Sigmund Freud's Voice (BBC Broadcast Recording 1938)

[MrMikenotts01]

fascinating - he sounds exactly like professor "littleoldman" in High Anxiety; wonder if he ever had a fight with Mel Brooks? I guess we will never know.

[pingguo2]

Incredible, what an unexpected voice of one of the best writers in history.

[alamc200]

sounds like psycho babble...

[rjdsantana]

Freud jamais será superado...

[jeanineosborne]

great minds are often modest.

jeanine osborne

[ajb1776]

Freud needed to be his own psychoanalysis patient.

[Nofuckingfakes]

@ajb1776 He was...

[atreyu1210]

I avoided castration by my father and had sex with my mother. Because I rejected my father, the imbalance in my latent psychic energy has turned me gay.

[ferociousgumby]

Ewwwwwwww.

[milleworm2009]

i couldn't understand a god damn word..

[pravljicezaotroke]

@milleworm2009 We could use some subtitles;)

[patrickwise06]

i can barely understand it. :(

[ClassicHolic]

@patrickwise06 why not read the description? :)

[zzzzzz522002]

can someone subtitle it ?

I don't know what he talked about

[Professor6871]

This is very important because I believe there's no other recordings of his voice that at least has not survived. Truely amazing to hear the man who did so much too change our ideas of the subconscious and the way we live today. Every time I read one of his essays I now hear is voice.

[JOSEJOSE18]

This is the guy who was in love with her mom and was afraid of castration by his father?? LOL and he though everybody experience that!!! stupid people who believed this pervert guy..

[Professor6871]

@JOSEJOSE18 Are you really that stupid or is this a wind up? Freud was describing the psycho sexual development of men from childhood, which he termed as the Edapus Complex. By the way women have a similar one that he termed as the electra complex. Its a stage that he claimed all men and women have too go through during their growing up. Sadly, by the sounds of it here, it seems your still going through it. Your ignorance you've shown about Freud only shows how bad education has become.

[JOSEJOSE18]

@Professor6871 yep, i have been bad educated, because in U.S.A our education sucks. Our professors don't care about our education. (-: and Freud was a sexually sick man..

[LLydarth]

To me this is as amazing as being able to hear a recording of Newton's voice.

[cromptonator]

He's probably talking about little boys and girls

[assa123assa123]

да, мудак был конкретный

[OmegaLeviathan]

Quite interesting to hear Freud talking about his job, and why he did this...

And about the racism topic in course: the only thing i can say is the so called white race isn´t the superior one... and another thing... we humans are not divided in races yet... maybe in the future like in H. G. Wells Time machine

[bsd300d]

He only spoke this way because of a deep love for his mommy.

[deramr]

@bsd300d

either that or because of the mouth cancer that resulted in thirty-three surgical operations in his mouth and jaw and the replacement of his entire jaw with artificial pieces.

[Professor6871]

@deramr very good point made there because by having so many operations for mouth cancer would effect anybody'd voice and so make sound different. Unfortunately there is no other sound recordings of him too make any useful comparison. Sadly, he wasn't to live very long after this, just year, before he died in 1939 just as WW2 was beginning.

In one respect at least the man was human he had an addiction too cigars, which probably contributed towards him getting the mouth cancer.

[russkibog81]

Sick man fraud

[ifhgsfj]

Why did everyone have incredible high voices back then?

[arfies]

@ifhgsfj I think it might have more to do with the early recording equipment- it may not have recorded at the correct speed.

[Napoleontas]

Jewish murmuring, he was a psychopath trying to decode human psychology with sex as the ultimate motivation

[schrire39]

@Napoleontas oh really? no doubt you have much "evidence" for your racist and pseudo-scientific opinion.....

[Napoleontas]

@schrire39 pseudo scientific is an elevated sex maniac jew

[HisEmptyHouse]

@Napoleontas Hello there, you fecund cretin. Too much of a coward you are to face me on your videos, so you block me after spewing more of your hate-filled lies. All I did was point out that your idea of 'race' is not in tune with modern science, and your idea of white-centric cultural superiority is laughably at odds with social science to boot. Yet you called me 'anti-science' and blocked me from responding. You are wretched and cowardly and it is hilarious watching you get exposed here.

[HisEmptyHouse]

Also a google search for your username reveals you to be a laughably out-of-touch sycophant for fascist bullshit. You are a joke, and it brings a smile to my face to hear someone such as you accuse others of being 'anti-science.' As seen in your posts, you clearly don't like science that doesn't conform to your ideology. That's not how science - science has no ideology. If you are 'racist' and proud of it you are inherently anti-science. Keep lying to yourself - I'll keep laughing.

[Napoleontas]

@HisEmptyHouse I want a scientific explanation for the cultural differences between apes and humans, Whites and negroes , Whites and asian mongoloids, etc.

To point that race has nothing to do with blood and science is to suggest that you are something beyond your biology, the differences between races is beyond debate it is an undeniable fact.

And i havent blocked you because iam scared of you anti racist system brainswashed points but only because iam too bored to answer to the same things

[skyjuiceification]

@Napoleontas

u know u wrong dont u? i know this is a old thread. but ur wayyy off with ur ideas. in fact race is not an undeniable fact as u suppose. its a culturally reinforced illusion at best these days. at the level that is fundamental,humans share 99.9 % of their DNA with each other across so called racial characteristics.

[Napoleontas]

@skyjuiceification Haha! You are a joke arent you? The only thing thats an illusion here is your brain, however you try to deny the existanse of races reality that is the differences between negroes , scandinavians and mongols will still be there. All this modern plutocratic multicultural parliamentarian Jewish "culture" is trying to deny the existence of races with every mean it has ,yet you still come to conclude that race is a "culturally reinforced! Apes and humans also share 99% DNA..

[skyjuiceification]

@Napoleontas human groups are closer sad person, they share 99.9 %. read a book or three then comment. pretending to know what u dont will not do. neither will ur kiddie level insults. fact is ur DNA is a mutation off of mine.

u are what happens when a black goes above the 48th paralell and gets stuck in an ice age. it aint pretty. and neither are u. wishful thinking changes nothing. praying to napoleon changes nothing either.

LMAO.

[Napoleontas]

@skyjuiceification The Nobelist decoder of DNA Watson who obviously according to your "opinion" doenst know , has a different idea about races, history ,reality , and scientific development also point to a different direction.

Evolution works exactly the way you have previously described, a mouse becomes a wale when is stuck for a suficient amount of time into water, every living being is linked biologically , that would probably suggest that we are all the same , brothers..monkeys and humans

[shadowhalfcast]

@schrire39 sorry meant to vote down the racist rubbish being spouted below you

[skyjuiceification]

@Napoleontas

ironically he was only right (and exact) about europeans (pale people). he didnt know much about the non white mind (as most so called experts dont). he was spot on about most whites. u are mostly repressed about ur bodies. and ur minds are far from even ur own ideas of what is normal. ur uncanny hatred(projection of ur dark side and nature onto the other) of non white bodies and minds is irrational and a symptom of a deep lack of a healthy (reality based)self image.

[4336830]

I  love you Frued!!!!! You truly made a significant contribution to psychology. Great thinking outside of the box.<3

[NazTb0y]

so, this is where Disney got the idea for Ludwig von Drake fun, huh? Is he talking like this because of his accent or jaw cancer?

[mrhopefulsad01]

Now if you kids quit fighting i will take you both to chucky chesee

[LubricatedBeat]

Fucking genius i tell you!

[lunachick3004]

I think it's silly you two are having an argument via comments over this, freud is obviously a big player in psychology and theories don't have to be carved into stone. It doesn't matter if his theories are right or wrong, he's broken into a new kind of view for us to explore and that's what's important.

[DreamsofMajesty]

scribd (dot) com/nb812

[newfan7]

Sigmund Freud was a big charlatan and never really healed one of his patients.

[russkibog81]

Maybe he did, but surely not because of his theories of what it is which causes neurosis, but because of something else he did with his clients.

[newfan7]

@russkibog81: Freud never made any theory. - All of his work ist speculative!

[russkibog81]

Ever heard of psychoanalysis? I absolutely agree with you that there is no way to validate any of Freud's theories, but to claim that Freud didn't have a theory of mind and its treatment seems like complete denial. In order to call something a theory one doesn't need prove for it. Wonder if you've ever read anything by him? Know your enemy before you brag like this.

[newfan7]

@russkibog81: Yes I know about psychoanalysis and Freuds work. Theories are scientifically made based on empiric data and facts. Any other mind construction is a kind of doctrine which is built mainly on ideas.

You cannot call a cognitive construct based on data and facts a theory until the hypothesis which you have made aren't provable. So what are the facts we talk about and what is only the unprovable idea of Freuds mind? - Freuds idea of Id, Ego and Superego is only a doctrine.

[newfan7]

@russkibog81: Well truth is a difficult term and I think it shouldn't be based on what someone believe. I think that shows your confusion which is compareable to that of a religious believer about this.

There were many persons making ideas with a great impact on mankind mainly in religion. I think that psychoanalysis is only a kind of pseudoreligious doctrine and thus you can only believe it or not.

This shows clearly what psychoanalysis really is and why you think in your way.

[russkibog81]

Your claims are as old as psychoanalysis, I don't see the point in repeating old news, you seem like a believer of some kind of religion yourself (I'm not a believer of psychoanalysis, btw). There is no objective truth outside our minds, having said this I hope you can get a life now. If PA didn't work for you try sth. else.

[newfan7]

@russkibog81: I am not claiming anything but I tell you about the meaning of some terms. If you think about truth than you have to talk about what can be observed wether with outside or inner sense.

You cannot observe something that is unconscious und thus this cannot be the truth! You can say there are some biological processes inside of you which you are normally not aware but they can be observed by using instruments etc. - Objectivity means to trust in what you can be aware of!

[newfan7]

The failure of Freud was the making of fantasies about the unconscious and something else. This is like imagination in fairy tales and devising unicorns and ghost creatures.

Freuds work is a danger for free mankind and humanity because he told us that communication and the world is not built by will and it's effects.

You know that it is really a lie that you aren't aware of your sexuality or aggression which Freud called the ''unconscious Id'. - Thus Freud was only a lier!

[DocWyoming]

Oh please, his theory of psychoanalysis is well thought out. For every blunder, every wild speculation in his work, there are three solid, well founded, and well accepted points. The unconscious, psychological defenses: denial, projection, concepts like the ID, the Ego, are all part of common parlance today because of his exceptional work.

[newfan7]

@Doc: I know about the doctrines of Freud but I don't agree with this concepts. I think all kinds of relationship, acting and communication are based mainly on mans will and decision.

May be there are some (pathological) side effects which were made a 'normative standard' by Freud. But please notice that Freuds ideas are based on ill or disturbed persons.

Also you must see that Freud changed his first concept of sexual and other traumata completely - mainly for public acceptance.

[russkibog81]

Well, free will & such concepts are beliefs as well. How can you prove them? There are all kinds of people walking through life and they surely do not do as they wish. This is obviously sth. you believe. Beliefs aren't true, though, it's just that the person that has one believes it to be true. So in the end there is no big difference between any kind of belief system, some are just more socially accepted than others.

[newfan7]

@russkibog81: Yes I agree that 'free will' is mainly a belief and not what we know about it as you know there are social constraints and also powers in your body as digestion.

Well not everyone gets what he wants because there are people with power who have more influence and can rule or others who simply refuse someones wishes.

Yes you are right beliefs are not the truth but you can perceive what happens and I suppose you are able to see reality without making prejudice normally.

[DocWyoming]

not one word of this response deals with your nonsensical claim that "Freud never made any theory, all his work is speculative".

[newfan7]

@Doc: Tell me what are the facts about the unconscious, defense mechanisms and Freuds concept of human soul? Can you measure some of this phenomenon!

All of this isn't a fact in that way that you can observe this effects in reality. Where is something as the unconscious or a mechanism like 'fear defense' or a 'Id'?

Whatever can be seen is that a patient is disturbed or stresses and his nerve system doesn't work in full order. The rest of Freuds ideas is totally speculative!

[DocWyoming]

Apparently reading comprehension is not amongst your limited skills. Again, you said he didn't have a theory, only speculations. Whether or not all Freudian concepts are empirical IS NOT the issue. This would not make his theory speculative. It would merely indicate that parts of his theory are not empirical.

You might as well say there is no philosophy to religion, seeing as religious concepts are not empirical either.

Look, you're not able to enter into this discussion

[newfan7]

@DocWyoming: I suggest you are not really a doctor as you don't know that every theory must be built on empirical data. Otherwise you can only make hypothesis or an abstract ideological concept.

Thus Freuds work can never lead to a theory. In philosophy you don't speak about theories. Kant's transcendenal philosophy or Hegels dialectic method e.g. isn't a theory, it's only a philosophical concept or a way of thinking. - In religion you will never talk about a 'theory of god'.

[DocWyoming]

My rutgers doctorate suggests otherwise. No theory is built solely upon empirical data. You sound like a college freshman who's learned the very basics of research, but hasn't a clue as to how science works yet.

Freud's work is a theory, it is built upon empirical data and meta-psychology. The empirical data is from case studies.  No theory is built solely upon empirical data, even the radical behaviorists concede this. You might want to read my website on the scientific method.

[NEDM1991]

"My rutgers doctorate suggests otherwise."

dude too funny!

[DocWyoming]

Oh, and you're wrong about philosophy as well. But perhaps what you really mean to say is that Philosophy often takes the lead - in the Betrand Russell sense that philosopher serve as scouts for the main army, science.

Seriously, I'm a pretty hard nose empiricist myself, but I'm humble enough (and informed enough) to recognize that no theory exists on empiricism alone.

I hope you shock me and concede this issue. I suspect otherwise...

[newfan7]

Philosophy often makes the basic thoughts for smoothing the way of science and in psychology this is surely the case. Please think about what people like Popper, Szasz and Masson said about psychoanalysis.

Well I gree with you that empirical data only one part of a theory but the other is humans mind which constructs a concept based on maths, logic, models a.o. Science always uses obervation as prime act for building up a theory. Psychoanalysis uses the belief(!) of the unconscious!

[newfan7]

Id qualities as sexual desire or aggression are normally quite conscious and thus Freuds main assumption is wrong. In addition the concept of a 'superego' is a doubtful hypothesis too. This is really a kind of 'meta psychology' and you know this isn't scientifically!

I know that the methods of science are difficult to use in psychology. However Pawlow was on a good way to solve some of this problems. - Anyway: Please tell me about your doctorate and give me your webside in a PM.

[DocWyoming]

You write "Id qualities as sexual desire or aggression are normally quite conscious and thus Freuds main assumption is wrong."

Absolutely ridiculous! While aggression and sexual desires may be conscious, this fact doesn't change the reality that these drives themselves are instinctual, and therefore not 'chosen', nor does it change the fact that these drives are often unconscious.

[newfan7]

@Doc: 'Ridiculous' is only freudian thinking and not the facts of human nature as Pawlow researched. He had much more concepts than the 'src' for animals and investigated human nerve system, brain and character for making a theory in psychology based on physiology.

Some of the results of this work were later used by William Sargant for treating shocked and disturbed people which he published 1957 in his important book 'Battle for the Mind'. - Please read it and than look forward!

[DocWyoming]

Read a work from 1957 to look forward? I think it's about time that you concede that you're the college freshman here. Stop bluffing. You reveal your ignorance in your claims: The idea that there could be a useful, workable theory of psychology based in physiology was abandoned 80 years ago! You're a college freshmen, ripping half digested claims from an intro book. Freudian theory is so thoroughly accepted that you can't even speak about psychology without using his concepts.

[newfan7]

Well I think you are a strong believer but beliefs are never the truth - believe me!

Without physiology as metabolism you won't have any psychology / awareness.

[DocWyoming]

I'm not a 'believer', I am an informed psychologist with years of experience. Freud's work is far more complex than what your intro texts tell you.

As for your argument "Without physiology as metabolism you won't have any psychology / awareness.", I think even you have to concede that argument is silly. By that logic, astronomy is all about optometry, seeing as vision is a key element of star gazing! So, it would follow that all astronomers should do is focus on studying the human eye!

[newfan7]

No Doc you cannot think without blood circulation in brain. If you stop this your awareness and thinking will collapse within a few seconds.

Astronomy or other the sciences are both: A practical approach in research with acts and senses and an intellectual concept made by thinking.

Science may use speculation for getting new views or for building theoretical concepts but you have to examine in reality if this is right or wrong.

[NazTb0y]

@DocWyoming well, I think it's important to distinguish between Freudian theory--which is quite subtle and to this day quite thought provoking (I mean, I don't think it's been exhausted)--and what pop culture has done with Freudian theory. They've dumbed it down to a form of biological essentialism which can easily be disproven.

[DocWyoming]

If you were at a bar, the bartender would send you home by now.

[DocWyoming]

As for Pavlov, all he did was demonstrate the stimulus-response connection, that can't serve as a model of human psychology! Seriously, you clearly are a freshman, you regurgitate freshen ideas without any evidence of real experience in these matters. Finally, as for my doctorate, if you can't gather that from my responses, my condolences to you.

[neil73]

Some of these early Psychologists would not be allowed to practice today. Consider the J.B Watson 'Little Albert' study.

However, their work has had an invaluable impact on the psychology of today.

I only started studying Psychology last September and I'm loving it! Part of me wishes I chose that for University instead of English. One degree at a time!

[superhamzah85]

@neil73

Can be said with every field. If todays medical ethics were present 100 years ago, we wouldn't have any operations or blood transfusions. Countless things we take for granted required what we would regard as criminal negligence. But all was done in the right way, the more necessary the progress the lesser the ethics.

[DocWyoming]

I've read Popper (Adler worked with him) I've also read Thomas Szasz. I'd bet my paycheck you've never read any of them, you've just learned their names in a freshman class, and you're repeating what your textbook told you.

If you agree that empirical data is only one part of a theory, then you concede the entire point!

[wiled5]

Oh I get what he said at the very end. His name.

[MegaTeacher25]

A heavy German accent there but even so, its still remarkable to hear the great man himself. Its the first time I've ever heard Freud's voice and so thank you to the person who uploaded it.

[wiled5]

What did Sigmund Freud say at the very end?

[JONNOG88]

A truly fascinating man.

And a true genius.

[LittleLauren87]

this is so cool..being a psych major and all!

[CarnelianJas]

His voice.. a true academic, a true scientist

[merrihew]

He sounds exactly as I would have expected.

[celuthi]

@merrihew This is not accurate. His voice in "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" resonated at a lower timbre.

[MisterQuizzz]

Freakin me out!

[megansspark]

interesting!  thanks