38Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI also don't remember saying psychoanalysis was the only course of treatment for disorders.
I also don't remember saying psychoanalysis was the only course of treatment for disorders.
Yes, which is what makes Freud a hack.Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Freud had encouraged people to send him letters and diaries of what they observed in their small children, so he could develop his Oedipus complex, which the people he had spoken to already knew about. Herbert Graf's father had been sending Freud a detailed account of Herber's (Hans) development. After seeing an accident of some sort involving a horse and cart, Herbert developed a fear of horses. Because of his correspondence with Freud, Herbert's father believed it was because the then 4 year old child's fear of horses stemmed from his fear of the horses penis and fed by what he and Freud believed was sexual over excitement because Herbert's mother hugged and had physical contact by way of hugging and caressing her son.
Because of Freud leading on the parents, they were led to believe that their son was afraid of horses because of horse doodles and the mother's contact with her son. And because of this, they then discussed this with their son, which of course, being so young, Herbert started to believe it as well. When it finally became clear to Freud what he had done in leading parents to believe that their children were oversexed little monsters, he then tried to coerce the parents and then the child back to what he believed was the issue, which was the mother having another child, apparently the child wanting to have sex with his mother and his apparently not understanding masturbation. Didn't he even get upset because the parents refused to explain sexual acts to their then 5 year old son?
And you wonder why I think he is a hack?
Kid sees an accident involving horses and a very large cart, kid develops fear of horses. Obviously, kid wants to have sex with his mother and is guilty for playing with his penis.
How he could have even come to that conclusion is beyond me.
Freud was still probably the second most pivotal figure in psychology and also has two museums dedicated to him.
If people consider him a hack seems to me to be a perplexing personal opinion, but people are entitled to it.
We all think Freud was a pivotal historical figure in psychology.
But he's very much like the similarly historical Skinner in a lot of ways.
No one with any ethical sense, let alone a knowledge of modern neurology (along with developments in psychology of the last few decades), would ever do anything remotely like what Skinner and Freud did.
Skinner, adelady>
what is it that you think makes his work unworthy of continuance?
Last edited by sculptor; November 8th, 2013 at 12:18 PM.
Well, buildings are named after him. This proves that he is not a hack!
We'll just forget about his coercive methodology and finding that a 5 year old's fear of horses is because he played with himself and because horses have big doodles and because he wants to have sex with his mother, instead of just being scared after he saw an accident - amongst many of the obscene and ridiculous findings and discoveries he made.
One last thing, you know the museums were actually his homes?
Spot on.If people consider him a hack seems to me to be a perplexing personal opinion, but people are entitled to it.
If Freud existed today, he would be classified as a hack and likely arrested and charged, especially for the spate of false child sex abuse allegations his 'theory' generated and which he sometimes discovered.
Cynical speculation, contempt and ignorance. For all I know you're getting your info from only wiki pages. Please stop, you're like a broken record.
Biased crank mentality.
Is there any peer-reviewed science supporting Freud's ideas?
My text book, that I quoted.
An obvious flaw as there is no evidence that dreams are meaningful.
It should be, and frequently is nowadays. That is why I have such a low opinion of people like Freud and Jung. They just made stuff up and persuaded people it was correct. Modern psychology uses (or should use) good experimental methodology with strict controls and statistical analysis.
There is absolutely no reason it shouldn't be a rigorous science (as long as people can forget 19th century fantasy and mysticism).Hence, everything can be interpreted differently.
Is that post #93 (or whatever it was)? The one about the survey?
If so, that doesn't really answer the question - on many levels:
1. There is no information about how the survey was performed (how were participants selected, what were the controls, etc) or how the results were analysed.
2. There is no evidence it was a peer reviewed study
3. But most of all, it is just a popularity contest. It isn't about testing Freud's ideas, just whether he was influential or not. (Not even whether he was influential in a good or bad way.)
I've got over ten paragraphs infront of me that say you're wrong.An obvious flaw as there is no evidence that dreams are meaningful.
It might be more precise to say there's no evidence that dreams have deep inner meanings.
At the surface level, however, it's pretty obvious dreams are used as rehearsals for what ever is being done in the waking world or being thought about a lot in preparation for things--it's probably the whole purpose for dreaming and the evolutionary fitness risk-free rehearsals can provide.
"textbook" (involuntary shudder)
but
if it excites your passion, it'll be a good first step
The bibliography at the back may illuminate your path
........................
to my mind,
textbooks represent the Zeus portion
OK, I really think this thread is getting a bit silly.
* Psychology: Themes and Variations: Themes And Variations - Wayne Weiten - Google Books
*I meant to expressly say mathematical rigor.
* Hopefully the abstract suffices and you believe early childhood has an affect on adult personality alongside psychoanalysis being basically the daring of repressed memories into consciousness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8852794
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3584823
Several examples of the undisguised appearance of memories of childhood traumatic experiences in the manifest dream are presented.
MRI's and other technologies weren't around in Freud's time, so yeash!
Last edited by Beer w/Straw; November 8th, 2013 at 05:52 PM.
Oh, and quite the opposite: he misinterpreted his patients' claim of sexual abuse as symptoms of repressed incestous desire..
The Freudian Coverup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
:EDIT:
Also the coercion of Lille Hans is a bit lame cause the letters went through his father first...
Last edited by Beer w/Straw; November 8th, 2013 at 07:31 PM.
Freud has been rather a joke for years? Why is this news?
Maybe Freud was coming up with all the repressed sexual urge ideas because that is what he thought he was seeing in himself.
Oh, and quite the opposite: he misinterpreted his patients' claim of sexual abuse as symptoms of repressed incestous desire..
The Freudian Coverup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
:EDIT:
Also the coercion of Lille Hans is a bit lame cause the letters went through his father first...
It's hard to imagine how he would be coming up with all sorts of hypothesis without trying to verify it somehow. It seems reasonable to me that he used himself to develop his ideas. That is a very tenuous road to go down though.
And this is meant to be better? You aren't doing him any favours there.
Oh, and quite the opposite: he misinterpreted his patients' claim of sexual abuse as symptoms of repressed incestous desire..
The Freudian Coverup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
:
Yes, after he asked people he knew to monitor and write to him about what they observed with their children because he was trying to develop his theory. Of course people are going to start seeing things to fit into what he had already told them.EDIT:
Also the coercion of Lille Hans is a bit lame cause the letters went through his father first...
Little Hans, as he was known in Freud's study was scared of horses because he saw an accident involving horses and a very large cart. He was also afraid of big carts. Which is pretty normal for children to develop fears after they witness or experience something extreme in their view. It didn't mean he was afraid of the horse because of the horses penis as much as it didn't mean he was afraid because he wanted to replace his father as his mother's lover. This is what made Freud a hack.
Horney was correct when she said that children develop fears towards their parents because of an issue of conflict or something they experienced in the parental relationship. In other words, it's not because little Hans wanted to have sex with his mother.
And frankly, any child would feel fear if they realised their parents were sitting there monitoring their every move and writing it all down and assuming they are sexually obsessed.
I think Freud was sex deprived or unable to have great sex...therefore he had to try to figure it out....and sorry...I think his ideas were pretty kinky...I could have done better..*cough*
It was meant to show that you were wrong. Could you be wrong possibly about other things?
Yes, after he asked people he knew to monitor and write to him about what they observed with their children because he was trying to develop his theory.
What others'? Hans' father wrote to Freud because he Freud's Oedipal complex was already established beforehand.
And this thread has gone far into speculation only because people have preconceived notions about Freud.
Last edited by Beer w/Straw; November 9th, 2013 at 08:42 AM.
The Interpretation of Dreams...
I am wrong about a lot of things.It was meant to show that you were wrong. Could you be wrong possibly about other things?
I am not wrong that Freud was a hack.
And had you read my posts, you would have seen that I had clearly said that Freud was making the diagnosis after corresponding with Hans' father. Which makes him an even bigger hack.
The story of Hans is what Freud used to confirm his theory, Hans was his case study. Prior to that, Freud had asked people he knew and had met, who had children, to send him information about what they observed in their children and explained why he wanted them to send him that information. Hans' father was a friend of Freud, so he did as he was asked by Freud. But it is clear that Hans was coached by his father and by Freud. Even Freud admitted that he had to put things in Hans' mind that were not there before, he had to implant those ideas.
What others'? Hans' father wrote to Freud because he Freud's Oedipal complex was already established beforehand.
And you started this thread with preconceived notions that Freud was a genius because he interpreted dreams.And this thread has gone far into speculation only because people have preconceived notions about Freud.
Aside from that, if a child tells you their are scared of something, is your first thought going to be they want to fuck their parent? This is essentially what Freud and Hans father did. Which frankly is sick and it is why people think Freud is a hack.
I started this thread about a footnote and fear of death and a want of an afterlife.
Should I start to call you a liar now?
And Freud being a hack, well, I think I've given specific evidence to the contrary -unless you're a chairperson for psychology.
And what was the title of Freud's book again?I started this thread about a footnote and fear of death and a want of an afterlife.
This would only work if you have the mental capacity of a 5 year old.Should I start to call you a liar now?
But go ahead and try.
There is evidence to the contrary?And Freud being a hack, well, I think I've given specific evidence to the contrary -unless you're a chairperson for psychology.
Where is it?
Because so far, you are the only one saying it is so, and saying you got it from a textbook. You didn't even know Horney disproved and quite literally shot down his theory and dismissed and disproved him. You also claimed that Horney was taught by Freud, which she was not. She was a correspondent for a period of time. This was before she dismissed his theory. The best was when you tried to prove that Freud was not a hack because he had two museums named after him, that those museums were actually his houses were really beside the point. Then of course we get to the point that books were written about him. Yep, books are written about a lot of people. They are also written about fish, dogs, cats and even grass and flowers.
He was a hack because he coerced his patients so they could prove his theories. Freud was only ever about Freud. He caused so much damage in children, the result of his theory had seen an increase in false child sex abuse allegations, where some even saw time in jail because their alleged victims were coerced and children were questioned in such a way, following his guidelines about finding repressed memories, really, the man was a hack and had he been practicing today, he would likely have been shut down for being a hack.
I'm sorry if this offends your sensibilities, after all, you prefer to believe your textbook. That is your choice. You can call me whatever you like, a liar, whatever makes you feel better. Be prepared, however, I may just analyse you a la Freud and ask you which parent you wanted to have sex with as a child and whether your ridiculous aggression and martyrdom in this thread is a sign of your repressed anger and desire for a relative who was in a position of authority over you in your childhood.
And you say my mentality could be that of a 5 year old?
Your whole post is a temper tantrum.
....
So concerned with responding without reading, thanks.
You have been complaining in this thread because we do not take Freud seriously or give him the recognition you feel he deserves.
You have not provided any information that he is as great as you say he is. Instead, we are subjected to your textbook reading and your repeated assertions about his dream interpretations, for example. Your posts are full of incorrect information (Karen Horney being the most glaring) and you seem intent on goading for a response.
You are getting the response you have been after.
We point out why he is a hack, we point out why his coercive techniques and why his theories are incorrect, we provide proof from other analysts who also disagree with his theories because in part of his technique in gathering supporting evidence and also because it is plainly wrong and merely proves his narcissistic behaviour and you respond by inferring I am a liar. Yes, I think your behaviour by doing the whole 'liar liar' argument is one synonymous with a 5 year old. And yes, I think Freud was a hack.
For you, Freud is a hack. For the psychology community at large, he was not. So prove he is a hack, it's not my job to prove he wasn't. Those abstracts from pub med show the idea that Freud put forth in dreams is still active research.
And no, I asked a simple question first and the got hounded on. Does it feel good to make stuff up just to suit you? Do you fill your posts with so many with so many accusations in hopes to drown out any conversation? You are hypocritical and dishonest.
Correspondence or sitting in a classroom - big deal! Horney followed much of Freudian ideas and I did mention her idea of womb envy.
Maybe if you had any sort of education you'd think differently So is this why you resort to name calling?
jeez beer
so defensive
kinda interferes with your making valid and convincing arguments
I already made all the arguments in post 119.
Prove it.
He is used as a teaching tool. His theories, however, were hacks. They are no longer practiced. They are unsubstantiated and unproven.
1) He only ever conducted 6 studies to support his conclusions. He stated them as fact and reality.So prove he is a hack, it's not my job to prove he wasn't. Those abstracts from pub med show the idea that Freud put forth in dreams is still active research.
2) He rarely even ever met his patients that were used in his studies, instead he corresponded with them or with those around them.
3) His method was coercive and he projected his own beliefs onto his patients and those he corresponded with, so instead of listening to what they were actually saying, he was telling them what they were supposed to say, believe or think.
4) He was a cocaine addict.
No one is "hounding" on you. You are just over-reacting because you are the only one in this thread who likes Freud and believes in his studies, with everyone else is against it.And no, I asked a simple question first and the got hounded on.
I don't know. Does it? Did it feel good when you claimed Horney was Freud's pupil? Did it feel good when you attempted to insinuate that there were museums named after him, when in reality it was only the 2 houses he had lived in, converted into museums by his daughter with his permission.Does it feel good to make stuff up just to suit you?
I am stating fact. He was a hack.Do you fill your posts with so many with so many accusations in hopes to drown out any conversation?
Do you feel better now? Is there something you wish to discuss? Is something bothering you? Because our reaction to my saying Freud was a hack is a tad overblown.You are hypocritical and dishonest.
While she agreed with some of what he said, she dismissed and disagreed with pretty much every theory and came up with theories that were completely opposite and a lot of what she came up in her anti-Freud studies, and these were proper studies that were peer reviewed and not done by correspondence, is still used today in the field of psychology.Correspondence or sitting in a classroom - big deal! Horney followed much of Freudian ideas and I did mention her idea of womb envy.
Aren't you a psychics major? I guess that one textbook you read makes you an expert on psychology and psychotherapy?Maybe if you had any sort of education you'd think differently
I said Freud was a hack and then said your reaction to this is akin to that of a 5 year old.So is this why you resort to name calling?
So far you have inferred I am a liar, lacking in education, hypocritical and dishonest.
Perhaps you should reflect on your behaviour before doing the Freud and projecting your behaviour and issues onto others.
Did you look at the pub med links yet?
Or even the text book link?
a bunch of links ain't gonna cut it for youI already made all the arguments in post 119.
if you must use other's ideas
inculcate them, then rephrase in your own voice
depth, baby depth, it's all about depth
I previously had, I said psychoanalysis is largely based on dreams, but no one wanted to pay attention or just flat out refuted it.
And I think a survey from a university text book is pretty OK.
as previously stated:
You might try using specific case studies. It ain't just the devil that is in the details, therein also dwells Ahura Mazda.to my mind,
textbooks represent the Zeus portion
I fully appreciate that when one can analyze their dreams, then insight into the personality, of one's self and others is at hand.
but second hand textbook ramblings go nowhere.
.......................
you do understand
the Zeus portion?
Last edited by sculptor; November 9th, 2013 at 12:47 PM.
Yes I did. Abstracts.
You have not proven your case. You are applying Freud in a modern context. No one is saying that dreams do not play a part in someone's psyche. No one. But it is not always 100% certain that it is correct or factual.
Your stance here appears to be one of a student who picked up a textbook and went 'whoa!' and you are taking his words as fact.
