[gtrevorjay]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm saying it's definitely moved. It's just moved in such a way that almost all of the new knowledge replaces rather than extends or builds on the old knowledge. Thus almost all effort learning the old knowledge was a waste and we can expect the same for learning it today.

Edit to respond to your edit: And I'm most definitely considering non-financial gains and losses. Consider my example of a PhD in psychology from the 70's, do you think it's a net positive to believe transgendered people have a pathology? Or that we should destroy the frontal lobes of unhappy housewives with icepicks?

[52-6F-62]

I don't think so. Considering thinkers like Jung and biochemist-cum-philosophers like Hofmann came along before much of that nonsense, and whose work was pushed aside with the good old American south paw for several decades. Thankfully with some more recent movement on the pharmacological front (re: resuming research into psychedelic molecules), as well as some doors opening on old estates (re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Book_(Jung)) that there are new advances all of the time. Even Jung claimed he was just giving new language to ancient wisdom, even ideas he thought were at one point all his own.

"What's old is new again." Your chosen examples were a brief spout of practice brought about by the brutality of a now waning but once unbridled materialistic industrial power—not the end of psychology (or the humanities at large) as a meaningful study.