Talk:Oedipus complex/Archive 1

Westermarck effect
Why Westermarck effect isn't even mentioned in the article? There's quite well established body of research, which demonstrates, that Freud was wrong regarding the Oedipus complex. --213.164.112.202 (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Westermarck effect is debated and largely based off a single study. I also don't see how it directly relates to this article; it would be better incorporated into the article about incest. 205.175.113.158 (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Id is present from birth
An earlier version of this article claimed that the Oedipus complex was used by Freud to explain the origins of the id, the ego and the superego. I have corrected this, to emphasise that Freud only used the Oedipal theory to explain the development of the superego. It would have been very strange if Freud had used Oedipal theory to explain the origin of the id, as he believed the id was present from birth, but claimed that the Oedipus complex did not occur until the age of five. A. Carl 20:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC) It has been proved that this is not true.

Did Freud ever refer to the Hamlet complex? My H.S. English teachers were obsessed with Freud and insisted on interpreting all of Western literature in this light, and one of them claimed that Freud was considering the Hamlet monicker for his theory but for whatever reason settled on Oedipus. Ellsworth 23:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are Oedipal wishes always towards the opposite sex?
This article says that Oedipal wishes are towards the opposite sex, but in his essay "On Female Sexuality", Freud argued that girls, initially, have incestuous homosexual desires for their mothers. This meant, in Freud's view, that Oedipal conflicts are more complicated in female than male development, and for this reason, Freud hotly objected to the Jungian practice of using the term "Electra Complex" for the process in females. Also, in 1897, Freud was merely using the term "Oedipus". It was not until 1910 that he began to use the term "Oedipus complex", possibly showing the influence of Jung.A. Carl 21:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Freud's first mention of the Oedipus complex with in the Interpretation of dreams and it's pretty slight. Female sexuality and development was pretty much ignored by his work for a substantial period of time, and it was unclear whether boys were supposed to fixate on their mothers and girls with their fathers due to some innate biological impulses or whether sexuality in the sense of hetero/homosexuality or being attracted to someone of the opposite sex was something more messy and psychological that happened later in development. As his theory evolved, he eventually starts exploring this issue, coming to the opinion that both boys and girls start with either an atraction or a bond or are not-individuated from their mothers, until the father appears and interrupts this state of affairs, at which point it is the anatomical difference (either literal or figurative in some later psychoanalysts) that makes the the boy and girl take different paths through basically the same Oedipus complex. The boy notices the girl's lack or his own inadequacy and starts thinking of himself as capable of losing his penis (Castration anxiety). The girl notices her own lack of a penis and from then on wishes to find ways to compensate or replace it. The boy's path moves him towards identification with the father, and the girl's towards the desire to own the father, the father's penis or to replace the penis symbolically with a child. It's Carl Jung who later renames the Oedipus complex in girls as the Electra complex. Tom Coates 16:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to have to bring this up again, but there is little or no evidence in Freud that the Oedipus complex is between a child and the parent of the opposite sex. Freud is quite clear in his later work when he actually digs into the complex that both children fixate on the mother and fear the father, and that it is castration anxiety that then puts them on the different paths towards a male or a female sexual identity. This is a recurrent problem in this article - the correction is made and then unmade over and over again. The current version is simply inaccurate, as any reading of Freud would indicate. Tom Coates (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel your pain. I think the problem reflects the development of psychoanalysis itself: it gradually shifted from an emphasis on boys and their fathers to one that favoured very young children and their mothers, and there was never the full re-formulation that there should have been -- because Freud was dead by then and the various schisms meant there was no longer a 'classical', central model into which everything had to fit. My solution to the difficulty you mention would be to tell the story as much as possible in quotations from Freud. I've tried to put passages from the Standard Edition in lots of the p/a articles, because -- astonishingly! -- most of them didn't have any, and were full instead of third-hand guff and sophomoric babble. Wouldn't what you say become apparent in a chronologically ordered series of quotations...?? Pfistermeister (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I know Freud did describe a 'negative Oedipus complex' in which the father is the focus of affection and the mother is the perceived adversary. I can't recall whether he indicated that either this or the standard Oedipus complex were predominately one gender or another though. There's also the fact that in his older theory the Oedpis complex resolves because of the castration complex and therefore never resolves in women (I think this was in 'On Narcissism' but I'm not sure). 205.175.113.158 (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

An inadequate treatment of the Oedipus Complex
The early Freud only briefly referred to the Oedipus complex in the Interpretation of Dreams, where it was - for a long time - considered to be something only boys experienced. The theory developed considerably over the years of Freud's work, and his later understanding of it articulated how both boys and girls were affected by it - with different outcomes - connecting the concept to ideas like penis envy and individuation. At the moment, this article presents a very cliched view of the complex, unsupported by Freud's writing on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.157.115 (talk • contribs)

Castration anxiety
I think the Little Hans material in the CA article would go much better here. I'd like to move it over. Also, I agree with the above comment, but it'll have to wait until I have time to look at it and research it some more. --DanielCD 19:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)



From the gene pool of two parents, children are formed with a mixture of their genes. The traits are very obvious. Physical characterists are highly observable as is behaviour and sexual type. The process and severity of the oedipus and electra complexes become more apparent when the children have grown to attain sexual partners of their own in adulthood. It is here that you can compare their partners traits with either of their parents. The strength of disolution and attachment can be recorded here, although it is worth noting that everything becomes relative. The social class is highly important, for in our evolution man and woman strive for a higher standard of life. They will not be willing to forgo comforts as experienced in childhood merely for sexual gratification. These comforts of course were formed due to identification with the parent; who share at least half of the childs genetic make up. In regard to the jealousy of opposing parent and child, then this is directly related to their own up bring from their own parents. Man and woman cannot live on food alone, as a species we interact with one another, we comfort one another, we grow, we hate one another, we deterioriate. We love one another, we grow. This is innate in all of us but due to the nature of the environment that we live in we know that this is an impossibillity all of the time. Nature addresses itself so that it may stay in balance. The reason for the child to be taken from their sexually opposite parent is directly due to the opposing parents own upbringing. Their child will receive the same amount of love and attention as they did depending upon the parents progress through the complex. Children being unaware of this will naturally feel jealous of their same sexed parent, for they are restricting/rationing their very growth. Part dissolution of these complexes are formed after the ages of five as the child grows beyond the gene identification of their parents. In their outside world their observations have grown to the point that they can recognise and class different gene charastics in others and rate them in accordance of the most pleasurable to the most distasteful. It is here that the child first realises that the growth they need can be found outside of the family home. For the upper social class then it may be more complex, they have less to be attracted to. Growth on the outside is more restricted which is probably why we have what is called a celebrity class. The reason that this complex is obsolete. The only time when it will have major impact upon society is when children constantly mate in adulthood with an oversimilar gene pool.Thus resulting in what we would call thoroughbreeding. An example of which would be the Russian royal family in the times of Rasputin. It is also possible to say that this complex will also affect the working classes if they are not give the ability to progress through the levels of society and mix their seed. It is an issue when generations become stagnant.(Comments to rodneysaccess@aol.com)(04/01/2006)

There's a separate article on Little Hans. Why not just link to it i n "See also" and cut that section out of here? 72.138.174.10 15:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

An alternate understanding
While I have never read Freud, as part of this society that uses some phrases that he coined I have developed a different understanding of the Oedipus complex. I have always been told that he Oedipus complex was a basis for fate. As in Oedipus was fated to kill his father and marry his mother, he couldn't escape his fate. Could this be worked into the article somehow?
 * You are probably getting the Oedipus complex muddled up with the plot of Oedipus Rex. --144.136.123.112 21:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What about references in the cinema?
Return of the Jedi, for example, is blatantly Freudian. According to Yoda, Luke Skywalker must confront the paternal Darth Vader in order to realize Jedi Knighthood. In this particular case, however, Princess Lea (his sister) is substituting for the "mother" Should such a reference be included in this article? Smiloid 00:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, forgive me for being ignorant, but I'm not sure how this all ties in. Luke isn't fighting Darth Vader for Leia, he's fighting to rid the galaxy of evil and to complete his training. Could you elaborate on this? bibliomaniac15 23:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Oedipus Complex is experienced by BOTH SEXES
I've noticed that people keep 'correcting' the first paragraph of this article to suggest that the Oedipus complex is something that only males go through. This is totally inaccurate. Freud's early thinking is pretty sparse on the subject, but later on he makes it very clear that he believes that both boys and girls go through attractions to their father and anxieties of incursion from their fathers, but that each sex resolves this complex differently as a result of their physical biology. Girls experience penis envy and that leads them to becoming feminised. Boys experience castration anxiety and this leads them to identify with the father. It's absolutely crucial that this is understood or the article will keep being inaccurately 'fixed' by well-meaning people who have a shallow understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of Freud.

Good for you for pointing this out. It may be worth including a little history on Freud's view on Oedipus complex in females:

1923. Alludes to the OEdipus complex in females, but does not say much on it (The Ego and The Id). 1931. Freud's essay, "On Female Sexuality", clarifies that he now believes the OEdipus complex in females is initially a homosexual desire for the mother. 1933. Freud is now using the term "pre-Oedipal" for the homosexual wish that females have for their mothers. He argues that because females are disappointed that their mothers do not have a penis, they transfer feelings of wishes for their mothers to wishes for their fathers to produce the true Oedipus complex in females. See "New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis".

I am lucky that the university library to which I have access holds a copy of  Freud's "Collected Works". ACEOREVIVED 19:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Freud's stages of thinking
I think that this article would be better structured, and would reflect contemporary Freud scholarship, if it indicated how Freud's views on the Oedipus complex passed through different stages. A good source for this is the article in P. Neu's "Cambridge Companion to Freud" which I have now added to the references. Interestingly, whereas this article says things suggesting an emphasis on Freud's negative reactions to Freud, I have read Jungian literature which suggests that the use of the term "Oedipus complex" by Freud in 1910 shows the influence of Jung. It would be good, in the interests of balance, if both Jungian and Freudian viewpoints could be reflected in this article. ACEOREVIVED 20:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening of this article is misleading
The opening of the article is very misleading. It promotes the idea that the Oedipus complex is purely about sexual attraction to the opposite sex parent, but, as we can tell from his later writings, Freud believed that the  Oedipus complex in females is initially a homosexual crush on the mother. This is explained later in the article, but I wonder whether we could do with a more informed opening. Incidentally, the term "gender" should be replaced with "sex" (the two words are not synonymous, much as many people think they are). ACEOREVIVED 20:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree. This article is very misleading in the first couple of paragraphs.  I think the article needs a lot of cleanup.--Pchov (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Telemachus Complex
One might argue that the opposite of the Oedipus complex would be a "Telemachus complex".

Telemachus was the only son of Odysseus by his wife, Penelope, although Odysseus had other sons by Circe. While Odysseus was away, Penelope's suitors treated Telemachus as a mere boy. When Odysseus returned, Telemachus helped his father kill the suitors. This way, Telemachus achieved manhood and now could reproduce. Thus Odysseus' future reproductive success was assured, in that Telemachus could now supply his father with grandchildren.

Therefore, instead of sexual rivalry between father and son, there is cooperation. The father helps the son achieve manhood so that latter can reproduce, and the germ line continues. Also, the son seeks to preserve the marriage between his father and his aging mother, so that it is less likely that the father would beget more children to rival the son.Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I like that. Any sources, though? If it's WP:OR, then by all means, still find somewhere to publish it! Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Cocaine
'Dr. Jurgen von Scheidt speculated that most of Freud's psychoanalytical theory was a byproduct of his cocaine use.[4] Cocaine enhances dopaminergic neurotransmission increasing sexual interest and obsessive thinking. Chronic cocaine use can produce unusual thinking patterns due to the depletion of dopamine levels in the prefrontal cortex.'

This appears to be simply a criticism of Freud's theories in general. It does not appear to be specifically about the Oedipus complex, and therefore does not belong in an article that is specifically about the Oedipus complex. I am going to remove it. Skoojal (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

People who remove their own eyes
'Recently, a systematic examination of published cases of people, who, like the Oedipus Rex, actually removed one or more of their own eyes, found that a poorly resolved erotic attachment to a parent was not a plausible explanation for their conduct.'

This is bizarre, and I question its relevance. When did Freud ever claim that people removed their own eyes because of the oedipus complex?Skoojal (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he mentioned it in the paragraph about smart alecs who start bogus Wikipedia talk page sections about his ideas. :-P Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See his essay on The Uncanny. --77.185.36.40 (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Freud considered eyes to be reminiscent of the testes, causing harm inflicted on the eyes to be perceived as 'uncanny'. That's about as far he goes with it though. It certainly isn't relevant here.205.175.113.158 (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fabrication
I've learned in a class The History of Psychology that Freud initially released a paper discussing interviews he had with adult patients who had been sexually molested during childhood. His published report was not well received, so he changed his stance. A further report from Freud stated that he believed the statements given by the adult patients were fantasized, and actually those patients had desired that sexual interaction with their parents. This changes a lot concerning the Oedipus Complex. I figured because most of this article isn't sourced, and I can source this one, it should go in the article, but give me a little while so I can source everything properly. Infonation101 (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, he did write and retract a piece called "The Aetiology of Hysteria." Yes, this fact is probably worth noting. But no, it doesn't change anything whatsoever about the Oedipus Complex. That would be an ad hominem argument. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture References

 * In the Incredibles when brother (Dash) and sister (Violet) have been allowed by their Mom, Elastigirl, to exercise their inherit talents (speed and power shield) these combine into a powerball to defeat the Nomanisan Island security force and reunite with their parents in a funny snow-ball where after rolling to a stop son lands on top of the mom and daughter on top of the father (Mr. Incredible). These characters seem to progressively reconcile their id-ego-superego conflicts within and outside the family circle with the grand finale of Jack-Jack's first use of his fire and iron super-powers to escape the main villian Buddy Syndrome. User:bwildasi Sun Jul  6 19:22:01 UTC 2008  —Preceding comment was added at 22:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What the holy hell? The Cap&#39;n (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

 * "Today most scientists in the field accept that many, if not most of Freud's theories are incorrect, his methods flawed, and his conclusions do not stand up to rigorous testing.[5]
 * “ 	"I'm afraid he doesn't hold up very well at all," says Peter D. Kramer, a psychiatrist and author of "Listening to Prozac," who is working on a biography of Freud. "It almost feels like a personal betrayal to say that. But every particular is wrong: the universality of the Oedipus complex, penis envy, infantile sexuality."[5]"

I think the discredit section should be erased, in any case it should be erased, it is incredibily ignorant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.122.95 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-26T03:41:58
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! I've placed some information on your account talk page that should help you out. Some rules of thumb: First, it's considered good form to post with an account, instead of posting anonymously with your IP address. Secondly, all additional talk sections should be inserted using the new section tab at the top of the talk page, which will create a new section header at the bottom. Finally, please sign all talk comments by placing four-tildes together!
 * Also, I'm afraid that most of the leaders in the psychoanalytic fields have accepted that there are major holes in nearly all of Freuds theories, or at least how he came to his conclusions, including the Oedipus complex. However, this is Wikipedia, so if you have a current, authoritative source that says otherwise, then please contribute to the article! Have a great day! DavidBailey (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But the funny thing is, I have looked at hundreds of other wikipedia articles about hundreds of other thinkers -- and in none of those pages do I *ever* see sections devoted to self-loving discussions of how that individual's ideas have been 'discredited'. *Fascinating*... Pfistermeister (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That is fascinating. Maybe they haven't been discredited? DavidBailey (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You seriously think all those other figures never got anything wrong?? Of course they did! But somehow it's only *Freud* who needs to be undermined *before anyone has even been given the chance to understand what he did*: this page is a hopeless mess, and desperately short of meaningful material and quotation -- but people have *already* sniffed out actual references to stuff that makes it seem he has been 'discredited'. The old 'Freud' entry even tried to discredit him in the *lead paragraph*, for chrissakes... These are the Freud Wars, my friend: he's the only figure apart from Darwin who *can't be allowed to make his own case unmolested* -- and for precisely the same reasons (motives). I ask you: on who else's page would an objection such as the one I raised get an emptily dismissive response within *2 minutes"?? In short, there's far more to all this than just 'scholarly correctness' -- and none of the page's self-serving, journalistic digs at Freud are deserving of inclusion in the page as it stands. Pfistermeister (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Freud is not known as a philosopher, he is presented as a scientist, and therefore must be evaluated as a scientist. When his methods are suspect and his findings questionable, that is relevant to the article about his theory. DavidBailey (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoever claimed Freud was a philosopher? Did you see the reference was to scientist Darwin, not, say, philosophers Schopenhauer or Kant? See some more on this issue here and the first and last paragraph in the section first stripped of a number of sources and robbed of clear unambiguity (for instance, "his patients", denoting everyone he hypnotized without exception, was changed to "his more suggestible patients"), then removed here. As for the final remove, Jack-A-Roe first deleted the given main source because Freud wrote his memories in German, for goodness' sake (and it's a bit of a hassle to get an English copy if you're outside the Anglosphere), and Jack didn't want non-English sources, then he deleted the whole section because there was no source anymore *facepalms*. (And BTW, I'm not Pfistermeister who now got his own account, so no need to scold him for the fact I have no account.) --77.185.36.40 (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hard not to notice the special consideration his supporters seem to want for him. It seems as though some think he's a philosopher or founder of a faith. The article included gives a statement of a leading scientist responsible for conducting brain wave analysis which, in part, has been instrumental in showing many of the flaws of Freuds theories. On top of this, there is recent evidence that shows that most of his famous cases were, in large or complete part, fabricated. This isn't about persecution. It's about the fact that Freud committed considerable scientific fraud. No one is claiming his theories aren't relevant considering the impact his work has had on society. However, it does impact the modern discussion of his work and theories, and it affects those whose work was based on his theories. DavidBailey (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fabricate? How? By changing the names of his patients to ensure anonymity? Or by merging several characteristic cases into the basic type derived from years of intensive field work? And there are also recent neuroscientists in strong support of Freud's theories such as Oliver Sacks and Mark Solms who gave rise to the modern field of neuro-psychoanalysis (notice the sentence "Perhaps because Freud himself began his career as a neurologist, many of today's neurologists take psychoanalysis somewhat more seriously than, say, experimental psychologists do."). --77.185.36.40 (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the referenced article, then read the many other articles like it. There is a great deal of skepticism around Freud's methods and findings today. It appears much of the data was faked and cases invented. No one is criticizing Freud just for changing names. A modern scientist today who has been found guilty of these acts would have been ostracized by the scientific community. However, the problem may be that so much of modern psychoanalysis is based on Freuds work, that it is embarrassing, as stated in the referenced article, to expose the many problems with his body of work. DavidBailey (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I am rather sceptical of much of Freud's theory, I am not sure that quoting a Newsweek article is really a good way of judging what psychoanalysts think of Freud these days, or what other psychologists think of psychoanalysts.--Bhuck (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, prior to my addition, none of the controversy around his methods and conclusions were even mentioned in the article. If you have a better source, please add it. DavidBailey (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Freud was not a Popperian "scientist" or a Comtean positivist, and neither Freud nor most later psychodynamic theorists would identify as such, so it is POV to claim that "scientists" (working "in the field" or not, though scientists working "in the field" of psychodynamics might tend to agree with Freud) have "discredited" him. They have certainly offered their fair share of criticism, however. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your contributions to clarification and improved NPOV tone. DavidBailey (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The contributions do not solve the problem. This is meant to be an article about the Oedipus Complex; but the criticisms are vague and high-handed dismissals of Freud in general taken from a ridiculously journalistic source. 'Criticisms' here should mean serious reactions to (and revisions of) the specific Freudian concept, not just another opportunity for anti-Freudians to stick the boot in him before his case is even made. It is actually rather shocking to see that an article that has -- what? -- a mere three lines of quotation from Freud himself, now has far more than three lines of quotation from critics who are, with all due respect, non-entities quoted in a non-academic source. This is not encyclopeadic behaviour: discussion of the concept is losing out to the desire for an early knock-out blow. Pfistermeister (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the quote specifically mentions the Oedipus complex. Rather than just removing it because you don't like it, do you have a better source? Also, if you'd like to add more text of Freud, please do so. DavidBailey (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Actually', the quote 'specifically' amounts to nothing more than 'Yah-boo: the Oedipus Complex is rubbish' -- and that sort of thing is unencyclopedic and would not be tolerated on any other page. It needs to be deleted. If I went to the page on Milton Friedman and quoted nobody very special declaring in a Newsweek piece that 'practically every element of neoliberal economics has been discredited', that line would be taken out in seconds flat. Freud merely deserves to be treated the same way. And it's not up to me to find 'a better source': it's up to you to stop your biased defence of this one. Pfistermeister (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. You are painting the widespread discrediting of Freud as a battle of opinion, when credible scientific inquiry has shown flaws in his methods and conclusions. If you feel this unfairly summarizes the situation and have credible sources that adds to the discussion, put them in the article. DavidBailey (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What Pfistermeister and Cosmic Latte mean is probably that news magazines are pulp compared to scientific textbooks and peer-reviewed scholarly journals. --77.185.112.170 (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I hear you. I certainly don't put Newsweek on any pedestal. I also don't claim to be an expert. However, Wikipedia's articles need to be balanced and also need to be readable and understandable by non-scientists. If you've got a better source, please add it! DavidBailey (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism, part 2
I've moved the "Criticism" section to the talk page because, although it includes an unqualified declaration that "the universality of the Oedipus complex" is "wrong" (a view that is already noted in Oedipus_complex), it doesn't say anything else about the complex, and all it really does is document some contemporary attitudes toward Freud. Perhaps it has a place in Sigmund_Freud, but this section already goes into more depth than the Newsweek source. Anyway, in case someone can figure out what to do with the section, here it is:

