the

  • existence of an unconscious, unconscious motivation,

  • and the notion of unconscious dynamics or unconscious conflict

  • which lead to mental illnesses, dreams, slips of the tongue and

  • so on. The first ideathe idea of

  • unconscious motivationinvolves rejecting the claim

  • that you know what you're doing. So, suppose you fall in love

  • with somebody and you decide you want to marry them and then

  • somebody was asked to ask you why and you'd say something

  • like, "Well, I'm ready to get married

  • this stage of my life; I really love the person;

  • the person is smart and attractive;

  • I want to have kids" whatever. And maybe this is true.

  • But a Freudian might say that even if this is your honest

  • answeryou're not lying to anybody elsestill,

  • there are desires and motivations that govern your

  • behavior that you may not be aware of.

  • So, in fact, you might want to marry John

  • because he reminds you of your father or because you want to

  • get back at somebody for betraying you.

  • If somebody was to tell you this, you'd say,

  • "That's total nonsense," but that wouldn't deter a Freudian.

  • The Freudian would say that these processes are unconscious

  • so of course you just don't know what's happening.

  • So, the radical idea here is you might not know what--why you

  • do what you do and this is something we accept for things

  • like visual perception. We accept that you look around

  • the world and you get sensations and you figure out there is a

  • car, there is a tree, there is a person.

  • And you're just unconscious of how this happens but it's

  • unpleasant and kind of frightening that this could

  • happen, that this could apply to things

  • like why you're now studying at Yale, why you feel the way you

  • do towards your friends, towards your family.

  • Now, the marriage case is extreme but Freud gives a lot of

  • simpler examples where this sort of unconscious motivation might

  • play a role. So, have you ever liked

  • somebody or disliked them and not known why?

  • Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you're doing

  • something or you're arguing for something or making a decision

  • for reasons that you can't fully articulate?

  • Have you ever forgotten somebody's name at exactly the

  • wrong time? Have you ever called out the

  • wrong name in the throes of passion?

  • This is all the Freudian unconscious.

  • The idea is that we do these things--these things are

  • explained in terms of cognitive systems that we're not aware of.

  • Now, all of this would be fine if your unconscious was a

  • reasonable, rational computer, if your unconscious was really

  • smart and looking out for your best interest.

  • But, according to Freud, that's not the way it works.

  • According to Freud, there are three distinct

  • processes going on in your head and these are in violent

  • internal conflict. And the way you act and the way

  • you think are products, not of a singular rational

  • being, but of a set of conflicting creatures.

  • And these three parts are the id, the ego, and the superego

  • and they emerge developmentally. The id, according to Freud,

  • is present at birth. It's the animal part of the

  • self. It wants to eat,

  • drink, pee, poop, get warm, and have sexual

  • satisfaction. It is outrageously stupid.

  • It works on what Freud called, "The Pleasure Principle."

  • It wants pleasure and it wants it now.

  • And that's, according to Freud, how a human beginspure id.

  • Freud had this wonderful phrase, "polymorphous

  • perversity," this pure desire for pleasure.

  • Now, unfortunately, life doesn't work like that.

  • What you want isn't always what you get and this leads to a set

  • of reactions to cope with the fact that pleasure isn't always

  • there when you want it either by planning how to satisfy your

  • desires or planning how to suppress them.

  • And this system is known as the ego, or the self.

  • And it works on the "Reality Principle."

  • And it works on the principle of trying to figure out how to

  • make your way through the world, how to satisfy your pleasures

  • or, in some cases, how to give up on them.

  • And the egothe emergence of the ego for Freud--symbolizes

  • the origin of consciousness. Finally, if this was all there

  • it might be a simpler world, but Freud had a third

  • component, that of the superego. And the superego is the

  • internalized rules of parents in society.

  • So, what happens in the course of development is,

  • you're just trying to make your way through the world and

  • satisfy your desires, but sometimes you're punished

  • for them. Some desires are inappropriate,

  • some actions are wrong, and you're punished for it.

  • The idea is that you come out; you get in your head a

  • superego, a conscience. In these movies,

  • there'd be a little angel above your head that tells you when

  • things are wrong. And basically your self,

  • the ego, is in between the id and the superego.

  • One thing to realize, I told you the id is

  • outrageously stupid. It just says,

  • "Oh, hungry, food, sex, oh,

  • let's get warm, oh."

  • The superego is also stupid. The superego,

  • point to point, is not some brilliant moral

  • philosopher telling you about right and wrong.

  • The superego would say, "You should be ashamed of

  • yourself. That's disgusting.

  • Stop doing that. Oh."

  • And in between these two screaming creatures,

  • one of you; one of them telling you to seek

  • out your desires, the other one telling you,

  • "you should be ashamed of yourself," is you,

  • is the ego. Now, according to Freud,

  • most of this is unconscious. So, we see bubbling up to the

  • top, we feel, we experience ourselves.

  • And the driving of the id, the forces of the id and the

  • forces of the superego, are unconscious in that we

  • cannot access them. We don't know what--It's like

  • the workings of our kidneys or our stomachs.

  • You can't introspect and find them.

  • Rather, they do their work without conscious knowledge.

  • Now, Freud developed this. This is the Freudian theory in

  • broad outline. He extended it and developed it

  • into a theory of psychosexual development.

  • And so, Freud's theory is, as I said before,

  • a theory of everyday life, of decisions,

  • of errors, of falling in love, but it's also a theory of child

  • development. So, Freud believed there were

  • five stages of personality development, and each is

  • associated with a particular erogenous zone.

  • And Freud believed, as well, that if you have a

  • problem at a certain stage, if something goes wrong,

  • you'll be stuck there. So, according to Freud,

  • there are people in this room who are what they are because

  • they got stuck in the oral stage or the anal stage.

  • And that's not good. So, the oral stage is when you

  • start off. The mouth is associated with

  • pleasure. Everything is sucking and

  • chewing and so on. And the problem for Freud is

  • premature weaning of a child. Depriving him of the breast,

  • could lead to serious problems in his personality development.

  • It could make him, as the phrase goes,

  • into an oral person. And his orality could be

  • described literally. Freud uses it as an explanation

  • for why somebody might eat too much or chew gum or smoke.

  • They're trying to achieve satisfaction through their mouth

  • of a sort they didn't get in this very early stage of

  • development. But it can also be more

  • abstract. If your roommate is dependent

  • and needy, you could then go to your roommate and say,

  • "You are an oral person. The first year of your life did

  • not go well." A phrase even more popular is

  • the anal stage and that happens after the oral stage.

  • And problems can emerge if toilet training is not handled

  • correctly. If you have problems during

  • those years of life, you could become an anal

  • personality, according to Freud,

  • and your roommate could say, "Your problem is you're too

  • anal." And, according to Freud,

  • literally, it meant you are unwilling to part with your own

  • feces.

  • It's written down here. I know it's true.

  • And the way it manifests itself, as you know from just

  • how people talk, is you're compulsive,

  • you're clean, you're stingy.

  • This is the anal personality. Then it gets a little bit more

  • complicated. The next stage is the phallic

  • stage. Actually, this is not much more

  • complicated. The focus of pleasure shifts to

  • the genitals and fixation can lead to excessive masculinity in

  • females or in males or if you're female a need for attention or

  • domination. Now, at this point something

  • really interesting happens called the "Oedipus Complex."

  • And this is based on the story, the mythical story of a king

  • who killed his father and married his mother.

  • And, according to Freud, this happens to all of us in

  • this way. Well, all of us.

  • By "all of us," Freud meant "men."

  • So, here's the idea. You're three or four years old.

  • You're in the phallic stage. So, what are you interested in?

  • Well, you're interested in your penis and then you seek an

  • external object. Freud's sort of vague about

  • this, but you seek some sort of satisfaction.

  • But who is out there who'd be sweet and kind and loving and

  • wonderful? Well, Mom.

  • So the child infers, "Mom is nice,

  • I love Mom." So far so--And so this is not

  • crazy; a little boy falling in love

  • with his mother. Problem: Dad's in the way.

  • Now, this is going to get progressively weirder but I will

  • have to say, as the father of two sons,

  • both sons went through a phase where they explicitly said they

  • wanted to marry Mommy. And meif something bad

  • happened to me that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

  • So, there's this. But now it gets a little bit

  • aggressive. So, the idea is the child

  • determines that he's going to kill his father.

  • Every three- and four-year-old boy thinks this.

  • But then because children, according to Freud,

  • don't have a good sense of the boundary between their mind and

  • the world, which is a problemthe

  • problem is they don't – they think their father can tell that

  • they're plotting to kill him and they figure their father is now

  • angry at them. And then they ask themselves,

  • "What's the worst thing Dad could do to me?"

  • And the answer is castration. So, they come to the conclusion

  • that their father is going to castrate them because of their

  • illicit love for their Mom. And then they say,

  • "Dad wins" and then they don't think about sex for several

  • years and that's the latency stage.

  • The latency stage is they've gone through this huge thing

  • with Mom and Dad, "fell in love with Mom,

  • wanted to kill my father, Dad was going to castrate me,

  • fell out of love with Mom, out of the sex business."

  • And then, sex is repressed until you get to the genital

  • stage. And the genital stage is the

  • stage we are all inthe healthy adult stage.

