This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The primary aspect to psychoanalysis is the unconscious mind. This is very evident from the fact that all psychoanalysts who have existed in history - 1. Freudian school 2. Jungian school of Analytical Psychology 3. Anna Freud School 4. Kleinian Object Relations School 5. Stephen Mitchell School of Relational Psychoanalysis say one thing: and that is that psychoanalysis is about the unconscious mind.
—I'm not entirely convinced this definition is better. The fact that Freud believed that retrieval of these unconscious thoughts and conscious recollection of them would help the individual seems to be rooted in conscious effects. He also believed that introspection was valuable and that would if anything be conscious. By being aware of the unconscious, does it not become conscious? I'm not arguing that the unconsciousness is not the central tennet, but it certainly isn't alone in being important. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I shall be adding a section to the article regarding the different schools of thought soon, similar to the ones that I detailed above. MrsCaptcha ( talk) 12:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I've added "p." when writing refs because the other book refs use it (the ones with page numbers; lots are missing). But the journal articles don't, and it's easier to write the book refs without it. Does anyone mind if I remove it from the other refs? SarahSV (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator, I agree about the name in the lead. The problem is that we stick very closely to her point, so I quickly added in-text attribution. I'm hoping we can find other sources about the same issue, so that we can make the same point more generically. I'm not happy with that paragraph in general, but I can't at the moment see how to fix it. It currently says:
Juliet Mitchell writes that Freud fought to retain the term psychoanalysis for his own school of thought, a position accepted by colleagues and students who established their own disciplines, including Alfred Adler and Carl Jung. [a] Neo-Freudians who contributed to later developments include Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Harry Stack Sullivan and Abram Kardiner. [2]
I'll remove her name for now, and we can talk about how to develop it. SarahSV (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Sarah, I don't think that, once again, we are here to decide whether we like someone's edits or not, and whether we should revert them or not. We must focus our judgment on the article instead. I have fixed the references. I still don't exactly understand why you changed the referencing digits/numbers into alphabets and/or how or why you did so. Jumping from ref "a" to ref #4 and #5 was more about an unlogical structure than anything else, that's all. MrsCaptcha ( talk) 16:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Since then psychoanalysis has been developed and critiqued, mostly by Freud's colleagues and students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung who founded their own disciplines, and by neo-Freudians such as Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Abram Kardiner and Harry Stack Sullivan. [1] [a] Freud retained the term psychoanalysis for his own school of thought. [2]
SarahSV (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Freud first used the term psychoanalysis (in French) in 1896; his book Die Traumdeutung ( The Interpretation of Dreams), which he saw as his "most significant work", appeared in November 1899. [1] Psychoanalysis was later developed in different directions, mostly by Freud's students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung, [a] and by neo-Freudians such as Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Abram Kardiner and Harry Stack Sullivan. [2] Freud retained the term psychoanalysis for his own school of thought. [3]
Why is your first reference marked as "a", and the next ones going to #4 and 5? There is a problem with the numbering there that needs to be fixed, which has to do something with the way you have coded/tagged it. MrsCaptcha ( talk) 08:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Why do your references in the article have to start with "a" and then jump to 3 and 4 and 5? I corrected it and you took it back to the illogical numbering. MrsCaptcha ( talk) 12:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
These points that have been detailed need more reliable sources. Should I put up a notice there or shall we wait? MrsCaptcha ( talk) 16:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Can we delete the basic tenets from the lead entirely? It should be a summary only and overloads this section of our article. Charlotte135 ( talk) 23:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The article contains a discussion of the efficacy of psychoanalysis based on some statistical meta-analyses, starting with: "Meta-analyses of Short Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (STPP) have found effect sizes ranging from .34–.71 compared to no treatment and was found to be slightly better than other therapies in follow up.[91]". There's no indication of what the outcome variable might be -and whether or not it is the same in each of the studies- in this or the following sentences. I'm assuming the effect sizes are measured in multiples of standard deviations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.181.190 ( talk) 14:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Psychoanalysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
In Special:Permalink/825326954 § Variations in technique, this sentence caught my eye:
As object relations theory evolved, supplemented by the work of Bowlby, Ainsworth, and Beebe, techniques with patients who had more severe problems with basic trust ( Erikson, 1950) and a history of maternal deprivation (see the works of Augusta Alpert) led to new techniques with adults.