Today some psychiatrists, particularly those who tend to regard mental health as a physiological issue, rather than a result of experiential and emotional biography, such as Peter D. Kramer, maintain that many, if not most of Freud's theories are incorrect, his methods flawed, and his conclusions do not stand up to rigorous testing.

"I'm afraid he doesn't hold up very well at all," says Peter D. Kramer, a psychiatrist and author of "Listening to Prozac," who is working on a biography of Freud. "It almost feels like a personal betrayal to say that. But every particular is wrong: the universality of the Oedipus complex, penis envy, infantile sexuality."

Other critics maintain that, despite specific shortcomings in Freud's work, the bigger picture should not be dismissed.

"He was wrong about so many things," says James Hansell, a University of Michigan psychologist. "But he was wrong in such interesting ways. He pioneered a whole new way of looking at things."

Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I support what you've done: the criticisms you're removed have more to do with the general psychological 'turf war' and with people's need to see Freud bashed than with anything more significant. The first quote is a generalised attack on Freud which has no specific information to convey about the subject of this particular aricle; and the second is even less relevant. I don't think either quote contains anything useful to this paticular article. Pfistermeister (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All the same, I feel like it would be useful to mention -somewhere- on the page the extent to which the particular topic of the article - the Oedipus complex - is accepted today. To mention that many modern psychologists reject the theory and the reasons for it isn't just wanton Freud-bashing; it's important for situating the topic of the article in context. I realize that it's an emotional issue for a lot of people, and it's difficult to separate the rejection of this particular idea from the rejection of Freud in general, but the article is dishonest if it doesn't mention that the Oedipus complex is not exactly a foundational pillar of modern psychology. See the article on Lamarckism for positive handling of a discredited idea. Saltwater Rat (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The comparison is utterly false: modern biology deals with the territory claimed by Lamarckism, but modern 'psychology' (as you over-simplifyingly call it) mostly does not deal with the territory claimed by p/a. You are trying to give academic disciplines conceptually remote from and methodologically irreconcilable with psychoanalysis domain over its territory. This is just the same old turf war -- the same clash of paradigms, the same 'Freud bashing', the same 'make these ideas look silly so I don't have to learn about them' -- under another name. Saying that 'many modern psychologists reject the theory [of the O.C.] and the reasons for it' cuts no ice at all: those 'modern psychologists' are engaged in another project entirely, and their views have no purchase -- no more than would those of a biologist who thought his work undermined the basis of literary criticism. Behaviourists and ratologists and others besides will happily wave away everything to do with a 'dynamic unconscious'; but it's not their right to do so. Pfistermeister (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It says something about the information presented on the main page that upon reading the nearly incomprehensible and extremely cautious 'disagreements and revisions' section, I felt the need to check out the Talk page to find out what was really going on. I found it much more informative about the current thinking about the Oedipus Complex. Thanks! Chrysoula (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem with all the Freudian entries on wikipedia is that they don't include enough actual quotes from Freud and his followers (I've spent hours and hours adding stuff from the 'Standard Edition', but it shouldn't be down to me alone!!). If the ideas themselves were made clear, the criticisms and revisions would make sense and be seen in context. As it is, we tend to get a stupid, sub-sophomoric misrepresentation of the actual concept, followed (or even preceded!) by a ranting anti-Freudian dismissal. In reality, the ratio of explanation and explanation to criticism should be about 20 to 1... Pfistermeister (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Adoption of Freud's ideas
Instead of a "criticism" section, how about some mention of where the idea of the Oedipus complex is typically used? It might be more informative, and less argumentative, to note that it is often used in psychoanalytic psychotherapy but not in research-based therapies such as CBT, or in most developmental psychology research. I'd be happy to use a less biased term than "research-based" if someone would like to suggest one, though in my experience psychoanalysts have been happy to proclaim themselves non-research-based, arguing that simplified, controlled methodologies and analysis of group means are not appropriate ways to test their complex and often ideographic ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhumandecency (talk • contribs) 18:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think some form of that approach is the best solution. There are many orientations in psychology and therapy; some who agree wholeheartedly with Freud and many who don't.  Detailing that current psychoanalysts tend to uphold the validity of the Oedipus comples, while most other orientations consider it inaccurate is a good way to explain that it's a disputed position with modern adherents.


