That's a good point. Before reading this thread my main complaint about Jungian stuff was that I found it hard to apply to myself in a useful, practical way, unlike many other psychology books we've read here. I think it was the concept of the Shadow that I found most useful many years ago, and I simply learned that rather than pushing away things I didn't like about myself, it was better to try to acknowledge and find ways to incorporate them in a healthy way. But concepts like archetypes, they were more intellectually stimulating rather than helpful. Trying to engage with them seems to end in pure fantasy, as someone already mentioned. As for Freud, kind of the same thing, but worse. Past the point when you realize you have sexual impulses and you can't simply get rid of them (duh), there's not much else to learn from him.There's another important aspect to the psychoanalytic movement. If you read Healing developmental trauma or Stout's work or Dabrowski or George Simons or Jordan Peterson, you can sense a deep desire by those people to help. They seem to care. They write in plain language and it's very down to earth. Whereas Freud and Jung were much more the "rumbling intellectuals" - what is actually in their work that really, truly helps people in therapy??