Am I the only one who suspects that the wikilink to Jungian analyst John Beebe is out of place here? Is there a secondary source that confirms Beebe's relevance in this sentence? (By the way, the breezy narration of this section, not to mention some other sections, with nary an inline citation to a secondary source in sight, looks a more than a little suspect to my eye.) Perhaps the editor who inserted Beebe's name meant to refer to Beatrice Beebe (b. 1946), but although she seems much more relevant to the topic at hand than John Beebe, she is much younger than the other people mentioned in the sentence—Augusta Alpert (1898–1968), Erik Erikson (1902–1994), John Bowlby (1907–1990), and Mary Ainsworth (1913–1999)—and she is already mentioned among her contemporaries elsewhere in the article. User:Profjsb added the sentence in this edit (September 2007), and User:Art LaPella added the link to John Beebe in this edit (October 2007). Biogeographist ( talk) 00:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
There seem to be a lot of edits to add the "pseudoscience" template to the page. One reversion mentioned that "There was an arbitration committee ruling that explicitly ruled psychoanalysis should not be identified as pseudoscience", which seems plausible but I don't know where. Could we have a link to that kept on this talk page, to keep it clearer that this should not be changed in the article without consensus / further arbitration? (To me, psychoanalysis sure seems like a pseudoscience, but that's irrelevant to whether it should be marked as such on Wikipedia, per WP:NOR.) Throne3d ( talk) 19:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
To clarify: I expect this can be found in the talk page archives, somewhere, but I'm suggesting we keep it up the top of the talk page, similar to how Talk:Aluminium mentions the spelling issue up top in the orange-ish boxes. Throne3d ( talk) 19:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
It strikes me that interpersonal psychoanalysis, culturalist psychoanalysis, intersubjective psychoanalysis, feminist psychoanalysis and modern psychoanalysis are all referring to types of psychology rather than psychoanalysis itself. This likely explains the dearth of sources in these sections. I'd thus suggest removing these sections, but as it constitutes a rather large change I thought I'd add the suggestion here first and see if anyone strongly objects for any reason. Itsfini ( talk) 16:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I see my edit was reverted that removed the claim that the predominant school of psychoanalysis in Britain is ego psychology. The request is for sources to justify my edit. I note that 1) there isn't a source for the original claim, 2) the claim is false for Britain (but true for the US) e.g. "the diversity in theoretical thinking that dominates the British psychoanalytic scene stands in contrast to the stronghold of ego psychology in North America for many years." From Introduction to the Practice of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy by Alessandra Lemma, 3) It seems odd to be making claims about British and American psychoanalysis in the section on Lacan which is sourced for stuff about Lacan, who isn't an influential psychoanalyst in the US or Britain - I would remove the claim altogether or find a way to characterise British and American psychoanalysis that isn't false. Malignant Catatonia ( talk) 23:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
In the Psychopathology section of the article, within the first line it mentions how the deficit in "autonomous ego functions" contributing to pathology. This idea is not at all universal or generalizeable to all domains of psychoanalysis, and is only relevant in the Ego Psychology branch of thought. This article should only mention things which are generalizable to ALL domains of psychoanalysis. This NEEDS to be either revised (which I have attempted to do until further discussion) or removed all together. I think personally, the rest of the section stands on its own pretty well and would be better without this blurb, but I may be biased so I wanted to see what other people thought first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itdapupu ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand and add information on the influence of psychoanalysis on current theories. Specifically, attachment theory, interpersonal therarpies, and trauma therapies.
Trying to do this has sort of let me to look into the "theoretical history" of psychoanalysis - how the theories have changed over time... mostly because this seems like a good way of getting a handle of the different theories without straying into OR territory (it can be hard to find sources that compare A to B, and while it is an interesting and fun activity to do the comparisoin yourself, anything your write down is going be OR no matter how obvious your interpretationg is - especially with controversial topics like psychoanalysis).
We'll see if I get to the end of this project. It's interesting stuff. One thing that comes up is that from quite early there were multiple "psychoanalyses" Jung, Klein and ongoing attempts to legitimize the Freudian variety - some academic arguing that there was a bit of "cult of personality" involved with Freud's theories being very much linked with biographical experiences. You have quotes were Freud pretty much says "psychoanalysis is made by me, so this is wrong", and other people went along with this. Part of the issue seems to have been an attempt to render psychoanalysis into a working treatment modality with a theory attached to it - which is kind of "legimate". I've seen this motivation in "contemporary" psychotherapy, where people are afraid of their methodology being changed and diluted when used as an intervention, so becoming less effective (this is no doubt accompanied by a measure of proprietary and self-interest as well).