 * I personally think that Freud's theories were the product of a tightly repressed and ossified social system, but that's just me. I know that there are folks out there who swear by psychoanalysis and the resulting Oedipus/Electra complexes, and they deserve to be represented.  At the same time I strongly feel that the language insinuating that acceptance of the Oedipus Complex as near "universal" needs to be changed.  The Cap&#39;n (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Bases for the name
The article could clarify that the name Oedipus complex comes from Freud's viewing of Sophocles' "Oedipus Rex" - both Sophocles and Freud deviate from the original Greek myth, in which the protagonist was Laius and not Oedipus.By the way, I am the same person who used to sign my name as ACarl - back in the days before I learnt to set up a user page! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yayati and Babur Complex
This is a small-talk on the age discrimination as it is found in the tyrant patriarchal society. It departs from the Freudian/Jungian meta-psychological project of universal Oedipus Complex and simultaneously adds something opposite to it. There is a reverse trend of castrating the younger one as well as an antithetical drive for preserving the progeny. Instead of “being father, having mother, which might be a possibility in some kowms, there is another trend of annihilating younger generation, i.e., “satisfied father with (physically or mentally) terminated sons.” Freud-Jung took their cue from Greek mythology and some Indian scholars reiterate the Hindu purana (the epic of [Mahabharata] that explains the repressive forces in society to primal repression by a father jealous of his male child's youth and virility), to elaborate this hypothesis. In the [Mahabharata], it was told that [Yayati] took his youngest son’s ([Puru]) vitality to restore his cursed aging. This planned process (with [Malthusian] mindset) of termination of younger generation is observed in the domain of certain society. Thus it is [Yayati] complex. On the other hand, the caring attitude towards younger generation is named after war-monger [Babur], by remembering his effort to save his child, [Humayan]. The Babur Complex relates the popular legend of the Timurid Conqueror [Babur] (1483-1531), who when his son and heir apparent Humayun fell sick and was declared dying by the court physicians, circled his sick bed thrice and prayed for the ailment to be given to him and his wards life be spared to altruistic actions by patriarchal figures in society. In this case, the nexus between saving the progeny and the preservation of [private property] is also being observed. Some scholars questioned the Freud’s taxonomy of mind and proposed a different taxonomy by rearranging the concept of mind as it is found in [sahajiya] [Baul] traditions. The simultaneous and overlapping operations of Yayati and Babur complex (thanatos and eros) originate from context-sensitive [ego] and not from the [Id] (Freud thought that Oedipus/Electra complex was formed from the Id), therefore there is no universal truth-claim regarding the existence of Yayati/Babur complex as it varies in different spaces and times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.156.201 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Perfect Cover-up--(no longer)
Freud's Oedipus complex was a perfect cover-up to incest and pedophilia. That may have been its original intent(although it wasn't Freud's alone but a whole society covering up). Yes, small children have genitals and can be stimulated but, just as a 3-month-old-fetus has lungs but lacks lung-maturity and it's lungs would be permanently damaged if it was forced to breathe, a child before puberty has the potential capacity to be a sexual person but lacks the hormonal changes--and they lack the matured social skills to negotiate a sexual relationship until they are in their late teens. That is the reason for "statutory rape."

The women's movement of the 1970s broke the silence on the shocking realities of child molestation. Three more decades have past. It's time put the Oedipus complex in its true historical context. (advocating for a very self-evident truth).--205.167.120.201 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)