Talk:Sigmund Freud/Archive 1

Pronunciation of 'Freud'
The article says the pronunciatin is [ˈfrɔʏ̯t] but then adds that in German it's [frɔɪt]. Should there be some note on this? I assume the former is a phonetic transcription of a Viennese pronunciation. But isn't the German  usually realized as [ʁ]? Wouldn't [fʁɔɪt] be closer to a standard German pronunciaiton of his name?

Peer review
In one section, it said that his views set the progress of womens' rights back, etc. I don't care to dispute that either way, but it should be written from a neutral POV. "Some would allege that Freud's views...". I dunno. -[User:DanGrover]

I have read through this, and this article could be on the way to becoming featured. Freud is a great influence on modern psychology, so it is fitting that he should feature in there. What say y'all? --Knucmo2 00:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

--

Why is there no mention of Freud's influence on post-modern philosophy? He has been highly influential for such thinkers as Lacan, Derrida, Levinas, and Deleuze. Would anyone care to explore this?

I have added the neutral comment.

I am not the biggest Freud fan (I am a Popperian), but this guy needs a bit more respect. I think the page first needs organising, and then the neutral point of view is required.

I have now butchered some of the main text. IF YOU ARE UNHAPPY WITH MY EDITS, PLEASE PUT THE CRITICISMS IN THE APPROPRIATE SECTION, OR INTO A NEW SECTION.

I have now butchered the main text. I will leave it for now, hopefully people will see the enormous work that is still required to make this article up to Wikipedia standards.


 * Ironic that you are a Popperian and give Freud respect (you must be open-minded, as most Popperians I know do not give Freud a chance). Yes, his postmodern influence is undeniable (via Lacan, Zizek, Butler, Kristeva et. al) and should be (if it is not already) made mention of in the article, for better, for worse. --Knucmo2 00:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

--

Hey...what happened to all the links? Removing them did not seem to be a good idea. Can someone please revert/restore? Thanks! NuclearWinner 05:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did freud actually observe tribal societies, or just read about them? Given the substantive cricisim of Freud from all sorts of angles this is probably an important issue.

Even if he did observe them, which I don't believe he did, who is to say that he was 'objective' in doing so? Is such a thing even possible? (Michael W. Clark, Ph.D.)

Not much of a mention of the controversies around Freud's theories. Even someone who's a fan of Freud ought to know about a few of them. GregLindahl

This is better than it used to be, but: 'Freud dealt mankind the most severe narcissistic injury of all...' is still adulatory in tone rather than explanatory.


 * Freud's psychological theories are hotly disputed today and many leading academic and research psychiatrists regard him as a charlatan. Although Freud was long regarded as a genius and the founder of psychology, today psychiatry has been recast as a scientific discipline and psychiatric disorders as diseases of the brain whose etiology is principally genetic. This is largely due to the repudiation of Freud's theories and the adoption of many of the basic scientific principles of Freud's principal opponent in the field of psychiatry, Emil Kraepelin. In his book "The Freudian Fraud", research psychiatrist E. Fuller-Torrey provides an account of the political and social forces which combined to raise Freud to the status of a divinity to those who needed a theoretical foundation for their political and social views. Many of the diseases which used to be treated with Freudian and related forms of therapy (such as schizophrenia) have been unequivocally demonstrated to be impervious to such treatments. Freud's notion that the child's relationship to the parent is responsible for everything from psychiatric diseases to criminal behavior has also been thoroughly discredited and the influence of such theories is today regarded as a relic of a permissive age in which "blame-the-parent" was the accepted dogma. For many decades genetic and biological causes of psychiatric disorders were dismissed without scientific investigation in favor of environmental (parental and social) influences. Today even the most extreme Freudian environmentalists would not deny the great influence of genetic and biological factors. The American Psychiatric Association's "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual" (the latest edition of which is the DSM-IV), the official standard for diagnosing psychological disorders in the USA, reflects the universal adoption of the neo-Kraepelinian scientific-biological approach to psychiatric disorders, with its emphasis on diagnostic precision and the search for biological and genetic etiologies--largely ignored during the earlier Freud-dominated decades of the twentieth century.

That paragraph is pretty egregiously biased; see neutral point of view. Freudians still do certainly exist in the psychiatric profession, and Freud is still taken seriously by many others as well. I'm not saying that we shouldn't include plenty of information and background on the rejection of Freud today; I'm saying that we should write this so that it isn't Wikipedia's official view that Freud was a charlatan. Among other things, what would be necessary is a reply to this from Freudians, and statements representing the number of Freudians still active today. --LMS

While LMS has to be the final judge, it might be worth pointing out that none of the statements LMS attributes to the paragraph are actually made: (1) the paragraph in question does not assert that there are no Freudians (in fact, in terms of numbers there must be hundreds of times the number of Freudian adherents today compared to any other school of psychiatry)--the paragraph referred only refers to the domination of research and refereed publications by those who take the alternative genetic-biological approach, since there is hardly anything of a scientific nature published today on Freudian theories or treatments e.g. psychotherapy for patients with any of the psychoses, except those written and published by Freud activists themselves; (2) the paragraph does not at all say that Freud "is" a charlatan--it merely states that "many leading academic and research psychiatrists regard him as a charlatan." So these are objective and indisputable facts, even though what LMS states may be perfectly correct, namely, that there in a balanced presentation there should be replies from Freudians and representations stating that Freud still has enormous influence today--for good or ill.

The concern expressed in the snipped paragraph is that there is hardly anyone informing the general public about the new developments in psychiatry and therefore most of the public and most academics outside the field of psychiatry are unaware that there is an alternative in the form of a truly scientific approach, as opposed to Freudian doctrines and practices which even Freud's fiercest proponents have long acknowledged to be beyond scientific demonstration or refutation.

The effects of Freud's notions on our society and educational system are incalculable; if he is in fact the fraud that many serious scientists now allege him to be, then it is of the utmost importance to inform the public of the available alternatives.


 * I just wanted to say that I agree pretty much 100% with the above (except for the part about me having to be the final judge. I don't have to be, I don't want to be, and I shouldn't be in the vast majority of cases.  I would be happy if the article simply mentioned Freud's defense, just as you describe. --LMS

My impression of the field of modern psychology is that the specifics of Freud's theories are indeed utterly dismissed as serious science except by a few holdouts, and I certainly think the article should say that (while mentioning those holdouts). The term "charlatan" is out of place though--"crackpot" might be better, or even just "grossly mistaken". "Charlatan" implies deliberate fraud for financial gain; I think most scientists today simply regard Freud as merely mistaken, not willfully deceptive. Frued is nonetheless still studied as history, and his observations of people are not questioned, just his theories. It is also worthy to note that he was the first to posit a theory of mind that spoke of independent interacting subsystems decades before modern cognitive science did, so even though he may be considered totally wrong by today's standards, he was closer to being right than anyone who came before him! --LDC
 * I like 'grossly mistaken', because I don't even think he was close to being right - but then I read Thomas Szasz at an impressionable age. 'Charlatan' does imply an intentionality that I think was absent - Freud was sincere. --MichaelTinkler


 * Out of curiosity, who actually says that Freud was a charlatan? I know that much of his work has been discredited -- as has much 19th and early 20th c. pioneering work -- but I think that much still stands -- enough that Freudian psyhotherapists still work and treat people without being cast out of the psychiatric community...

Many people say that Freud was a charlatan. He is often accused of lying about his results, and there is some evidence to support these charges.


 * "Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience" Frank Cioffi, Open Court Publishing, 1998


 * "Freud's Paranoid Quest: Psychoanalysis and Modern Suspicion" John Farrell, New York University Press, 1998


 * "The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions" Donald A. Eisner, Hardcover, 2000, $63 Praeger Pub. Psychologist-attorney Eisner puts psychotherapy on trial by critically examining its effectiveness through the lens of the scientific method. From psychoanalysis to cognitive-behavior therapy as well as the 500 or so other psychotherapies, there is not a single experimental study that supports the effectiveness of psychotherapy over a placebo or religious healing. Using both case examples and clinical research, this book challenges the conclusion that there is empirical support for the notion that psychotherapy is effective.

I just revised the first half of the article, and have NPOV concerns. I think that within academic Freud is as contentious an issue as feminism or evolution or the Resurrection of Jesus are for others. I think that the criticisms of Freud, and question of whether he was a charlatan (which some scholars, I think one named Jeffrey Masson although I am sure I have mangled his last name, have raised, in earnest and with evidence, although it is a highly contested claim) are serious and I did not want to try to edit the last big paragraph, although I think it needs work. For I also thing that the critique of Freud has a lot more to do with fundamental epistemological and meta-theoretical issues and canot be reduced to the simple matter of setting up a checklist and asking for each element whether Freud was right or wrong.

