Talk:Sigmund Freud/Archive 6

Pronunciation

Doesn't German have coda devoicing? Shouldn't those d's in the IPA transcription be t's? JohnDillinger43 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.202.120 (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Between Freud's Ideas and Neurology

In the lead, this appears: "in the past ten years advances in the field of neurology have shown evidence for many of his theories". This may, in fact be true, but it is controversial and therefore needs some references to be included in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerz (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Stuff like that assertion shouldn't be in the lede at all. A simple, neutral reference to the controversial and contested nature of Freud's work should be enough -- and indeed there used to be such a line, until the latest skirmish of the 'Freud wars' saw it trampled out of existence in the endless to-and-fro... Pfistermeister (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tending to agree with these criticisms, at least unless the statement has a good cite.
In the section "Freud's legacy: Psychotherapy" -

"Recently, the field of neuro-psychoanalysis has shown strong support for Freud's theories among neuroscientists and researchers such as Oliver Sacks[46], Mark Solms[47], Jaak Panksepp[48], Douglas Watt, António Damásio[49], Eric Kandel, Joseph E. LeDoux[50], and others, by pointing out brain structures relating to Freud's concepts such as libido, drives, the unconscious, and repression."

- seems very vague. Can we do anyhting with this? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Especially since "many of his theories" could refer to writings other than those cited above (which are, as the above poster noted, very vaguely described in any case). For example, someone could (mis)interpret this as meaning there is empirical evidence for the Oedipus Complex--surely not what was intended. Quite frankly it sounds like something written by a Freud-worshipper, and should be edited at one level or another. Historian932 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Freud's influence on psychoanalysis and psychiatry

My understanding is that Freud was a pioneer in both talk based psychoanalysis and medicinal based. Today, these fields are almost two seperate branches. I have heard the Fred M. Levin believes that the two fields should be combined and that emotion and brian chemistry are phsyically linked. Is this true? Has anyone heard of Fred M. Levin? I will hang up and listen for your answer.

No, he was a pioneer in the talk based cure. He felt that analysts should be physicians so they could recognize when the problem was medical, but he himself, while toying with medical applications, made no contribution to medical treatment of neurlosis, only psychoanalytic treatment. Today psychoanalysis and psychiatrists are often entirely different people, with different theories and methods. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've the same imression; tho I find such interesting, since for a very long time, a medical degree was required by law to practice psychoanalysis (this was either true in New York, or nation-wide (I've forgotten)Slarty2 (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The relationship between the medical and psychoanalytic fields is indeed quite an interesting one. For sure, the American psychoanalytic model was a medical one for quite a long time. It is still predominantly so. Yet it is not exclusively so. However the American model has not often been the case internationally. Great Britain, for example, identified psychoanalysis as a separate (but related) branch of the medical establishment with its own criteria for diagnosis and treatment back in the 1920s. Thus lay analysis is a common fact in British psychoanalysis. This is the case in other national/continental contexts--among others the French and South American. Freud, of course, made the case that a medical degree is not necessary for psychoanalytic training in "The Question of Lay Analysis." He went so far as to claim that a medical training would be counter to a psychoanalytic one, given the number of prejudices that the former would introduce so as to interfere with the latter.

[I am also happy to have corrected the spelling mistakes that more than one of my colleagues have committed.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdh202 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The reason I brought up Fred Levin is that I created a page for him and it was deleted. He is a prominent Jewish American psychoanalyst and author of several books. I was hoping to see if anyone had heard of him. As for his philosophy on the mind, I think Levin was influenced by Freud's ideas such as about the "physical" nature of emotion on the connection in the brain. If feelings due have a physical impact on the brain, than perhaps the convese is true. Thanks Mwalla (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla

What; a psychoanalyst whos ideas were shaped by Freud?! Shocking! However; you should arm yourself w/the best evedence of notoriety you can and go about trying to reinstate your article, since I am guessing such would be mopre productive than bandying his name about, on this articles discussion page. Be bold (despite my jab @ the start of this comment; I wish you encouraged.

I don't think Freud was actually a psychiatrist. The author might want to check this because I remember reading something about Jews being unable to practise psychiatry. He was undoubtedly a physician and a psychologist but I don't think he was a psychiatrist. Neilho (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section?