Another interesting thing I found is in reading is that there was a "split" in psychoanalysis in 1946 (though it had started before) - with the training programs in the UK splitting in two. With one side following a more "modern" form of psychoanalysis - following Klein. I'm suspicious that this may be one of the intellectual forbears of attachment theory, and you might be able to trace the influence through. Talpedia ( talk) 11:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Jake Wartenberg:, @ PaleoNeonate:, @ ParticipantObserver: I've reordered and adding titles to the criticism section. This might be a little bold, the section was getting quite long. Talpedia ( talk) 17:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
In the interest of disclosure, this was me while logged out.
The cited source does not describe psychoanalysis as pseudoscientific. Psychoanalysis is described in our article as a set of theories and techniques. According to the source, some of these may be appropriately described as pseudoscience, and some of which are evidence based. The author cites attachment theory and brief dynamic psychotherapy examples of the latter. There is an important distinction to be made between what the author is talking about in the article, classical psychoanalysis, and the subject of our article, which encompasses all psychoanalytic theories and practices.
There have been previous attempts to classify psychoanalysis as pseudoscience that have not reached consensus. Please see here most recently, as well as the arbcom case. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 20:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
RavenclawNewHaven writes: I am new to this discussion board & hope I am putting these remarks in the right place. The argument that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience began with Karl Popper's critique; he maintained that at least some of the theory's assertions were not falsifiable. As I recall, a prime example of a problematic idea was that of reaction formation. This was a cogent critique of psychoanalysis as it existed in the 1930s. After his magnum opus was translated and published in English (1959), American behavioral psychologists (who were engaged in a long & bitter feud with their psychoanalytic colleagues) were delighted to cite the great philosopher of science. It is certainly legitimate to discuss Popper's critique. However, this needs to be balanced against consideration of the many strands of psychoanalytic theory that have been subjected to empirical investigation. As others have noted, this would include attachment theory (starting with Bowlby) and the efficacy of several forms of psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy (cf. Lester Luborsky, the Beth Israel team, Otto Kernberg's transference-focused psychotherapy, and many more examples). It would also include the study of defense mechanisms (Phoebe Cramer, George Vaillant, and Christopher Perry come to mind), transference, and primary process thinking (Robert Holt, mainly). Readers could be left to decide whether Popper's critique still holds. RavenclawNewHaven ( talk) 14:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
My mini-summary:
— Paleo Neonate – 16:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that certain psychoanalytical theses/concepts fail to live up to the scientific standards and that this should be mentioned. But putting it into the first sentence as part of the definition overemphasizes this point. The article on the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, does not mention these problems. The article in the Macmillan encyclopedia of philosophy only mentions them at the end, but in a more balanced form, distinguishing between a "watered-down" version and a "distinctively Freudian" version:
The evidence for some of the best-known hypotheses of the popularized, watered-down version of Freudian theory is quite strong but not new: the evidence for some sort of unconscious mind, intentional forgetting, slips of the tongue, and defensive behaviors was known to psychologists and philosophers of the nineteenth century, before Freud invented psychoanalysis.
...
If we limit the discussion to what is distinctively Freudian, scholars still disagree about what the evidence shows.
...
Another review of the very same experimental evidence concludes that it provides almost no support for any distinctively Freudian hypothesis (Erwin 1996).
I suggest that we remove the term "pseudoscientific" from the first sentence. The second paragraph of the lead already addresses criticism. Maybe the term can be included there. But I would restrict it to certain hypothesis or authors and not apply it to psychoanalysis as a whole. Phlsph7 ( talk) 09:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
A recent edit removing the category "Pseudoscience" has just been reverted. It seems to me that this categorization is controversial and therefore the removal is justified, see WP:ARB/PS, principle 17. This is also in line with how the lead presents the topic: it doesn't state in its own voice that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience, see the recent discussion and consensus on this in Talk:Psychoanalysis#Overemphasis. Phlsph7 ( talk) 05:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The quote does not mention "pre-psychoanalysis". It states that there are different strands in psychoanalysis ('a "watered-down" version and a "distinctively Freudian" version'), "the evidence for ... [the] watered-down version ... is quite strong" but concerning "what is distinctively Freudian, scholars still disagree about what the evidence shows." If you want to categorize specific theories within psychoanalysis, like the traditional Freudian theory, as pseudoscience, I think you would have a stronger case. But many psychoanalysts also reject traditional Freudian theory. So categorizing all of psychoanalysis as pseudoscience goes to far.
I agree with the comment on WP:ARB/PS, principle 17. This earlier consensus supports the removal of the category, but it is not an absolute guideline and could be counterbalanced if sufficient evidence against it was presented. Phlsph7 ( talk) 05:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
In evaluating the Freudian evidence, one issue concerns its subject. There is a watered-down, commonsensical version of Freud’s theories and there are the original, distinctively Freudian versions articulated and modified over the years principally by Freud himself. On the watered-down version, the unconscious exists if a person has mental states that exist below the threshold of consciousness, whether or not these states can be brought to consciousness without the aid of psychoanalysis. Repression is said to occur whenever one tries to keep something painful out of consciousness, which obviously happens when one tries to forget a sad love affair or a hurtful insult. There are “Freudian slips,” it is said, if people make linguistic mistakes with sexual innuendoes, regardless of what causes the errors. Defense mechanisms such as “projection,” “reaction formation,” and “displacement” are said to be operative so long as certain types of defensive behavior are displayed, such as attributing to others one’s own faults or doing just the opposite of what one would like to do, no matter what causal mechanism explains the behaviors.
Should Psychoanalysis be included in Category:Pseudoscience? Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 14:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm interested in drawing out the connections (and differencnes) between psychoanalysis and other more "accepted" forms of therapy both historically and theoretically. This books looks pretty good at talking about how psychoanalytic theories are applied outside of psychoanalysis proper,. [1] I'm leaving it here so I can come back to it latter.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JasmineHutson21.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Under "Further reading," the book by Borch-Jacobsen and Shamdasani is correctly stated to have been published in 2012. In footnote 10, however, the date is given as 2011-11-24, which does not make sense, because books, unlike magazine articles, are not cited with a specific date. My problem is that I don't know how to change footnote 10, because its contents are hidden behind symbols that I don't understand. Maurice Magnus ( talk) 12:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2023 and 3 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nhollingsworth ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Nhollingsworth ( talk) 20:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 November 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chelsc.an ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Chelsc.an ( talk) 06:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The primary aspect to psychoanalysis is the unconscious mind. This is very evident from the fact that all psychoanalysts who have existed in history - 1. Freudian school 2. Jungian school of Analytical Psychology 3. Anna Freud School 4. Kleinian Object Relations School 5. Stephen Mitchell School of Relational Psychoanalysis say one thing: and that is that psychoanalysis is about the unconscious mind.
—I'm not entirely convinced this definition is better. The fact that Freud believed that retrieval of these unconscious thoughts and conscious recollection of them would help the individual seems to be rooted in conscious effects. He also believed that introspection was valuable and that would if anything be conscious. By being aware of the unconscious, does it not become conscious? I'm not arguing that the unconsciousness is not the central tennet, but it certainly isn't alone in being important. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I shall be adding a section to the article regarding the different schools of thought soon, similar to the ones that I detailed above. MrsCaptcha ( talk) 12:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I've added "p." when writing refs because the other book refs use it (the ones with page numbers; lots are missing). But the journal articles don't, and it's easier to write the book refs without it. Does anyone mind if I remove it from the other refs? SarahSV (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator, I agree about the name in the lead. The problem is that we stick very closely to her point, so I quickly added in-text attribution. I'm hoping we can find other sources about the same issue, so that we can make the same point more generically. I'm not happy with that paragraph in general, but I can't at the moment see how to fix it. It currently says:
Juliet Mitchell writes that Freud fought to retain the term psychoanalysis for his own school of thought, a position accepted by colleagues and students who established their own disciplines, including Alfred Adler and Carl Jung. [a] Neo-Freudians who contributed to later developments include Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Harry Stack Sullivan and Abram Kardiner. [2]
I'll remove her name for now, and we can talk about how to develop it. SarahSV (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Sarah, I don't think that, once again, we are here to decide whether we like someone's edits or not, and whether we should revert them or not. We must focus our judgment on the article instead. I have fixed the references. I still don't exactly understand why you changed the referencing digits/numbers into alphabets and/or how or why you did so. Jumping from ref "a" to ref #4 and #5 was more about an unlogical structure than anything else, that's all. MrsCaptcha ( talk) 16:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Since then psychoanalysis has been developed and critiqued, mostly by Freud's colleagues and students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung who founded their own disciplines, and by neo-Freudians such as Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Abram Kardiner and Harry Stack Sullivan. [1] [a] Freud retained the term psychoanalysis for his own school of thought. [2]
SarahSV (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Freud first used the term psychoanalysis (in French) in 1896; his book Die Traumdeutung ( The Interpretation of Dreams), which he saw as his "most significant work", appeared in November 1899. [1] Psychoanalysis was later developed in different directions, mostly by Freud's students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung, [a] and by neo-Freudians such as Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Abram Kardiner and Harry Stack Sullivan. [2] Freud retained the term psychoanalysis for his own school of thought. [3]
