Scientific status of psychoanalysis
Richard Carnes
>And Freud is still considered garbage by the scientific community....
>[Freudian garbage] still fails every known test that the scientific
>community throws at it.
This is an extremely uninformed statement. Does the scientific
community include researchers in human development, pediatrics,
clinical psychology, cognitive psychology, psychiatry, anthropology,
family studies, etc.? Perhaps not, to the devotees of Ubizmo.
Psychoanalysis has traversed an immense distance since Freud. Freud
himself was constantly revising his theories in the light of evidence
and was the exact opposite of a dogmatist or occultist.
There are many books that you could read to learn something about
research being done today that is influenced by psychoanalytic
ideas. Some of them:
Daniel Stern, *The Interpersonal World of the Infant*.
John Bowlby, *Attachment and Loss*.
Seymour Fisher and Roger Greenberg, eds., *The Scientific Credibility
of Freud's Theories and Therapy*. (Freud wins some, loses some.)
Various books and articles by Heinz Kohut, Selma Fraiberg, and
T. Berry Brazelton, to name a few.
A short and very interesting introduction to psychoanalytic ideas,
with discussion of their scientific status, is *Psychology and
Freudian Theory* by Paul Kline. Here is Kline's summary of his
main points:
______________
1. Psychoanalysis was shown [in this book] to be much influenced by
ideas current during its initial development by Freud. It was
distinguished from psychology, psychiatry and psychotherapy.
2. An outline of Freudian theory was given in which its most
important concepts were delineated.
3. The scientific objections to psychoanalytic theory, notably its
poor sampling, its lack of quantification and its intertwining of
data and interpretation were examined.
4. It was shown that psychoanalytic theory could be regarded as a
collection of separate hypotheses rather than one theory and that
these hypotheses could then be put to the scientific test.
5. Some empirical studies which attempted to do this were then
discussed. It was shown that there was a degree of empirical support
for:
a. oral and anal character syndromes, although links to childhood
training and pre-genital eroticism were not well established;
b. Oedipus and castration complexes in a whole array of cultures;
c. dreams as wishes; symbolism in and out of dreams; the
psychological meaning of dreams and the implication of
unconscious conflicts; importance of manifest as well as latent
dream content;
d. defense mechanisms and especially repression;
e. the importance of unconscious conflicts in psychopathology.
It was found that there was lack of definite evidence about the
efficacy of Freudian therapy, but it was shown that well-known
studies indicating psychoanalysis to be ineffective were not
adequately carried out. Study of the therapeutic process itself was
shown to be valuable.
6. A sizeable number of important Freudian concepts have been shown,
therefore, to have an empirical foundation.
7. A number of empirical methods, in the course of examining these
concepts, were shown to be valuable in the study of psychoanalytic
phenomena:
a. psychometric investigations including cross-cultural studies;
b. hologeistic studies;
c. percept-genetic methods and similar techniques, such as those of
Silverman;
d. Malan's approach to the investigation of psychotherapeutic
success.
8. The implications of Freudian theory for a number of important
areas of human life were explicated to illustrate the richness of the
theory.
9. Given that some significant concepts in Freudian theory have
empirical support and given that the theory can illuminate the vast
gamut of human behavior, certain conclusions seem to follow directly:
a. It is incorrect to say that psychoanalytic theory is
unscientific in the sense that it cannot be refuted.
b. It is incorrect to reject psychoanalytic theory as false.
c. It is incorrect to accept psychoanalytic theory as true.
d. The theory needs far more careful empirical analysis than it has
yet received.
10. As a final postscript to this book, I want simply to argue that
this further empirical analysis of Freudian theory is valuable, not
as an attempt to prove Freud was right, but rather as an attempt to
sift through a theory which, founded on brilliant insights, does deal
with concepts that have a bearing on the matters that seem truly of
importance in human life. Thus the establishment of their truth (if
true) will help to establish a theory of relevance to society and
those trying to organize it. It is envisaged that those Freudian
concepts which pass the sifting test of the scientific method will be
incorporated into a theory of behavior, together with all those other
concepts which have similar experimental support, although derived
independently of psychoanalysis.
