Talk:Lloyd deMause

message: It should be noted somewhere in this article that deMause was a contributor to the whole Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria of the early 1990s, in part via his article "Why Cults Terrorize and Kill Children" (often cited by the SRA folks, as for instance here - ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/articles/why-cults-terrorize-and-kill-children-lloyd-demause-the-journal-of-psychohistory/). Now that the truth is finally coming out about the falsity of the vast majority of the ritual abuse claims, the innocence of most of the defendants, and the excesses of the prosecutions that took place, his part in trying to give it some legitimacy should be noted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.28.18 (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Satanic Ritual Abuse Hysteria Participant

message: Much of what appears in these pages on psychohistory and on myself is inaccurate. I have nowhere said I "created the academic field of psychohistory," and would not say so, since Freud and Fromm and many other early psychoanalysts wrote psychohistorical studies ("psychohistory" being the study of historical motivations). I nowhere argue that "mainstream anthropologists are advocates of pedophilia," only that they often claim the widespread sexual use of children by the groups they study is merely a "cultural practice" that cannot be called pedophilia because the society itself does not label it pedophilia. I nowhere claim footbinding in China is universal. To call my writing "less than scholarly" because I have "an unwillingness to be open to other psychohistorical interpretations" is certainly inaccurate because I have spent four decades publishing hundreds of scholars who disagree with me in both my Journal of Psychohistory and Journal of Psychoanalytic Anthropology. Nor am I accurately described as "a psychologist," since I majored at Columbia University for seven years in political science and was further trained at a psychoanalytic institute. Interested readers who are interested in learning accurately about myself and psychohistory are directed to the dozen articles and three full books (with thousands of scholarly references) on www.psychohistory.com.
--Lloyd deMause 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.247.47.53 (talk) 
: Why don't you correct the articles on yourself and psychohistory then?  You could do that, you know.
:—Preceding unsigned comment added by  Ding (talk • contribs) 
::Yeah i have to agree with Lloyd deMause here. This man above is ranting. Freud still hasnt been discredited.
:: —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Operationinfinitebananas (talk • contribs) 
:Why was deMause's comment copied into the article? It refers to assertions made on this talk page, not to the article (or perhaps to some old version of the article?), and is in no way a famous quote or a quote that especially characterizes his work, so it doesn't belong there. And where's that pedophilia misquote he refers to? --84.188.134.80 20:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DEMAUSE REPLIES TO INACCURACIES 

message: This guys ideas seem to be basically taking modern ideas and projecting them into the past. I wouldn't be surprised to see him speak of Ancient Greeks using mopeds and cell phones. We need to get some criticism in here, and I intend to look for some references in this regard. 
I removed statement about him being influential in the field, as I am not convinced the field consists of anything other than his invention and there are no references outside his material given at all. --DanielCD 15:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: It’s incredible that in only three paragraphs there is no NPOV account of Lloyd De Mause and psychohistory. —Cesar Tort 23:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: I'm adding a deffinition of Psychohistory to the second paragraph.149.165.90.22 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychohistory 

message: The following looks like a content fork - the page is about deMause, and while his work is going to be part of the page, the core should be the man and his life, not an explanation of his theory.  This content might be more fruitfully integrated into the Psychohistory main page, right now the page is almost exclusively about the theory of psychohistory, and virtually nothing about the man beyond what is in the lead and info box.  
Also note that in my trimmings, I had removed bibliographical items that were duplicated in the footnotes, in removing this information I may have removed some of the footnotes and now the bibliography section is missing content.
Psychohistory, the study of the psychological motivations of historical events, remains a controversial field of study, and deMause and other IPA scholars have detractors in the academic community. Some historians and anthropologists claim that deMause's own formulations are insufficiently supported by credible research. DeMause believes that his detractors are not largely moved by any evidence, but rather are unconsciously motivated to attack those who would challenge the idea of "good parenting" throughout the many of cultures.
The conflict of new and old psychoclasses is also pivotal in Demausean thought. This is reflected, for instance, in the clash between Blue State  (presumably the new psychoclass) and Red State voters in the contemporary United States.  Another key concept is that of group fantasy, which deMause regards as a mediating force between a psychoclass's collective childhood experiences (and the psychic conflicts emerging therefrom) and the psychoclass's behavior in politics, religion and other aspects of social life.
The History of Childhood is often linked to Edward Shorter's The Making of the Modern Family and Lawrence Stone's The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800, because of the common ground they share in agreeing with a grim perspective of childhood history. On the other hand, deMause's work has attracted hostility from historian Hugh Cunningham. It has been argued that he has written a history of child abuse and not of childhood.de Mause, 1974, p. 41 Also, some critics claim that the sources he used lack the systematic analysis that would give the reader confidence in them as reliable evidence.
WLU (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK: I'will try to move that to the Psychohistory article. —Cesar Tort 19:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  The deMause page still desperately needs expanding with more info about the man.  Any chance he's been in any torrid love affairs or international espionage incidents?  That could be fun to write about...  WLU (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content fork 