Why is there no critique section in this article? For example there is a "challenges" section in the Piaget article; "critics" for Vygotsky; and "criticism" for John Dewey. Yet nothing on the pages of Freud, Jung, Adler. Vajrapoppy (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Some criticisms are mentioned in Sigmund_Freud#Freud.27s_legacy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Far from being enough, I'm afraid. There must be a distinct, clear section with potential warnings for possible fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karatsobanis (talk • contribs) 15:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no credible basis for the accusations of fraud against Sigmund Freud. The only people who say that are people who just aren't very well read on this subject. He published hundreds of theories and he was even aware of some of what he was saying could be proven wrong in the future, but the core of his ideas are still relevant today.

Psychoanalysis has nothing with medicine

Psychoanalysis has nothing with medicine, because it doesn't cures, any organic problem. Psychoanalysis can help many people?Yes, such as spiritism and voodoo also help persons without, no organic/real problems.Agre22 (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)agre22

In most cases, psychoanalysis is used to treat problems caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain (or something similar) that cannot be cured any other way. These are generally very real problems that cannot be cured by drugs or surgery. Psychoanalysis is not a religion by any stretch of the imagination, and comparing it to spiritism and voodoo is degrading and insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.201.74 (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is no unambiguous empirical evidence for the "biochemical imbalance" theory (or hypothesis). This does not mean that psychoanalysis, or other talk-based therapies can not help, heal, and maybe even "cure" people of certain of their problems, just that this aspect of the biomedical paradigm of mental illness, like many others, are in fact still hypothetical despite the overwhelming amount of anecdotal data which seem to support its premises (combined with the fact that it is taken as fact by most members of the public, media, and even mental health professions themselves). I agree that the comparison(s) to voodoo and/or spiritism are meant to be derogatory, having said that some followers of those systems may find the comparison to psychoanalysis insulting, insofar as *none* of them are really *empirically* verifiable one way or the other. Historian932 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis is falling, but such as voodoo the human nature,lents persons to belive, in absurds.Prozak replaced psychoanalysis many times, with far less time, money and more good results.Voodoo isn't worse or better than psychoanalysis to treat nothing, with real organic causes.Only imagination "diseases" can be really treated with spiritism, voodoo and psychoanalysis.Agre22 (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

And Prozac has been misdiagnosed to thousands of people as a one-cure fix for any kind of depression - and as I understand the method of action for Prozac is not fully understood; why as a SSRI does it take weeks to work? I agree that psychoanlysis is not a medicine, but neither is hypnosis however we know that people can be hypnotised, just as we know that acupuncture can be effective but again I am not sure if the method of action is fully understood. There are many criticisms of Psychonalysis and especially Freud which are very releveant and I think should be included in this article, and like many I also think Freud has more historical interest than scientific, however lets not forget concepts such as 'ego,' 'unconscious,' and 'repression' which are common place terms even today. There is no place in the brain called the ego but that does not mean that as humans we do not have a function which mediates between our desires and the external world. Do we also say that repression catergorically does not exist - that it was part of Freud's imagainary world? Personally I think Freud made some interesting observations however absurd some of his theories sound. Lets not forget that science is still a point of view, that interpretation of data is not always objective, that variables are sometimes unknown. May be psychonalysis is a load of rubbish but if it works for someone, along with voodoo that does not mean that the person had imaginary diseases, or that their problems were not real. Someone suffering from trauma may not have any organic illness, that does not mean their problem does not exist! 82.26.202.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC).

suggestion in science section

I've no expertise in this field, but it seems to me that many in the field of Evolutionary Psychology/sociobiology also respect Freud as an early theorist (perhaps THE pioneer in thinking of human psychology in terms of our evolution. I shouldn't say so but (will anyway) I think such QUITE PROPPER (for lack of a better term that comes emediately to mind)! Since I really have no expertise here, I can only hope that someone more knowledgable than myself will find my assertion meritouse/valuable/viable/adequate, and therefore include something to that effedct in the science section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slarty2 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Why Freud rather than James? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Freud was more notable for a belief that Lamarkian evolutionary processes buttressed some of his ideas. His official biographer, Ernest Jones, wrote: "Without much success I have searched Freud's writings, correspondence, and memories of his conversations for allusions to Darwinism… A stranger might almost suppose that Freud was ignorant of the doctrine." On the other hand, Jones wrote, "Freud remained from the beginning to the end of his life what one must call an obstinate adherent of this discredited Lamarkism. Over and over again he implied or explicitly stated his firm belief in it." (Ernest Jones, Sigmund Freud: Life and Work, vol. 3, Hogarth Press, 195, pp. 332-33) Esterson (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

question

I have two sources of equal validity. One says that Freud proved everything he wrote. The other says that he was a theorist, and not a very good one. How can they be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.162.183 (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

By such subtle methods as semiprotecting the article, and ignoring IP users like us, they can prevent it from being neutral: "he formed around him a brilliant group of followers". I am going to start an account and help these nice people fix this. In similar spirit, let's all get degrees. 81.101.248.164 (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Jewish is a religion that includes the ethnic groups Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi. A Mizrahi Jew and an Ashkenazi would NOT have the same ethnicity just because they're Jewish. So therefore, his ethnicity in not Jewish but Ashkenazi. LeeMulod (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, LeeMulod, I agree. That's why I'm wondering, why the article doesn't include "Ethnicity: Ashkenazi Jewish". -L. Woititz (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo

• [1], taken from [2].

Austerlitz -- 88.72.14.169 (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't add. No evidence that it is a free image. Ward3001 (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not add, though it seems to be a free image, like this one 9.

It's impossible to know if an image is free simply by looking at it. We need much more detail, including the year the photo was taken, who took the photo, whether it was ever copyrighted and when. Ward3001 (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The text says: "Freud and his mother Amalia, in her apartment in Vienna, May 5, 1926". Just have a look on the text beneath the photo [3]. Additionally it says that it is part of the Sigmund Freud Collection. Maybe it has been copyrighted, maybe not. [4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.210.175 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Maybe it has been copyrighted, maybe not": In that case, the default decision is that we cannot use it. Unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the image is not copyrighted, or the copyright no longer applies, or permission to use has been given, or the image otherwise is considered fair use for our purposes (not the case), we cannot use the image. Ward3001 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Austerlitz -- 88.75.210.175 (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no lemma Mothers and their famous sons we really cannot use the image. :Austerlitz -- 88.75.208.119 (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Weblink Somebody wants to add this link to section Weblinks [5]?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.14.169 (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't add, per WP:EL. Ward3001 (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No criticism?

Why doesn't this article feature a section concerning the heavy criticism under which Freud's theories have fallen???

For a variety of reasons, separate sections on criticism are discouraged on Wikipedia. Instead, criticism should be incorporated into the most appropriate section on the ideas that are being criticized. That is done in this article and related articles. You have to read the separate articles on Freud's ideas; links are provided in the Freud article. It would be inappropriate stylistically and with regard to WP:WEIGHT to repeat the entirety of the criticisms contained in Psychosexual development, for example, in the Freud article. The criticisms are there; you just have to read to find them. Ward3001 (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not true. Criticism sections are discouraged only for some types of articles.94.222.118.188 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the reader is not supposed to try for two hours to find some minor critisism buried somewhere. The article is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karatsobanis (talk • contribs) 15:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

More than agree with last poster. Seeing as Darwin's original works on evolution has criticism sections from the evolution theory standpoint in his article and evolution's article in relation to the original theory being ridiculously outdated, even though evolution science has continued to evolve (no pun intended) and progress, it should also be included here. Freud's original ideas have almost all be thoroughly refuted and replaced with improved and more accurate models and theories. Nobody should, as the previous posted stated, "try for two hours to find some minor criticism" of Freud because many of those who here have a biased, and disgusting, obsession with removing criticism of Freud's outdated (and it is) work that dismisses adding such criticism by majority take-over. Despite sources. Something AGAINST the rules. Darwin's outdated specific ideas on evolution are still taught when learning about evolution, but that they are outdated does not mean the entire current improved version of evolutionary theory isn't based on it. Same goes for Freud's work. Include it. 203.171.199.159 (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Garbage. Only in the case of Freud do we hear such demands! Wikipedia is *full* of entries on deceased thinkers whose views now seem outdated or have been refuted or are for some other reason out of favour -- and *only in the case of Freud* do we see people perpetually falling over themselves to make sure the body of work is rendered invisible behind a vast pile of real and imaginary objections. Go and look at the Jung page: there's hardly *a peep* of criticism... Why is that? What scares you so much about Freud that doesn't scare you about Jung...? What makes you people so desperately afraid that Freud's case might be presented without your antidote, even on his own page? Pfistermeister (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Because a whole lot of hobbyists in the field of psychology are very focussed on his outdated theories. Guess what one of their sources is... --91.32.90.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC).