Undergraduate textbooks too often equate psychoanalytic or psychodynamic therapies with some of the more outlandish and inaccessible speculations made by Sigmund Freud roughly a century ago, rarely presenting mainstream psychodynamic concepts as understood and practiced today.
You have clearly spent very little time looking at the methods he employed in his so called studies. He rarely met the subjects of his studies and instead corresponded with them or with their parents and in doing so, he coerced them and quite literally placed ideas in their heads about what their issues were to fit into what he was trying to study and publish. If anyone even so much as tried to pull a stunt like that in this day and age, they would be discredited, laughed at and their work would not be taken seriously at all.
The issue with Freud is that people's issues did not fit into his theories. So he made them fit by coercing his correspondents and projecting his beliefs.
I took a psychology course for the fun of it. The text book is pretty recent and covers a great number of things with Freud being a very small part.
I'm thinking about psychoanalysis and daring things into consciousness, not about everything Freud theorized.
The premise of childhood memories in adult dreams is the decisive point Freud made and those abstracts only further serve to validate what he wrote about dreams.
It is if all you want to do is to get a quick, rough idea of something.And I think a survey from a university text book is pretty OK.
But here you're talking to people, well me at least, who've actually read Freud's writings - not a "quick" exercise by any stretch of the imagination - and also read others who supported / expanded his ideas and others who criticised or demolished them. Back in the 60s and 70s there were even a couple of misguided souls who tried to use Freudian ideas as the basis for their feminist analysis. Now there's a project for someone capable of tremendous intellectual gymnastics! (A project which utterly failed for anyone who thought it was even possible.)
Freud was part of the air we breathed 40 years ago. It took reading the man's own words to realise that it was all built on the mystical, fantastical imaginings of one man. The only reason he ever got any traction was that he wasn't the only one. Jung and Steiner reinforced the notions that there had to be some great mystical basis for everything - didn't much matter whether it was the collective unconscious or karma - there had to be something. Freud's notions succeeded alongside these because he dressed up his stuff to look neater and more logical than theirs - as well as an extraordinary amount of self-promotion.
Freud and Jung and Steiner all did things they called research. But not anything that would pass the modern definition of the word. They all had an idea or a bunch of ideas and went looking for stuff, or made it up, to develop that idea. The notion of testing their theories, let alone discarding them if they failed testing, was beyond them.
But psychoanalysis is still practiced today.
And here's a google definition https://www.google.ca/search?q=psychoanalysis+by+correspondence+freud&oq =psychoanalysis&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j0j69i61 l2.6845j0j8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=U TF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=psychoanalysis+definition
I already posted the wiki page awhile ago so I thought this might be more concise.
Should I also go into early childhood development and dreams again?
:EDIT:
Oh look, The International Psychoanalytic Association also sells Freud Books!
Contemporary Freud
Last edited by Beer w/Straw; November 9th, 2013 at 07:17 PM.
What is practiced today is nothing like what Freud practiced. Half of his theories have been debunked because we now know more about how the brain works than Freud obviously did in his day. Which was pointed out several times now in this thread.
But what's the main point of psychoanalysis - I think I've mentioned that several times already.
Whoops, there it is!
What qualifications and experience will my analyst have?
About psychoanalysis
Last edited by Beer w/Straw; November 9th, 2013 at 07:54 PM.
Could you clarify who the we is in this? The general public, or the mental health professionals?
I ask because fifty years ago, when I was fourteen or fifteen I read Interpretation of Dreams (the full version) and immediately reached the conclusion that Freud's obsession was sex was because he based his theories on the observation of sexually repressed Austrian ladies. I never took him seriously again.
The general public was treated to a lot of Freud based garbage about child rearing and about idealised masculinity and femininity.Could you clarify who the we is in this? The general public, or the mental health professionals?
The obsession about potty training and it's link to the anal "stage" of sexual development found its way into a lot of parenting advice. I remember a friend reporting some poor little toddler being taken every week to a psychotherapist to be nagged about being unwilling to give this anal "gift" to his mother. (He was clearly suffering from an impacted bowel and needed real medical attention - I never heard what happened to the poor little mite.)
Freud believed that to a young child the contents of their potty (or nappy) were very important. It was something they themselves had produced and felt to the child like a gift from him or her. He therefore felt great care should be taken with potty training. Freud's theories on Dreams
His various views about the origins of homosexuality might not have been moral condemnation, but they all put a huge responsibility on mothers to ensure that their sons sexual development was not "infantilised" - because he did see homosexuality as a reversion or inversion of "normal" - according to him - development. This resulted in a lot of blaming after the event rather than parenting advice but negative regardless.
The moment women's magazines began to get more "open" about sexual matters one of the biggest issues was so-called frigidity. Based on yet more of Freud's notions of normal sexual development that women whose sexual response didn't fit his ideas were "adolescent" or undeveloped. Lots of totally unnecessary worry, unhappy marriages and expensive therapy for people who had no real problems at all, along with those whose particular problems could be resolved with a halfway competent marriage counsellor or sex therapist.
I have always felt the Freud was just about sex. Everything he wrote that I read, seemed to lean in that direction.Could you clarify who the we is in this? The general public, or the mental health professionals?
I ask because fifty years ago, when I was fourteen or fifteen I read Interpretation of Dreams (the full version) and immediately reached the conclusion that Freud's obsession was sex was because he based his theories on the observation of sexually repressed Austrian ladies. I never took him seriously again.
Well anyway, I would have liked to find the passage describing the relation of a dream to an early childhood memory. If anybody missed it, that was basically my point all along - daring repressed memories into consciousness.
But this snippet from the American Psychoanalytic Association is good enough
The Wall Street Journal, in its listing of the five best "Books on Milestones in Medicine", cited The Interpretation of Dreams, by Sigmund Freud. Written in a conversational style, the book is comprehensible even if the reader is not familiar with the details of Freud's contributions. Freud was highly regarded as a gift writer and was recognized for such when he was awarded the Goethe Prize, Germany's highest literary award, in 1930.
"The poets and philosophers before me discovered the unconscious; what I discovered was the scientific method by which the unconscious mind can be studied."
Sigmund Freud
The history of The Interpretation of Dreams is as fascinating as the book. APsaA member Leon Hoffman, M.D. answers some of the questions about that history and some of the concepts of "Dreams" in this interview.
Q&A Interpretation of Dreams
This is also good
In "Dreams" he began to create a means of thinking and studying the mind compare it to Newton's discovery of the laws of gravitation, without them you have no way of studying much of physics, with them you can study everything from planets to quarks and gluons. With the work Freud began in "Dreams" there is a basis to study everything from war to a person's most secret fears and hopes.
Last edited by Beer w/Straw; November 10th, 2013 at 08:33 AM.
This is a link I got from a different forum for the same question
Fetal memory: Does it exist? What does it do?
Please tell me you aren't tying this in with Freud's crackpottery of birth being the first experience of fear for a child and thus, represents a "model" for fear in people?
Fetal memory is not as you seem to believe it is. It is not a conscious thing but a primitive thing. Your own link in post 152 explains this. To explain it further:
"In this case, they appear to be study a very primitive type of memory called habituation or sensitization which is the tendency of animals to stop responding to a repeated stimulus," said Mark Strauss, autism researcher and associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh wrote in an e-mail to ABCnews.com.
"It is already known that a fetus will habituate to a stimulus. Indeed, even just a single muscle cell that is stimulated by an electrical stimulus will stop contracting, indicating a type of memory," said Strauss.
But Strauss was intrigued that the fetal memory could last that either 10 minutes, or even four weeks, as the researchers suggested.