  • Now that you're adults and you've gone through all the

  • developmental stages, where do you stand?

  • You're not out of the woods yet because unconscious mechanisms

  • are still--Even if you haven't got fixated on anything,

  • there's still this dynamic going on all the time with your

  • id, your ego and your superego. And the idea is your

  • superego--Remember, your superego is stupid.

  • So, your superego isn't only telling you not to do bad

  • things, it's telling you not to think bad things.

  • So, what's happening is your id is sending up all of this weird,

  • sick stuff, all of these crazy sexual and violent desires,

  • "Oh, I'll kill him. I'll have sex with that.

  • I'll have extra helpings on my dessert."

  • And your superego is saying, "No, no, no."

  • And this stuff is repressed. It doesn't even make it to

  • consciousness. The problem is Freud had a very

  • sort of hydraulic theory of what goes on and some of this stuff

  • slips out and it shows up in dreams and it shows up in slips

  • of the tongue. And in exceptional cases,

  • it shows up in certain clinical symptoms.

  • So what happens is, Freud described a lot of normal

  • life in terms of different ways we use to keep that horrible

  • stuff from the id making its way to consciousness.

  • And he called these "defense mechanisms."

  • You're defending yourself against the horrible parts of

  • yourself and some of these make a little bit of sense.

  • One way to describe this in a non-technical,

  • non-Freudian way is, there are certain things about

  • ourselves we'd rather not know. There are certain desires we'd

  • rather not know and we have ways to hide them.

  • So, for instance, there's sublimation.

  • Sublimation is you might have a lot of energy,

  • maybe sexual energy or aggressive energy,

  • but instead of turning it to a sexual or aggressive target what

  • you do is you focus it in some other way.

  • So, you can imagine a great artist like Picasso turning the

  • sexual energy into his artwork. There is displacement.

  • Displacement is you have certain shameful thoughts or

  • desires and you refocus them more appropriately.

  • A boy who's bullied by his father may hate his father and

  • want to hurt him but since this would--this is very shameful and

  • difficult. The boy might instead kick the

  • dog and think he hates the dog because that's a more acceptable

  • target.

  • There is projection. Projection is,

  • I have certain impulses I am uncomfortable with,

  • so rather than own them myself, I project them to somebody

  • else. A classic example for Freud is

  • homosexual desires. The idea is that I feel this

  • tremendous lust towards you, for instance,

  • and--any of you, all of you, you three,

  • and I'm ashamed of this lust so what I say is,

  • "Hey. Are you guys looking at me in a

  • sexual manner? Are you lusting after me?

  • How disgusting," because what I do is I take my own desires and

  • I project it to others. And Freud suggested,

  • perhaps not implausibly, that men who believe other

  • men--who are obsessed with the sexuality of other men,

  • are themselves projecting away their own sexual desires.

  • There is rationalization, which is that when you do

  • something or think something bad you rationalize it and you give

  • it a more socially acceptable explanation.

  • A parent who enjoys smacking his child will typically not

  • say, "I enjoy smacking my child."

  • Rather he'll say, "It's for the child's own good.

  • I'm being a good parent by doing this."

  • And finally, there is regression,

  • which is returning to an earlier stage of development.

  • And you actually see this in children.

  • In times of stress and trauma, they'll become younger,

  • they will act younger. They might cry.

  • They might suck their thumb, seek out a blanket or so on.

  • Now, these are all mechanisms that for Freud are not the

  • slightest bit pathological. They are part of normal life.

  • Normally, we do these things to keep an equilibrium among the

  • different systems of the unconscious, but sometimes it

  • doesn't work. Sometimes things go awry and

  • what happens is a phrase that's not currently used in psychology

  • but was popular during Freud's time: hysteria.

  • Hysteria includes phenomena like hysterical blindness and

  • hysterical deafness, which is when you cannot see

  • and cannot hear even though there's nothing physiologically

  • wrong with youparalysis, trembling, panic attacks,

  • gaps of memory including amnesia and so on.

  • And the idea is that these are actually symptoms.

  • These are symptoms of mechanisms going on to keep

  • things unconscious. It's a common enough idea in

  • movies. Often in movies what happens is

  • that somebody goes to an analyst.

  • They have some horrible problem. They can't remember something

  • or they have some sort of blackouts and so on.

  • And the analyst tells them something and at one point they

  • get this insight and they realize what--why they've

  • blinded themselves, why they can't remember,

  • and for Freud this is what happens.