Why is your first reference marked as "a", and the next ones going to #4 and 5? There is a problem with the numbering there that needs to be fixed, which has to do something with the way you have coded/tagged it. MrsCaptcha ( talk) 08:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Why do your references in the article have to start with "a" and then jump to 3 and 4 and 5? I corrected it and you took it back to the illogical numbering. MrsCaptcha ( talk) 12:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
These points that have been detailed need more reliable sources. Should I put up a notice there or shall we wait? MrsCaptcha ( talk) 16:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Can we delete the basic tenets from the lead entirely? It should be a summary only and overloads this section of our article. Charlotte135 ( talk) 23:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The article contains a discussion of the efficacy of psychoanalysis based on some statistical meta-analyses, starting with: "Meta-analyses of Short Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (STPP) have found effect sizes ranging from .34–.71 compared to no treatment and was found to be slightly better than other therapies in follow up.[91]". There's no indication of what the outcome variable might be -and whether or not it is the same in each of the studies- in this or the following sentences. I'm assuming the effect sizes are measured in multiples of standard deviations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.181.190 ( talk) 14:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Psychoanalysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
In Special:Permalink/825326954 § Variations in technique, this sentence caught my eye:
As object relations theory evolved, supplemented by the work of Bowlby, Ainsworth, and Beebe, techniques with patients who had more severe problems with basic trust ( Erikson, 1950) and a history of maternal deprivation (see the works of Augusta Alpert) led to new techniques with adults.
Am I the only one who suspects that the wikilink to Jungian analyst John Beebe is out of place here? Is there a secondary source that confirms Beebe's relevance in this sentence? (By the way, the breezy narration of this section, not to mention some other sections, with nary an inline citation to a secondary source in sight, looks a more than a little suspect to my eye.) Perhaps the editor who inserted Beebe's name meant to refer to Beatrice Beebe (b. 1946), but although she seems much more relevant to the topic at hand than John Beebe, she is much younger than the other people mentioned in the sentence—Augusta Alpert (1898–1968), Erik Erikson (1902–1994), John Bowlby (1907–1990), and Mary Ainsworth (1913–1999)—and she is already mentioned among her contemporaries elsewhere in the article. User:Profjsb added the sentence in this edit (September 2007), and User:Art LaPella added the link to John Beebe in this edit (October 2007). Biogeographist ( talk) 00:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
There seem to be a lot of edits to add the "pseudoscience" template to the page. One reversion mentioned that "There was an arbitration committee ruling that explicitly ruled psychoanalysis should not be identified as pseudoscience", which seems plausible but I don't know where. Could we have a link to that kept on this talk page, to keep it clearer that this should not be changed in the article without consensus / further arbitration? (To me, psychoanalysis sure seems like a pseudoscience, but that's irrelevant to whether it should be marked as such on Wikipedia, per WP:NOR.) Throne3d ( talk) 19:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
To clarify: I expect this can be found in the talk page archives, somewhere, but I'm suggesting we keep it up the top of the talk page, similar to how Talk:Aluminium mentions the spelling issue up top in the orange-ish boxes. Throne3d ( talk) 19:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
It strikes me that interpersonal psychoanalysis, culturalist psychoanalysis, intersubjective psychoanalysis, feminist psychoanalysis and modern psychoanalysis are all referring to types of psychology rather than psychoanalysis itself. This likely explains the dearth of sources in these sections. I'd thus suggest removing these sections, but as it constitutes a rather large change I thought I'd add the suggestion here first and see if anyone strongly objects for any reason. Itsfini ( talk) 16:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I see my edit was reverted that removed the claim that the predominant school of psychoanalysis in Britain is ego psychology. The request is for sources to justify my edit. I note that 1) there isn't a source for the original claim, 2) the claim is false for Britain (but true for the US) e.g. "the diversity in theoretical thinking that dominates the British psychoanalytic scene stands in contrast to the stronghold of ego psychology in North America for many years." From Introduction to the Practice of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy by Alessandra Lemma, 3) It seems odd to be making claims about British and American psychoanalysis in the section on Lacan which is sourced for stuff about Lacan, who isn't an influential psychoanalyst in the US or Britain - I would remove the claim altogether or find a way to characterise British and American psychoanalysis that isn't false. Malignant Catatonia ( talk) 23:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
In the Psychopathology section of the article, within the first line it mentions how the deficit in "autonomous ego functions" contributing to pathology. This idea is not at all universal or generalizeable to all domains of psychoanalysis, and is only relevant in the Ego Psychology branch of thought. This article should only mention things which are generalizable to ALL domains of psychoanalysis. This NEEDS to be either revised (which I have attempted to do until further discussion) or removed all together. I think personally, the rest of the section stands on its own pretty well and would be better without this blurb, but I may be biased so I wanted to see what other people thought first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itdapupu ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand and add information on the influence of psychoanalysis on current theories. Specifically, attachment theory, interpersonal therarpies, and trauma therapies.