"What is critically important to recognize, however, is that these memories are not conscious or introspective voluntary memories they way an older child or adult thinks about past experiences," said Strauss. "They are very different and, indeed, involve lower areas of the brain that are very different from high-level brain area."
Memory in Fetus, Dutch Doctors Say - ABC News
I bet you're hoping I'm tying it in with what you say is "Freud's crackpottery," aren't you? And just how do I "seem to believe" fetal memory works?
Is this a science forum or one for shallow speculation? I mean, why ask questions in the first place.
Anyway, when Einstein was contacted by the League of Nations in 1932, to select someone to help in possibly averting WWII, he wrote to Sigmund Freud to help in debate to lift humanity out of upcoming destruction. That's history. It didn't work, but it shows that even Einstein had a tremendous amount of respect for Freud.
...I offer these suggestions to you, rather than to anyone else in the world, because your sense of reality is less clouded by wishful thinking than is the case with other people and since you combine the qualities of critical judgment, earnestness and responsibility.
http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/273/documents/FreudEinstein.pdf
Also, if you haven't already read it, The Interpretation of Dreams -the book I quoted at the beginning- this is what the American Psychoanalytic Association has to say about it:
"What happened when Freud published The Interpretation of Dreams?
-You could say that the fields of psychoanalysis, psychiatry, and psychology were born, but much more importantly, scientific thinking about the mind began. Before that, the brain was something physical and the mind was a kind of pixyish spirit world. There was science about the brain and pie-in-the-sky speculation about the mind. After Freud, the study of the mind became more serious and scientific."
Q&A Interpretation of Dreams
I think this information is OK.
Exactly.After Freud, the study of the mind became more serious and scientific.
And that gets us right back to #68.
Freud started the ball rolling but his "insights" and "conclusions" were all made up answers to questions that he either framed poorly or were downright silly.Some of Freud's great contributions to psychology were
- framing a proposal for the unconscious mind.
But there is no such "structure" as id, ego, superego the way he described it.
- proposing that infants and children could have sexual feelings and that sexual development was continuous.
But there is no such sexual developmental rule as oral-anal-genital, let alone "fixation".
- observing that adult sexual behaviour could be affected by relationships in childhood
But there are no such things as the Oedipus or the Elektra complexes.
- suggesting that many adult emotional and mental problems arose from sexual feelings or difficulties
But dismissing or ignoring every other source of emotional and mental pain and confusion harmed many of his own patients at the time, and untold millions of people since. PTSD suffering war veterans are one big group and those who were neglected, abused and mistreated as children a more general category.
- observing that women felt oppressed and depressed by the restricted roles and lack of freedoms in their society
But there is no such thing as "penis envy".
Does any of that mean the question in my original post was silly?
No. It wasn't silly. But it was limited by a lack of knowledge both of Freud's work itself and of the developments in biology, neurology and psychology since his time.
It's very hard for modern people to really get their heads around just how little Freud and his contemporaries (and their immediate followers) knew of the basic physiology involved in the stuff they speculated about. Once you realise just how completely ignorant they were about many of the things we take for granted in brain function and sexual function, for example, it's easier to see where they simply made stuff up to "explain" their own misconceptions.
Most importantly, Freud's "work" on dreams has been pretty well abandoned by all modern practitioners. Plenty of therapists will allow or even encourage clients to discuss their fantasies, dreams and day-dreams. But no one nowadays tells a client that any specific dream or fantasy has any specific meaning. It's treated merely as part of the picture of how the client thinks or sees themselves or is coping with their life circumstances.
What are we on now, post 159?
http://biology-forums.com/index.php?topic=91010.0
Well at least you got some discussion here.
What are we on now, post 159?
http://biology-forums.com/index.php?topic=91010.0
A recent study showed that mothers who exercise had brighter babies. So something is going on even before a child is born.
"Exercising during pregnancy makes your child brighter"
Exercising during pregnancy makes your child brighter | TopNews New Zealand
| « Responding to this YEC argument. | why did pope quit??? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
