Talk:Psychoanalysis/Archive 1

message: ===Free Psychoanalysis Techniques===
Hello, 
I have tried out a method for doing psychoanalysis alone in front of a computer. It can also be done on paper.
In both approaches, one freely associates, no matter how embarrassing it seems, always writing down what comes to mind.
In the computer version, perfect secrecy can be reached by never saving the file. With paper, close to perfect secrecy can be achieved by ripping the paper apart and flushing it down the toilet.
I spoke to a psychiatrist about this technique. He first said it is auto-erotic in that it only concerns oneself and not another person. He then admitted that even with this technique, the element of fearing to be observed would be present, because one would still fear getting caught writing down the associations. So this technique can still be worthwhile, he said, recommending me to try it out.
I tried it out and it works. It can be used to achieve clarity and clear problem definitions. These can then be stated in conversations with humans to more effectively create a valve for the problems, and in this way they can gradually evaporate.
Best regards,
Vidar Jensen,
vidarajensen@gmail.com
:I believe this qualifies as original research. If no-one objects, I'll move it the archival page in a day or two. // Pathoschild 04:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: September

message: Hello, 
I have tried out a method for doing psychoanalysis alone in front of a computer. It can also be done on paper.
In both approaches, one freely associates, no matter how embarrassing it seems, always writing down what comes to mind.
In the computer version, perfect secrecy can be reached by never saving the file. With paper, close to perfect secrecy can be achieved by ripping the paper apart and flushing it down the toilet.
I spoke to a psychiatrist about this technique. He first said it is auto-erotic in that it only concerns oneself and not another person. He then admitted that even with this technique, the element of fearing to be observed would be present, because one would still fear getting caught writing down the associations. So this technique can still be worthwhile, he said, recommending me to try it out.
I tried it out and it works. It can be used to achieve clarity and clear problem definitions. These can then be stated in conversations with humans to more effectively create a valve for the problems, and in this way they can gradually evaporate.
Best regards,
Vidar Jensen,
vidarajensen@gmail.com
:I believe this qualifies as original research. If no-one objects, I'll move it the archival page in a day or two. // Pathoschild 04:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Psychoanalysis Techniques

message: The talk page was becoming quite difficult to use, so I archived older comments. Are there any objections to this? // Pathoschild 04:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: ===Hypnosis===
Hypnosis needs alot of work too. Sam Spade 16:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thats great, if you make an accoutn this is easier. I would love to see a NPoV article without using terms like psuedoscience. Astrology is a psuedoscience, I don't think this is astrology. Dominick 14:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: October

message: Hypnosis needs alot of work too. Sam Spade 16:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypnosis

message: The article is often factually incorrect, and it lacks a neutral pov.  Modern psychology and medicine consider psychoanalysis quaint at best.
There is little objective data supporting the efficacy of psychoanalysis, as a quick pubmed search will show.  What journal articles there are listed appear to bad literature papers than anything of scientific merit.   There is strong opinion in the scientific and medical communities that analysis, particularly in its most rigid forms, is of little merit.  Indeed, there is not a single link to any sort of objective nedical research in this article.  There is a reason--there is little or no unbiased research showing analyisis is useful.  For example: REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Current data do not support the use of psychodynamic psychotherapy techniques for hospitalised people with schizophrenia. If psychoanalytic therapy is being used for people with schizophrenia there is an urgent need for trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(3):CD001360.
The claims about Freud are sychophantic,similar to L. Ron Hubbard praize on a Scientology website.  Some of the claims are also factually incorrect, too.
Indeed, psychoanalysis clearly meets the definition of quackery and pseudoscience.  Whenever the article is edited and criticized for these sort of flaws, the proponents of psychoanalysis immediately swoop down and destroy these neutral, objective comments.
The result  of this is a bad page with an embarassing bias.
For more objective sources for the laymen, the Skeptic's dictionaryprovides a good starting place.  The problem is that with analysis, so much is wrong that it is hard to know where to begin. // 24.225.95.253, 00:41, September 30, 2005 (UTC)
====Reply to "a very poor article"====
The last contributor complains that there is "not a single link" to "objective medical research" in the article.  He then says that "there is little or no unbiased research showing analysis is useful." 
The latter comment is flatly untrue.  There is a massive amount of research on psychoanalytically orientied psychotherapy, and a significant amount on full-fledged psychoanalysis.  A link to an open-door review of outcome studies in psychoanalysis is the following   
I have added this link to the psychoanalysis page. I've also added a section of links to psychoanalysis research papers.
As for the paper on schizophrenia the contributor cites, the article's tentative conclusion that current research data do not fully support the use of psychoanalytic therapy for schizophrenia, and that trials ought to be conducted, says nothing about the use of psychoanalytic therapy for other populations.  In fact, few psychoanalytic authors have ever recommended psychoanalytic treatment for schizophrenia. Freud, for example, did not.  That's not what it was designed for.
A "quick pubmed search" is hardly enough to give one a good sense of research in contemporary psychoanalysis, or any other form of psychotherapy for that matter.  The Psycinfo database would be a better place to search, as psychoanalysis research mostly falls under psychology and psychotherapy research, which is primarily done by academic psychologists, not medical researchers.  
It also seems odd to me to criticize an article for a lack of "neutrality" but then say that article ought to be more critical of its topic.  Calling psychoanalysis "quackery" is not neutral, it is a judgment.  Moreover, without support, it is a judgment that is little more than a bias.
Finally, with regard to the claim that contemporary psychology and medicine "consider psychoanalysis quaint at best"- I refer the author to the remarks in the article describing the changes that have occurred in psychoanalysis since Freud died in 1939.
When contemporary psychology and medicine (and "skeptics") criticize psychoanalysis, they mostly are criticizing Freud's old work from the early twentieth century.  This is a bit like criticizing modern astrophysics by complaining about Tycho's theories. As a recent article in the APA Monitor on Psychology put it, today's psychoanalysis "is not your parents' psychoanalysis." link to article:  Of course psychoanalysis will appear "quaint" if critics focus solely on psychoanalytic writings of 70 years ago.  The criticism is circular.
It is hard to respond to the above contributor's other complaints, because he does not specify what is "factually incorrect" about the article and which remarks are "syhcophantic" (sic).
I also want to say something in reply to the contributor who said psychoanalysis ought to be referenced as a "pseudoscience."  Whether psychoanalysis is a science or a pseudoscience is itself a controversial question, and the answer to this question ought not to be assumed.  Arguments have been made in both directions, and a wide diversity of "standards" for what should count as science have been offered by various writers.  There is little consensus on how "science" should be defined. -- (unsigned comment by 172.167.143.241 22:31, October 4, 2005)
:thats great, if you make an accoutn this is easier. I would love to see a NPoV article without using terms like psuedoscience. Astrology is a psuedoscience, I don't think this is astrology. Dominick 14:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A very poor article

message: The last contributor complains that there is "not a single link" to "objective medical research" in the article.  He then says that "there is little or no unbiased research showing analysis is useful." 
The latter comment is flatly untrue.  There is a massive amount of research on psychoanalytically orientied psychotherapy, and a significant amount on full-fledged psychoanalysis.  A link to an open-door review of outcome studies in psychoanalysis is the following   
I have added this link to the psychoanalysis page. I've also added a section of links to psychoanalysis research papers.
As for the paper on schizophrenia the contributor cites, the article's tentative conclusion that current research data do not fully support the use of psychoanalytic therapy for schizophrenia, and that trials ought to be conducted, says nothing about the use of psychoanalytic therapy for other populations.  In fact, few psychoanalytic authors have ever recommended psychoanalytic treatment for schizophrenia. Freud, for example, did not.  That's not what it was designed for.
A "quick pubmed search" is hardly enough to give one a good sense of research in contemporary psychoanalysis, or any other form of psychotherapy for that matter.  The Psycinfo database would be a better place to search, as psychoanalysis research mostly falls under psychology and psychotherapy research, which is primarily done by academic psychologists, not medical researchers.  
It also seems odd to me to criticize an article for a lack of "neutrality" but then say that article ought to be more critical of its topic.  Calling psychoanalysis "quackery" is not neutral, it is a judgment.  Moreover, without support, it is a judgment that is little more than a bias.
Finally, with regard to the claim that contemporary psychology and medicine "consider psychoanalysis quaint at best"- I refer the author to the remarks in the article describing the changes that have occurred in psychoanalysis since Freud died in 1939.
When contemporary psychology and medicine (and "skeptics") criticize psychoanalysis, they mostly are criticizing Freud's old work from the early twentieth century.  This is a bit like criticizing modern astrophysics by complaining about Tycho's theories. As a recent article in the APA Monitor on Psychology put it, today's psychoanalysis "is not your parents' psychoanalysis." link to article:  Of course psychoanalysis will appear "quaint" if critics focus solely on psychoanalytic writings of 70 years ago.  The criticism is circular.
It is hard to respond to the above contributor's other complaints, because he does not specify what is "factually incorrect" about the article and which remarks are "syhcophantic" (sic).
I also want to say something in reply to the contributor who said psychoanalysis ought to be referenced as a "pseudoscience."  Whether psychoanalysis is a science or a pseudoscience is itself a controversial question, and the answer to this question ought not to be assumed.  Arguments have been made in both directions, and a wide diversity of "standards" for what should count as science have been offered by various writers.  There is little consensus on how "science" should be defined. -- (unsigned comment by 172.167.143.241 22:31, October 4, 2005)
:thats great, if you make an accoutn this is easier. I would love to see a NPoV article without using terms like psuedoscience. Astrology is a psuedoscience, I don't think this is astrology. Dominick 14:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to "a very poor article"