Put simply, it seems madness to jettison a set of ideas as
stimulating as those of Freud because they do not conform to a
conventionalized methodology at present in favor in psychology. What
is required is a scientific psychology that combines theoretical
rigor with the rich comprehensiveness of psychoanalysis....
[Paul Kline]
________________
--
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
To work at the bidding and for the profit of another is not a
satisfactory state to human beings of educated intelligence, who have
ceased to think themselves naturally inferior to those whom they
serve. --J.S. Mill
Tom Tedrick
>>>And Freud is still considered garbage by the scientific community....
>>>[Freudian garbage] still fails every known test that the scientific
>>>community throws at it.
>>This is an extremely uninformed statement.
>Blasphemy! How dare you question the Word of Wiener!
>Seriously, as one who, in the past, has held Freud's "distasteful" theories
>in low regard, I urge Matthew to reconsider his opinions about one of
>the most creative thinkers in history.
I agree with Matthew on this one. I also agree Freud was "creative",
in the mathematical sense of creating nonsense out of thin air.
Having personally had to deal with many unthinking dupes of
psychological brainwashing (there are LOTS of them in California),
I believe psychology is in some respects no more
valid than witchcraft, and that some psychologists are guilty
of serious crimes against humanity, through misleading the public.
Pop psychology in the form of mass cultism (EST for example) has
misled millions of naive people, and is highly dangerous to society
as well as to the individual.
Chris Henrich
>
>Pop psychology in the form of mass cultism (EST for example) has
>misled millions of naive people, and is highly dangerous to society
>as well as to the individual.
Can this danger be demonstrated? A convincing demonstration
would be an example of some clearly evil event which was
caused by EST and would not have happened without EST.
By "evil" I mean more than just "boring and obnoxious." Loss
of life, long term hospitalization, jail sentences, and divorce
are serious enough to qualify.
Have I forgotten the growing crime rate, the breakup of "the"
family, the national malaise (J. Carter, 1979)? No. I just
do not see that pop psychology made these things (or any other
unwelcome trends you care to mention) worse. Nor that if pop
psychology were suppressed (how, pray tell?) these trends
would have been alleviated.
Regards,
Chris
--
Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich
UUCP: ...!hjuxa!petsd!cjh
US Mail: MS 313; Concurrent Computer Corporation;
106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
Phone: (201) 758-7288
Concurrent Computer Corporation is a Perkin-Elmer company.
lad...@kestrel.uucp
> >Seriously, as one who, in the past, has held Freud's "distasteful" theories
> >in low regard, I urge Matthew to reconsider his opinions about one of
> >the most creative thinkers in history.
(Tedrick)
> Having personally had to deal with many unthinking dupes of
> psychological brainwashing (there are LOTS of them in California),
> I believe psychology is in some respects no more
> valid than witchcraft
Psychology is the study of human behaviour in general.
I'm glad you hedged your statement. Just because you
dislike some aspects of pop culture, you blast the field
in general?
Michael is entirely right about Freud. Whether or not we
currently like or dislike consequences of his work is only
partly to be attributed to the originator.
> Pop psychology in the form of mass cultism (EST for example) has
> misled millions of naive people, and is highly dangerous to society
> as well as to the individual.
I tend to dislike ESTish interactions, and avoid them. I have
some friends who are the opposite. *Highly dangerous* is an
extreme attribution, and one I cannot agree with.
There are common behaviour patterns that I dislike far
more than ESTishness. ESTishness in friends never hurt me.
Other behaviour has caused me grief for months
(usually, you guessed it, with regard to lovers).
Why do you feel so strongly? Do you have an argument
for this view, or is this another throwaway opinion?
Peter Ladkin
lad...@kestrel.arpa
Donald D. Henson
> valid than witchcraft, and that some psychologists are guilty
> of serious crimes against humanity, through misleading the public.
Right on!!!!!
Don Henson
Infosys Consulting