So I re-wrote the first half of the article in an attempt to make clearer how his theory hangs together, and how different elements of it have been accepted or questioned, and I have tried to provide a little more information on the ways in which it has been questioned. Freud has been used in different ways in the sciences and in the humanities, and has been embraced and criticized in different ways by the left and the right. I do not think my revision does justice to the full complexity of this issue -- I hope over time others can add more context and nuance. But I hope this revision of the first half provides a bit more balance and context for the second half. -- SR


 * Yep, it's Masson - his middle name is Moussaieff. I was just adding this when we had an edit conflict.
 * I can't promise that the word 'charlatan' is used, but off the top of my head Thomas Szasz is a good example from the point of view of the practice of psychiatry (The Myth of Mental Illness and many, many other works).  Then there are the various attackers of the foundation myths of psychoanalysis like Jeffrey Masson (The Assault on the Truth: Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory and the flood of work pro and contra it generated).  There are lots of people who say worse things than 'charlatan'.  I'm not saying that I believe them, but I am saying that they've sure convinced me to not believe in Freud! --MichaelTinkler


 * A friendly reminder: Sándor Ferenczi. FET 12:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that a lot of the debate has been between extremes of those who practically deify Freud, and those who villify him. Although I think an article on Freud should discuss both, I think it is also important to sketch out the middle ground -- not just for the sake of NPOV but becuase there are a lot of people out there who are inspired by Freud in some ways while being sharply critical of him in others.  In fact, I think the cae of Freud is emblematic of a huge chasm between the social sciences and the humanities, or betwen the human sciences and the physical sciences, that I think become inevitable when human beings study human beings.  No one cares what kinds of human beings Einstein or Newton were, because we think of the physical world as existing independent of us.  But people care a lot about what kind of men Marx and Freud were, since they people writing about people, members of society writing about society.  I think this is an important distinction, and I do think it matters what kind of people Marx and Freud were.  But I do not think that it is the only thing that matters; even if they were both horrible people who did horrible things, there still may be value and use in some of the things they wrote.  I hope that the article on Freud will eventualy explore this in depth -- SR


 * Good point, SR. I'm staying out of the main article, except for copyedits (like the removal of 'socialist').  The more important chasm between the humanities and the sciences is that the practicing Freudian interpreters of literature and history really don't much care whether or not what Freud has to say about the brain or the human person is true or not.  It's a hermeneutic they like, so they use it, whether psychiatry, neurology, or psychoanalysis still believe in anything he said or not.  I speak professionally - I live and work with these people.  Many of my colleagues really and truly don't care if the Ego, Id, and Superego are 'true' or not.  I team taught a class with a philosophy professor this past term who used the Freudian triad as a parallel to Plato's model of the Soul in the Republic without any critical approach at all.  It was amazing.  Yes, it matters what kind of person he was, but it also matters what kind of neurologist he was, since that, despite the literary critics, is his basis for speaking to us about humans.   --MichaelTinkler


 * I don't feel compelled to restrict myself to copyedits! At present, the 'Criticism of Freud' section seems flawed. It is this section in particular that I feel needs altering:


 * "...most of these often inflammatory texts are written by people with no formal knowledge in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysts generally regard those critics as being grossly uninformed."


 * This is a circular argument: only people with a formal knowledge of psychoanalysis can criticise psychoanalysis; however, those people are more likely to be psychoanalysists and therefore not inclined to criticise the foundation of their profession and livelihood.


 * As it doesn't seem comprehensive enough for a page of its own at present, I'll confine any changes I have to the 'Sigmund Freud' article. If anybody wants to expand on the section and move it to its own page, I think that would be appropriate. Katherine Shaw 16:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * "...most of these often inflammatory texts are written by people with no formal knowledge in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysts generally regard those critics as being grossly uninformed." Well of course. Points of disagreement are points of not understanding the logical sense of what one does not agree with. It's a lot to explain, but basically, attacking as nonsense something every step of the way and then still not getting it makes study and comprehension difficult. So the supposition is that even those who try to understand, if only to attack, have no formal knowledge. FET 07:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On another topic, what on earth was this doing as the first sentence:
 * 'Sigmund Freud (May 6 1856 - September 23 1939) was a socialist Austrian neurologist,'

I removed 'socialist'. It was extraneous. If it is central to someone's take on Freud, that wikipedian will have to justify the inclusion of a political term in the first sentence by writing about Freud's politics in the article. --MichaelTinkler and what if he was tis is about him not what you wuolnd like him to be or not

My thought is that this article has become rather bloated with material that belongs in psychoanalysis or psychiatry or antipsychiatry. Hardly any room left for biography of the man. Also needs bibliography of his work and his biographers. Although the article on psychoanalysis does not need to be overwealmed by a lengthy rendition of Freud's theories; perhaps a new article "Orthodox Freudian Psychoanalysis," or something similar. FredBauder


 * I do not think I agree. I do agree, that there should be more room for biography of Freud.  On the other hand, it is hard for me to imagine anyone looking at this article who is not also interested in Freud's theories.


 * I do agree that some things are better off in an article on psychoanalysis. But freud was not the only psychoanalyst, and there is a difference even between "Freudian" psychoanalysis and what Freud himself wrote and did.


 * this would be my criteria: the Freud article should include a comprehensive discussion of Freud's work, based on books and articles he wrote, as well as biography


 * and the article on psychoanalysis should have a comprehensive discussion of how others have applied Freud's theories, including discussion of debates among psychoanalysts and revisions of Freud's theories by psychoanalysis, SR


 * I must admit that I was highly puzzled finding all information on Freudian psychoanalysis as part of a Signmund Freud biography. Certainly, readers of the biography would easily be able to spot a "See also: Freudian psychoanalysis". The biography and the theory are really two separate issues, however interconnected. Also, I assume "Freudian psychotheraphy" has evolved somewhat after Freuds death, which only furthers the point. -- Egil 11:36 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

- I'm surprised there is not a single mention of Karl Jung here...


 * you are surprised, even reading the paragraph right above your own comment? Jung should be mentioned on a Jung page, and the relationship between Jung and Freud on a Psychoanalysis page. Slrubenstein


 * I was also surprised. My vote is clearly for moving parts of the article to a separate article on Freudian psychoanalysis. In this article, it would be very natural (especially for novices) to mention Freudian vz. Jungian differences and disputes, at the very least as a "See also: Jungian". -- Egil 11:36 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

- In light of the historical trend for psychoactive drugs to be used in therapy, I am surprised there is no mention of his use of cocaine, both personally and professionally. Qaz -

I think the "critic" quote is still problematic and POV. You simply cannot take an abnormal psychology class without being significantly exposed to Freud and Freudian theory, even if other theories have eclipsed it. I'm not sure why this is being dinged (early and conspiciously) as pseudoscience while other theorists, like Abraham Maslow or Carl Jung are given much more positive treatments. It's not like they're any more accurate as descriptions as what's going on inside my head. (Note: I'm hardly a Freudian and I think it is pseudoscience.) Daniel Quinlan 09:35, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * Freud's ideas are certainly much discussed today, and I would be the first to agree that they must be grappled with and dealt with seriously, if only because of their currency. So Freud deserves a long and thorough article in Wikipedia.  I believe that a balanced article would include A) explanations of Freud's theories, and B) the status of Freudianism today.  The existing article is quite thorough on "A" and had almost nothing on "B".  A neophyte who read the article as it stood a month ago would imagine that Freud's work has the same relation to current psychology that Darwin's work has to current biology.


 * Let's compare them: Darwinism thoroughly permeates modern biology, and his fundamentals, built on copious observation and collegial collaboration, now much extended with new data and new theories, continue to provide accurate predictions and fruitful avenues of exploration.  Freud's fundamental ideas were founded on minimal and dubious observations, and his theories do not meet the test of being logical, minimal, reproducible explanations of the data.  As far as Jung goes, I haven't gotten to him yet  :), and I don't know anything about Maslow.  Freud draws my fire precisely because he is so high profile, so influential, and so wrong.  I was required to study The Interpretation of Dreams in high school as if it were scientific fact, and the disgust I felt when I later realized it was all as stupid as it sounded has turned me into - yes - a Freud critic.  Of course, I am striving for NPOV.  Do you really feel that presenting Freud's pseudoscience without comment is NPOV, whereas quoting one of many eminent critics is not?  :NuclearWinner 21:55, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * There are an ever-increasing number of Wikipedia editors who have major (and I mean major) axes to grind. They seek out articles that flame their passion (one way or another) and add their personsal opinions, minimally cloaked in NPOV terminology, to these articles.  Present-day political topics and figures suffer the worst editorial treatment, where articles are front-line battles and new articles are drawn up daily to score political points.  I hate to see it when this attitude extends into other areas of the Wikipedia.  I cannot say that I am flawless in this regard either, but I am increasingly doubtful whether collaborative editing can produce articles about contentious topics that are as useful as a single neutral expert might be able to produce.  A lot of articles are turning into list frenzies where balance is only acheived by listing every point made by every side.  I don't remember ever seeing these types of "articles" in my encyclopedia growing up.  Somehow, the entries about American presidents were informative without sounding like a screwy mix of right-wing and left-wing talking points.


