Hacker News Reader

Comment by PaulHoule | Hacker News Reader

It would be interesting if he developed a theory of "unsayable" things based on examples. One really good one is Freud's theory of infantile sexuality:

https://www.bartleby.com/278/2.html

It's completely true that four year old boys get erections and play with themselves (I did), don't think about it all when they are ten, and then tend to think about it a lot when they hit puberty.

It is the basis for understanding how sexual abuse hurts children, but say it and people will report you to the FBI as a pedo.

If Graham were serious he could make a list of 20 diverse examples like this.

View on HN

Interesting. Here's what he wrote about that in 2004:

"When you find something you can't say, what do you do with it? My advice is, don't say it. Or at least, pick your battles...The most important thing is to be able to think what you want, not to say what you want. And if you feel you have to say everything you think, it may inhibit you from thinking improper thoughts. I think it's better to follow the opposite policy. Draw a sharp line between your thoughts and your speech. Inside your head, anything is allowed. Within my head I make a point of encouraging the most outrageous thoughts I can imagine. But, as in a secret society, nothing that happens within the building should be told to outsiders."

http://paulgraham.com/say.html

Freudian Psychoanalysis is the basis of nothing. Freud never formulated testable, falsifiable hypotheses, and his "theories" were nothing but speculation and pseudoscience, which is why by 1980, US psychiatrists wanting to make their specialization more respectable and evidence-based purged the DSM of all references to Freud.

If anything, it's criticism of Freud and his theories, outside of strictly science-based objections, that is "unsayable":

kevinmacdonald.net/chap4.pdf

The fact that you are posting this using your real name is strong evidence that it's not actually "unsayable".

Freudian psychoanalysis was a core component of orthodox leftwing thought up until fairly recently. His influence on the left was massive, perhaps second only to Marx. The idea that you could get cancelled for endorsing his theories today, even the parts that arguably normalize pedophilia by sexualizing infants (eg, their supposed sexual attraction to opposite-sex parents, or their psychological development being based on a progression of erogenous zones) is silly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com