  • Freud originally attempted to get these memories out through

  • hypnosis but then moved to the mechanism of free association

  • and, according to Freud,

  • the idea is patients offer resistance to this and then the

  • idea of a psychoanalyst is to get over the resistance and help

  • patients get insight. The key notion of

  • psychoanalysis is your problems are--actually reflect deeper

  • phenomena. You're hiding something from

  • yourself, and once you know what's going on to deeper

  • phenomena your problems will go away.

  • I'm going to give you an example of a therapy session.

  • Now, this is not a Freudian analysis.

  • We'll discuss later on in the course what a Freudian analysis

  • is, but this is not a pure Freudian analysis.

  • A Freudian analysis, of course, is lying on a couch;

  • does not see their therapist; their therapist is very

  • nondirective. But I'm going to present this

  • as an example here because it illustrates so many of the

  • Freudian themes, particularly themes about

  • dreams, the importance of dreams, about repression and

  • about hidden meaning. So, this is from a television

  • episode and the character's--Many--Some of you

  • may have seen this. Many of you will not have.

  • The character is suffering from panic attacks.

  • Freud's contributions extend beyond the study of individual

  • psychology and individual pathology.

  • Freud had a lot to say about dreams as you could see in this

  • illustration. He believed that dreams had a

  • manifest content, meaning;

  • "manifest" meaning what you experience in your dream.

  • But dreams always had a latent content as well,

  • meaning the hidden implication of the dream.

  • He viewed all dreams as wish fulfillment.

  • Every dream you have is a certain wish you have even

  • though it might be a forbidden wish that you wouldn't wish to

  • have, you wouldn't want to have. And dreams had--and this is an

  • idea that long predated Freud. Dreams had symbolism.

  • Things in dreams were often not what they seemed to be but

  • rather symbols for other things. Freud believed that literature

  • and fairy tales and stories to children and the like carried

  • certain universal themes, certain aspects of unconscious

  • struggles, and certain preoccupations of our

  • unconscious mind. And Freud had a lot to say

  • about religion. For instance,

  • he viewed a large part of our--of the idea of finding a

  • singular, all-powerful god as seeking out

  • a father figure that some of us never had during development.

  • What I want to spend the rest of the class on is the

  • scientific assessment of Freud. So, what I did so far is I've

  • told you what Freud had to say in broad outline.

  • I then want to take the time to consider whether or not we

  • should believe this and how well it fits with our modern science.

  • But before doing so, I'll take questions for a few

  • minutes. Do people have any questions

  • about Freud or Freud's theories?

  • Yes. Student:

  • [inaudible] Professor Paul Bloom:

  • So, that's some question. The question is:

  • The conflicts in psychosexual development that Freud describes

  • is--always assumes that a child has a mother and a father,

  • one of each, in a certain sort of familial

  • structure. And the question then is,

  • "What if a child was raised by a single parent,

  • for example?" What if a child was never

  • breast fed, but fed from the bottle from the start?

  • And Freudians have had problems with this.

  • Freud's--Freud was very focused on the family life of the people

  • he interacted with, which is rather upper class

  • Europeans, and these sort of questions would have been

  • difficult for Freud to answer. I imagine that what a Freudian

  • would have to say is, you would expect systematic

  • differences. So, you would expect a child

  • who just grew up with a mother or just grew up to be a

  • father--with a father to be in some sense psychologically

  • damaged by that, failing to go through the

  • normal psychosexual stages. Yes.

  • Student: [inaudible]

  • Professor Paul Bloom: The issue--The question is,

  • "Do modern psychoanalysts still believe that women do not have

  • superegos?" Freud was--As you're pointing

  • out, Freud was notorious for pointing, for suggesting that

  • women were morally immature relative to men.

  • I think Freud would say that women have superegos,

  • they're just not the sort of sturdy ones that men have.

  • I think psychoanalysts and psychoanalytic scholars right

  • now would be mixed. Some would maintain that there

  • really are deep sex differences. Others would want to jettison

  • that aspect of Freudian theory.

  • Yes. Student:

  • Do you define sublimation as being displacement?

  • Does that make it sort of a subgroup of displacement?

  • Professor Paul Bloom: Well, what sublimation is--A

  • lot of these--It's a good question.

  • The question is sort of, what is sublimation?

  • How does it relate to the other defense mechanisms?

  • A lot of defense mechanisms involve taking a desire and

  • turning it. Now, what displacement does is

  • it takes it from you to her. I'm angry at you but maybe

  • that's forbidden for some reason, so I'll be angry at her.

  • What projection does is takes a desire from me and then puts it

  • on somebody else heading outwards.

  • And what sublimation does is it just gives up the details and

  • keeps the energy. So, you stay up--Your roommate

  • stays up all night working and you say to your roommate,

  • for instance, "That's just because you

  • haven't had sex in a long time and you want to have sex so you

  • devote all your energy to your math exam."

