>>5989
>What god complex?
The modern God complex of humanity that has started with the so-called enlightenment. The general belief that humanity is all-powerful and has the "right" silly concept btw to do anything it can do without any responsibility.
> Any scientific approach starts with admitting you don't know.
In theory maybe. In the real world the majority of scientists are arrogant pricks that would rather kill an innocent than admitt to have been wrong.
>I suspect, that like many other conservative groups. They opposed it because it was new and different. It really might be that simple. Not too long ago in America for example "mental hygiene" was considered a symptom of cultural decline. Mental health has always been taboo.
>I don't mean to insult the church but they have a pattern of this.
The problem is that this is not really the case. Most sciences were and are advanced by outspoken Christians. Even things like the big bang theory or the basics of genetics, which are perceived as somehow anti-christian in America, were made by Church members.Let's not get started on the further past where science was generally dominated by the Church.
Psychoanalysis is somehow special in this. I know of no other new science that was opposed so much here, not even gender stuff which is also opposed for obvious reasons, but less
I will see into this and if I find a somehow satisfying answer, then I'll share.
>Why do you hate modern Psychology and like Psychoanalysis though?
Modern Psychology is no science at all. It is more of a political ideology. Just take a look at any psychology class at any western university and you will realise.
They already know their results before they make tests, they only want to satisfy the already dominant opinion. They are just another one of these "whacky social sciences" and for me on equal footing with gender studies.
Also every single psychologist that I've met so far, and I've met a few, was screwed in his autistic head and no good for society.
Psychoanalysis on the other hand has its problems, the biggest problem being the person and Charachter of Freud himself probably, but I can still regard it as a science, or rather a strange mix between science and philosophy.
>Psychoanalysis is even shakier as a science than modern psychology. It's never been proven to be all that effective at treating mental illness whereas things like CBT have.
Let's not get into details here, but I'd consider any psychological "Proof" as meaningless in this regard.
It becomes very obvious how arbitrary all of this is if we see how different psychology is in the anglosphere compared to the civilised world.
Stuff like CBT were and are perceived completely differently here in Europe than in America, as was Behaviorism which barely existed here
I know that many of the things they do have effects, and I know that they themselve do not know why, they're just guessing.
Even in psychiatrics it is mainly trial and error, modern medicine has like no idea at all what the drugs that they administer to your brain do in detail. They just try if it helps a certain amount of people, and if it does they do it until they have something better or change their opinion.
It's not like I would believe in psychoanalysis, I know that it is wrong in many ways, but at least I can respect it.