message: ==October==
===Validity of Psychoanalysis===
I think that ist article is not NPOV.
There are more effective pychotherapies out on the market, 
and many psychologists think that Psychoanalysis ist neither scientific 
nor effective. --unsigned
Your point is well taken, in fact, psychoanalysis is listed as a pseudoscience on Wikipedia. Freud conceived of science in a nineteeth century way and his methods and conclusions would not meet modern standards. However, there is a vast body of writing, research, and theoretical writing as well as professional experience. Material critical of psychoanalysis is certainly welcome in the article, but so is material regarding the theories and practices of both orthodox psychoanalysis and the other schools. Fred Bauder 22:33, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Just because there are more effective treatments does not mean the article is not NPOV.  Psychoanalysis (especially its modern form) has advantages over other treatments because it is more comphrehensive. Joseph Wayne Hicks 03:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
The article as it stands is not NPOV simply because it does not talk about the many critics of psychoanalysis, including Karl Popper, Ernest Gellner, Adolf Grüaut;nbaum, Frederick Crews, Edward Erwin, et al.  The s olution to this is very simply to add more material about the criticisms of psychoanalysis.  I will start.  --Macrakis 05:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article apparently being controversial, I've added a temporary NPOV tag to prevent further POV edits. // Pathoschild 04:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004

message: ===Validity of Psychoanalysis===
I think that ist article is not NPOV.
There are more effective pychotherapies out on the market, 
and many psychologists think that Psychoanalysis ist neither scientific 
nor effective. --unsigned
Your point is well taken, in fact, psychoanalysis is listed as a pseudoscience on Wikipedia. Freud conceived of science in a nineteeth century way and his methods and conclusions would not meet modern standards. However, there is a vast body of writing, research, and theoretical writing as well as professional experience. Material critical of psychoanalysis is certainly welcome in the article, but so is material regarding the theories and practices of both orthodox psychoanalysis and the other schools. Fred Bauder 22:33, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Just because there are more effective treatments does not mean the article is not NPOV.  Psychoanalysis (especially its modern form) has advantages over other treatments because it is more comphrehensive. Joseph Wayne Hicks 03:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
The article as it stands is not NPOV simply because it does not talk about the many critics of psychoanalysis, including Karl Popper, Ernest Gellner, Adolf Grüaut;nbaum, Frederick Crews, Edward Erwin, et al.  The s olution to this is very simply to add more material about the criticisms of psychoanalysis.  I will start.  --Macrakis 05:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article apparently being controversial, I've added a temporary NPOV tag to prevent further POV edits. // Pathoschild 04:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: October

message: I think that ist article is not NPOV.
There are more effective pychotherapies out on the market, 
and many psychologists think that Psychoanalysis ist neither scientific 
nor effective. --unsigned
Your point is well taken, in fact, psychoanalysis is listed as a pseudoscience on Wikipedia. Freud conceived of science in a nineteeth century way and his methods and conclusions would not meet modern standards. However, there is a vast body of writing, research, and theoretical writing as well as professional experience. Material critical of psychoanalysis is certainly welcome in the article, but so is material regarding the theories and practices of both orthodox psychoanalysis and the other schools. Fred Bauder 22:33, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Just because there are more effective treatments does not mean the article is not NPOV.  Psychoanalysis (especially its modern form) has advantages over other treatments because it is more comphrehensive. Joseph Wayne Hicks 03:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
The article as it stands is not NPOV simply because it does not talk about the many critics of psychoanalysis, including Karl Popper, Ernest Gellner, Adolf Grüaut;nbaum, Frederick Crews, Edward Erwin, et al.  The s olution to this is very simply to add more material about the criticisms of psychoanalysis.  I will start.  --Macrakis 05:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article apparently being controversial, I've added a temporary NPOV tag to prevent further POV edits. // Pathoschild 04:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Validity of Psychoanalysis

message: ==September==
===Effects on scizophrenia?===
From the article:
:and the prevailing view is that psychoanalysis may worsen the symptoms of schizophrenia.
Cite, please? -- The Anome 09:18, 4 Sep 2003 (UT C)
:The article apparently no longer states this. // Pathoschild 04:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2003

message: ===Effects on scizophrenia?===
From the article:
:and the prevailing view is that psychoanalysis may worsen the symptoms of schizophrenia.
Cite, please? -- The Anome 09:18, 4 Sep 2003 (UT C)
:The article apparently no longer states this. // Pathoschild 04:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: September

message: From the article:
:and the prevailing view is that psychoanalysis may worsen the symptoms of schizophrenia.
Cite, please? -- The Anome 09:18, 4 Sep 2003 (UT C)
:The article apparently no longer states this. // Pathoschild 04:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Effects on scizophrenia?