message: It seems rather odd that even the basic list of his works was removed during the controversy on NPOV. I've restored that--I assume it must have been accidental. 
As for "content fork", it is invariably the case that some indication of the work of a scholar be given at the biographical article of the scholar. The general subject article should not be devoted to any one scholar's view, but should show the diversity of opinion. As I've never though much about him before this week, I'll try to restore a suitably objective discussion. I have formed some impression from the above discussion of what has been going on: first, any discussion of child abuse is going to be very controversial. In a broader sense, there is obviously no agreement between historians generally about the possible benefit of a viewpoint based on psychoanalysis or each of the various schools of  psychoanalysis, just as there is no agreement about a viewpoint based on Marxism.  
:and I can tell you one thing very clearly as a librarian: the data given above on the Journal of his journal shows it to be a real but not very important journal. an impact factor like that is nothing to boast about. Nor is a rank on other factors merely midway among psychology journals. However, I will take a look at the article in WP on it at some point.  DGG (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not intend to imply that the Journal of Psychohistory is "important", only that it has a following and cannot be dismissed so cavalierly. While you are looking up things, perhaps you could look up the entry for Lloyd deMause in the Social Science Citation Index. How many citations has he been getting recently? I don't have institutional access, so I can't do the research myself. —Aetheling (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched the Web of Science (combining the SSCI and SCI; my access covers 1975 till present). 39 publications are listed that have been cited a total of 82 times (the maximum being 15). Excluding self-citations leaves 58 articles that cite him. His h-index is 7. As this is all unbelievably low, I tried searching for different name variants: "Author=(mause dl*) OR Author=(demause L*) OR Author=(de mause l*)", but that didn't change anything. Something must be wrong here, I know postdocs that have more citations than that... Most citations seem to come from the Journal of Psychohistory, which has a 2006 Impact factor of 0.389 (the vast majority of citations being from the journal itself). This ranks it 73 out of 99 journals in its ISI category, "PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY". 709 citations to deMause come up if I search for "cited reference", which still is not really that much but does show that most citations are to his works published in sources that are not covered by the SSCI and SCI. Perhaps someone here has an explanation for the low citation figures that I find for deMause, they seem decidedly unrealistic for someone who more or less founded a field (even one considered as fringe by some).  --Crusio (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You searched in the web of science. I am a total newbie about these matters but of course psychohistory, like the humanities, is not a hard science. I guess the journal we are talking about belongs in the category of "Psychology - Multidisciplinary"? Is there a specific search engine to measure these journals' ratings?—Cesar Tort 16:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Psychology and humanities in general are certainly considered "science" by me (and I'm a life scientist myself). In any case, WoS includes the SSCI. Sorry that I did not expand that abbreviation: it stands for Social Sciences Citation Index (as well as the Arts & Humanities Citation Index , by the way). For journals' ratings, the most authorative source is the JCR (Journal Citation Reports), from which I took that category heading "Psychology - Multidisciplinary". --Crusio (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding the article

message: I've just come across this Wikipedia entry, and I'm surprised and disappointed by it. It seems to have been edited in way that is hostile to a great man; presumably, by  a behaviourist on a mission.
There is no doubt that Lloyd DeMause has made one of the greatest contributions to the development of psychoanalytic thought over the past forty years. His books are fascinating. His chapter 'The Evolution of Childhood' in the book 'The History of Childhood.' (1974: The Psychoanalytic press) is a scholarly but highly readable work.  It has had a great influence on Psychoanalysis, and on our understanding of families. I'm amazed that the Wikipedia has such great content on minor computer geeks whose influence is comparatively minor and transient, whereas a man like Lloyd DeMause, whose eminence is widely acknowledged by his peers, and by academia in general, is given such short shrift. Even if you disagree with psychohistory, it is well-worth study. It is as rigorous as any other aspect of the study of history, thanks to Lloyd.  I would add, on a more personal note, that his famous analysis of the Nixon Tapes, completely changed my view of World Politics. His conclusions were frightening at the time, but have been borne out by subsequent events.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewRMClarke (talk • contribs) 
:This article should be expanded with info about Lloyd's life. With regard to psychohistory, the article Psychohistory also needs work. I agree with you that we need more balanced articles on this subject. Which specific sentences would you dispute in either of these articles? —Cesar Tort 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Doing justice to Lloyd deMause

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lloyd deMause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140929222118/http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/bio.html to http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/bio.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified