What is Happening in Our Schools?

[SomeRandom]

Even in the field of psychology he is considered a dinosaur and his ideas have been largely and mostly debunked and abandoned. About the most you're going to see his ideas in the field come from anti-LBGT facilities such as Focus on the Family, FRC, or NARTH. Everywhere else in the field they tend to rely on the ideas and practices that came after Freud.

I always got the impression that he was kind of like a more hated Sir Isaac Newton. Respected for building the discipline but too old fashioned for today's society.

Also I thought Freud was largely indifferent towards gay people? I mean there's the infamous letter he supposedly wrote to a lady recommending that she leave her (most likely) gay son alone because he was fine the way he was.
Then again I have seen anti gay morons use the Groth study, even after Dr Groth himself vehemently denied the claims they made about his study. So maybe I shouldn't be that surprised.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I always got the impression that he was kind of like a more hated Sir Isaac Newton. Respected for building the discipline by too old fashioned for today's society.

Freud was a product of his time. He was a pioneer for his era, but his theories are largely outdated.

 

[SomeRandom]

Freud was a product of his time. He was a pioneer for his era, but his theories are largely outdated.

Same could be said of Darwin or Newton or some would even argue Einstein, right?
Isn't that what science is about? Standing on the shoulders of the pioneers who came before you and updating or reaching better understandings because this generation doesn't have to start with scratch?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I always got the impression that he was kind of like a more hated Sir Isaac Newton. Respected for building the discipline but too old fashioned for today's society.

Same could be said of Darwin or Newton or some would even argue Einstein, right?

Darwin's theory of Natural Selection was pretty spot on, Einstein made remarkably accurate predictions with his theory of Relavtivity, and even Newton gave us some pretty fundamental views that aren't likely going anywhere. About the only due credit for Freud is his basis for psychotherapy--talking about issues to a clinician to analyze them and working towards goals to resolve the issues--and he helped to give a voice to the mentally ill. But pretty much everything else has been left behind in the pages of history and psychology text books, with some of his ideas being laughably absurd.

 

[SomeRandom]

Darwin's theory of Natural Selection was pretty spot on, Einstein made remarkably accurate predictions with his theory of Relavtivity, and even Newton gave us some pretty fundamental views that aren't likely going anywhere. About the only due credit for Freud is his basis for psychotherapy--talking about issues to a clinician to analyze them and working towards goals to resolve the issues--and he helped to give a voice to the mentally ill. But pretty much everything else has been left behind in the pages of history and psychology text books, with some of his ideas being laughably absurd.

So Freud is basically laughably outdated to the point where one might as well be living under a rock to quote him?
I wonder if this differs from American Psychology to it's European counterparts. I mean Europe, as I understand it, treats psychology more like a philosophy and America tends to treat it more like a legitimate scientific discipline.
I wonder still which way Australia tends to view it in Academia, given the heavily influence both has on us in practically every way imaginable.

 

[Thanda]

So Freud is basically laughably outdated to the point where one might as well be living under a rock to quote him?
I wonder if this differs from American Psychology to it's European counterparts. I mean Europe, as I understand it, treats psychology more like a philosophy and America tends to treat it more like a legitimate scientific discipline.
I wonder still which way Australia tends to view it in Academia, given the heavily influence both has on us in practically every way imaginable.

This is important. I have always felt that psychology and sociology were far more prone to the current views, thoughts and politics of society than most of the other scientific disciplines. And so we have a situation where the assumptions and conclusions of psychology and sociology correspond closely with what society happens to think at the time.

 

[SomeRandom]

This is important. I have always felt that psychology and sociology were far more prone to the current views, thoughts and politics of society than most of the other scientific disciplines. And so we have a situation where the assumptions and conclusions of psychology and sociology correspond closely with what society happens to think at the time.

They perhaps are a little more prone to bias. Given their close proximity to flawed humans and perhaps allowing the messiness of humanity occasionally slip through a crack here and there.
Maybe not. The pop/vulgar application of sociology has not instilled me with a whole lot of confidence. You could probably guess why. But then again, maybe those are just instances of overzealous interpretations of a fringe minority.

I don't know. I guess I'm "questioning" a lot of things lately.

I can see where you're coming from.
But like I said, I'm not a trained professional in either boffin discipline so I don't know if I can really make a judgment against it. At least I'm not confident enough to. Though I am still curious and a little skeptical to a certain degree.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So Freud is basically laughably outdated to the point where one might as well be living under a rock to quote him?

Pretty much. Under a rock or promoting Conservative anti-LBGT ideology.

I wonder if this differs from American Psychology to it's European counterparts. I mean Europe, as I understand it, treats psychology more like a philosophy and America tends to treat it more like a legitimate scientific discipline.

That is a good question. Even in America, the philosophical aspects aren't downplayed much and it's very common for psychology majors to minor in philosophy (even my philosophy club was mostly psychology majors with philosophy minors) because psychology majors do learn quiet a bit about philosophy. But that is a pretty good question because the social sciences and humanities do tend to differ when compared to different places like that.

 

[SomeRandom]

Pretty much. Under a rock or promoting Conservative anti-LBGT ideology.

That is a good question. Even in America, the philosophical aspects aren't downplayed much and it's very common for psychology majors to minor in philosophy (even my philosophy club was mostly psychology majors with philosophy minors) because psychology majors do learn quiet a bit about philosophy. But that is a pretty good question because the social sciences and humanities do tend to differ when compared to different places like that.

So could the social sciences be influenced by certain political landscapes, more so than the "hard" sciences? In some places, I mean.

And if so (if not the differing approaches to Psychology at least) how does that affect it's application to humanity?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is important. I have always felt that psychology and sociology were far more prone to the current views, thoughts and politics of society than most of the other scientific disciplines. And so we have a situation where the assumptions and conclusions of psychology and sociology correspond closely with what society happens to think at the time.

Sociology isn't doing much than observing society (mostly Western and a bit Eastern) and gathering data about those societies. With psychology, one part is gathering the data and the other part is doing therapy. However, ultimately, anything is subject to the powers that be. But, with psychology, we at least do have lots of research that is scientifically sound, and we have learned many things about it. "Facing your fears" may be an old cliche, but psychology, through research, has verified such a thing, and because of research, today we don't go on about someone's childhood in a Freudian way to discuss a phobia, we discuss the phobia and gradually expose a client to the thing they fear, increasing the sensation and exposure in incrementally, and eventually have the client "face their fear" to help people get over a phobia. We also have much research that shows things such as "sexual orientation is a choice" and "homosexuals can 'cure themselves' or 'get over it'" are not healthy attitudes because they leave the client, more often than not, in a worse off state, with many developing suicidal tendencies. We have that data, and we can compare it to the data gathered on homosexuals living openly as themselves and being accepted. You can do with those numbers as you please, but that other part of psychology, the one doing therapy, its goal is to help people improve their lives, and it's appropriate for that side of the field to adopt what the research from various fields are saying. It's hard for some to accept this, as it does violate the religious views of some, but the therapy side of psychology is there to help people enable themselves to live a happier and healthier life, not promote religious ideology. And what many do not realize is that psychology does often list church membership as something that can have positive benefits for someone. Granted it's not that it is a church that believes anything specific, but that it can provide for a support group, inclusiveness, it can help to instill pro-social behaviors, and other things such as extra-curricular activities are frequently listed as things that are good for kids, but the field itself is hardly promoting anything against the church. But, as a field guided by science with the goal of helping people improve themselves, it can't justify itself in promoting ideas that are known and established to be harmful to patients. In reality, that is the job of big-pharma and health insurance companies. But, for the most part, psychologists are not medical doctors and they cannot legally prescribe medications (there are some exceptions, but not many).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So could the social sciences be influenced by certain political landscapes, more so than the "hard" sciences? In some places, I mean.

Even the hard sciences are influenced by various things. The capitalist pressure to get published, because being published is everything as a scientists and even many professorships, and because that everything determines if you eat and have a roof over your head, and because the media sucks, there are many junk studies being published and even promoted, often by those who would gain.
But, even the social sciences rely of replication, and we have learned much about. However, as it is, the main issues of psychology tend to be more with the very nature of doing study, which is that people change their behaviors when they're being watched and just because it happens in a lab doesn't mean it's going to happen in the real world. Self-report, one of the most widely used research methods for gathering data in psychology, is also not the most accurate way of getting data. When it comes to the field itself, those are the major issues, as well as it being so easily abused, as we find with the marketing research in regards to children. Of course politics are involved, but most of the political stuff happens in the APA, and many clinicians have their gripes and complaints about it and just stick to the basic methods of helping to talk a client through an issue and relying on meds as a crutch of sorts. It has its problems, but it's hardly a post-modernist Liberal promoting machine. And one of those problems, which is inherent to any science, is that people can do what the will with the numbers.

 

[Etritonakin]

I am seeing the larger picture. Normally, my focus is on human rights violations, environmental degradation and destruction, the wide-scale poisoning happening through industry and agriculture, the massive and unsustainable waste of consumer culture, and the fact that Islamophobic measures will not fight Islamic terrorism but only make it worse, as will continued intervention in the Middle East by the West. We're pretty much only in the current ****-storm of a crisis because of the "dominoes" that England flicked over, that France nudged a bit, and that America allowed to keep going.

I can say I have been positively affected by the attention drawn to discrimination, hatred and violence against gay people and others -and by consideration of the various factors involved.
It has very much helped me to think of people differently -and to view the issues differently even from a religious perspective.

Without such a strong voice, people are much more likely to accept harmful ideas and attitudes leading to discrimination, hatred, cruelty and violence.

However, as with any issue, the pendulum always swings too far to the other side. Always! Things never just settle where they should.
Some individuals are capable of such -primarily because they are conscientious and knowledgeable -but it is never true overall.
Few actually know where the pendulum should stop -or are able to show restraint at that point.

With any issue -women's rights, racism, war, etc., there are always those who essentially become what they hate -and do that which is harmful to their own cause, to society and to themselves.

The main post was about excessive and inappropriate means being employed to the detriment of children -which very much does happen. It always happens -with every issue. It is irresponsible to ignore that fact -or to think that any tactic which can be effectively used to bring about acceptance of anything is fair game.

That sort of thinking and action always leads to a greater problem in the end. That is political-type stupidity which achieves short term goals at extreme long-term cost and self-destruction.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The main post was about excessive and inappropriate means being employed to the detriment of children -which very much does happen. It always happens -with every issue.

There is no detriment. The only detriment is to those parents who take offense in tolerance and acceptance being taught. Such a thing is of no detriment to children, but it's a major bane to the existence of beliefs that would rather homosexuals and transgenders all go back in the closet and shut up. Those ways are dying out, such a program is another nail in the coffin, but society will be much better off without such views.

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes, you are anti-gay.

It would be interesting to know how you think I might act or think in or about various situations.

Just so you have an idea...

Chick-fil-A: If I owned the company, I would not question any potential employee's sexuality. As long as someone could make a sammich, act professionally and not be disruptive to the business, it would not be an issue with me.
If anyone was so "flaming" about their own sexuality -heterosexual or otherwise -or absolutely anything else -including religion -it would be considered disruptive, unprofessional, inappropriate, could be detrimental to productivity, the customer's experience, the goal of selling quality sammiches in a timely manner, etc....

The military: I would not choose to be in the military, because I would not give such personal decision-making power over to who-the-hell-knows -but if we're ever in a war zone, respect the fact that I am not gay, don't get distracted by my cute butt even if you are a hetero woman or other, or accidentally shoot me in it.

Wedding Cake: I'll make you any kind of cake you want and you can eat it, dance around it, worship it, jump on it and squish it, eat it after a wedding -whatever. I don't care. However, I would not make a cake which supported any aspect of anything which I would not want to promote. I'm not going to make a cake which, for example, has a couple of downed towers on it surrounded by celebrating jihadists. Therefore, in such a case, I would make the cake -and you could make the cake support or promote whatever you wanted. I'm not saying gay marriage is similar -but just to provide an extreme example for clarification.
As that pertains to gay marriage, I do not personally believe in promoting it -not because I am against gays who marry or would treat them badly in any way, but because I do not personally agree with all of the reasoning behind gay marriage -and choose to promote or be directly involved with only that which I believe is in everyone's eternal best interest.

To clarify, I'm not saying that gay people are bad and they are all going to burn in hell for eternity.
I -personally -simply do not agree that all who might be gay and married are simply born that way -or that God intended for people of the same sex to marry.
I -personally -believe that obedience to the will of God is necessary for the ordering of eternity -and that it should supersede any worldly consideration.
I -personally -realize that not everyone sees things the same way, and that I am not responsible for them...

...but I also believe that I should treat everyone with love and respect -because regardless of whether or not people are born one way or another, they are presently one way or another -and if I were them I would be exactly like them at any given point.
We are not static -we are all different every day -I am where I am -others are where they are -and that will continue to change.
There is only one overall situation -and we will all eventually align with common truth. We are all born essentially ignorant within a body and situation not of our choosing -and each have to deal with that personally.
Meanwhile, I hope to have a positive effect on as many as possible -regardless of their present state -to help them on their own way -not force any way on them.

Though I would not, for example, put a little plastic model of two married men or women on the cake -or write anything which directly promoted gay marriage, I'd make you the best damned cake you ever looked at or ate.
I'd also say hello if you moved in next door -welcome you to the neighborhood and bring you a housewarming gift -because my consideration of the matter thus far would be limited to what I did or did not put on your cake -not how you lived your own lives.
Some might be offended because I would not put a gay model on top of their cake -but there is nothing I can do about that. If they were against heterosexual marriage or marriage altogether and would not put a model on my cake, I would be quite happy with the cake and not give it another thought.

My focus is not on what is suitable for the present world or time, but on what is suitable for eternal life.
That often has to do with going against that which is natural -or even naturally good or convenient.
I am not against those who do otherwise -but believe it would be to their advantage to do otherwise -and so choose to promote what I believe is in their best interest -while not hindering them in what they believe is in their best interest.
It also has to do with minding my own business and staying out of matters which don't concern me.

If anyone wants rights, respect, acceptance, consideration, kindness, love, etc., -even relating to issues I do not agree with - I wish them every success with the rest of the world -and try to make sure they already have such from me.

If you believe I should act differently -or am treating anyone badly, please explain how.

 

[Etritonakin]

There is no detriment. The only detriment is to those parents who take offense in tolerance and acceptance being taught. Such a thing is of no detriment to children, but it's a major bane to the existence of beliefs that would rather homosexuals and transgenders all go back in the closet and shut up. Those ways are dying out, such a program is another nail in the coffin, but society will be much better off without such views.

Those are not the only things which are being done or taught.

Tolerance and acceptance are not simply taught -sometimes they are forced by those who are intolerant in ways which are inappropriate -and most certainly age-inappropriate.

There is also a difference between teaching something, promoting something, etc -and promoting tolerance and acceptance of such even if you disagree -and between education and indoctrination.

On a slightly different subject... I am curious to know how you would feel about someone teaching abstinence, strict heterosexuality, religion or witchcraft or anything similar to your children without your permission or knowledge.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

On a slightly different subject... I am curious to know how you would feel about someone teaching abstinence, strict heterosexuality, religion or witchcraft or anything similar to your children without your permission or knowledge.

I would be against strict homosexuality because not everyone is homosexual, I am against abstinence only education because it's only good for producing teenaged mothers (and what I had to endure had many false-hoods, blatant lies, and was degrading towards women), and religion has it's own place to be taught, which isn't in school.

 

[kerndog]

Anytime I read a sentence like the above, I know that whomever has said it is homophobic. Its like someone saying...but I have 3 Black friends...how can I be a racist? If someone really did have gay friends with whom they worked and it truly didn't matter, the fact that they are gay would not even be brought up. It would not matter. In the immortal words of the Bard...Me thinkst he doth protest too much

LISTEN CAREFULLY ! I said, I get along great with them, I NEVER SAID, they were friends ! like all people who live immoral lives around me. these are not my friends, they are aquaintences, I live by Pauls words at... 2 Corinthians 6:14...! don't hang with them after work, I don't go to their parties, I don't get involved what so ever in their world. If they were stranded along the road, I would stop and help them, like I would anyone else. I am the EXACT same way with heterosexuals who live immoral lives. Again at... 1 Corinthians 6:9...Paul states "DO NOT BE MISLED (or deceived)" You KNOW the rest ! So. continue your fantasy !

 

[ADigitalArtist]

LISTEN CAREFULLY ! I said, I get along great with them, I NEVER SAID, they were friends ! like all people who live immoral lives around me. these are not my friends, they are aquaintences, I live by Pauls words at... 2 Corinthians 6:14...! don't hang with them after work, I don't go to their parties, I don't get involved what so ever in their world. If they were stranded along the road, I would stop and help them, like I would anyone else. I am the EXACT same way with heterosexuals who live immoral lives. Again at... 1 Corinthians 6:9...Paul states "DO NOT BE MISLED (or deceived)" You KNOW the rest ! So. continue your fantasy !

I have plenty of Christian friends even though I think the bible is a sexist, homophobic, racist and violent bunch of myths. We just don't talk about it.

 

[Aquitaine]

Recently attention has been drawn to an "anti-bullying program" introduced into Australian schools supposedly in an effort to help children who are "different" to stand up to bullies. But this has gone too far in the opinion of many, where children are asked to role play gay or transsexual teens. Children are also being urged to question their sexuality when they are not really old enough to understand sexual identity at such a young age.

"Australian Christian Lobby spokeswoman Wendy Frances says the Safe Schools material “discriminates’’ against heterosexual kids. “This is bullying in reverse,’’ she says. “A lot of children are still pretty innocent about this stuff; there’s a lot in the program that is age-inappropriate."

It is disturbing to me that the gay agenda has been carried too far and is now infiltrating to the point of making something that is still morally objectionable to many people, into something socially acceptable. It will NEVER be "socially acceptable" to God.

The Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras held in Sydney has become a "family" event. I am sorry, but there is no way I would expose my young children to this...or to teach them that this is "normal" or "acceptable" human behavior.

I have no problem with anyone being 'gay'...it is a genetic hiccup, but to promote the gay lifestyle as morally acceptable is something a Christian cannot condone.

For those who do not care what God thinks....I guess its party on.

Are children in other countries exposed to this too?

What's wrong with Homosexuality again?

For those who do not care what God thinks....I guess its party on.

When will people like you realize that you're normalizing discrimination and bullying against minorities purely to satisfy your own personal superstitions?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I always got the impression that he was kind of like a more hated Sir Isaac Newton. Respected for building the discipline but too old fashioned for today's society.

Also I thought Freud was largely indifferent towards gay people? I mean there's the infamous letter he supposedly wrote to a lady recommending that she leave her (most likely) gay son alone because he was fine the way he was.
Then again I have seen anti gay morons use the Groth study, even after Dr Groth himself vehemently denied the claims they made about his study. So maybe I shouldn't be that surprised.

I see him as someone who was on the right track in terms of recognizing the importance in how our personalities and psyches are shaped by our experiences, but he kind of went off the rails when it came to his explanations for those things. Basically what you said.