Tagging @RestlessSoul (after informing him I would, in order to get permission) and continuing a tangent from another thread:
So, in a nutshell, my view is that Jung's work definitely isn't "useless," but much of it is outdated and not up to current standards of evidence, which is highlighted in the fact that current psychology courses and peer-reviewed work don't tend to regard his work as authoritative in the field of psychology. I also don't think modern psychiatry is to blame for not finding sufficient evidence to regard his work as such; experts don't have to force his work into their research if they don't find a solid medical or scientific reason to do so.
What are your thoughts, whether on the currently prevalent position in modern psychology regarding most of Carl Jung's work or on his work itself?
Jung really isn’t useless, and it’s hardly his fault if modern psychiatry can’t find a use for his ideas. If it can’t, that may be as much a failure of the one as the other.
I think "useless" would be an oversimplified way of discussing his work, since it was a stage in the evolution of psychology as a field. "Outdated" and "[largely] discredited," which are the terms I used in my first post in this thread, seem to me more accurate. It's a fact that evidence-based psychology incorporates approaches and concepts that significantly differ from Jung's work, in much the same way that our understanding of biology has expanded and improved since Darwin's time. It doesn't make Darwin's work "useless"; just outdated and, in many ways, no longer up to par.
As for modern psychiatry, I don't see why one should assume that there's any fault with it for not finding much use for Jung's ideas. I think what matters is whether the current status of psychology, in which Jung's work is barely authoritative, is where the evidence has led modern psychologists. If yes, I think it is responsible on their part to not force his ideas into their work despite evidence that other frameworks and approaches better serve clinical and scientific needs.
Perhaps we could talk about this further in another thread, though, since this one is in General Discussion and therefore can't become a debate.
So, in a nutshell, my view is that Jung's work definitely isn't "useless," but much of it is outdated and not up to current standards of evidence, which is highlighted in the fact that current psychology courses and peer-reviewed work don't tend to regard his work as authoritative in the field of psychology. I also don't think modern psychiatry is to blame for not finding sufficient evidence to regard his work as such; experts don't have to force his work into their research if they don't find a solid medical or scientific reason to do so.
What are your thoughts, whether on the currently prevalent position in modern psychology regarding most of Carl Jung's work or on his work itself?