 * My point: instead of striving for NPOV, strive to write good articles and add quality content. I'm not saying you should avoid the Freud article, but the article is far more lacking in content than it is in representing your critical views about Freud.  Daniel Quinlan 00:22, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * I am not sure whether I have yet reached the point where I can agree fully with the above comments -- although I do not take issue with them and think they are constructive. I do want to make one point, though, in response to Nuclearwinner: Freud's theories were always controversial, and Freudians and psychoanalysts always lived in a tense relationship with academic psychology and psychiatry.  I certainly agree that there can be a fuller account of the contemporary state of "Freudianism" (for example, reviewing the work of Juliet Mitchel and Jessica Benjamin, among others).  And the fact that many have consistently rejected him as a pseudoscientist is a valid point and worth including in the article; indeed, I think it is in the article.  But NPOV still provides an important guideline: it is important to be clear who rejects Freud as a pseudoscience.  Those critics have a right to be heard, and they ought to be included in this article -- but they represent one point of view among many. Slrubenstein


 * All this talk of whether Freud was right, or wrong, or pseudo-scientific misses the point utterly. Whether right, wrong, or purple, Freud was profoundly influential. Even if his theories were pseudo-science, much of what has followed him is "real" science, just as the pseudo-science of alchemists (many of them charlatans or otherwise self-promoting) evolved into the "real" science of chemistry. And even within chemistry, we look back on ideas of phlogiston and ether as laughably stupid, but they weren't. Freud's lasting influences include getting Westerners to take dreams seriously; the ideas of repression, unconscious motivations, psychosexual development, and others; and a much more nuanced understanding of language and symbolism, which has led on its own to much of critical theory. -- Anonymous Person

The impression that I personally received when I read the entry for the first time, minutes ago, was that there are people here who do not like Freud's work, and who are actively and selectively editing for the purpose of discrediting and obscuring theories with which they do not agree. I am not a proponent of Freud's work. I simply sought information on Freud here on wikiPedia, and was left with a poor impression. Whatever your personal take on the world is, this is not a page about you, it is a page about Freud, his life, and his theories. If you have something to add that helps to build a broader base of knowledge about Freud, then you should add it. However, please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and your personal interpretation is not as important here as a cogent enumeration and elaboration of Freud's theories themselves. I might add that forcibly subverting the established ethics of an institution and a social organization, in the furtherance of your own personal goals, against the will and intent of the covenant of that institution and society, is generally considered antisocial behaviour by any reasoned interpretation. Infirmo


 * One more thought: Shouldn't criticism of Freud get its own page? Then we could discuss Freud and his theories on the Freud page, and discuss criticism of Freud on Criticism of Freud. As it is, critical comments have crept into almost every section, rather than being correctly restricted to the criticism section of this page, reducing it's academic value as a reference source. With a separate page dedicated to criticism, the line of demarcation for commentary would be far more obvious, and criticisms of Freud could be more fully elaborated without the need to conform to use of language that seeks to falsely imply a lack of bias. We could still put the link in the table of contents for this page, and thus advertise the fact of the disputation of Freud's theoretical basis to all who visit here. Infirmo

In the comments above, I am fascinated to discover that someone thought Freud was a socialist. I thought I was familiar with Freud's work. Is there any evidence for this claim? My general impression is that he had virtually no interest in politics - he cared only about his work.


 * Some of his work was explicitly political, esp. Civilization and its Discontents, but not in the typical way we might understand the idea of politics. But a socialist?  I know of no evidence to support that claim.

The Freud page needs some changes. It lacks basic objectivity and lacks the vital criticisms of him. It needs to distinguish between the other methods of psychology to get a proper understanding of the issues.
 * The Freud page does, as indeed it should, mention criticisms of Freud. But it is not a page about Freud's critics, or alternatives to Freud.  If you want to contribute to a page on Jung, Adler, Cognitive-Behavioralism, or anything else in detail, it should be its own article. Slrubenstein

I just deleted this from the article,
 * As early as 1897, he theorized that the human condition was similar to the Greek mythic hero Oedipus,that &ldquo;falling in love with the mother and jealousy of the father&rdquo; was a universal event of early childhood: this connection gave birth to the Oedipus Complex and linked thereafter the unconscious with mythology. . It is clear and good and I do think it belongs in the article, just not up top.  If anyone can figure out a more apporpriate place to put it, please do so, Slrubenstein

--i have just removed some of your text because i really dont think it should be in there maybe if it was some where else oh whops i deleted it maybe you never wrote an essay or article before but i was of the impression an intro introduces infomation withen the text so yes it woold be an appropiate place ot put one of his theories, maybe one of his most noted as that is were we get the word libdo unless you editing shmuks made that up as well, right your own theories then you can edit to your harts content, you lit have butched this ste and put into dissripute this intire site and what it stads for-- This article is blatently written from an anti-Freud perspective. It is not a place for airing one's own opinion.

question about categories
How literal are the categories supposed to be? Freud was of course interested in psychiatry as a young man, but psychoanalysis represents a break with psychiatry and in the US at least most (virtually all?) psychiatrists shun Freud and psychoanalysis. Slrubenstein

The "Criticism of Freud" section contained NPOV criticism of the criticism, which I have edited out. Criticism of criticism is fine, but it needs to be factually based. For instance, "...most of these works...are inflammatory...". There are only three works listed. So I guess two are inflammatory; which ones, and why?

"Grossly misinformed": can we have an example of the misinformation? Otherwise it just looks like a slur.

NuclearWinner 05:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis as general framework for the mind
This statement seems highly questionable:


 * Note however, that apart from psychoanalysis, there exists no general framework for the understanding of the mind, and psychiatrists are left with no substitute when they reject it

...as there are many general non-Freudian general frameworks for understanding the mind, the most popular currently being cognitivism. Furthermore, modern mainstream psychiatry is largely biological (i.e. 'mental illness is best understood in terms of the brain's biology') and considers itself as a form of applied neuroscience or cognitive neuroscience (although the appropriateness of this is a subject of much debate).

I'd like to soften the above statement to take into account these perspectives but would appreciate comments if anyone has any.

- Vaughan 09:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. But perhaps what the author of this meant was "unconscious mind?"  I do think most Freudians think that theirs is the only model, or set of models, that take the unconscious seriously.  I understand this too may be a debatable point, but if you agree with it perhaps you could work it into your revision? Slrubenstein

A few comments
Jung coinned the term collective unconscience. There are numerous theories about the framework of the mind. In fact, Freud borrowd from the ancient Greeks--I think it was Plato's triparate soul theory.--Joseph Wayne Hicks 01:00, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

---

I've read most of the comments on this page, and I will add another short note. First I ask whether this page is only a biography of Freud or of his theories as well. I think it is probably a better idea to have psychoanalysis on a separate page. Secondly, I will add that I've heard that Freud advocated the use of cocaine to treat depression, but later suppressed his research once the dangerous addiction of cocian was discovered. Lastly, I would add, and will add to this article or another that there are women, feminist I think, who are neo-freudian.

Lastly, I would add that there is research that validates certian aspects of Freud's theories. Joseph Wayne Hicks 01:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone read through the Spanish (es:Sigmund Freud) Wiki? If not, I'll give it a gaze or two. It's much shorter, and at first glance, fairly basic information. Hoosier 03:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Added more biographical info
I have added more information about Freud's early life, and midlife crisis. --Joseph Wayne Hicks 00:10, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

-- The major problem with the article's treatment of Freud is not the generally anti-analytic bias, but rather the nearly complete lack of a historical dimension in the discussion of Freud's various theoretical models. In a sixty year publishing career Freud changed his mind about quite a few things. For example, his first mental model (unconscious / preconscious / consciousness) of the mid- to late 1890s is quite different from the structural model of the 1920s (id / ego / superego). And again, the death instinct, hinted at in 1918 in Reflections on War and Death [Zeitgemässes über Krieg und Tod] but first fully articulated in 1920 in Beyond the Pleasure Principle [Jenseits des Lustprinzips] has no real correlate in his earlier metapsychological ideas. On the other hand, there are many things to like in the article: the list of patients with both pseudonyms and real names is a nice touch. I thought of doing some of the fixing but other than adding two titles to the pretty idiosyncratic bibliographical list of Freud critics decided that it was major surgery that would take a fair amount of time to do, so skipped it. --John Gach john@gach.com


