You’ve proven yourself wrong.
Mochi Tetsu is mentioned in that article as being a source that produces higher quality products than iron sand. Exactly what you’re arguing against.
The facts are that due to the limited availability of good quality iron ore the steel produced in Japan often used iron sand and that led to lower quality products.
Why? The past lives long in the memory.
Sony was at the Vanguard of Japan’s post-war recovery. Making any electronics for the home.
Rice cookers and standard small white goods in the 40s.
They had a huge success with the transistor radios in the mid 50s.
Bearing in mind transistors themselves were first created in 1947. Sony is putting them in consumer products 8 years later. Copying a product produced in small numbers but making it better. Using the latest technology.
I own a 1960s reel to reel machine that still works perfectly. Sound on sound recording, echo and reverb effects. Built using transistors and “solid state” amplifies. Not at the cutting edge but using transistors to mass produce a product more reliably than previous tech.
All high fi equipment following the same pattern. Can they replace the old style amplifiers in record players. Yep.
The cassette tape comes along Sony makes it portable. And this is the point they also start hitting the top of the market in quality.
The portable tape decks Sony produced are considered the best.
This is while they’re dealing with videotape and producing betamax and the first consumer recorders and cameras.
Sony is a mark of reliability from the 50s by replacing old tech with transistors and a mark of quality by being better than the mass market competition by the 70s.
They then look at digital and create their own media. Betamax is a war they eventually lost even though it was better quality than VHS. But they made money on the professionals end of the market because of that quality.
This moved Sony into that direction. Focusing on the premium product, aiming high and for the mass market, but with the idea that quality will guarantee the high end segment.
In audio
Digital cassette DCC, DAT CD SACD Competition for Dolby Surround SPDIF optical audio. LDAC Bluetooth protocol
All the devices to play and record/transmit these.
In video: U-matic Betamax MMCD (mothballed to then partnering with DVD) Blu-ray Blu-ray 4K
The devices to play and produce them. The media to go on them from Sony Music and Sony Pictures.
Displays they created Trinitron displays to go with their analogue video cameras and formats.
They produced the first LED backlit LCDs. They produced the first quantum dot displays to go with the professional cinema quality digital cameras.
In the computing world they produced the first 3.5" floppies then CDs, then flash memory storage.
They tried to partner with Nintendo on the first CD-Rom gaming system and, when they were kicked out, launched their own console.
Sony have aimed for the professional market and bring those lessons learned to the masses.
Always based around a media format.
1999 Sony produced SACD. R&D in audio finished when that wound up in 2007.
High end audio equipment before that point is great. After that it’s just badges up stuff made to the lowest price.
2006 Sony produced Blu-ray. Blu-ray 4K looks to be the last gasp in 2016.
They were aiming for the top with video, TVs and blu ray players were great.
They’re still the best quality audio and video products you can buy.
But no one is buying them. We left quality of CDs for the convenience of mp3. We left Blu-ray for streaming.
We left high quality physical products for software products and codecs for convenience.
We left individual electronic devices for smart phones.
Sony have stopped R&D and quality control on devices as the market for them has dropped.
You can still buy a great high end TV from Sony.
Everything else, they’ve let the high end go.
If the high end isn’t mass market. Then they’re not going to make it high end anymore.
But as the last mass manufacturer to leave so many segments over the years. The cheapest high end device is still often a second hand Sony.
When the high end drops out of a segment all the individual components they would mass produce get penny pinched. Before they would produce huge numbers of lasers for CD players and make sure they were all good enough across the whole range.
When no one wants a high end CD player, no more high quality lasers get made.
The same with each component. Amplifiers, connectors, buttons, power supplies.
Sony’s products borrowed from each other’s tech and as the high end went in one area it had knock on effects in others.
Look at the PS5, the components are not produced in Japan by Sony. They’re outsourcing.
The 4K Blu-Ray disk drive is optional.
They say they’re unlikely to ever release their 8K Blu-Ray standard.
Top quality is no longer a priority and you place 20 years ago about right for audio. Probably 10 years ago for video.
The playstation 3 was Sony’s last CD player in a console. The last to be backwards compatible. The last of the Sony attitude of trying to be the best and trying to be backwards compatible.
The best CD players, SACD, players, DVD players etc all come in one Sony 4k UHD Blu Ray box.
Then you need a decent receiver and speakers to take that digital signal through a DAC, and amplify it. The last vestage of high end Sony audio is there.
The TVs the last of Sony’s high end lines in general.
The best portable cd players without breaking the bank, old Sony’s.
Incorrect
I’m going for UK, specifically Scotland.
VLC
Exceptions are possible. Money isn’t everything for everyone.
It’s based on Hamlet. So Shakespeare, not the bible.
If they cite one of the few things Freud is right about, it might not be awful. But better to cite the person who actually has a peer reviewed paper and proved it. Probably a red flag they they haven’t studied properly I’d it’s not buried under copious other citation.
Anyone with a main citation from Freud these days is a century behind.
People have the option of bashing their head against a wall as a patient. Someone should probably try to stop them doing that. Therapists especially. Quacks won’t and that’s the problem.
It’s amazing you’re concerned about a country with decent peer reviewed journals “biasing” articles and not the quacks who still cite Freud
The point is is anyone has a use for psychology they should pick someone alive to listen to instead of Freud.
Because it doesn’t matter if he got some things right when he got lost things wrong.
But I’m glad we at least agree no one should be using what he says as medicine.
Please read the articles on Wikipedia yourself, they’ll be a good starting point for you as they’re usually very balanced. Unlike the other material you’ve read.
You’re just being silly now. Urban designers do not have patients.
Victorian is a description of the time period. It is factually accurate. If you want to infer something else from the word Victorian then I can’t stop you but you’ll be wrong.
“Victorian engineering”, “Victorian Science” and “Victorian medicine” will definitely have different connotations.
“Victorian science” has the connotation that, unlike say Darwin, it’s not considered part of the modern consensus.
You should not learn Victorian science or medicine in the modern day outside of a history class.
Evidence based medicine that relies on evidence even 50 years old should be re-examined. Let alone 130.
From the article you posted.
“For example, meta-analyses in 2012 and 2013 came to the conclusion that there is little support or evidence for the efficacy of psychoanalytic therapy, thus further research is needed”
“In 2017, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found psychodynamic therapy to be as efficacious as other therapies, including cognitive behavioral therapy”
So low to no effectiveness, trying to reach a low bar of another “treatment” which is in question.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Criticisms
The fact is Freud is right except in the majority of what he’s said and done.
Mental health is health.
If you’re practicing medicine and are not medically trained or supervised by someone medically trained you’re in the same bracket as quacks.
Quacks who read Freud and implement his Victorian ideas when we know them to be false are a problem.
That’s why it’s important to discredit old ideas, whoever they’re from.
Old mistaken ideas in science are the most credible and often the most harmful pseudoscience.
Freud shouldn’t be studied outside of a history class these days.
Ideas of his which have survived scrutiny will still exist. He may get passing mentions. But he really needs to be out of focus in the academic and public perception of the subject.
In general an unsupervised psychologist is not a good thing. Those capable of becoming or having their practice enforced by a psychiatrist have a place.
Those still practicing psychoanalysis with no medical training do not. Especially if they don’t recognise that Freud was more often wrong than right.
Psychologists who are academic only are the ones discrediting Freud, or they’re peer reviewed and told their wrong themselves.
Mental health has a huge problem with lack of professionalism and regulation in practice.
You don’t have to throw out anything. Everything that’s right has now been through peer reviewed studies authored by other people.
The problem is most of what Freud said is wrong, you can be a psychoanalyst without a medical degree because it isn’t a medical field.
Modern psychiatry is a separate subject and you’re happy to defend psychoanalysis and conflate it with psychiatry.
Which would be no different to conflating nutritionists and dietitians, chiropractors and physiotherapists, or, to quote Dara O’Brien, dentists and toothologists.
Freud was wrong about a lot of stuff.
You disagree. Very strongly.
Why?
Honestly, Zoom just has a hilariously high frequency of vulnerabilities being discovered.
So now the person back-tracking on their “facts” is claiming others should do better research.
I said you were wrong and you were wrong. So I guess this is where we find out whether you care about objectivity.
Are you going to shift your opinion any iota’s to match the facts?
“You are a fish in water, unaware of swimming in it.”
Your first instinct was to attack the messenger, not the message. But feel free to take a second stab at it.
The idea that consciousness is a Freudian invention is patiently false.
"The earliest known use of the word unconscious is in the late 1600s.
OED’s earliest evidence for unconscious is from 1678, in T. Hobbes’ De Mirabilibus Pecci."
You’re just making stuff up now. Which I suppose someone defending quackery will do.
You can try to psychoanalyse me all you like, but you’d probably be better off using a psychic to help. A psychic will be able to tell you more things.
As you don’t care if the things you make up about me are right or not you might as well go for volume.
So the ideas we all know him for are discredited, like the post says. On top of that you’re diminishing the role he’s traditionally ascribed in the history of the subject.
Pick a lane because you’re going further than I am.
You call his ideas “subjective” like I do. That discredits them. Using subjective or unprovable medical treatments is the definition of quakery.
You also deny his historical impact on the things we do today that matter, psychiatry.
So we seem to be in agreement on Freud.
You seem to want to defend quakery in general in order to defend Freud.
So let’s go through it.
Freud tried to be a doctor, tried to be objective about the mind which became psychiatry.
So the father of psychiatry.
But he actually practiced psychoanalysis which is unscientific and now discredited.
It’s not a strong opinion anymore than “please use the scientific method”.
"Pop quiz: Are you conscious? Next question: Can you prove it objectively? Or is it sufficient that we come to an intersubjective agreement about it to have established a baseline of subjective human experience?
Descartes was a philosopher. Freud tried to be a doctor.
Freud has been discredited as a bad philosopher and a bad psychiatrist.
The idea that he was trying the “study of the subjective” is false.
The reason he is known as the father of psychiatry is he tried to make objective observations about consciousness.
He largely got it wrong, so his ideas are now hokum. But he gets some credit for trying.
Much like Hippocrates. We disregard the stuff he got wrong. His ideas are discredited. We happily ignore the stuff he didn’t prove scientifically.
Then we get on with medicine with actual evidence.
Saying Freud only studied the subjective would be discrediting him even more than I’m doing.
What do you think Freud was studying?
Don’t treat subjective pseudoscience as medicine.
Calling Freud’s work subjective is essentially discrediting it. That’s what you’re doing.
Trains are easy and they’re easily electrified already. So putting solar on the trains won’t have any advantage.
Rails are the difficult part of railways. They never seem to put them between my house and my work. They’ve put something called a road in between instead.