Talk:Sigmund Freud/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  question about categories 

message: Jung coinned the term collective unconscience. There are numerous theories about the framework of the mind. In fact, Freud borrowd from the ancient Greeks--I think it was Plato's triparate soul theory.--Joseph Wayne Hicks 01:00, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
---
I've read most of the comments on this page, and I will add another short note. First I ask whether this page is only a biography of Freud or of his theories as well. I think it is probably a better idea to have psychoanalysis on a separate page.  Secondly, I will add that I've heard that Freud advocated the use of cocaine to treat depression, but later suppressed his research once the dangerous addiction of cocian was discovered.  Lastly, I would add, and will add to this article or another that there are women, feminist I think, who are neo-freudian.
Lastly, I would add that there is research that validates certian aspects of Freud's theories. Joseph Wayne Hicks 01:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone read through the Spanish (es:Sigmund Freud) Wiki? If not, I'll give it a gaze or two. It's much shorter, and at first glance, fairly basic information.
Hoosier 03:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few comments 

message: I have added more information about Freud's early life, and midlife crisis. --Joseph Wayne Hicks 00:10, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
--
The major problem with the article's treatment of Freud is not the generally anti-analytic bias, but rather the nearly complete lack of a historical dimension in the discussion of Freud's various theoretical models. In a sixty year publishing career Freud changed his mind about quite a few things. For example, his first mental model (unconscious / preconscious / consciousness) of the mid- to late 1890s is quite different from the structural model of the 1920s (id / ego / superego). And again, the death instinct, hinted at in 1918 in Reflections on War and Death [Zeitgemässes über Krieg und Tod] but first fully articulated in 1920 in Beyond the Pleasure Principle [Jenseits des Lustprinzips] has no real correlate in his earlier metapsychological ideas. On the other hand, there are many things to like in the article: the list of patients with both pseudonyms and real names is a nice touch. I thought of doing some of the fixing but other than adding two titles to the pretty idiosyncratic bibliographical list of Freud critics decided that it was major  surgery that would take a fair amount of time to do, so skipped it. --John Gach john@gach.com
:I myself am suprised that the article does not mention seduction theory, which Freud abandoned because of its dire implications as to the state of Victorian society.  "The degree to which the adult suffers from hysterical symptoms corresponds to the amount of repressed affect, which in turn corresponds to the degree to which the child experienced abuse and was then implicitly required to deny the event and the attendant emotional response, which included terror, horror, confusion, rage, powerlessness, and deep sadness. According to the seduction theory, the child’s repression reappeared in the adult as hysterical symptoms including varied physical illnesses, identity disorders, and longstanding emotional depression. In “On the Aetiology of Hysteria,” Freud documents his seduction theory with eighteen patients— six men and twelve
women— all of which in the course of treatment discovered memories of sexual abuse." from J. Zornado, Inventing the Child, pg. 34.
L Hamm 17:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added more biographical info

message: WTF? All the bibliographic citations are "Critical of Freud"; why are not books supportive of Freud, or in the Freudian tradition, included?
But even past that, the critical books are of two very different sorts.  Some serious theorists like Juliet Mitchell and Valentin Voloshinov (whom I just added) have well developed intellectual critiques of Freudian theory.  In tried to put those in a separate subsection.  But the ones I called "Biographical critiques" are really just sniping and rumours about Freud personally, in some cases like MacDonald just anti-semitic doggerel that probably shouldn't be given this much weight at all.  I confess that some titles I left in Biographical I simply was not familiar with, so could not say how they might be classified.
I dunno, do some other editors want to help shape the citations into serious academic studies and not just popularized scandal sheets? And give the whole thing some balance of opinion.  It looks from the talk page that this article started out as a general ant-Freud rant; it's much better now, but it shows traces of that origin, methinks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:17, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
:I certainly agree that it's silly to have books critical of Freud but not more mainstream books in the Freudian tradition.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 06:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only critical bibliography 