  • And then you say, "That's sublimation.

  • I learned that in Intro Psych." And your roommate would be very

  • pleased. One more question.

  • Yes. Student:

  • What kind of evidence is there for cross-cultural variation?

  • Professor Paul Bloom: The question is,

  • which is related to the issue--extending the issue of

  • the two-parent versus one-parent family is,

  • "To what extent are these notions validated

  • cross-culturally?" And that's such a good question

  • I'm going to defer it. I'm going to talk about it in a

  • few minutes because that's actually--That speaks to the

  • issue of the scientific assessment of Freud so I'm going

  • to try to get to your question in a little bit.

  • Freudian theory is now, at this point of time,

  • extremely controversial and there is a lot of well-known

  • criticisms and attacks on Freud. This is just actually an

  • excellent book on The Memory Wars by Frederick Crews,

  • which--and Frederick Crews is one of the strongest and most

  • passionate critics of Freud. And the problems with Freud go

  • like this. There are two ways you could

  • reject a theory. There are two problems with the

  • scientific theory. One way you could reject a

  • theory is that it could be wrong.

  • So, suppose I have a theory that the reason why some

  • children have autism, a profound developmental

  • disorder, is because their mothers don't

  • love them enough. This was a popular theory for

  • many years. It's a possible theory.

  • It just turns out to be wrong but another way--And so one way

  • to attack and address a scientific theory is to view it

  • as just to see whether or not it works.

  • But there's a different problem a theory could have.

  • A theory could be so vague and all encompassing that it can't

  • even be tested. And this is one of the main

  • critiques of Freud. The idea could be summed up by

  • a quotation from the physicist Wolfgang Pauli.

  • And Pauli was asked his opinion about another physicist.

  • And Pauli said this: "That guy's work is crap.

  • He's not right. He's not even wrong."

  • And the criticism about Freud is that he's not even wrong.

  • The issue of vagueness is summarized in a more technical

  • way by the philosopher Karl Popper who described--who

  • introduced the term of falsifiability.

  • The idea of falsifiability is that what distinguishes science

  • from non science is that scientific predictions make

  • strong claims about the world and these claims are of a sort

  • that they could be proven wrong. If they couldn't be proven

  • wrong, they're not interesting enough to be science.

  • So, for example, within psychology the sort of

  • claims we'll be entertaining throughout the course include

  • claims like, damage to the hippocampus

  • causes failures of certain sorts of memory, or everywhere in the

  • world men on average want to have more sexual partners than

  • women, or exposure to violent

  • television tends to make children themselves more

  • violent. Now, are they true or are they

  • false? Well, we'll talk about that,

  • but the point here is they can be false.

  • They're interesting enough that they can be tested and as such

  • they go to--they might be wrong but they graduate to the level

  • of a scientific theory. This should be contrasted with

  • nonscientific programs and the best example of a nonscientific

  • program is astrology. So, the problem with

  • astrological predictions is not that they're wrong.

  • It's that they can't be wrong. They're not even wrong.

  • I did my--I got my horoscope for today on the web.

  • "A couple of negative aspects could make you a little finicky

  • for the next few days." Okay.

  • I'm going to watch for that. "The presence of both Mars and

  • Venus suggests you want to box everything into a neat,

  • ordered, structured way but keeping a piece of jade or

  • carnelian close will help you keep in touch with your fun

  • side." And starting this morning I got

  • from my wife a little piece of jade and I have been sort of in

  • touch with my fun side. The problem is,

  • a few days aren't going to go by and say, "God.

  • That was wrong." It can't be wrong.

  • It's just so vague. I got a better horoscope from

  • The Onion actually: "Riding in a golf cart with

  • snow cone in hand, you'll be tackled by two police

  • officers this week after matching a composite caricature

  • of a suspected murderer." Now, that's a good prediction

  • because "wow." If it turns out to be true,

  • I'm going to say, "Those guys really know

  • something." It's falsifiable.

  • Arguably, Freud fails the test because Freudian theory is often

  • so vague and flexible that it can't really be tested in any

  • reliable way. A big problem with this is a

  • lot of Freudian theory is claimed to be validated in the

  • course of psychoanalysis. So, when you ask people,

  • "Why do you believe in Freud?" they won't say,

  • "Oh, because of this experiment, that experiment,

  • this data set and that data set."

  • What they'll say is, "It's--The Freudian theory

  • proves itself in the course of psychoanalysisthe success

  • of psychoanalysis." But it's unreliable.

  • The problem is, say, Freud says to a patient,

  • "You hate your mother." The patient says, "Wow.

  • That makes sense." Freud says, "I'm right."

  • The patient--Freud says, "You hate your mother," and the

  • patient says, "No, I don't.

