[isitdopamine]

I never understood how Jung is more unscientific than Freud.

At least: I don’t see this choir of “but it’s antiscientific!!!” cries when Freud is discussed, but still there’s no evidence whatsoever for the tripartition of self which is at the very base of Freud’a theories.

The super-ego is no more scientific than synchronicities!

[EL_Loco]

I think Freud's theories have all been pretty much considered 'surpassed' in academic psychology. I don't think they're considered valid anymore, outside of popular culture.

[isitdopamine]

Then let me rephrase it this way: I don’t see how Jung is more antiscientific than any other psychological theory.

[EL_Loco]

Well, even though there's a strong argument that around 50% of psychology studies fail to be reproduced when they try to, they are still studies which try to follow something as close as possible to the scientific method (some of the time, at least). Jung and Freud never did that. They just listened to a lot of patients and came up with explanations. Psychology today is still very far from the hard sciences, but it's more scientific than Freud ever was. And Jung.

[nathias]

Because he is a spiritualist and Freud (wrong as he may be) was still trying to find naturalistic explanations.

[isitdopamine]

The tripartition of psyche is not naturalistic at all.