Talk:Psychosexual development

message: Interesting, but I would really like to see a reference section. Even just Freud's relevant work.--Bookandcoffee 18:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources?

message: The bit about "Some of these theories have been disproved" -- it seems a bit tacky. Anyone averse to its removal?Bvanderveen 22:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some spelling and grammer errors in this article. It would also be cool if where it says that some of this has been disproven to link to the theories that have disproven it.Sparticuz 01:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: The "anal phase" is just that. It has nothing to do with sadism and the original source has it wrong or is reffering to something else - probably related to a connected theorie or contemplation.Preacher 18:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem

message: Would it be useful to include details of the areas of the psyche associated with each stage in the table in order to relate it further to Freuds pd explanation?
B Walker 15:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stages of development

message: This article is about Freudian PD, anyway, unless it is extended to include other theorists the table, etc should be here. -- Paul foord 08:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: This page needs a ton of work, especially considering the impact it has had on modern Psychology. While  many modern psychologist do not share Freud's PD theories, most will admit to the impact it had. Anyways, I am gonna do a major overhaul of this article in my sandbox with lots of references. Feel free to edit it there if you want or do it here and I'll incorporate any changes that have been made.--Iosef 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means go ahead and translate the page. If you want to translate it and then figure out what info you can add you may want to set up your own sandbox to compare what you have with the current article. Do it however you want but if they have more information we could always use it, just try and make sure you use information that is from cited sources. Remember, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and should usually not be used as an important reference. Otherwise go for it.--Iosef 01:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: I attempted to correct the apparent bias towards the psychoanalytic view. Examples of such a bias were statements such us "The concept of psychosexual development, as envisioned by Sigmund Freud at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, is a central element in the theory of psychology". This statement is not even verifiable but false. As far as I understand, the concept of psychosexual development, as envisioned by Sigmund Freud at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, is not even central to modern psychoanalysis itself, as the sources in the article (such as Merlino's comments) imply. The lack of a scientific critique (which I introduced as a stub) also threw much doubt on the neutral point of view of the article given the probably already large and substantial corpus of scientific criticism against Freud's theory of psychosexual development. I am no expert on this, so I just attempted to make the article more NPOV.
Remember:
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.
Balance
When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.234.184.20 (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias towards the psychoanalytic view 

message: The section : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosexual_development#Feminist_critique
has every single sentence starting with "Freud..." It gets annoying after a couple of times to see sentences repetitively start with a proper noun. I've edited the sentences and used pronouns instead. Cheers! Julyda4th (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical Changes 

message: *, , . Maybe there is something to be found in order to expand the article.
:Austerlitz -- 88.72.14.169 (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text 

message: *Elisabeth Young-Bruehl: Freud on Women: A Reader (editor) (Norton, 1992, )
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.208.29 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader 

message: I tagged this as refimprove. It has a total of 8 footnotes and has large tracts of text with no apparent sources.  --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: This is not my area of expertise but I would have thought that a theory such as this proves itself by predicting outcomes or otherwise proving itself useful. I don't see any evidence of this shown in the article. Likewise the criticism section centres mainly on the idea that "this theory is flawed because Freud was into sex stuff a bit too much." Surely his motivations are irrelevant to how valid or useful this theory is? There has to be some more concrete crticism out there? Anyone? --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory and criticism

message: It would be nice if there was a sister article, or more information on modern, peer-reviewed work, versus Freud's theories.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.4.233 (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern scientific work? 

message: This article presents only the psychoanalytic view on psychosexual development. Surely, it's classicly traditional (and therefore indeed should be dealt with on this website), but few professionals consider psychoanalytic theory fully authentic and there are people who classify psychoanalysis as pseudoscience. Shouldn't there be another article dealing with the non-psychoanalytic understanding of psychosexual development? Mortimer Lanin (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychoanalysis versus other schools of psychology 

message: The article lacks any mention of Wilhelm Reich's clinical and therapeutic innovation of defining the genital stadium in terms of orgastic potency. Solely for historical reasons this deserves coverage.--Gulpen (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilhelm Reich and Genitality 

message: The criticism of Freud as personally fixated on sexuality denoted as "usual" should not fall under "scientific criticism" but under popular reception.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.162.190 (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi 68.99.162.190! You could be right. I tried to access the source, but I couldn't, and without reading what the source says it is hard to know... Lova Falk talk 14:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "scientific" criticism 

message: I'm not familiar with Vyacheslav Kholodny, a search for peer-reviewed work is lacking in results. This also doesn't fit with any modern sexologist work or modern psychological work that I'm aware of. I believe this section should be deleted - it's too new, if nothing else, to say if there's any sort of acceptance of this. 38.100.218.66 (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical sexological model? 

message: The entire article is written from a Freudian point of view. Indeed the article begins "In Freudian psychology ..."  Are there no theories of psychosexual development outside the Freudian sphere? Have there not been any developments in the 100 years or so since Freud's day? I was redirected to this article when I tried to look up "Infantile sexuality?" Surely there are other, non-Freudian studies of this subject? Is there such a thing as "infantile sexuality"? Presumably there is, but has no work been done on it since 1905? Really? For such a hugely important subject, this is a planet-sized gap. 213.207.137.132 (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see, it's a Freud theory, and we have a Criticisms section regarding its scientific validity. Flyer22 (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Freud? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Psychosexual development. 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://archive.is/20121211085920/http://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/theory/psychoanalysis/freud.html to http://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/theory/psychoanalysis/freud.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) 21:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Any reference for the sections or paragraphes about anal, latency and genital stages and phallic stage's dénouement or for the double entry box? --Pablo.ad (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I think if there was a section better explaining the id, ego, and superego, that could better help readers understand the driving force of these stages of development.Emm089 (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Id, Ego, and Superego 

message: Voice 203.81.242.11 (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is psycho sexual development in psychology 

message: The latency stage is not, strictly speaking, a psych-sexual stage, as it is a period of life when psycho-sexual energy lies dormant. Can i therefore suggest that the sub-title "Latency stage" is replaced with "latency pereiod"  - the term used in some books - please? YTKJ (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Latency period might be better term

message: — Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality

message: — Assignment last updated by AmnesiaSactoa (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development winter 2024