message: "Some feminists, however, have argued that at worst his views of women's sexual development set the progress of women in Western culture back decades and that at best they lent themselves to the ideology of female inferiority. Believing as he did that women were a kind of mutilated male, who must learn to accept her deformity (the lack of a penis) and submit to some imagined biological imperative, he contributed to the vocabulary of misogyny. Terms such as "penis envy" and "castrating" (both used to describe women who attempted to excel in any field outside the home) contributed to discouraging women from obtaining education or entering any field dominated by men, until the 1970s. On the other hand, feminist theorists such as Juliet Mitchell, Nancy Chodorow, Jessica Benjamin, and Jane Flax have argued that psychoanalytic theory is essentially related to the feminist project and must, like other theoretical traditions, be adapted by women to free it from vestiges of sexism. Freud's views are still being questioned by people concerned about women's equality."
This section is very POV, assumes that men and women are identical psychosexually. Please fix.
:You are incorrect.  What the paragraph assumes is that "some feminists" have made these arguments.  The only question is: is it true or false that some feminists have made these arguments?  It would be good to have citations. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychosexual development 

message: Where is this mentioned?  How is it not mentioned you konks?  Go smoke a cigar.
Eh? Wha'chew taukin' 'bout?? --ShadowPuppet 20:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causa Sui project 

message: Anon proposal	Cleanup (please help)
Freud deserves credit for at least three innovations of lasting value to Western culture, despite the controversy surrounding psychoanalysis as a form of psychotherapy.
*He created a model of mental processes that radically alters our concept of "thinking." For Freud, all thought is motivated by occult factors that are virtually impossible for the actor to perceive in himself in real time. (One could say the same for Marx, although Freud and Marx arrived at their discoveries by different means and sought to employ them in different domains.) The bottom line is that psychosexual history and membership in a social class do influence the goals people have and the ideas they use to justify them.  
*Freud invented a means for demonstrating that "rationality" (plausible meaning) can be found even in material regarded as thoroughly inscrutable, irrational and meaningless (i.e., dreams, slips, neurotic symptoms, and the verbal productions of psychotics). Moreover, there is "irrationality" (i.e., purely arbitrary and idiosyncratic elements) even in material that is manifestly "rational" (i.e., work activities, political philosophy, conventional social behavior).
*Freud is the first person in the Western world to devise a means for one person to help another that is not based on telling people what to think, what to feel, or what to do. Psychoanalysis enables people to learn things about themselves that are crucially important for mitigating distress. Two features that are unique to psychoanalytic understanding are, first, that it cannot be anticipated because it is "unconscious," and second, that it reveals retrospectively how individuals unconsciously contribute to problems they encounter. Armed with better self-understanding, individuals become capable of making significantly better choices in life. 
These features of Freud's work are almost never explicitly acknowledged as the durable core of Freud's creativity, but these formulations point to the decisive impact that Freud has had, and will continue to have, on how human beings are understood in Western culture.	
Freud introduced three concepts that represent a break with prior Western philosophy, whatever the value of psychoanalysis as a form of psychotherapy.
* He created a model of mental processes that breaks with the Cartsian cogito. For Freud, thought emerges from processes that are not accessible to the subject herself through direct introspection. In a more historicized sense, Karl Marx's analysis of ideology precedes Freud's, but Freud makes non-transparency of subjectivity more fundamental. Psychosexual history (in Freud's view) and membership in a social class (in Marx's view) lie at the core of the goals people have and the ideas they use to justify them.  
* Freud examined the "rationality" to be found even in material regarded as thoroughly inscrutable, irrational and meaningless, such as dreams, slips, neurotic symptoms, and the verbal productions of psychotics.  Conversely, he discovered "irrationality" (i.e., purely arbitrary and idiosyncratic elements) even in material that is manifestly "rational" (i.e., work activities, political philosophy, conventional social behavior).
* Freud introduced a novel discursive technique in the talking cure. Psychoanalysis enables people to mitigate distress through the indirect revelation of unconscious content.  The process of psychoanalysis reveals retrospectively how individuals unconsciously contribute to problems they encounter, according to specific logics of condensation and transference..
Lulu, this is very useful; thanks for doing it. I don't have time to go through it in detail right now, but a few things are jumping out, and it would be better to have sources for them, particularly as it ends with "these features ... are almost never explicitly acknowledged ..." which raises the questions: are they ever, and if so by whom?
Specifically, I'd query how his model of mental processes broke with the Cogito; what the relationship between Marx and Freud is being claimed as; "non-transparency of subjectivity" isn't clear (do you mean the subject's lack of privileged access?); the claim "[p]sychosexual history and membership in a social class lie at the core of the goals people have and the ideas they use to justify them" is an opinion, so we have to attribute it; it's unclear how the word "rationality" is being used in the second paragraph; in the third paragraph, the first two sentences are just opinions; what does it mean to say psychoanalytic understanding cannot be "anticipated"?; and "armed with better self-understanding ..." is again an opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't done anything to the third bullet or final paragraph yet (I got distracted by... y'know, non-WP life :-)).  I'll go over my proposed cleanup another time or two, then see if you'd be OK with adding it back to the article.  I do think the existing anti-Freud stuff is also pretty rantish, and vague references to Popper aren't really enough (nor really centrally germane).  But stari descisis and all that.  But I also know my first brush about Cogito, non-transparency, etc. is a bit too theoretical (I didn't make it up, but it's only a commonplace among a certain school of professional philosophers), so that should at least get some kind of reference. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've satisfied myself that my cleanup is "good enough" for moving back to the article itself.  Certainly it's not the last word; I'm sure wording could be improved and citations added.  But I think the Legacy section is improved division into subsections and use of the new material. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioned addition 

message: This is a very good article, but I suggest some more information be added about who and what influenced his theories. This doesn't need a seperate section, but it can be added in when discussing his work. I don't know too much about Freud myself, so I'm afraid I can't do this (as you might guess, I came here curious to find out about his influences).
:Was his book, The Interpretation of Dreams, not preceded by popular books on the meaning of various kinds of dreams?  Anatopism 08:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Influences 

message: This section is problematic in how it relates the structural model of id, ego, superego, to the older topographical model of unconscious, preconscious, conscious.  The section implies that Freud used the structural model to try to understand "the structure of the unconscious," which is not the case if it is the unconscious proper,i.e. the unconscious as a system that is being referred to.  The concept of the id actually replaces the concept of the system unconscious.   See Arlow and Brenner's "Psychoanaltyic Concepts and Structural Theory."   I've again replaced the first sentence of this section to address this issue. Freud devised the id, ego, superego model to help conceptualize mental conflict (that is, what parts of the mind come into conflict), and he says so explicitly. He did not develop this model to help conceptualize "the structure of the unconscious" at all.
:There are different points of view concening this topic.  The article currently presnts ome pooimt of view.  That you disagree with it does not mesn it si "wrong," only that it exporesses a view other ahn your own.  This is an NPOV problem.  The POV of Srlow amd Brenner should also be in the artcicle.  Instead of deleting contet - a POV you do not like - add a different POV.  But provide the verifiable source please. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Id, ego, superego 

message: For some reason, DanielCD seems to have the notion that any name mentioned in the main text should not be listed under "See also" section.  That seems wrong to me, and contrary to the practice of most articles.  Obviously, some judgement is required; but I believe listing all the most significant intellectual followers of Freud together in the "See also" is the most sensible thing to do, whether or not they are mentioned in main text.  If anything, getting mention in main text tends to emphasize their significance for listing in the "See also" links (not that we should turn that list into "everyone who ever read Freud" or anything profligate like that... but a dozen of the most important later thinkers seems reasonable). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MOS#.22See_also.22_for_the_whole.  List of students of Sigmund Freud may not be a terrible idea to accomplish what you seem to be looking for.  Jkelly 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a good idea.  I guess in my mind its not obvious why a given name is listed under "See also" if their importance is not indicated in the main text (I mean... it is, in a sense, since I know all the names in question myself; but for a reader unfamiliar with psychoanalysis, it's a random jumble of names).  So I sort of silently substituted the meaning "List of later thinkers".  But I think Jkelly's idea would make this meaning more explicit... I'm not sure "students" is exactly right though.  That somewhat insinuates "people who actually studied personally with Freud", which not all the important Freudians did. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Freudians would be a huge project, and probably better as a category.  List of important Freudians would probably get deleted as WP:NOR.  I think List of students of Sigmund Freud would be both easy to WP:V and also be a helpful research aid.  For what it is worth, I seem to be the only editor on Wikipedia who actually likes the advice to bold explicit cross-references given in the WP:MOS...  Jkelly 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... how about List of Freudians, with the first section being "Direct students of Freud"... and expanding from there. Maybe divided not just alphabetically, but topically: Freudo-Marxists, Lacanians, Object-Relations Theorests, etc.  I know some thinkers could arguably go different places, but the list annotation could say that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "See also" liks? 

message: I'm just wondering, could someone add that old thing about "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."?
*At the bottom of the page you will find a link to wikiquote. There is a collection of quotes there, including the one you mentioned.--Fenice 13:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cigar 

message: I will trsnlate the Italian version if you think it will be useful and is you ask me nicely on my talk page. --Lacatosias 11:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you want some help, 

message: I was pretty sure that this is not Freudian theory, but from Jung? I thought Freud didn't think women could experience sexual desire in the same ways as men (which Jung did, and so created the Electra Complex as alternative to Oediphus?) If this is the case, it needs to be stated very clearly, as it is a big problem feminists have with Freud. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.214.254 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-02 16:53:55  (UTC)
:Hello.  The electra complex was Jung's name for "penis envy" afaik. --Knucmo2 13:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Electra Complex

message: JA: Deleted text not relevant to subsection on psychotherapy:
Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays, one of the founders of modern advertising, drew upon his uncle's ideas and techniques for the benefit of commerce in order to promote, by indirection, commodities as diverse as cigarettes, soap, and books.
JA: Let's try to keep it scholarly folks.  Jon Awbrey 21:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted text

message: I think it is important to note how Freud is still embodied in television programs and cartoons, as it reflects the significance (although subliminal) of his contributions.
:JA: I used to find these "pop culture" sections on factual articles entertaining, but they have gotten out of control.  Since their subject matter is not really that of the main article onto which they leech, and really shed no factual light on the person or the work in question, they are more properly placed at the abundance of articles already dedicated to the works of fiction, ephemeral amusements, and opinion pieces that they are really about.  Again, the standard is:  Would you expect to find this quantity of pop-cult op-ed material in a reputable encyclopedia?  Nuff said.  Jon Awbrey 18:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Jon Awbrey here.  I removed some of the notes, which seem arbritrary.  Those cases where Freud is directly portrayed by actors, or as a significant literary character in writing, seem borderline notable.  But for Freud simply to be mentioned by a different character is far too far afield to include here, IMO. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia Section

message: JA: I have already discussed a very similar paragraph on the talk page of the article on Psychoanalysis, so I will simply copy my previous remarks here, expanding on them as necessary.  Jon Awbrey 15:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  Two people in particular who criticised Freud's theories as being pseudoscience are Karl Popper and Frederick Crews, so perhaps their work can be mentioned without fear of a generalisation. --Knucmo2 13:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Standard fare indeed, and you're right, why do so many blow him up to be the person he didn't want to be.  Most people remember Popper by three things: anti-inductive logic, falsifiability and assaults on Marx.  And when you try and tell people he was a broader thinker than that, they dismiss you usually.  We should be careful, as you say --Knucmo2 00:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthropomorphisms as [[WP:WEASEL]] words

message: I added Wilhelm Reich... whilst he is not significant in comparison to Freud himself, he was a student of. And, according to the article, the FDA found him dangerous enough to burn his books...Vegasrebel29 07:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Person (Wilhelm Reich)

message: I've heard some psychologists say that Freud is not a psychologist, since his studies were not very scientific. Does anyone have any more information? 71.250.15.252 00:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychologist or no? 