 * I myself am suprised that the article does not mention seduction theory, which Freud abandoned because of its dire implications as to the state of Victorian society. "The degree to which the adult suffers from hysterical symptoms corresponds to the amount of repressed affect, which in turn corresponds to the degree to which the child experienced abuse and was then implicitly required to deny the event and the attendant emotional response, which included terror, horror, confusion, rage, powerlessness, and deep sadness. According to the seduction theory, the child’s repression reappeared in the adult as hysterical symptoms including varied physical illnesses, identity disorders, and longstanding emotional depression. In “On the Aetiology of Hysteria,” Freud documents his seduction theory with eighteen patients— six men and twelve

women— all of which in the course of treatment discovered memories of sexual abuse." from J. Zornado, Inventing the Child, pg. 34. L Hamm 17:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

does it matter who any of us are
i think the piont is that the man opend a door, a big door, a door into a closet fulled with skelettons, if any one has seen the bbc docco, the mind, among some startling new discoverys, that its now regarded that we live backwards, but we regester it forward, simular as when you hang upside down to long and the brain turns your view 180 because it cant handle looking at things upside down, that i personally think will never be completely solved, they way some react to his IDEAS and THEORYS, actually prove a lot of his observations. who he is i dont see matters its what he did, he was infact a very disturbed man, self diagnosing hundreds of disorders that he then labeld on the rest of humanity, but there are too many varibles, genes, enviroment, experiences, the food we eat, the up bringing, it all counts as to who we are, we are just to indvidualistic to say these group of people are this, as to how he did it, well if you go to hospital thank somone for cuuting up the dead and the alive, so as to see how the body works, it all has to start somewhere, atlest he sat and listened which is more than some do in some times all we need, not her sir take this and see me in a month, he treid to see the root of the problem, unlike the new medicines that would only rather prolong and cure the symptoms, what he did wrong is that you cant make as much money out of healing the problem, when the patient can keep coming back to take more pills to cure the side effects of pills that only hide the discomfort of the true problem, altough i have heard it aint cheap siiting in the couch either. classically nothing was seprate you learnt everything, and it sounds more like children squabling over whos dad has the fastest car christoporos

Only critical bibliography
WTF? All the bibliographic citations are "Critical of Freud"; why are not books supportive of Freud, or in the Freudian tradition, included?

But even past that, the critical books are of two very different sorts. Some serious theorists like Juliet Mitchell and Valentin Voloshinov (whom I just added) have well developed intellectual critiques of Freudian theory. In tried to put those in a separate subsection. But the ones I called "Biographical critiques" are really just sniping and rumours about Freud personally, in some cases like MacDonald just anti-semitic doggerel that probably shouldn't be given this much weight at all. I confess that some titles I left in Biographical I simply was not familiar with, so could not say how they might be classified.

I dunno, do some other editors want to help shape the citations into serious academic studies and not just popularized scandal sheets? And give the whole thing some balance of opinion. It looks from the talk page that this article started out as a general ant-Freud rant; it's much better now, but it shows traces of that origin, methinks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:17, 2005 September 8 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that it's silly to have books critical of Freud but not more mainstream books in the Freudian tradition. Jeremy J. Shapiro 06:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Freud, Jewishness, and Austria
Someone recently added to the first sentence, which read that Freud was an Austrian psychiatrist, that he was a Jewish Austrian psychiatrist. Tonight someone objected that because Freud was an atheist and not of the Jewish faith, it made more sense not to include his Jewish origins in the first sentence, and leave it just in his biography, and this person took the word "Jewish" out. But since being Jewish was actually extremely important to Freud and was a core part of his identity and work (e.g. almost all the jokes in Jokes and the Unconscious are Jewish jokes), and because he was kicked out of Austria for being Jewish (and a dangerous thinker), it actually makes as much or more sense to describe him as a "Jewish Austrian psychiatrist" than as an Austrian psychiatrist (in a certain sense it makes as much or more sense to describe him as a Jewish psychiatrist than as an Austrian psychiatrist. So I would be in favor of putting "Jewish" back in the first sentence, but will refrain from doing so to see what others think. Jeremy J. Shapiro 06:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was recently working on the Wittgenstein article. Someone had classified him in the unworkable (and now successfully CfD'd) category "Secular Jewish philosophers."  As Jeremy Shapiro probably knows, the case with Wittgenstein's "Jewishness" is even, well not exactly more murky, but less direct, than for Freud.  But the word "Jewish" insinuates many different things: ancestry, matrilineality, religious belief, victimization by anti-semitism, etc.  Some of these meanings apply to Freud, but others do not (likewise with Wittgenstein).  And given that Freud was not just indifferently, but actively, atheist in a "religious" sense, the adjective just feels wrong up front.


 * To me though, the common anti-semitic accusation that Freud's thought is "Jewish philosophy" makes me very uneasy about sticking that adjective as the fourth word (or whatever) of the whole article. Of course it's perfectly appropriate to discuss his exile by anti-semites, his use of Jewish cultural traditions in his writing, and all that stuff.  But each thing needs to be presented in a more nuanced context.


 * Actually, I have no particular attachment to the "Austrian" part. That's sort of a fiction too, given the shifting national borders and changes in governments.  I thought of taking that out too, but decided on discretion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:50, 2005 September 8 (UTC)


 * Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has convinced me about it being better not to put "Jewish" in the first sentence. I'd be interested to hear more from others about "Austrian".  Somehow even "Viennese" would make more sense to me than "Austrian".  Would be interesting, as Lulu says, to put in something nuanced about his relationship to Jewish culture and identity.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 14:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I wanted to use Viennese, actually. But Freud was born in Freiberg, not Vienna.  Yeah, he's generally more associated with Vienna, but that's from later in his life (albeit, the part that we actually care about). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:18, 2005 September 8 (UTC)


 * Some, (including, I believe, Harold Bloom) would characterize Freud's thought as Jewish more than anything else. They would probably see the above reasoning as a rationale for censorship, based on the unintentionally anti-Semitic assumption that "Jewishness" is a less legitimate or more value-laden characterization than, say, "Austrian". A similar description would apply to Kafka, who is introduced thusly:


 * Franz Kafka was one of the major German-language novelists and short story writers of the 20th century, most of whose works were published posthumously. Born in Prague of Jewish descent, his unique body of writing continues to challenge critics and readers alike, and attempts to classify his works are generally inadequate.


 * In other words, there is a case to be made that Freud's thought is Jewish philosophy, anti-Semites be damned. Deal with it. --goethean &#2384; 14:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But Bloom's thesis is, well that, a "thesis." Interpreting Freud's thought within a Jewish, even Talmudic, tradition is a reasonable thing for an academic to write a book about.  But it is not neutral consensus opinion, hence WP:NPOV.  Sure, quote Bloom in the article, but don't put that in the lead. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:18, 2005 September 8 (UTC)


 * To me it's in part a question of Wikipedia policy and culture. A number of major Jewish thinkers and artists are not described as "Jewish" in the first Wikipedia paragraph about them: (e.g. Marx, Durkheim, Mahler).  So it would be weird to have Freud be the only or one of the only ones. Also, there's a difference between saying someone is Jewish and saying that they're of Jewish descent.  For example, for Kafka, being Jewish was a core part of his identity, he thought of migrating to Palestine, and so on.  This was not the case for all people of Jewish descent.  So I think that some discussion needs to go on about this, it's a complex issue. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Right-o with Jeremy J. Shapiro. Kafka explicitly wrote about Judaism (well, as "explicit" as anything in Kafka is :-)).  Likewise, Martin Buber is a "Jewish philosopher" because, y'know, that's what he wrote about.  But why did Freud use "Jewish jokes" in Jokes and their Relationship to the Unconscious? I dunno, maybe it was an extension of Talmudic thought.  Or maybe it was just because those are the jokes Freud had heard.  Any answer violates WP:NOR. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:18, 2005 September 8 (UTC)


 * But with Freud it was more than that -- I was recently reading some biographical material about him, being Jewish really was an important part of both his social life and identity. I'm not saying it should be in the first sentence, just that it was really central to him in a way that it wasn't for Wittenstein or Trotky or various others. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I seem to recall this being a major stake in Yerushalmi's Freud's Moses: Judaism Terminable and Interminable and the exchange with Derrida in Archive Fever, although my reading on this is far enough back to be thoroughly hazy. I seem to recall the argument on Yerushalmi's side being fairly settled that Freud was Jewish (in a perhaps qualified yet fundamentally uncontrovertible sense) but more controversial on whether this gave psychoanalysis a "Jewish" character, with Freud preferring to efface his Jewishness to preclude consideration of the latter, particularly in connection with Moses and Monotheism and its most obvious contemporary backdrop. I immediately beg forgiveness if this is not entirely accurate, as I am painfully aware that I need to research this matter further. What I mean to suggest apart from attempting to recall specifics is, if I've even vaguely got some of the elements of these sources right, that you don't necessarily have to break NOR to speak to this matter. Buffyg 21:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it is fair to identify Freud as Jewish in the first paragraph is legit, given that his Jewishness did play an important role in his career. That does not mean psychoanalysis is a Jewish philosophy. Hey, I see a similarity between his argument in Civilization and its Discontents and the Rabbinic notion of Yetzer Harah. But my making this connection is just a parlor game. Some people have accused Judaism of being a "Jewish Science" and we can quote them. Others have observed that those people are anti-Semites, and we can quote them too. The point is to comply with NPOV and NOR. SR