Trying to do this has sort of let me to look into the "theoretical history" of psychoanalysis - how the theories have changed over time... mostly because this seems like a good way of getting a handle of the different theories without straying into OR territory (it can be hard to find sources that compare A to B, and while it is an interesting and fun activity to do the comparisoin yourself, anything your write down is going be OR no matter how obvious your interpretationg is - especially with controversial topics like psychoanalysis).
We'll see if I get to the end of this project. It's interesting stuff. One thing that comes up is that from quite early there were multiple "psychoanalyses" Jung, Klein and ongoing attempts to legitimize the Freudian variety - some academic arguing that there was a bit of "cult of personality" involved with Freud's theories being very much linked with biographical experiences. You have quotes were Freud pretty much says "psychoanalysis is made by me, so this is wrong", and other people went along with this. Part of the issue seems to have been an attempt to render psychoanalysis into a working treatment modality with a theory attached to it - which is kind of "legimate". I've seen this motivation in "contemporary" psychotherapy, where people are afraid of their methodology being changed and diluted when used as an intervention, so becoming less effective (this is no doubt accompanied by a measure of proprietary and self-interest as well).
Another interesting thing I found is in reading is that there was a "split" in psychoanalysis in 1946 (though it had started before) - with the training programs in the UK splitting in two. With one side following a more "modern" form of psychoanalysis - following Klein. I'm suspicious that this may be one of the intellectual forbears of attachment theory, and you might be able to trace the influence through. Talpedia ( talk) 11:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Jake Wartenberg:, @ PaleoNeonate:, @ ParticipantObserver: I've reordered and adding titles to the criticism section. This might be a little bold, the section was getting quite long. Talpedia ( talk) 17:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
In the interest of disclosure, this was me while logged out.
The cited source does not describe psychoanalysis as pseudoscientific. Psychoanalysis is described in our article as a set of theories and techniques. According to the source, some of these may be appropriately described as pseudoscience, and some of which are evidence based. The author cites attachment theory and brief dynamic psychotherapy examples of the latter. There is an important distinction to be made between what the author is talking about in the article, classical psychoanalysis, and the subject of our article, which encompasses all psychoanalytic theories and practices.
There have been previous attempts to classify psychoanalysis as pseudoscience that have not reached consensus. Please see here most recently, as well as the arbcom case. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 20:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
RavenclawNewHaven writes: I am new to this discussion board & hope I am putting these remarks in the right place. The argument that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience began with Karl Popper's critique; he maintained that at least some of the theory's assertions were not falsifiable. As I recall, a prime example of a problematic idea was that of reaction formation. This was a cogent critique of psychoanalysis as it existed in the 1930s. After his magnum opus was translated and published in English (1959), American behavioral psychologists (who were engaged in a long & bitter feud with their psychoanalytic colleagues) were delighted to cite the great philosopher of science. It is certainly legitimate to discuss Popper's critique. However, this needs to be balanced against consideration of the many strands of psychoanalytic theory that have been subjected to empirical investigation. As others have noted, this would include attachment theory (starting with Bowlby) and the efficacy of several forms of psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy (cf. Lester Luborsky, the Beth Israel team, Otto Kernberg's transference-focused psychotherapy, and many more examples). It would also include the study of defense mechanisms (Phoebe Cramer, George Vaillant, and Christopher Perry come to mind), transference, and primary process thinking (Robert Holt, mainly). Readers could be left to decide whether Popper's critique still holds. RavenclawNewHaven ( talk) 14:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
My mini-summary:
— Paleo Neonate – 16:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that certain psychoanalytical theses/concepts fail to live up to the scientific standards and that this should be mentioned. But putting it into the first sentence as part of the definition overemphasizes this point. The article on the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, does not mention these problems. The article in the Macmillan encyclopedia of philosophy only mentions them at the end, but in a more balanced form, distinguishing between a "watered-down" version and a "distinctively Freudian" version:
The evidence for some of the best-known hypotheses of the popularized, watered-down version of Freudian theory is quite strong but not new: the evidence for some sort of unconscious mind, intentional forgetting, slips of the tongue, and defensive behaviors was known to psychologists and philosophers of the nineteenth century, before Freud invented psychoanalysis.