Odd mixture of biography and theory

Much of the material concerning Freud's theory (unconscious, psychosexual development, etc.) should be moved to the article on psychoanlayis, as this article is supposed to be about the man, Freud, not his theory, Freudianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.17 (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The man Freud

• Freud's rugs It's just to give an idea about one of his passions.
• Freud's fetish.(Century marks)(Sigmund Freud had an obsession with ancient Egypt)(Brief Article)

Maybe in future there can be more on it within the articel.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.213.180 (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Freud and Jung.

To expand on Freud and Jung and the argument that almost Trashed Psychology at it's beginnings. It was not simply a disagreement between Freud and Jung. Freud was becoming an absolute propagandist against anything Spiritual. He once drew Jung aside and said; .'we must turn Psychoanalysis into a bulwark, a fortress, against the 'Black Tide of Occultism'. Jung was becoming increasing interested in (some would obsessed with) the spiritual. To Freud, Jung was becoming as crazy as his patients. Jung was telling people about conversing with 'Spirit Guides' who would lead him into the Truth. Another point not mentioned is Freud's mouth Cancer. His life long love of Cigars (he started smoking at the age of 9 at the behest of his father who told him; 'son, smoking is the cheapest and best joy of life, smoke as much as you can'), caused a life long medical condition that led to him having most of his jaw removed. There was also the adulation of Freud by the Artistic Surrealist Painters notably Salvador Dali. Dalis' meeting with Freud was almost sensational. Dali declared before meeting Freud; 'I want to appear to Freud, as I imagine he imagines me!'. Freud's life long hatred of the Occult seems to have left him shortly before he died. He confided to a friend that he felt he had waisted his life as a Psychiatrist; 'I would if I could, have spent my life studying Parapsychology', he said. Another major difference between Freud and Jung was the fledgling Soviet Union. Freud saw it as a Social Experiment. Jung saw Communism as pure Evil. Another point that irritated Freud was his patients, he came to see them as mostly 'trash', (the meaning of the German word he used seems unclear).Johnwrd (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

wording puts improper weight on William James

The following statement comes from the seciton on the unconcious:

...William James, in his monumental treatise on psychology, examined the way Schopenhauer, von Hartmann, Janet, Binet and others had used the term 'unconscious' and 'subconscious....

The way the statement is worded seems to put the weight on William James. I don't know the work cited but it seems the important point of the sentence should be that Schopenhauer, von Hartmann, Janet, and Binet are the ones who actually did the early thinking on the concept of the unconcious, and that James wrote a book compiling and investigating their ideas. Therefore, I would suggest the sentence be worded with the philosphers names first and ending with a a remark that this was organized by William James. I do not actually know the reference given so maybe someone who has could comment on this issue of the genesis of the concept of the unconcious.

--Baumgaertner (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A bigger problem with that statement is the way it displays the terrible intellectual illiteracy of such wikipedia lists: someone who doesn't know what s/he's talking about sticks a load of names together and imagines they all "used the terms 'unconscious' and 'subconscious'" -- whereas in reality (i) not one of those thinkers had either of those actual words available in their own language; (ii) all those thinkers all used different words derived from different roots; (iii) they were all disussing notions arising from different philosophical traditions that cannot be lumped together; and (iv) they meant radically different things by the terms they used. Thus the statement as it stands manages to be false, meaningless and witless all at the same time. I stress: this is genuine intellectual illiteracy, and its persistence in wikipeia shows just how utterly ignorant of cultural history the average wikipedian is: they think the English words that they know *apply to everything and everyone*... Pfistermeister (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should both consult William James The Principles of Psychology Vol I, Chapter X. Regards Motmit (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't all of you consult chapter 6 first? it is where Dewey reviews ten "proofs" that there exists an unconsciousness, and disproves each in turn. Certainly when Dewey refers to sleep as an unconcscious state he is in no way talking about the sam thing as the unconscious Freud beleived to be partially revealed in dreams. In chapter 10 Dewey talks about the self, and he provides the Latin term, ego. Freud too used the laten term for ther German ich but this does not mean that Dewey was in any sense refering to what Freud called the "ego." Slrubenstein | Talk 20:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Pesonal life