 * Sorry to repeat myself, but to me the key issue is thinking about this more systematically with regard to Wikipedia articles, not just about Freud. One can make the case one way or the other for Freud, but it seems to me that there ought to be some consistency across WP articles about Jews about whom it is known that their Jewishness played an important role in their lives, thought, identity, or career.  Otherwise it will seem either weird, controversial, anti-semitic, or Judaeo-centric to emphasize it about one particular person.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 23:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You don´t have to apologize, although I did understand your initial point. This issue has to be settled on both grounds: what is appropriate for the article, and what is consistent throughout the encyclopedia. I was addressing the first, but that didn´t mean that I was dismissive of your point (the second) which I think is valid. I do think that this discussion however can help us develop provisional criteria we can use in other articles. SR


 * I agree with you. It is an interesting and complex issue, and I think it applies to non-Jews as well.  For example, Lutheranism was such a core part of Bach's identity, worldview, and composing, that one could make a strong argument that "Lutheran" should accompany "German" in the introduction to the J. S. Bach article.  But then where does one draw the line with such distinctions, and what principles does one invoke?  In today's multicultural, identity-politics environment, good reasons could be cited for making such identifications.  But one would probably have to apply them differently to each individual person, depending on their life history, self-conception, work, and so on.  Hmmm.... Jeremy J. Shapiro 02:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't even really mind the "Jewish" description of Freud in the lead; it only bugs me if it is in the very first sentence. However, I still think it is best where it is now: the very first thing after the lead.  It's not like we're hiding the information by putting in 100-150 words into the article.  But however much Jewish traditions shaped Freud, even consciously, he was still an atheist, and to me that would have just as much place in the first sentence.  And certainly, for example, Marx would be better described as "an atheist philosopher" than as "a Jewish philosopher".  Heck, even Kierkegaard isn't even a Christian until the 3rd or 4th sentence, and that's a lot more important than Freud's relationship to Judaism.


 * Even apart from these famous ones, what about figures who change religious beliefs during their lifetime? Do they get a religion adjective in the first sentence? My feeling is that only figures whose reason for noteriety is strongly connected to their religious belief should get a religious adjective in the first sentence. Buber absolutely; and Kafka most likely.  Or Billy Graham.  Yeah, "Jewish" is a quasi-ethnic description along with a one about religion, but when I read it in an initial description, my first and second thought is about religious belief, and somewhere at my third or fourth thought I can start worrying about ethinicity, matriliniality, and whatnot. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:54, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

I have no problem putting "Jewish" in the first paragraph but not in the first sentence, although if there was a clear majority in favor of the first sentence, I would not oppose it. With all respect, Lulu, if one´s first reaction to "Jewish" is to think "religious belief," one simply does not understand Judaism, which is why there should be links to the articles on Jews and Judaism. SR


 * Really?! I'd put it instead that, with all respect, SR, if your first reaction to "Jewish" is to think of something other than religious belief, you simply do not understand Judaism. But even stipulating I'm "wrong" (whatever that means of choice of first reactions), a substantial minority (or, I believe, even a majority) of readers will be "wrong" in the same way that I am.  There's no need to mislead a substantial minority of readers just to use some doctrinal, contentious, and hyper-technical meaning for words.


 * In any case, while I wouldn't blanch at lead-but-not-first sentence, I'd still much prefer the description in it's current happy home: first thing after the lead, explaining circumstances of Freud's birth, etc. And reappearing, as needed, in contextualizing particular works/ideas of Freud. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:17, 2005 September 10 (UTC)


 * I agree with SR. The issue of self-identification or identification of others as Jewish isn't primarily about religious belief vs. atheism. There is a whole world, history, and tradition of secular Judaism, ranging from branches of the Jewish "religion", such as Reconstructionism, to the Jewish labor movement and the Jewish intelligentsia, and within this there have been and still are many Jews for whom being Jewish has been or is central to their identity, culture, worldview, and way of living life, but is not necessarily connected to religious belief of any kind. And it is also true that there are atheistic people of Jewish descent or background for whom Jewishness is NOT an important part of their identity, culture, etc. An interesting "test case" for this issue consists of people like Madeleine Albright, people who grew up not as Jews, even e.g. as Christians, and then discover that they are of Jewish descent, and then develop some of the identity and cultural consciousness of Jews, again independently of whether they are theists or atheists. So, as SR says, the issue of Jewish identification just doesn't fall neatly into categories having to do with religious belief. Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As long as the adjective stays out of the first predicate of the lead, I'm happy enough. However, I could not be happy with it right at the front, not even if majority opinion was that it should be there.  Of course, I'd yield to consensus... which on WP is defined very roughly as 75-80%, but is really more a matter of "nobody being deeply unhappy with the compromise. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:53, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

Comparisons
Wikipedia should certainly not feel contrained to follow anything in particular about other encyclopedia's style guidelines. Nonethless, I do happen to have the electronic version of Encyclopedia Britannica 2004; so I'd thought I'd do an experiment of looking up a few figures, and their first sentences:


 * Sigmund Freud: Austrian neurologist, founder of psychoanalysis. (paragraph on psychoanalysis, etc; then first sentence of "Early life and training" section reads Freud's father, Jakob, was a Jewish wool merchant...)


 * Martin Buber: German-Jewish religious philosopher, biblical translator and interpreter, and master of German prose style. (etc)


 * Rosa Luxemburg:  Polish-born German revolutionary and agitator who played a key role in the founding of the Polish Social Democratic Party and the Spartacus League,... (next para: Rosa Luxemburg was the youngest of five children of a lower middle-class Jewish family in Russian-ruled Poland.)


 * Franz Kafka: Czech-born German-language writer of visionary fiction,... (first section "Life" starts: Franz Kafka, the son of Julie Löwy and Hermann Kafka, a merchant, was born into a middle-class Jewish family.)


 * Jacques Derrida: French philosopher whose critique of Western philosophy and analyses of the nature of language, writing, and meaning ... (first section "Life and work": Derrida was born to Sephardic Jewish parents in French-governed Algeria.)


 * Karl Marx: [R]evolutionary, sociologist, historian, and economist. (likewise, first para of first section gets into Jewish parents).


 * Theodor Adorno: German philosopher who also wrote on sociology, psychology, and musicology (later in paragraph ...escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews).


 * Walter Benjamin: [M]an of letters and aesthetician, now considered to have been the most important German literary critic in the first half of the 20th century. (next para: Born into a prosperous Jewish family,..)

Shifting the category slightly, I thought of who is "African American" in the first sentence. My personal (picking fairly arbitrary names, but I did so while away from computers and references) feeling is that Arthur Ashe should be an "African American tennis player", while Charles Mingus should be "A jazz musicians and composer". That is, it is notable for an African American to be prominent in tennis, but typical of a jazz player. Indeed, both WP and EB follow exactly what I would choose myself. FWIW, Julius Erving (who shares my alma mater, which is the main reason he came to mind), is not explicitly black/AA at all in EB, but is via a category in WP (WP also has photos).

Psychosexual development
"Some feminists, however, have argued that at worst his views of women's sexual development set the progress of women in Western culture back decades and that at best they lent themselves to the ideology of female inferiority. Believing as he did that women were a kind of mutilated male, who must learn to accept her deformity (the lack of a penis) and submit to some imagined biological imperative, he contributed to the vocabulary of misogyny. Terms such as "penis envy" and "castrating" (both used to describe women who attempted to excel in any field outside the home) contributed to discouraging women from obtaining education or entering any field dominated by men, until the 1970s. On the other hand, feminist theorists such as Juliet Mitchell, Nancy Chodorow, Jessica Benjamin, and Jane Flax have argued that psychoanalytic theory is essentially related to the feminist project and must, like other theoretical traditions, be adapted by women to free it from vestiges of sexism. Freud's views are still being questioned by people concerned about women's equality."

This section is very POV, assumes that men and women are identical psychosexually. Please fix.


 * You are incorrect. What the paragraph assumes is that "some feminists" have made these arguments.  The only question is: is it true or false that some feminists have made these arguments?  It would be good to have citations. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Causa Sui project
Where is this mentioned? How is it not mentioned you konks? Go smoke a cigar.