  • That's titillating. That's disgusting."

  • Freud says, "Your anger shows this idea is painful to you.

  • You have repressed it from consciousness.

  • I am right." And the problem is the same

  • sort of dynamic plays itself out even in the scientific debate

  • back and forth. So Freud--Freudian

  • psychologists--I'm putting Freud here but what I mean is

  • well-known defenders of Freud will make some claims like:

  • adult personality traits are shaped by the course of

  • psychosexual development; all dreams are disguised wish

  • fulfillment; psychoanalysis is the best

  • treatment for mental disorders. Scientists will respond,

  • "I disagree. There's little or no evidence

  • supporting those claims." And the Freudian response is,

  • "Your rejection of my ideas shows that they are distressing

  • to you. This is because I am right."

  • And this is often followed up, seriously enough.

  • "You have deep psychological problems."

  • And now, I don't want to caricature Freudians.

  • A lot of Freudians have tried and made a research program of

  • extending their ideas scientifically,

  • bringing them to robust scientific tests.

  • But the problem is, when you make specific

  • falsifiable predictions they don't always do that well.

  • So, for instance, there's no evidence that oral

  • and anal characteristics, the personality characteristics

  • I talked aboutabout being needy versus being stingy

  • relate in any interesting way to weaning or toilet training.

  • And there's been some efforts cross-culturally,

  • to go back to the question this young man asked before

  • looking at cross-cultural differences in toilet training

  • and weaning, which are really big

  • differences, to see if they correspond in any interesting

  • way to personality differences. And there's been no good

  • evidence supporting that. Similarly, Freud had some

  • strong claims about sexuality, for why some people are

  • straight and others are gay. These have met with very little

  • empirical support. And the claim that

  • psychoanalysis proves itself by being--by its tremendous success

  • in curing mental illness is also almost certainly not true.

  • For most--Maybe not all, but for most psychological

  • disorders, there are quicker and more reliable treatments than

  • psychoanalysis. And there's considerable

  • controversy as to whether the Tony Soprano method of insight,

  • where you get this insight and there's discovery,

  • "Oh, now I know," makes any real difference in alleviating

  • symptoms such as anxiety disorders or depression.

  • This is why there's sort of--often sort of a sticker

  • shock when people go to a university psychology department

  • where they say, "Look.

  • Hey. Where is--So I'm in Psych.

  • How could I take classes on Freud?

  • Who's your expert on Freud?" And the truth is Freudian

  • psychoanalysis is almost never studied inside psychology

  • departments. Not the cognitive or

  • developmental side, not the clinical side.

  • There are some exceptions but, for the most part,

  • even the people who do study Freud within psychology

  • departments do so critically. Very few of them would see

  • themselves as a psychoanalytic practitioner or as a Freudian

  • psychologist. Freud lives on both in a

  • clinical setting and in the university but Freud at Yale,

  • for instance, is much more likely to be found

  • in the history department or the literature department than in

  • the psychology department. And this is typical enough but,

  • despite all of the, sort of, sour things I just

  • said about Freud, the big idea,

  • the importance of the dynamic unconscious, remains intact.

  • We will go over and over and over again different case

  • studies where some really interesting aspects of mental

  • life prove to be unconscious. Now, there's one question.

  • I'm actually going to skip over this for reasons of time and

  • just go to some examples of the unconscious in modern

  • psychology. So, here's a simple example of

  • the unconscious in modern psychology: Language

  • understanding. So, when you hear a sentence

  • like, "John thinks that Bill likes him," in a fraction of a

  • second you realize that this means that John thinks that Bill

  • likes John. If you heard the

  • sentence--Oops--"John thinks that Bill likes himself," in a

  • fraction of a second you would think that it means "John thinks

  • that Bill likes Bill." And as we will get to when we

  • get to the lecture on language, this is not conscious.

  • You don't know how you do this. You don't even know that you

  • are doing this but you do it quickly and instinctively.

  • So much of our day-to-day life can be done unconsciously.

  • There are different activities you can dodriving,

  • chewing gum, shoelace tyingwhere if

  • you're good enough at them, if you're expert enough at

  • them, you don't know you're doing them.

  • I was at a party a few years ago for a friend of mine and we

  • ran out of food so he said, "I'll just go pick up some

  • food." An hour later he was

  • gone--still gone and it was around the corner.

  • And we called him up on his cell phone and he said,

  • "Oh. I got on the highway and I

  • drove to work." Yeah.

  • He works an hour away but he got on the highway "drive drive

  • drive." And these--some version of

  • these things happen all of the time.

  • Maybe more surprising, Freud's insight that our likes

  • and dislikes are due to factors that we're not necessarily

  • conscious of has a lot of empirical support--a lot of

  • empirical support from research into social psychology,

  • for example. So, here's one finding from

  • social psychology. If somebody goes through a

  • terrible initiation to get into a club, they'll like the club

  • more. You might think they'd like it

  • less because people do terrible things to them.

  • But actually, hazing is illegal but a

  • remarkably successful tool. The more you pay for something

  • the more you like it and the more pain you go through to get

  • something the more you like it. From the standpoint of politics

  • for instance, if you want loyal people in a

  • political campaign, do not pay them.

  • If you pay them, they'll like you less.

  • If they volunteer, they'll like you more.

  • And we'll talk about why. There's different theories

  • about why, but my point right now is simply that people don't

  • necessarily know this but still they're subject to this.

  • Another example is some weird studies done in a discipline of

  • social psychology known as terror management which involves

  • subliminal death primes. The idea of subliminal death

  • primes is this. You sign up for your human

  • subjects requirement and then you--they put you in front of a

  • computer screen and then they tell you,

  • "Oh, just sit in front of the computer screen and then we'll

  • ask you some questions." And then the questions come out

  • and they're questions like, "How much do you love your

  • country?" "What do you think of Asians?"

  • "What do you think of Jews?" "What do you think of blacks?"

  • "What do you think of vegetarians?"

  • "What do you think of people's political views different from

  • yours?" Here's the gimmick.

  • What you don't know is on that computer screen words are being

  • flashed like that but they're being flashed so fast it looks

  • like that--You don't see anything--words like "corpse,"

  • "dead," "dying." The flashing of these

  • subliminal words, "subliminal" meaning – a

  • fancy term meaning below the level of consciousness,

  • you don't know you're seeing themhas dramatic effects on

  • how you answer those questions. People exposed to death primes

  • become more nationalistic, more patriotic,

  • less forgiving of other people, less liking of other races and

  • people from other countries. Again the claim--the

  • explanation for why this is so is something which we'll get to

  • in another class. The point now is simply to

  • illustrate that these sort of things can have--that things you

  • aren't aware of can have an effect on how you think.

  • The final example I'll give of this is a short demonstration.

  • To do this, I'm going to cut the class in half at this point

  • so you'll be on this side of the class,

  • the right side, my right, and this will be on

  • the left side, and I simply want everybody to

  • think about somebody you love. So, think about somebody you

  • love, your girlfriend, your boyfriend,

  • your mom, your dad. Think about somebody you love.

  • Just think. Okay.

  • Now, on this screen is going to be instructions but I want to

  • give the instructions to this half of the class .

  • I'm going to ask everybody in this half of the class please

  • either turn your head or shut your eyes.

  • Okay? Teaching fellows too.

  • Okay. And everybody on this half obey

  • . Okay.

  • Has everybody read that? Okay.

  • Now, turn your head, this group. Now this group:

  • Look at this and take a moment. You don't have to do it on

  • paper but take a moment to do it in your head.

  • You--Each group had instructions.

  • Some people might have seen both instructions.

  • Follow the instructions you got for you.

  • Now, this was research done by Norbert Schwarz and here's the

  • question I want you to ask yourself, "How much do you like

  • this person?" And here's the effect:

  • Half of you were asked to list three features of the person.

  • Half of you were asked to list ten.

  • The finding, which is not a subtle finding,

  • is that liking goes up in the three group and liking goes down

  • in the ten group. And here is why.

  • I have to think about three positive features of somebody so

  • I think about my girlfriend. I have a girlfriend.

  • I think about my girlfriend, "but oh, she's smart,

  • she's beautiful and she's kind. Good.

  • How much do--What do I think of her?

  • "Pretty, good, smart, beautiful,

  • kind, smart, beautiful, oh,

  • yeah." But the problem--;Now,

  • Schwarz is clever though. He says, "List--" The other

  • group gets ten positive features, "smart,

  • beautiful, kindreally nicegood

  • cookpunctual, smartNo,

  • I mentioned that." The problem is nobody has ten

  • positive features! And the effect of being asked

  • to do ten positive features is people find this hard.

  • And then those people, when asked, "How much do you

  • like this person?" say, "Couldn't really make it

  • that ten. I guess I don't like them very

  • much." Now, the point of this

  • illustration, again, is that it shows that

  • you don't know this. Subjects who were asked to do

  • ten positive features and then later ranked the person lower

  • and then asked, "Why did you rank the person

  • lower?" Don't say, "'Cause you told me

  • to list ten." Typically, we are oblivious to

  • these factors that change our pointswhat we like and what

  • we dislikeand this is, in fact, a substantial and an

  • important part of the study of psychology, and particularly,

  • for instance, the study of racial and sexual

  • prejudice. Where--One of the big findings

  • from social psychology, and we'll devote almost an

  • entire lecture to this, is that people have strong

  • views about other races that they don't know about and that

  • they don't know how to control their actions.