Not much on Freuds ativity outside his carrer. Perhaps some more detail of his personal life and his works in the arts, his role in the early Zionist movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.143.197 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

jordi id the bomb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.227.247 (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche

The comment on Nietzsche seems poorly placed, since it is a section on Freud's philosophy rather than his interpretation of other philosophers. Also, the reading of Nietzsche purported is highly interpretive at its very best. Therefore it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.158.12.2 (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur. In fact, the Nietzsche comment is in the "Philosophy" section of the "Legacy" subheading, which includes only three sections: Phsycotherapy, philosophy and science. All three sections have fundamental flaws, and the lack of other sections on art, literature and popular culture are glaring omissions from any accurate account of Freud's "legacy." Hapkid12 (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Phrasing suggestion

The final paragraph of the opening is a bit complex.

Quote: "While many of Freud's ideas have fallen out of favor or have been modified by Neo-Freudians and at the close of the 20th century advances in the field of psychology began to show flaws in many of his theories, Freud's methods and ideas remain important in the history of clinical psychodynamic approaches. In academia, his ideas continue to influence the humanities and some social sciences."

Could possibly be changed to: "Many of Freud's ideas have fallen out of favor or have been modified by Neo-Freudians, and advances in the field of psychology began to show flaws in many of his theories at the end of the 20th century. However, Freud's methods and ideas remain important in the history of clinical psychodynamic approaches. In academia, his ideas continue to influence the humanities and some social sciences."

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.140.106 (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

- Another Phrasing suggestion -

The phrase in the opening paragraph - "who founded the psychoanalytic method of psychiatry" - could benefit from being reworded. This is because it appears to conflate two related but separate disciplines. Also the word "founded" is perhaps not the most accurate word to describe Freud's contribution to psychoanalysis. To remedy this I would suggest that the entire first sentence, which includes the phrase to which I refer, be separated into two sentences. That is, the sentence which currently reads "Sigmund Freud (German pronunciation: [ˈsiːkmʊnt ˈfʁɔʏt]), born Sigismund Schlomo Freud (6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939), was an Austrian Jewish neurologist with atheist beliefs who founded the psychoanalytic method of psychiatry" be changed to ""Sigmund Freud (German pronunciation: [ˈsiːkmʊnt ˈfʁɔʏt]), born Sigismund Schlomo Freud (6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939), was an Austrian Jewish neurologist with atheist beliefs. He is probably most famous for his contribution to psychoanalysis; an academic and clinical discipline to which he is considered to have originally developed."

My reference for suggesting this change is: Kernberg, O. F. (2000). Psychoanalysis: Freud's theories and their contemporary development. In Gelder, M. G., Lopez-Ibor Jr, J. J., Andreasen, N. C. New Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry, pp. 331 - 343.

If it seems reasonable and no one objects within say the the next four weeks (end of July 2010) then I will edit the first sentence of the article as described above. Any thoughts or suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccormd (talk • contribs) 17:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me...Modernist (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

I have added a few quotes about Freud's later life. Cigars and books are important to him as a mechanist and in a radically different way than what they might become for Carl Jung. We should highlight that. We should highlight basis by which their two schools of thought diverged.--Qluah (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Freud's death corrections

Last Years This section is no longer correct, as I will document. In these changes it needs to be noted that for much of the info on Freud's death, Max Schur was the only source, and he gave his (incorrect) version decades after Freud's death, with little in the way of any contemporaneous notes available to aid his recounting. My suggested changes follow, with references.

"In September 1939 he prevailed on his doctor and friend Max Schur to assist him in ending his life [17a]. With the family's concurrence, Schur administered two doses of morphine hours apart, but then left with Freud still alive. Dr. Josephine Stross, another long-time friend of the Freud's, especially of Anna, administered a final dose of morphine that resulted in Freud's death on 23 September 1939 [18, 18a]."

17a Schur, Max (1972) Freud: Living and Dying, International Universities Press, pp. 526-529.

18a Lacoursiere, Roy (2008). Freud's death: Historical truth and biographical fictions, American Imago, 65, pp. 107-128. Roy Lacoursiere (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What is with the secound paragraph talking about the many flaws in his theories, sounds really bias when...

practically all of his core ideas on the ego, consciousness, narcissism, etc etc. have held true to day. Just sounds awkward on a encyclopedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Which are those "new findings" that showed those supposed flaws? No references are quoted. Not only that, but new findings in neuroscience show that they key concepts of psychoanalysis are correct. This is mentioned in the article, but somehow those "new findings in psychology" without references have managed to be considered more important than the latest discoveries in neuroscience (which include the opinion of Nobel laureates such as E. Kandel).

I won't be able to sign because I don't have a user name. Best regards, M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.82.103.202 (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Smoking

Is the following needed? The quote does not support the lead-up.

As if to highlight how important nicotine and fine cigars were to Freud for his cognitive productivity, during a time that World War I hit Austria hard, he wrote in a letter:

“ Will Ferenczi be called up? Will food and fuel- and cigar-shortages continue? ”

Maurreen (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alfred Adler picture

In the "Followers" section, somehow, the picture of Alfred Adler has been replaced by a picture of drummer Steven Adler. It seems the file itself has been replaced or fused with the drummer's picture, as it shows as the same picture in the Steven Adler wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjordan7 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Date format

I just standardized the dates on this article to dmy per the infobox template. Does anybody feel strongly we should have mdy? In any case they need to be the same all the way through the article. --John (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And in a similar vein, are we using USEng or UKEng here? Again, I'm not advocating for one over the other, but we should be consistent. It looks like USEng, would that be right? --John (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Death drive...toward extreme unpleasure

I want to ask a question. When reading the 4th paragraphs under life/death drive, one line explains the death drive as contrasted with the life drive. "On the other hand, the death drive functions simultaneously toward extreme pleasure..." Shouldn't this read, "toward extreme unpleasure"? How do we notify the author of a needed correction?

-Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankster79 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship

The article claims Freud's citizenship was "Austrian".

In 1938, Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany. What citizenship did Austrians then have? There was no Austria anymore, so did they have then Nazi German citizenship? What was Freud's citizenship during this time? 71.134.245.50 (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The 1935 Nuremberg Laws had stripped all Jews in Germany of German citizenship, which was extended to Austria via the 1938 Anschluss. The Nuremberg Laws defined Jews by "having at least a Jewish grandmother", whose Jewishness in turn was determined by entry for religion in statutorily mandatory official register of births found in local register offices (compulsory registration of births, civil status, etc. of every individual with a permanent German residence had been mandated by German law since at least 1875, and ever since the Middle Ages, there had existed parish registers and the like in local churches and synagogues which became the major source for all Nazi state authorities, especially the Gestapo, on the matter), and effectively turned German Jews into stateless persons unless any countries they fled to individually granted them new citizenship. Thus from the Anschluss on, Freud was stateless, the only question would be whether Britain granted him citizenship before his death. --79.193.47.80 (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pronounce it

It would be a good addition for someone from Freuds locale to pronounce his name on an audio file. Some say frood and some say froid. ~ R.T.G 05:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Froid is the proper version :) --93.176.79.131 (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Edward Bernays

Bernays ought to be mentioned in this article... The subject is significant enough for the BBC to do a 4-hour series on the topic. "How was the all-consuming self created, by whom, and in whose interests?" [6] Twang (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Anna O.

I have replaced the paragraph on Anna O. to improve accuracy. For instance, there is no evidence that many doctors had given up on her and accused her of faking her symptoms before Breuer was called in (Hirschmüller, 1989, pp. 101-102). Again, Anna O. did not "come to Breuer". Nor did developments from the case "shape the field of psychology for decades to come". Esterson (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Early life

In the section entitled "Early Life", Freud's father's name is spelled both as "Jacob", and "Jakob." Which one is it? Secondly and lastly, a source hasn't been cited about Sigmund being favored over his siblings by his parents, though I suppose the caul made that one a dead give-away.All knowing are we as one (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)All knowing are we as one

According to the book "Freud: Inventor of the Modern Mind" by Peter D. Kramer, Freud's father went by the name "Jakob". When you have a moment, administrators, could you make the necessary changes? As for my own credentials, I am a Registered Social Worker employed as a counsellor. Xenoknight (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Medical School section

A pretty large section of the article has dissapeared without discussion in the last month or two. The material does not seem to have been reintegrated elswhere. I cannot say how good or bad that change is but the section can be found somewhere in the middle of this diff [7]. Press ctrl+f and search for "medical School" on the page and you will return only one hit. ~ R.T.G 02:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from RafJak, 2 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The first occurrence of "Wilhelm Fliess" is not linked to his wiki's page.

RafJak (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Entwurf einer Psychologie"

Shouldnt a reference to "Entwurf einer Psychologie" (1895) be included somewhere? The german wiki does mention it in the bibliography.

But how about a bit of text conveying something like this abstract for instance: (from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8545548 )

"The general attitude towards Entwurf einer Psychologie (1895) is to reckon it among Freud's pre-analytic writings, i.e. that part of his work later more or less disowned by the author. Schmidt-Hellerau challenges this assessment by Freud and many of his successors, demonstrating that the Entwurf can legitimately be regarded as a meta-theory resolving - or skirting- the old classification problem of whether psychoanalysis is a science or an art by connecting the hitherto dissociated spheres of soma and psyche and conceptualizing of physiological and psychological processes. See thus, the Entwurf reveals itself as a theoretical document of astonishing modernity and undiminished relevance in that it records Freud's ambitious attempt to overcome the mind-body schism and the divide between neurophysiology and psychology." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.193.217 (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing about Freuds jewish supremacist view?

Sigmund Freud seems to have been a jewish suprematist and hateful against "aryans". I hope someone can include more information about this in the article.

Freud makes his Jewish supremacist viewpoint very clear in a letter to a Jewish woman who intended to conceive a child by a Gentile to heal the split in psychoanalysis. His words were: I must confess...that your fantasy about the birth of the Savior to a mixed union did not appeal to me at all. The Lord, in that anti-Jewish period, had him born from the superior Jewish race. But I know these are my prejudices. A year later the same woman gave birth to a child fathered by a Jew. Freud responded: I am, as you know, cured of the last shred of my predilection for the Aryan cause, and would like to take it that if the child turned out to be a boy he will develop into a stalwart Zionist. He or she must be dark in any case, no more towheads. Let us banish all these will-o'-the-wisps! I shall not present my compliments to Jung in Munich, as you know perfectly well....We are and remain Jews. The others will only exploit us and will never understand and appreciate us. (quoted in Yerushalmi 1991, 45). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.134.96 (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Founder of psychoanalysis

The first sentence of this page is somewhat misleading as it suggests that Freud discovered psychoanalysis. Whilst he was pioneering in its extended use he didn't actually create the approach. I can't currently find the information on who did so any insight would be useful. Josh Denness (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's always *sooo* amusing to see how the various forms of Freud-bashing contradict each other! 'Psychoanalysis is rubbish because Freud made it all up' ... 'Freud is rubbish because psychoanalysis wasn't actually his invention' ... 'Psychoanalysis is wrong because it's not scientific enough' ... 'Freud was wrong because it's not possible to treat human experience and behaviour using a "scientific" model'... Round and round and round they go...! Pfistermeister (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't Freud-bashing (although I do think his theories are somewhat far-fetched). The point I was making was that the article was potentially misleading.Josh Denness (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to buy a dictionary. Something that's 'discovered' can't be 'far fetched', since a 'discovery' was always there to be discovered. Jeeezus.

I suggest you stick to something you can actually do. This topic certainly doesn't fit your pistol. Pfistermeister (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As Josh writes, this has nothing to do with so-called "Freud-bashing" but with appropriate nomenclature. What Freud did was develop a technique that he believed enabled him to access the contents of unconscious ideas or repressed memories in his patients.Esterson (talk) 13:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You are talking irrelevant bollocks. The 'first sentence of the page' describes Freud as 'Austrian neurologist who founded the psychoanalytic school of psychiatry': none of that has anything to do with the piffle you and the other fool decided to write. Pfistermeister (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's be nice to each other, shall we? Personally I think the lead is fine as it is. It's the other parts of the article that require improvement, including better sourcing (which would help in the section on Freud's followers, for example) and more consistent formatting. But it should be possible to discuss changes to the lead without being rude to each other or suggesting that people are 'fools'. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Struggle with cancer typo...

There is an extra "the" in the sentence: Hajek performed an unnecessary cosmetic surgery in the his clinic's outpatient department. Coursian (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for catching that. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much to User:Polisher of Cobwebs who reverted my revert. I was relying on an online copy of Peter Gay's book at Amazon.com, and the exact page was missing. The page was back in full text the last time I looked, and yes the statement was sourced! Sorry for my mistake. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Plato's influence

Could someone add the name of Plato in the Influences list (ref. J.C. Malone, Psychology: Pythagoras to Present, p.1)? 193.92.150.82 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)