message: I'm wondering about the citation of "Corey, 2001." Anyone know who this is, what it came from? I've found several references on the Net, but they seem to refer back to the Wikipedia article. Thanks! --Pschelden
: More than a Google test will be required I think.  Perhaps try some psychological journals? --Knucmo2 11:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Corey?

message: Tomorrow will be Sigmund Freud's 150th birthday. Media around the world discuss his life, work and achievements. I think this article should be improved to become a featured article (well, actually it should have been improved by now, but better late than never).  Happy birthday Sigmund! helix 18:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freud's 150th birthday 

message: I took the liberty of changing sentence "father of modern psychology" to "father of psychoanalytical theory". The previous one was, to my mind, plain wrong, the latter is not plain wrong. Modern, scientific psychology is nowadays based (as a scientific discipline) on cognitive neuroscience, verifiable facts and empirical, scientific research.  A much more likely father for the modern psychology seen today in any respectable university might better be a researcher presenting falsifiable claims, not anecdotes, although some view even the latter as empiricism.  Although Freud's early research on neural cells is, to my mind, very much scientific, I do not think any person that has any scientific education is impressed by a theory and a cult resembling following on anecdotes and belief. If Freud is the father of modern psychology, psychology is not very modern, or a scientific discipline for that matter. A hundred years have passed and the evidence for Freud's theories still remains to be shown.  The world and psychology has moved on ages ago.
Best regards ML
JA: No particular interest in paternity suits here.  But your change introduced an unnecessary redundancy — as opposed to a necessary redundancy, I guess — so I modified it to represent what I think is a fairer statement of his present influence.  Acquaintance with psychologists and research literatures of many persuasions makes it incomprehensible to say that this or that hypothesis of Freud is "unfalsifiable", since many of them have been revised umpteen times since Freud's day, in and out of the Freudian line of inquiry.  But most folks with no particular axe to grind realize that the study of psychology today would be a puny and pinheaded thing indeed if it were not for the frontiers that Freud opened up.  And when it comes to Positivism and Popperler Science, yes, the world did move on ages ago.  Jon Awbrey 22:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Freud - father of modern psychology ?!?

message: The section Defense mechanisms gives the following description of rationalization:
*Rationalization involves constructing a logical justification for a decision that was originally arrived at through a different mental process. For example, Jim may have bought a tape player to listen to self-help tapes, but he tells his friends he bought it so that he can listen to classic rock mixes for fear of his actual reason being rejected.
Is this an example of rationalization? As I understand it (and I'm not a psychologist), a rationalization is a logical justification for an irrational decision, meant to convince both others and the person that made the decision. The example strikes me as a common lie rather than a rationalization. Qwertyus 11:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationalization 

message: I cut the following:
:Freud was a heavy user of cocaine.Some psychopharmacologists and psychiatrists have suggested that Freud's unconventional theories and thinking were an effect of cocaine.Cocaine causes hypersexuality and Freud's theories was very strongly focused on sex.[http//:www.acnp.org/Docs/G5/C102_1461-1474.pdf]So much of Freuds psychosexual developmental theory was based on sexual topics such as the phallic stage and the Oedipal and Electra complex.Drugs that enhance dopaminergic neurotransmission such as cocaine are all known to cause hypersexuality.Patients with Parkinson's disease are well known to become hypersexual after starting dopaminergic drugs [http//:www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2001/Feb/Inreview3.asp - 10k]
...as it does not seem to me to in compliance with WP:NOR.  Jkelly 04:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand the above comment.  Jkelly 21:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cocaine and Freud's unconvential thinking 

message: Substituted at 20:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment