I just discovered an urgent need to read a paper for tomorrow morning’s discussion. Effing fantabulous. Fortunately its not too bad of a read at all. Speaking of reading, I was digging back into some psychoanalytic perspectives, given my relatively infrequent perusing of its content. I thought it was interesting in two manners. The first was recognizing one of the Freudian defense mechanisms, that of Reaction Formation, where the client replaces an anxiety-provoking idea with its opposite. A common example is when a boy likes a girl. Taking the opposite approach, they often choose to be mean towards the girl, in fear of their feelings. I can definitely attest to this. This leads to the second point, where I remembered telling Joey that I thought Freud was a total douche for his psycho sexual development stages. I mean who really believes in the Oedipus complex, or that girls have penis envy? The problem here is that as a firm believer in critical argument, I haven’t presented a case as to why we shouldn’t believe in it. Being able to disprove a theory is just as important as proving it. Not only did I have a very little psychological background to be calling a grandfather in psychology a douche (psychology is not even my minor!), I also had little argument to support my enveloping/absolute/stubborn statement which was backed with little more than someone on Facebook clicking likes “Ellis thinks Freud is dumb because he was a perv.” How idiotic of me. Even with my small understanding of his theories, I can see its applicability, even if its not completely comprehensible.
I am such an idiot.