  • So, to some extent, this rounds out Freud because

  • to some extent the particulars of Freud are--for the most part

  • have been rejected. But the general idea of Freud's

  • actually been so successful both in the study of scientific

  • psychology and in our interpretation of everyday life

  • that, to some extent,

  • Freud's been a victim of his own success.

  • We tend to underestimate the importance of Freudian thought

  • in everyday life because he's transformed our world view to

  • such an extent that it's difficult for us to remember if

  • there's any other way to think about it.

  • So, to some extent, he's been the victim of his own

  • success. We have time for some further

  • questions about Freud and about scientific implications of

  • Freud.

  • I took a class once on how to teach when I was a graduate

  • student. And I just remember two things

  • from this class. One thing is never grade in red

  • pen. Those--People don't like that.

  • The second thing is never ask any questions,

  • because presumably it is very frightening to ask,

  • "Any questions?" and people find it's

  • intimidating. I'm supposed to ask,

  • "What are your questions?" So, what are your questions?

  • Yes, in back. Sorry.

  • Student: Did Freud believe in

  • [inaudible] Professor Paul Bloom:

  • Did Freud believe in [inaudible]

  • Student: Medication Professor Paul

  • Bloom: Medication. Freud had an--It's a good

  • question. The question was,

  • "Does--did Freud believe in medication?"

  • Medication, of course, being a major theme of how we

  • deal with certain disorders now, particularly depression and

  • anxiety disorders. On the one hand,

  • Freud made his start as a neuroscientist.

  • Freud studied the mind and the brain and was intensely

  • interested in the neural basis of thought and behavior.

  • But the answer to your question in the end is,

  • "no." Although Freud was very

  • sensitive to the brain basis of behavior, Freud was totally

  • convinced that the method through which to cure disorders

  • like depression and anxiety would not be medication but

  • rather through the sort of talk therapy and insight.

  • Moreover, modern therapists, including some people who

  • aren't psychoanalytically defined, will say,

  • "Look. These drugs are all well and

  • good but what they do is they mask the symptoms."

  • So, if you have panic attacks, say, it's true that drugs might

  • make the panic attacks go away, but the panic attacks are

  • actually not your real problem. And by making them go away you

  • don't get to the root of your problem.

  • So, the answer is both Freud and modern day psychoanalysts

  • would think that medications are substantially overused in the

  • treatment of mental disorders. Yes.

  • Student: Are there any [inaudible]

  • Professor Paul Bloom: The question is,

  • "What about research on dreams?"

  • "Dreams" is such a fun topic that I'm going to devote half a

  • class to sleeping and dreams. So, for instance,

  • I will answer the question "What is the most common dream?"

  • I will also answer the question "Who thinks about sex more in

  • dreams, men or women, and what proportion of--" Oh.

  • There's so many great questions I will answer.

  • Dreams from a Freudian standpoint.

  • There's been some evidence that dreams do, and some often do,

  • have some relationship to what you're thinking about and

  • worrying about through the day. But the strong Freudian view

  • about symbolism and wish fulfillment has not been

  • supported by the study of dreams.

  • What are your other questions? Yes, whoever Erik is pointing

  • to. Professor Paul Bloom:

  • Purple shirt. Yes.

  • Student: [inaudible]--Electra complex?

  • Professor Paul Bloom: The Electra complex?

  • The Electra complex is the penis envy story.

  • Freud developed--This is a crude summary,

  • but Freud developed the Oedipal complex, "Mom,

  • I love Mommy, Dad."

  • And then it's as if somebody reminded him,

  • "Sigmund, there are also women."

  • "Oh, yeah." And that story I told you with

  • the penises and the penis envy and the replacement is sort of a

  • very shortened version of the Electra complex.

  • I think it's fair to say that the Electra complex was a sort

  • of add-on to the main interest of Freud's Oedipal complex.

  • One more, please. Yes.

  • Student: [inaudible]

  • Professor Paul Bloom: According to Freud,

  • the--there's not a fixation in the stage, in the same sense as

  • an oral or anal stage, but yes.

  • The claim that Freud would make is that the woman's discovery

  • that she lacks the penis plays a fundamental role later on

  • determining her allegiances in life and in fact her own sexual

  • preferences and interests. So, it's not the sort of thing

  • that affects her just for a short period.

Professor Paul Bloom: Okay.

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

B1 中級

3.3.基礎フロイト (3. Foundations: Freud)

  • 106 29
    CH に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語