Eh? Wha'chew taukin' 'bout?? --ShadowPuppet 20:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Legacy section
An anon editor has added a few paragraphs/bullets on the innovations of Freud's work. SlimVirgin reverted them as original research, but I think her characterization is going a bit too far. The added stuff is a bit too preachy in tone, but the basic ideas touched on are pretty much useful. In fact, I think they serve as a fairly good juxtoposition to the equally preachy existing anti-Freud stuff about Popper, etc.

I'd recommend taking the anons additions as a starting point. They certainly need to be improved for encyclopedic tone, but wholesale reversion seems a bit too little of WP:FAITH. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with both the positive evaluation of the paragraphs as well as the need for some rewriting. Jeremy J. Shapiro 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note on my talk page, Lulu. I should have checked here before reverting. I'd like to see sources for the points made below, because some are questionable at best, and others are perhaps okay, but many would disagree with them. Also, the writing is unscholarly and arguably makes no sense in places e.g. "For Freud, all thought is motivaved by occult factors that are virtually impossible for the actor to perceive in himself in real time." The passages were written by someone who hasn't studied much in this area. SlimVirgin (talk)  18:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Questioned addition
Lulu, this is very useful; thanks for doing it. I don't have time to go through it in detail right now, but a few things are jumping out, and it would be better to have sources for them, particularly as it ends with "these features ... are almost never explicitly acknowledged ..." which raises the questions: are they ever, and if so by whom?

Specifically, I'd query how his model of mental processes broke with the Cogito; what the relationship between Marx and Freud is being claimed as; "non-transparency of subjectivity" isn't clear (do you mean the subject's lack of privileged access?); the claim "[p]sychosexual history and membership in a social class lie at the core of the goals people have and the ideas they use to justify them" is an opinion, so we have to attribute it; it's unclear how the word "rationality" is being used in the second paragraph; in the third paragraph, the first two sentences are just opinions; what does it mean to say psychoanalytic understanding cannot be "anticipated"?; and "armed with better self-understanding ..." is again an opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't done anything to the third bullet or final paragraph yet (I got distracted by... y'know, non-WP life :-)). I'll go over my proposed cleanup another time or two, then see if you'd be OK with adding it back to the article.  I do think the existing anti-Freud stuff is also pretty rantish, and vague references to Popper aren't really enough (nor really centrally germane).  But stari descisis and all that.  But I also know my first brush about Cogito, non-transparency, etc. is a bit too theoretical (I didn't make it up, but it's only a commonplace among a certain school of professional philosophers), so that should at least get some kind of reference. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I've satisfied myself that my cleanup is "good enough" for moving back to the article itself. Certainly it's not the last word; I'm sure wording could be improved and citations added.  But I think the Legacy section is improved division into subsections and use of the new material. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it strange that in this entire article, I don't find the word "discredited" a single time. Is psychology still in the Dark Ages? -amulekii

Purpose of bullets
I am not sure what the purpose of this discussion is. Juliette Mitchell, in Psychoanalys and Feminism, wrote:
 * No understanding of Freud's understanding of femininity and female sexuality is possible without some grasp of two fundamental theories: firstly, the nature of unconscious mental life and the particular laws that govern its behavior; and secondly, the meaning of sexuality in human life.

In fact, I believe that these two elements are crucial to any understanding of Freud, and that most critics of Freud, and all people who dismiss him as a fraud pure and simple, are fundamentally rejecting one of these claims. I also believe that these two claims make a major contribution to an ongoing conversation about what it means to be human. In other words even if he were wrong, he raises important things to think about (for example, Deleuze and Guattari reject Freud's claims about the laws that govern unconscious behavior, but they keep the idea of the unconscious; because of their rejection of Freud's model of the unconscious, they also reject the place "sexuality" has in his thought &mdash; but they replace it with the concept "desire" which, one can argue, actually follows Freud's line of thinking but takes it much further). I think Mitchell is saying two of the points above, though in a more concise way. So I certainly think that it is important to be clear about them in the Intro. I also think that the third point, about the talking cure, is important. So, no argument from me, but I would perhaps phrase these differently and, more important, look for verifiable sources and be sure not to be expressing my own opinion (e.g. I'd quote or cite Mitchell and Deleuze & Guattari rather than incorporate anything I just wrote). As for the comparison with Marx. One can compare them, although I think they are similar only in a very superficial and misleading way: they both agree that people do not have a complete and accurate understanding of the world and their place in it. But there is a world of difference between Marx's "false consciousness" and Freud's "unconscious." They are motivated by different questions: Freud wants to understand nuerotic, especially hysterical, symptoms; Marx wants to understand why people act against their own class interests. Deleuze and Guattari, as an example, do bring Marx and Freud into engagement, but it turns out to be very complex, more than can be summarized in a small chart, however well-intentioned. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Would you like, Slrubenstein, to try to firm up the third bullet on the talking cure. Our anon had the right idea in a general way, but it could use a once over to read better.  But I think once that's done, we'd be ready to re-insert something like this back into the main article (hopefully SlimVirgin's concerns will be satisfied, at least for something suitable on an intermediate basis).  Oh, just to be clear if you didn't get the context... this isn't a new intro or anything so prominent as that, it's just something to add to the "Freud's legacy" section.


 * I agree that this little bullet summary is a bit superficial. But as the 30,000 foot overview, it gives some sense.  And we could really use something to give readers the sense that Freud did something more than just provide cannon fodder for naive positivists (which there is unfortunately much of in the article).  I don't think the Freud/Marx connection is bad to make.  Yeah, false consciousness is a lot different from the unconscious; but at those same 30,000 feet, there's a rough analogy (phylogeny vs. ontogeny).  And enough of a connection even that all those Freudo-Marxists can smush them together well enough (not only the Frankfurt school types, but even D&G in their own way; or all the Lacanians). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

To answer your question, Lulu: I am not sure. BUT I think you are raising a very good point. I guess I would just like to see a few more people join the discussion here to see if we can work somethingout collaboratively before changing the article. Thanks for your work, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

-No, this is not a matter of different points of view, but of a factual error. The id, ego, and superego are never stated to be parts of the "structure of the unconscious." That simply isn't what Freud states. The ego is never said to be part of the unconscious, and indeed is explicitly stated to be partly conscious, as the rest of the section notes. Freud tells us explicitly in "the ego and the id" that he developed the new theory to help him address mental conflict. We cannot impute to Freud ideas that he did not present and then claim that it is a "point of view." Moreover, the claim that the id, ego, and superego theory is supposed to help understand the "structure of the unconscious" is inconsistent with the section's accurate statement that the ego is partly "conscious." So even the section itself is internally inconsistent.

It is commendable that you are trying to make connections between Freud's various theories, but there is already a long scholarly tradtion of examining these issues, and the distinction between the topographical (conscious, preconscious, unconscious) model and the structural (id-ego-superego) model is generally accepted in Freud scholarship and has been for over fifty years. See Sandler, Dare, Dreyer, and Holder's "Freud's Models of the Mind" (IUP, 1997) for a clear, concise summary and Rapaport and Gill's classic article "The points of view and assumptions of metapsychology" (International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 40, 153-162, 1959) as well as the Arlow and Brenner book previously mentioned for some classic studies of the subject.--172.164.54.121 14:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

--172.164.54.121 14:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reduced this section of the article to virtually nothing. Instead, referring readers to the main article "Ego, super-ego, and id". Please revert if you have issues of this, otherwise please contribute to the main article for discussions of Ego, super-ego, and id. Jordangordanier

Removing "See also" liks?
For some reason, DanielCD seems to have the notion that any name mentioned in the main text should not be listed under "See also" section. That seems wrong to me, and contrary to the practice of most articles. Obviously, some judgement is required; but I believe listing all the most significant intellectual followers of Freud together in the "See also" is the most sensible thing to do, whether or not they are mentioned in main text. If anything, getting mention in main text tends to emphasize their significance for listing in the "See also" links (not that we should turn that list into "everyone who ever read Freud" or anything profligate like that... but a dozen of the most important later thinkers seems reasonable). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:MOS. List of students of Sigmund Freud may not be a terrible idea to accomplish what you seem to be looking for.  Jkelly 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That might be a good idea. I guess in my mind its not obvious why a given name is listed under "See also" if their importance is not indicated in the main text (I mean... it is, in a sense, since I know all the names in question myself; but for a reader unfamiliar with psychoanalysis, it's a random jumble of names).  So I sort of silently substituted the meaning "List of later thinkers".  But I think Jkelly's idea would make this meaning more explicit... I'm not sure "students" is exactly right though.  That somewhat insinuates "people who actually studied personally with Freud", which not all the important Freudians did. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * List of Freudians would be a huge project, and probably better as a category. List of important Freudians would probably get deleted as WP:NOR.  I think List of students of Sigmund Freud would be both easy to WP:V and also be a helpful research aid.  For what it is worth, I seem to be the only editor on Wikipedia who actually likes the advice to bold explicit cross-references given in the WP:MOS...  Jkelly 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... how about List of Freudians, with the first section being "Direct students of Freud"... and expanding from there. Maybe divided not just alphabetically, but topically: Freudo-Marxists, Lacanians, Object-Relations Theorests, etc. I know some thinkers could arguably go different places, but the list annotation could say that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

What about him always having a cigar in his mouth and his claim that other people had an oral fixation? 71.250.15.252 00:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, it was more a way to look at people who thought that everything said that sounded wrong was necessarily wrong. Also, it proved that alot on the minds of people is sex. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." I like it anyways.

