Talk: Sigmund Freud
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
Did freud actually observe tribal societies, or just read about them? Given the substantive cricisim of Freud from all sorts of angles this is probably an important issue.
Even if he did observe them, which I don't believe he did, who is to say that he was 'objective' in doing so? Is such a thing even possible? (Michael W. Clark, Ph.D.)
Not much of a mention of the controversies around Freud's theories. Even someone who's a fan of Freud ought to know about a few of them. GregLindahl
This is better than it used to be, but: 'Freud dealt mankind the most severe narcissistic injury of all...' is still adulatory in tone rather than explanatory.
- Freud's psychological theories are hotly disputed today and many leading academic and research psychiatrists regard him as a charlatan. Although Freud was long regarded as a genius and the founder of psychology, today psychiatry has been recast as a scientific discipline and psychiatric disorders as diseases of the brain whose etiology is principally genetic. This is largely due to the repudiation of Freud's theories and the adoption of many of the basic scientific principles of Freud's principal opponent in the field of psychiatry, Emil Kraepelin. In his book "The Freudian Fraud", research psychiatrist E. Fuller-Torrey provides an account of the political and social forces which combined to raise Freud to the status of a divinity to those who needed a theoretical foundation for their political and social views. Many of the diseases which used to be treated with Freudian and related forms of therapy (such as schizophrenia) have been unequivocally demonstrated to be impervious to such treatments. Freud's notion that the child's relationship to the parent is responsible for everything from psychiatric diseases to criminal behavior has also been thoroughly discredited and the influence of such theories is today regarded as a relic of a permissive age in which "blame-the-parent" was the accepted dogma. For many decades genetic and biological causes of psychiatric disorders were dismissed without scientific investigation in favor of environmental (parental and social) influences. Today even the most extreme Freudian environmentalists would not deny the great influence of genetic and biological factors. The American Psychiatric Association's "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual" (the latest edition of which is the DSM-IV), the official standard for diagnosing psychological disorders in the USA, reflects the universal adoption of the neo-Kraepelinian scientific-biological approach to psychiatric disorders, with its emphasis on diagnostic precision and the search for biological and genetic etiologies--largely ignored during the earlier Freud-dominated decades of the twentieth century.
That paragraph is pretty egregiously biased; see neutral point of view. Freudians still do certainly exist in the psychiatric profession, and Freud is still taken seriously by many others as well. I'm not saying that we shouldn't include plenty of information and background on the rejection of Freud today; I'm saying that we should write this so that it isn't Wikipedia's official view that Freud was a charlatan. Among other things, what would be necessary is a reply to this from Freudians, and statements representing the number of Freudians still active today. --LMS
While LMS has to be the final judge, it might be worth pointing out that none of the statements LMS attributes to the paragraph are actually made: (1) the paragraph in question does not assert that there are no Freudians (in fact, in terms of numbers there must be hundreds of times the number of Freudian adherents today compared to any other school of psychiatry)--the paragraph referred only refers to the domination of research and refereed publications by those who take the alternative genetic-biological approach, since there is hardly anything of a scientific nature published today on Freudian theories or treatments e.g. psychotherapy for patients with any of the psychoses, except those written and published by Freud activists themselves; (2) the paragraph does not at all say that Freud "is" a charlatan--it merely states that "many leading academic and research psychiatrists regard him as a charlatan." So these are objective and indisputable facts, even though what LMS states may be perfectly correct, namely, that there in a balanced presentation there should be replies from Freudians and representations stating that Freud still has enormous influence today--for good or ill.
The concern expressed in the snipped paragraph is that there is hardly anyone informing the general public about the new developments in psychiatry and therefore most of the public and most academics outside the field of psychiatry are unaware that there is an alternative in the form of a truly scientific approach, as opposed to Freudian doctrines and practices which even Freud's fiercest proponents have long acknowledged to be beyond scientific demonstration or refutation.
The effects of Freud's notions on our society and educational system are incalculable; if he is in fact the fraud that many serious scientists now allege him to be, then it is of the utmost importance to inform the public of the available alternatives.
- I just wanted to say that I agree pretty much 100% with the above (except for the part about me having to be the final judge. I don't have to be, I don't want to be, and I shouldn't be in the vast majority of cases. I would be happy if the article simply mentioned Freud's defense, just as you describe. --LMS
My impression of the field of modern psychology is that the specifics of Freud's theories are indeed utterly dismissed as serious science except by a few holdouts, and I certainly think the article should say that (while mentioning those holdouts). The term "charlatan" is out of place though--"crackpot" might be better, or even just "grossly mistaken". "Charlatan" implies deliberate fraud for financial gain; I think most scientists today simply regard Freud as merely mistaken, not willfully deceptive. Frued is nonetheless still studied as history, and his observations of people are not questioned, just his theories. It is also worthy to note that he was the first to posit a theory of mind that spoke of independent interacting subsystems decades before modern cognitive science did, so even though he may be considered totally wrong by today's standards, he was closer to being right than anyone who came before him! --LDC
- I like 'grossly mistaken', because I don't even think he was close to being right - but then I read Thomas Szasz at an impressionable age. 'Charlatan' does imply an intentionality that I think was absent - Freud was sincere. --MichaelTinkler
- Out of curiosity, who actually says that Freud was a charlatan? I know that much of his work has been discredited -- as has much 19th and early 20th c. pioneering work -- but I think that much still stands -- enough that Freudian psyhotherapists still work and treat people without being cast out of the psychiatric community...
Many people say that Freud was a charlatan. He is often accused of lying about his results, and there is some evidence to support these charges. ~~
- "Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience" Frank Cioffi, Open Court Publishing, 1998
- "Freud's Paranoid Quest: Psychoanalysis and Modern Suspicion" John Farrell, New York University Press, 1998
- "The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions" Donald A. Eisner, Hardcover, 2000, $63 Praeger Pub. Psychologist-attorney Eisner puts psychotherapy on trial by critically examining its effectiveness through the lens of the scientific method. From psychoanalysis to cognitive-behavior therapy as well as the 500 or so other psychotherapies, there is not a single experimental study that supports the effectiveness of psychotherapy over a placebo or religious healing. Using both case examples and clinical research, this book challenges the conclusion that there is empirical support for the notion that psychotherapy is effective.
I just revised the first half of the article, and have NPOV concerns. I think that within academic Freud is as contentious an issue as feminism or evolution or the Resurrection of Jesus are for others. I think that the criticisms of Freud, and question of whether he was a charlatan (which some scholars, I think one named Jeffrey Masson although I am sure I have mangled his last name, have raised, in earnest and with evidence, although it is a highly contested claim) are serious and I did not want to try to edit the last big paragraph, although I think it needs work. For I also thing that the critique of Freud has a lot more to do with fundamental epistemological and meta-theoretical issues and canot be reduced to the simple matter of setting up a checklist and asking for each element whether Freud was right or wrong.
So I re-wrote the first half of the article in an attempt to make clearer how his theory hangs together, and how different elements of it have been accepted or questioned, and I have tried to provide a little more information on the ways in which it has been questioned. Freud has been used in different ways in the sciences and in the humanities, and has been embraced and criticized in different ways by the left and the right. I do not think my revision does justice to the full complexity of this issue -- I hope over time others can add more context and nuance. But I hope this revision of the first half provides a bit more balance and context for the second half. -- SR
- Yep, it's Masson - his middle name is Moussaieff. I was just adding this when we had an edit conflict.
- I can't promise that the word 'charlatan' is used, but off the top of my head Thomas Szasz is a good example from the point of view of the practice of psychiatry (The Myth of Mental Illness and many, many other works). Then there are the various attackers of the foundation myths of psychoanalysis like Jeffrey Masson (The Assault on the Truth: Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory and the flood of work pro and contra it generated). There are lots of people who say worse things than 'charlatan'. I'm not saying that I believe them, but I am saying that they've sure convinced me to not believe in Freud! --MichaelTinkler
- A friendly reminder: Sándor Ferenczi. FET 12:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It seems to me that a lot of the debate has been between extremes of those who practically deify Freud, and those who villify him. Although I think an article on Freud should discuss both, I think it is also important to sketch out the middle ground -- not just for the sake of NPOV but becuase there are a lot of people out there who are inspired by Freud in some ways while being sharply critical of him in others. In fact, I think the cae of Freud is emblematic of a huge chasm between the social sciences and the humanities, or betwen the human sciences and the physical sciences, that I think become inevitable when human beings study human beings. No one cares what kinds of human beings Einstein or Newton were, because we think of the physical world as existing independent of us. But people care a lot about what kind of men Marx and Freud were, since they people writing about people, members of society writing about society. I think this is an important distinction, and I do think it matters what kind of people Marx and Freud were. But I do not think that it is the only thing that matters; even if they were both horrible people who did horrible things, there still may be value and use in some of the things they wrote. I hope that the article on Freud will eventualy explore this in depth -- SR
- Good point, SR. I'm staying out of the main article, except for copyedits (like the removal of 'socialist'). The more important chasm between the humanities and the sciences is that the practicing Freudian interpreters of literature and history really don't much care whether or not what Freud has to say about the brain or the human person is true or not. It's a hermeneutic they like, so they use it, whether psychiatry, neurology, or psychoanalysis still believe in anything he said or not. I speak professionally - I live and work with these people. Many of my colleagues really and truly don't care if the Ego, Id, and Superego are 'true' or not. I team taught a class with a philosophy professor this past term who used the Freudian triad as a parallel to Plato's model of the Soul in the Republic without any critical approach at all. It was amazing. Yes, it matters what kind of person he was, but it also matters what kind of neurologist he was, since that, despite the literary critics, is his basis for speaking to us about humans. --MichaelTinkler
- I don't feel compelled to restrict myself to copyedits! At present, the 'Criticism of Freud' section seems flawed. It is this section in particular that I feel needs altering:
- "...most of these often inflammatory texts are written by people with no formal knowledge in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysts generally regard those critics as being grossly uninformed."
- This is a circular argument: only people with a formal knowledge of psychoanalysis can criticise psychoanalysis; however, those people are more likely to be psychoanalysists and therefore not inclined to criticise the foundation of their profession and livelihood.
- As it doesn't seem comprehensive enough for a page of its own at present, I'll confine any changes I have to the 'Sigmund Freud' article. If anybody wants to expand on the section and move it to its own page, I think that would be appropriate. Katherine Shaw 16:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
- "...most of these often inflammatory texts are written by people with no formal knowledge in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysts generally regard those critics as being grossly uninformed." Well of course. Points of disagreement are points of not understanding the logical sense of what one does not agree with. It's a lot to explain, but basically, attacking as nonsense something every step of the way and then still not getting it makes study and comprehension difficult. So the supposition is that even those who try to understand, if only to attack, have no formal knowledge. FET 07:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
On another topic, what on earth was this doing as the first sentence:
- 'Sigmund Freud (May 6 1856 - September 23 1939) was a socialist Austrian neurologist,'
I removed 'socialist'. It was extraneous. If it is central to someone's take on Freud, that wikipedian will have to justify the inclusion of a political term in the first sentence by writing about Freud's politics in the article. --MichaelTinkler
My thought is that this article has become rather bloated with material that belongs in psychoanalysis or psychiatry or antipsychiatry. Hardly any room left for biography of the man. Also needs bibliography of his work and his biographers. Although the article on psychoanalysis does not need to be overwealmed by a lengthy rendition of Freud's theories; perhaps a new article "Orthodox Freudian Psychoanalysis," or something similar. FredBauder
- I do not think I agree. I do agree, that there should be more room for biography of Freud. On the other hand, it is hard for me to imagine anyone looking at this article who is not also interested in Freud's theories.
- I do agree that some things are better off in an article on psychoanalysis. But freud was not the only psychoanalyst, and there is a difference even between "Freudian" psychoanalysis and what Freud himself wrote and did.
- this would be my criteria: the Freud article should include a comprehensive discussion of Freud's work, based on books and articles he wrote, as well as biography
- and the article on psychoanalysis should have a comprehensive discussion of how others have applied Freud's theories, including discussion of debates among psychoanalysts and revisions of Freud's theories by psychoanalysis, SR
- I must admit that I was highly puzzled finding all information on Freudian psychoanalysis as part of a Signmund Freud biography. Certainly, readers of the biography would easily be able to spot a "See also: Freudian psychoanalysis". The biography and the theory are really two separate issues, however interconnected. Also, I assume "Freudian psychotheraphy" has evolved somewhat after Freuds death, which only furthers the point. -- Egil 11:36 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
I'm surprised there is not a single mention of Karl Jung here...
- you are surprised, even reading the paragraph right above your own comment? Jung should be mentioned on a Jung page, and the relationship between Jung and Freud on a Psychoanalysis page. Slrubenstein
- I was also surprised. My vote is clearly for moving parts of the article to a separate article on Freudian psychoanalysis. In this article, it would be very natural (especially for novices) to mention Freudian vz. Jungian differences and disputes, at the very least as a "See also: Jungian". -- Egil 11:36 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
In light of the historical trend for psychoactive drugs to be used in therapy, I am surprised there is no mention of his use of cocaine, both personally and professionally. Qaz
Editing error
It happened again: Just edited Sigmund Freud, adding a "see also" for Freudian slip. I wrote a small Freudian slip article, checked the "Whats links here" and verified "Sigmund Freud" was there, along with a couple of other entries. Revisited "Sigmund Freud" a few minutes later, and the "see also" was gone. Any jokes or analysises on Freudian slip are welcome. -- Egil 07:24 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
Anybody in the liberal arts like to comment on the application of Freudian ideas to the criticism of literature and art? Is this style of literary criticism still conducted? --Robert Merkel 13:34 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I think the "critic" quote is still problematic and POV. You simply cannot take an abnormal psychology class without being significantly exposed to Freud and Freudian theory, even if other theories have eclipsed it. I'm not sure why this is being dinged (early and conspiciously) as pseudoscience while other theorists, like Abraham Maslow or Carl Jung are given much more positive treatments. It's not like they're any more accurate as descriptions as what's going on inside my head. (Note: I'm hardly a Freudian and I think it is pseudoscience.) Daniel Quinlan 09:35, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
- Freud's ideas are certainly much discussed today, and I would be the first to agree that they must be grappled with and dealt with seriously, if only because of their currency. So Freud deserves a long and thorough article in Wikipedia. I believe that a balanced article would include A) explanations of Freud's theories, and B) the status of Freudianism today. The existing article is quite thorough on "A" and had almost nothing on "B". A neophyte who read the article as it stood a month ago would imagine that Freud's work has the same relation to current psychology that Darwin's work has to current biology.
- Let's compare them: Darwinism thoroughly permeates modern biology, and his fundamentals, built on copious observation and collegial collaboration, now much extended with new data and new theories, continue to provide accurate predictions and fruitful avenues of exploration. Freud's fundamental ideas were founded on minimal and dubious observations, and his theories do not meet the test of being logical, minimal, reproducible explanations of the data. As far as Jung goes, I haven't gotten to him yet :), and I don't know anything about Maslow. Freud draws my fire precisely because he is so high profile, so influential, and so wrong. I was required to study The Interpretation of Dreams in high school as if it were scientific fact, and the disgust I felt when I later realized it was all as stupid as it sounded has turned me into - yes - a Freud critic. Of course, I am striving for NPOV. Do you really feel that presenting Freud's pseudoscience without comment is NPOV, whereas quoting one of many eminent critics is not? :NuclearWinner 21:55, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- There are an ever-increasing number of Wikipedia editors who have major (and I mean major) axes to grind. They seek out articles that flame their passion (one way or another) and add their personsal opinions, minimally cloaked in NPOV terminology, to these articles. Present-day political topics and figures suffer the worst editorial treatment, where articles are front-line battles and new articles are drawn up daily to score political points. I hate to see it when this attitude extends into other areas of the Wikipedia. I cannot say that I am flawless in this regard either, but I am increasingly doubtful whether collaborative editing can produce articles about contentious topics that are as useful as a single neutral expert might be able to produce. A lot of articles are turning into list frenzies where balance is only acheived by listing every point made by every side. I don't remember ever seeing these types of "articles" in my encyclopedia growing up. Somehow, the entries about American presidents were informative without sounding like a screwy mix of right-wing and left-wing talking points.
- My point: instead of striving for NPOV, strive to write good articles and add quality content. I'm not saying you should avoid the Freud article, but the article is far more lacking in content than it is in representing your critical views about Freud. Daniel Quinlan 00:22, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)
- I am not sure whether I have yet reached the point where I can agree fully with the above comments -- although I do not take issue with them and think they are constructive. I do want to make one point, though, in response to Nuclearwinner: Freud's theories were always controversial, and Freudians and psychoanalysts always lived in a tense relationship with academic psychology and psychiatry. I certainly agree that there can be a fuller account of the contemporary state of "Freudianism" (for example, reviewing the work of Juliet Mitchel and Jessica Benjamin, among others). And the fact that many have consistently rejected him as a pseudoscientist is a valid point and worth including in the article; indeed, I think it is in the article. But NPOV still provides an important guideline: it is important to be clear who rejects Freud as a pseudoscience. Those critics have a right to be heard, and they ought to be included in this article -- but they represent one point of view among many. Slrubenstein
- All this talk of whether Freud was right, or wrong, or pseudo-scientific misses the point utterly. Whether right, wrong, or purple, Freud was profoundly influential. Even if his theories were pseudo-science, much of what has followed him is "real" science, just as the pseudo-science of alchemists (many of them charlatans or otherwise self-promoting) evolved into the "real" science of chemistry. And even within chemistry, we look back on ideas of phlogiston and ether as laughably stupid, but they weren't. Freud's lasting influences include getting Westerners to take dreams seriously; the ideas of repression, unconscious motivations, psychosexual development, and others; and a much more nuanced understanding of language and symbolism, which has led on its own to much of critical theory. -- Anonymous Person
The impression that I personally received when I read the entry for the first time, minutes ago, was that there are people here who do not like Freud's work, and who are actively and selectively editing for the purpose of discrediting and obscuring theories with which they do not agree. I am not a proponent of Freud's work. I simply sought information on Freud here on wikiPedia, and was left with a poor impression. Whatever your personal take on the world is, this is not a page about you, it is a page about Freud, his life, and his theories. If you have something to add that helps to build a broader base of knowledge about Freud, then you should add it. However, please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and your personal interpretation is not as important here as a cogent enumeration and elaboration of Freud's theories themselves. I might add that forcibly subverting the established ethics of an institution and a social organization, in the furtherance of your own personal goals, against the will and intent of the covenant of that institution and society, is generally considered antisocial behaviour by any reasoned interpretation. Infirmo
- One more thought: Shouldn't criticism of Freud get its own page? Then we could discuss Freud and his theories on the Freud page, and discuss criticism of Freud on Criticism of Freud. As it is, critical comments have crept into almost every section, rather than being correctly restricted to the criticism section of this page, reducing it's academic value as a reference source. With a separate page dedicated to criticism, the line of demarcation for commentary would be far more obvious, and criticisms of Freud could be more fully elaborated without the need to conform to use of language that seeks to falsely imply a lack of bias. We could still put the link in the table of contents for this page, and thus advertise the fact of the disputation of Freud's theoretical basis to all who visit here. Infirmo
In the comments above, I am fascinated to discover that someone thought Freud was a socialist. I thought I was familiar with Freud's work. Is there any evidence for this claim? My general impression is that he had virtually no interest in politics - he cared only about his work.
- Some of his work was explicitly political, esp. Civilization and its Discontents, but not in the typical way we might understand the idea of politics. But a socialist? I know of no evidence to support that claim.
The Freud page needs some changes. It lacks basic objectivity and lacks the vital criticisms of him. It needs to distinguish between the other methods of psychology to get a proper understanding of the issues.
- The Freud page does, as indeed it should, mention criticisms of Freud. But it is not a page about Freud's critics, or alternatives to Freud. If you want to contribute to a page on Jung, Adler, Cognitive-Behavioralism, or anything else in detail, it should be its own article. Slrubenstein
I just deleted this from the article,
- As early as 1897, he theorized that the human condition was similar to the Greek mythic hero Oedipus,that “falling in love with the mother and jealousy of the father” was a universal event of early childhood: this connection gave birth to the Oedipus Complex and linked thereafter the unconscious with mythology. He shared this interest in mythology with Carl Jung, with whom he formed the strongest of bonds, then a bitter split in 1912.
only because I do not think it belongs in the introduction. It is clear and good and I do think it belongs in the article, just not up top. If anyone can figure out a more apporpriate place to put it, please do so, Slrubenstein
This article is blatently written from an anti-Freud perspective. It is not a place for airing one's own opinion.
question about categories
How literal are the categories supposed to be? Freud was of course interested in psychiatry as a young man, but psychoanalysis represents a break with psychiatry and in the US at least most (virtually all?) psychiatrists shun Freud and psychoanalysis. Slrubenstein
The "Criticism of Freud" section contained NPOV criticism of the criticism, which I have edited out. Criticism of criticism is fine, but it needs to be factually based. For instance, "...most of these works...are inflammatory...". There are only three works listed. So I guess two are inflammatory; which ones, and why?
"Grossly misinformed": can we have an example of the misinformation? Otherwise it just looks like a slur.
NuclearWinner 05:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Psychoanalysis as general framework for the mind
This statement seems highly questionable:
- Note however, that apart from psychoanalysis, there exists no general framework for the understanding of the mind, and psychiatrists are left with no substitute when they reject it
...as there are many general non-Freudian general frameworks for understanding the mind, the most popular currently being cognitivism. Furthermore, modern mainstream psychiatry is largely biological (i.e. 'mental illness is best understood in terms of the brain's biology') and considers itself as a form of applied neuroscience or cognitive neuroscience (although the appropriateness of this is a subject of much debate).
I'd like to soften the above statement to take into account these perspectives but would appreciate comments if anyone has any.
- Vaughan 09:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with you. But perhaps what the author of this meant was "unconscious mind?" I do think most Freudians think that theirs is the only model, or set of models, that take the unconscious seriously. I understand this too may be a debatable point, but if you agree with it perhaps you could work it into your revision? Slrubenstein