...
If we limit the discussion to what is distinctively Freudian, scholars still disagree about what the evidence shows.
...
Another review of the very same experimental evidence concludes that it provides almost no support for any distinctively Freudian hypothesis (Erwin 1996).
I suggest that we remove the term "pseudoscientific" from the first sentence. The second paragraph of the lead already addresses criticism. Maybe the term can be included there. But I would restrict it to certain hypothesis or authors and not apply it to psychoanalysis as a whole. Phlsph7 ( talk) 09:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
A recent edit removing the category "Pseudoscience" has just been reverted. It seems to me that this categorization is controversial and therefore the removal is justified, see WP:ARB/PS, principle 17. This is also in line with how the lead presents the topic: it doesn't state in its own voice that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience, see the recent discussion and consensus on this in Talk:Psychoanalysis#Overemphasis. Phlsph7 ( talk) 05:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The quote does not mention "pre-psychoanalysis". It states that there are different strands in psychoanalysis ('a "watered-down" version and a "distinctively Freudian" version'), "the evidence for ... [the] watered-down version ... is quite strong" but concerning "what is distinctively Freudian, scholars still disagree about what the evidence shows." If you want to categorize specific theories within psychoanalysis, like the traditional Freudian theory, as pseudoscience, I think you would have a stronger case. But many psychoanalysts also reject traditional Freudian theory. So categorizing all of psychoanalysis as pseudoscience goes to far.
I agree with the comment on WP:ARB/PS, principle 17. This earlier consensus supports the removal of the category, but it is not an absolute guideline and could be counterbalanced if sufficient evidence against it was presented. Phlsph7 ( talk) 05:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
In evaluating the Freudian evidence, one issue concerns its subject. There is a watered-down, commonsensical version of Freud’s theories and there are the original, distinctively Freudian versions articulated and modified over the years principally by Freud himself. On the watered-down version, the unconscious exists if a person has mental states that exist below the threshold of consciousness, whether or not these states can be brought to consciousness without the aid of psychoanalysis. Repression is said to occur whenever one tries to keep something painful out of consciousness, which obviously happens when one tries to forget a sad love affair or a hurtful insult. There are “Freudian slips,” it is said, if people make linguistic mistakes with sexual innuendoes, regardless of what causes the errors. Defense mechanisms such as “projection,” “reaction formation,” and “displacement” are said to be operative so long as certain types of defensive behavior are displayed, such as attributing to others one’s own faults or doing just the opposite of what one would like to do, no matter what causal mechanism explains the behaviors.
Should Psychoanalysis be included in Category:Pseudoscience? Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 14:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm interested in drawing out the connections (and differencnes) between psychoanalysis and other more "accepted" forms of therapy both historically and theoretically. This books looks pretty good at talking about how psychoanalytic theories are applied outside of psychoanalysis proper,. [1] I'm leaving it here so I can come back to it latter.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JasmineHutson21.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Under "Further reading," the book by Borch-Jacobsen and Shamdasani is correctly stated to have been published in 2012. In footnote 10, however, the date is given as 2011-11-24, which does not make sense, because books, unlike magazine articles, are not cited with a specific date. My problem is that I don't know how to change footnote 10, because its contents are hidden behind symbols that I don't understand. Maurice Magnus ( talk) 12:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2023 and 3 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nhollingsworth ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Nhollingsworth ( talk) 20:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 November 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chelsc.an ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Chelsc.an ( talk) 06:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)