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

error in "Fiction" section
In the "Fiction" section at the end, the article says that in Brave New World, Freud's name is synonymous with God. It was Ford, not Freud. So I edited it. Gary 02:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet, in chapter 3, Mustapha Mond (falsely, of course), asserts that Freud and Ford were the same person and that Ford used Freud as a synonym for his works on psychology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.138.189.133 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-18 15:28:41 (UTC)


 * JA: The subject of this article is Sigmund Freud. Though a small amount of "fic & pop cult" material can be diverting, in a good way, I think that most of it can be relegated to a link in a subsection of "see also", and certainly an extended discussion of the plot details of Brave New World properly belongs in the articles on Aldous Huxley or Brave New World, a program already in progress.  Jon Awbrey 18:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Electra Complex
I was pretty sure that this is not Freudian theory, but from Jung? I thought Freud didn't think women could experience sexual desire in the same ways as men (which Jung did, and so created the Electra Complex as alternative to Oediphus?) If this is the case, it needs to be stated very clearly, as it is a big problem feminists have with Freud. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.214.254 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-02 16:53:55 (UTC)


 * Hello. The electra complex was Jung's name for "penis envy" afaik. --Knucmo2 13:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted text
JA: Deleted text not relevant to subsection on psychotherapy:

Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays, one of the founders of modern advertising, drew upon his uncle's ideas and techniques for the benefit of commerce in order to promote, by indirection, commodities as diverse as cigarettes, soap, and books.

JA: Let's try to keep it scholarly folks. Jon Awbrey 21:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Section
I think it is important to note how Freud is still embodied in television programs and cartoons, as it reflects the significance (although subliminal) of his contributions.


 * JA: I used to find these "pop culture" sections on factual articles entertaining, but they have gotten out of control. Since their subject matter is not really that of the main article onto which they leech, and really shed no factual light on the person or the work in question, they are more properly placed at the abundance of articles already dedicated to the works of fiction, ephemeral amusements, and opinion pieces that they are really about.  Again, the standard is:  Would you expect to find this quantity of pop-cult op-ed material in a reputable encyclopedia?  Nuff said.  Jon Awbrey 18:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with Jon Awbrey here. I removed some of the notes, which seem arbritrary.  Those cases where Freud is directly portrayed by actors, or as a significant literary character in writing, seem borderline notable.  But for Freud simply to be mentioned by a different character is far too far afield to include here, IMO. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally favor the addition of a trivia section. Someone as fascinating as Freud certainly doesn't NEED a trivia section, but I really like reading the trivia facts about people. Who says learning can't be fun? Pygmypony

Anthropomorphisms as WP:WEASEL words
JA: I have already discussed a very similar paragraph on the talk page of the article on Psychoanalysis, so I will simply copy my previous remarks here, expanding on them as necessary. Jon Awbrey 15:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Re:

Behaviourism, evolutionary psychology, and cognitive psychology reject psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience. Humanistic psychology maintains that psychoanalysis is a demeaning and incorrect view of human beings. The other schools of psychology have produced alternative methods of psychotherapy, including behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, and person centred psychotherapy.

JA: The reason that I gave in the edit line was this: "del anthropomorphisms & unsourced generalizations". There are several things wrong with a statement like the one quoted above, somewhat closely related to each other:

JA: The statement as a whole conjoins four assertions, to wit:
 * 1) Behaviourism (B-ism) rejects psychoanalysis (Ψ-ism) as a pseudoscience.
 * 2) Cognitive psychology (C-ism) rejects psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience.
 * 3) Evolutionary psychology (E-ism) rejects psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience.
 * 4) Humanistic psychology (H-ism) maintains that psychoanalysis is a demeaning and incorrect view of human beings.

JA: Problem 1. Each of the four claims has the form of an anthropomorphism (A-ism), that is, their subjects are not the sorts of things that can take the verb "rejects" or the verb "maintains".

JA: Problem 2. The grammatical problem would normally be solved by rephrasing. Most likely, a person who says "B-ism rejects Ψ" may intend to say that most all B-ists reject Ψ, or that there is a certain tenet of B-ism, adopted by all B-ists, that contradicts Ψ. However, in each of these cases, the A-ism is used to cover an extremely broad generalization, as if to claim that all B-ists share a tenet that contradicts the tenets that all Ψ-ists share, and respectively for C-ists, E-ists, and H-ists. First of all, these generalizations are simply false. I know this from my personal acquaintance with many B-ists, C-ists, E-ists, H-ists, and Ψ-ists.

JA: Problem 3. More signficantly with respect to the WikiPedia policy of WP:VERIFY, none of the above broad-brush, big-blanket claims is sourced, nor are they likely to be possible to source, since there is enough literature that would provide counterexamples, that is, solid evidence of B-ists, C-ists, E-ists, and H-ists who worked with at least some of the ideas of at least some of the very diverse field of Ψ-ism. At any rate, WP:VERIFY states that the burden of proof is on the editor who makes the claim, not on anyone else to provide contrary evidence.

JA: Problem 4. The fact that, say, some Φ-ists reject some of the tenets of some Ψ-ists still does not mean that those Φ-ists reject Ψ-ism "as a pseudoscience". All sorts of folks reject each others axioms and maxims without necessarily calling each other pseudo-anything. Indeed, B-ists, C-ists, E-ists, and H-ists are notorious for rejecting each others' principles, sometimes flinging pejoratives like "Pseudoscientist!" about, but most of the time not saying it even if they may be thinking it. The charge of pseudoscience involves something more than mere dispute — it involves a charge of deliberate fraud. Jon Awbrey 04:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Two people in particular who criticised Freud's theories as being pseudoscience are Karl Popper and Frederick Crews, so perhaps their work can be mentioned without fear of a generalisation. --Knucmo2 13:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: Popper's criticism is standard fare, and certainly fair game, but it is in the last analysis, so to speak, just one person's opinion. He hardly constitutes the unquestioned authority on scientific method that his popular reception in certain quarters would make him out to be. Then again, who could be? I've recently been working through some of the confusion about falsifiability that is currently abroad, and haven't been able to determine yet if it's accountable to Popper himself, or the usual suspects of careless reading. However, since the question is not really specific to Freud, I doubt if this is the place to launch into a full-blown series of Objections & Replies. Jon Awbrey 14:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


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

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

id, ego, superego
The information here is incorrect and should be researched MUCH more. The superego is the conscious and ego ideal.. NOT the ego. As these two terms are switched so is some of the information related to the two. Wikipedia has a much more accurate description on it's own page dedicated to this topic Ego, Superego and Id. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.99.192.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-03 01:20:45 (UTC)

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

I'd say he wasn't a psychologist per se, yet he did affect psychology so deeply and greatly that he changed that whole field. Many people, myself included, believe in the defense mechanisms. Yet, he did do most tests on himself...that isn't the most scientific method. As his title says, he is the Father of Psychoanalysis.

Cultural references
There seems to be a minor edit disagreement going on about the inclusion of Freud's appearance in literature and culture. I don't have a strong feeling about such thing being there: I don't think it's necessary, but I also don't think it's necessarily unencyclopedic.

I'd propose a certain standard to use. Some people in the past have added quite non-notable instances where Freud was simply mentioned in some TV program or the like. I definitely strongly oppose the inclusion of that sort of thing. However, where Freud is directly a central character in a literary work (including popular works, such as movies; not only "high literature" necessarily), I think it's OK to mention it briefly. Do other editors agree this is a reasonable standard to use? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * JA: I agree in principle that "learning can be fun", as someone put it here or elsewhere in this same connection, and a few months ago I would have agreed in practice. But I've seen way too many of these pop culture sections acting as lint traps or vermiform appendices at the ends of articles, and they just keep getting more impacted and move infected as time goes on, and even the fun sans learning part wears thin after the fifth or sixth compulsory repetition of the same old freely asinine associations.  If there is some film or novel or Frank and Ernest cartoon that throws some insightful sidelight on Freud, the historical figure, or the genuine-not-fantasied implications of his work, then a person who wants to use it to illustrate that point is free to exegize it for the evaluation of other editors, but mere mention ad infinitum just does not belong in WP.  Jon Awbrey 13:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% on the same page with Jon Awbrey's analysis; but I most certainly admire the curmudgeonly tone of it... so very much after my own heart :-). And as if by way of illustration, almost at the same moment I wrote my prior comment on direct use of Freud being OK, someone inserted a huge picture of Alan Arkin portraying Freud into the article, which is highly cruftific (and indeed lacking insight: what is it supposed to illustrate, that some makeup can make Arkin look a little bit more like Freud?!).  Anyway, I'm definitely not going to restore any cultural references personally; but I can't argue quite as strongly against the inclusion of those that meet my "central character test" as Jon Awbrey does (should someone else so restore). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

It seems to me that the article would benefit from a more central statement about the enormous resistance that Freud's work met with, and I will try to convey that in an edit.

Andrew Szanton, 4/06

Removal of continental philosopher category
I know it is best to discuss first, and remove later, but I think calling Freud a "continental philosopher" is an anachronism. The distinction was not used until the advent of both analytic philosophy and continental philosophy as major, competing movements, and this was after Freud had died. Plus, Freud was not strictly speaking a philosopher of any kind, but a psychologist. I hope this clarifies why I removed the category in the first place. --Knucmo2 14:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, to be pedantic, Freud didn't die until 1939, and the distinction existed by then (less so than later in the 20th C). However, in general the category removal seems sound; he's not a philosopher, and most of his work indeed predates the distinction. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Freud, though not a philosopher, still was very much philosophical in his writings. His ideas have alot of philosophical import in contemporary philosophy. Yet, to call Freud a philosopher would be fundamentally flawed. Psychology and philosophy do seem to interconnect at certain points, yet not this one. I would call him a predecessor to certain philosophical movements. Dionisian Individual

Re: Corey?
I'm wondering about the citation of "Corey, 2001." Anyone know who this is, what it came from? I've found several references on the Net, but they seem to refer back to the Wikipedia article. Thanks! --Pschelden


 * More than a Google test will be required I think. Perhaps try some psychological journals? --Knucmo2 11:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: Not our job. If an editor inserts a citation like (Anon Entity 2001, p. 666) and does not put a reference for Entity, Anon (2001), etc. in the References section, then it's Nota Ref Atoll, and can be deleted, along with the statement it supposedly sources. Period. Jon Awbrey 17:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: Placing this here until I can check other sources. Sounds plausible enough from what I recall, but it's been a couple of decades since I read Freud's Autobiographical Study and Anzieu's account of Freud's Self-Analysis, so I'd like to check the details. Jon Awbrey 17:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In his 40s, Freud "had numerous psychosomatic disorders as well as exaggerated fears of dying and other phobias" (Corey 2001, p. 67). During this time Freud was involved in the task of exploring his own dreams, memories, and the dynamics of his personality development. During this self-analysis, he came to realize the hostility he felt towards his father (Jacob Freud), and "he also recalled his childhood sexual feelings for his mother (Amalia Freud), who was attractive, warm, and protective" (Corey 2001, p. 67). Corey (2001) considers this time of emotional difficulty to be the most creative time in Freud's life.

I wrote the Corey paragraph, and the reference was deleted. I'm putting back both.whicky1978 02:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Next time, You can contact the person who put it therewhicky1978 02:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Freud - father of modern psychology ?!?
I took the liberty of changing sentence "father of modern psychology" to "father of psychoanalytical theory". The previous one was, to my mind, plain wrong, the latter is not plain wrong. Modern, scientific psychology is nowadays based (as a scientific discipline) on cognitive neuroscience, verifiable facts and empirical, scientific research. A much more likely father for the modern psychology seen today in any respectable university might better be a researcher presenting falsifiable claims, not anecdotes, although some view even the latter as empiricism. Although Freud's early research on neural cells is, to my mind, very much scientific, I do not think any person that has any scientific education is impressed by a theory and a cult resembling following on anecdotes and belief. If Freud is the father of modern psychology, psychology is not very modern, or a scientific discipline for that matter. A hundred years have passed and the evidence for Freud's theories still remains to be shown. The world and psychology has moved on ages ago.

Best regards ML

JA: No particular interest in paternity suits here. But your change introduced an unnecessary redundancy — as opposed to a necessary redundancy, I guess — so I modified it to represent what I think is a fairer statement of his present influence. Acquaintance with psychologists and research literatures of many persuasions makes it incomprehensible to say that this or that hypothesis of Freud is "unfalsifiable", since many of them have been revised umpteen times since Freud's day, in and out of the Freudian line of inquiry. But most folks with no particular axe to grind realize that the study of psychology today would be a puny and pinheaded thing indeed if it were not for the frontiers that Freud opened up. And when it comes to Positivism and Popperler Science, yes, the world did move on ages ago. Jon Awbrey 22:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

ML: Frontiers of sexuality opened by Freud in his time were reportedly important indeed. Unfalsifiable refers to the fact that Freud has not presented evidence for the origins of his theories. This makes him more of a philosopher than a researching scientist. But, yes, he presented an influential psychological theory. I too think that your version is better. Thank you.

JA: Origin stories, accounts of what first incited a theory, fall under the heading of abductive anecdotes — things like, "the theorem came to me during a root canal operation" — can be amusing, but they are irrelevant to the truth of the proposition in question. Therapeutic theories are tested in numerous ways, but if patients don't get better then that's the last word on the matter. Jon Awbrey 04:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Rationalization
The section Defense mechanisms gives the following description of rationalization:


 * Rationalization involves constructing a logical justification for a decision that was originally arrived at through a different mental process. For example, Jim may have bought a tape player to listen to self-help tapes, but he tells his friends he bought it so that he can listen to classic rock mixes for fear of his actual reason being rejected.

Is this an example of rationalization? As I understand it (and I'm not a psychologist), a rationalization is a logical justification for an irrational decision, meant to convince both others and the person that made the decision. The example strikes me as a common lie rather than a rationalization. Qwertyus 11:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Press source?
Hmm, this article was cited on tonight's Colbert Report. I'm not sure whether we should add Template:authoronlinesource2006, though, since it was a bit tongue-in-cheek.

This as during "The Word" segment. He was talking about the Freud anniversary, and said something like, "I wanted to know more, so I read the 'Sigmund Freud' article on Wikipedia", while the on-screen text read "Even the accurate parts."

—Steven G. Johnson 03:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If anything, we'd use the template (or a slight variant) that says "this article was linked to by a high traffic website..." as it wasn't actually used as a source. --Rory096 04:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The full quotation was:
 * Colbert: "Who the hell does Sigmund Freud think he is?!"
 * Bullet point: Carl Jung?
 * Colbert: "I, for one, had no idea who he is, so I did a thorough study. Read the entire Wikipedia entry."
 * Bullet point: Even the Accurate Parts.
 * -Silence 06:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * lol that was a really funny reference --Yousifnet 14:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent accusations have been made by a very prominent journalist that this artical is inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.11.33 (talk • contribs).
 * He's a comedian and it was a JOKE, calm down. --Rory096 09:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: Specifix, pleez ... Jon Awbrey 21:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Cocaine and Freud's unconvential thinking
I cut the following:
 * Freud was a heavy user of cocaine.Some psychopharmacologists and psychiatrists have suggested that Freud's unconventional theories and thinking were an effect of cocaine.Cocaine causes hypersexuality and Freud's theories was very strongly focused on sex.[http//:www.acnp.org/Docs/G5/C102_1461-1474.pdf]So much of Freuds psychosexual developmental theory was based on sexual topics such as the phallic stage and the Oedipal and Electra complex.Drugs that enhance dopaminergic neurotransmission such as cocaine are all known to cause hypersexuality.Patients with Parkinson's disease are well known to become hypersexual after starting dopaminergic drugs [http//:www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2001/Feb/Inreview3.asp - 10k]

...as it does not seem to me to in compliance with WP:NOR. Jkelly 04:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

For better or worse Freud had a major impact on the 20th century. A number of professional disciplines took him quite seriously, and some individuals and groups still do. A Biography without a full account of his work, and his critics would be an empty and uninteresting article. The articles on Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytic Theory were not up to the task.

If you are tired of beating all those dead horses, visit Psychoanalytic Theory and find something else to beat on. Islandsage 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not understand the above comment. Jkelly 21:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you do not understand, I'm confused. How about the 1st par.? Is that clear? Islandsage 02:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I now understand. I looked up WP:NOR Sorry I wasn't commenting on that specific point. I had just read the entire article and talk page and was responding to problems raised by others. Islandsage 18:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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