[soheil]

Maybe for minor things it's good. But for depression and serious mental issues absolutely not.

For example you can't do analysis without being physically present with your doctor [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis

[balfirevic]

> For example you can't do analysis without being physically present with your doctor

Why not?

[wizeman]

Psychoanalysis is pretty much discredited as a scientific discipline, nowadays.

There's also a lot of evidence of remote therapy being just as effective as in-person therapy.

[philosopher1234]

Citation needed. Psychoanalysis is widely practiced and it’s efficacy has been repeatedly scientifically demonstrated.

[wizeman]

> Citation needed.

Sure, I will cite the Wikipedia page on Psychoanalysis, which itself has many citations which you can follow:

1. "Psychoanalysis is a controversial discipline, and its effectiveness as a treatment has been contested"

2. "Linguist Noam Chomsky has criticized psychoanalysis for lacking a scientific basis."

3. "Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould considered psychoanalysis influenced by pseudoscientific theories such as recapitulation theory."

4. "Psychologists Hans Eysenck, John F. Kihlstrom and others have also criticized the field as pseudoscience."

5. "Philosopher Frank Cioffi cites false claims of a sound scientific verification of the theory and its elements as the strongest basis for classifying the work of Freud and his school as pseudoscience."

6. "Karl Popper argued that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience because its claims are not testable and cannot be refuted; that is, they are not falsifiable:

....those "clinical observations" which analysts naively believe confirm their theory cannot do this any more than the daily confirmations which astrologers find in their practice. And as for Freud's epic of the Ego, the Super-ego, and the Id, no substantially stronger claim to scientific status can be made for it than for Homer's collected stories from the Olympus."

7. "Imre Lakatos wrote that "Freudians have been nonplussed by Popper's basic challenge concerning scientific honesty. Indeed, they have refused to specify experimental conditions under which they would give up their basic assumptions.""

8. "Scruton nevertheless concluded that psychoanalysis is not genuinely scientific, on the grounds that it involves an unacceptable dependence on metaphor."

9. "The philosopher and physicist Mario Bunge argued that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience because it violates the ontology and methodology inherent to science. According to Bunge, most psychoanalytic theories are either untestable or unsupported by evidence."

10. "Cognitive scientists, in particular, have also weighed in. Martin Seligman, a prominent academic in positive psychology, wrote that:

Thirty years ago, the cognitive revolution in psychology overthrew both Freud and the behaviorists, at least in academia.… The imperialistic Freudian view claims that emotion always drives thought, while the imperialistic cognitive view claims that thought always drives emotion. The evidence, however, is that each drives the other at times."

11. "Historian Henri Ellenberger, who researched the history of Freud, Jung, Adler, and Janet, while writing his book The Discovery of the Unconscious: The History and Evolution of Dynamic Psychiatry, argued that psychoanalysis was not scientific on the grounds of both its methodology and social structure:

Psychoanalysis, is it a science? It does not meet the criteria (unified science, defined domain and methodology). It corresponds to the traits of a philosophical sect (closed organisation, highly personal initiation, a doctrine which is changeable but defined by its official adoption, cult and legend of the founder)."

12. "Richard Feynman wrote off psychoanalysts as mere "witch doctors""

13. "Likewise, psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey, in Witchdoctors and Psychiatrists (1986), agreed that psychoanalytic theories have no more scientific basis than the theories of traditional native healers, "witchdoctors" or modern "cult" alternatives such as EST."

14. "Psychologist Alice Miller charged psychoanalysis with being similar to the poisonous pedagogies"

15. "Psychologist Joel Kupfersmid investigated the validity of the Oedipus complex, examining its nature and origins. He concluded that there is little evidence to support the existence of the Oedipus complex."

> Psychoanalysis is widely practiced

Astrology is widely practiced as well. Doesn't mean it's scientific.

> and it’s efficacy has been repeatedly scientifically demonstrated.

That is a very controversial statement within modern psychology.

Although I have no doubt that most psychoanalysts believe that, just as homeopaths and other pseudoscientific practitioners also believe that their disciplines are scientific.

[bowsamic]

I have to be honest, none of those are particularly convincing, and spamming a bunch of disconnected quotes from a Wikipedia page isn’t a great argument

[wizeman]

> I have to be honest, none of those are particularly convincing, and spamming a bunch of disconnected quotes from a Wikipedia page isn’t a great argument

It was not an argument. It was an answer to the parent poster which requested a citation. Which is why I gave him citations.

And if such a large list of citations from many experts in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, philosophy, history, cognitive science, etc, including many scientists and hell, even (at least) one Nobel prize winner, doesn't convince you... then I'm sorry to tell you this, but I don't think there could be anything that would convince you.

And I'm not sure why you think that you are more qualified than all of them to judge this.

[bowsamic]

I would be much more convinced by a modern meta analysis

The problem is that I’m a physicist so I see a wiki page with a bunch of quotes from people of all disciplines including a physicist who was famously a huge sceptic of psychiatry and I think of all the physics pages that have all these “opinions” that are wrong

Very few of those quotes mention evidence of outcomes of psychoanalysis but only mention very specific parts of it being questionable. I think you’re jumping the gun a bit. Don’t worry, that’s very common among people who are newer to science

[soheil]

Chomsky? He's a linguist, what does that have to do with Psychoanalysis?

Feynman? He's a physicist, what does that have to do with Psychoanalysis?

...

This list very much sounds like something the marketing team of an online therapy startup would put together and post to Wikipedia and tell their colleagues to contribute to.

[wizeman]

> Chomsky? He's a linguist, what does that have to do with Psychoanalysis?

He's also a philosopher, historian and cognitive scientist. He has received a Membership of the National Academy of Sciences (which is an award given to scientists), a Kyoto prize in Basic Sciences, a medal from a German academy of science, an American Psychology Association Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions to Psychology, etc.

These are relevant areas and merits with regards to judging whether a discipline is scientific or pseudo-scientific.

> Feynman? He's a physicist, what does that have to do with Psychoanalysis?

He is one of the most famous scientists in the world, had an extremely significant scientific career, won a Nobel prize in a scientific area and a National Medal of Science.

If you don't know why such a person would be extremely qualified to distinguish a scientific discipline from a pseudo-scientific one, I'm deeply sorry for you.

Also, don't ignore all the other experts in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, cognitive science, philosophy, history, etc. who arrived at the same conclusion.

Although, I am interested in knowing why you think that you are more qualified than these people to judge whether a discipline is scientific or not.

[soheil]

> Although, I am interested in knowing why you think that you are more qualified than these people to judge whether a discipline is scientific or not.

Because this doesn't pass the smell test.

You can always provide positive evidence for existence of something if you find a hole in provided evidence then you should then be extra careful believing the hypothesis. Or in Black Swan lingo skeptical empiricism.

[bowsamic]

As a postdoc in physics, Feynman barely holds any authority when it comes to physics subjects, let alone on psychoanalysis. You seem like the kind of person who is very susceptible to science misinformation. Too deferent to experts in a way that you don’t understand. It seems like you have switched your critical thinking off and are incredulous that others have not followed your example. Your lack of ability to even slightly justify your argument, instead going off on strange tangents about Nobel prizes is proof of this

If you actually had some relevant information you would post it immediately, because that is in your interest in this discussion

Good luck…