Masson and the seduction theory
Stephen Black wrote: I've discovered a website of Allen Esterson (at http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html) where he takes on Masson's claims regarding Freud's seduction theory. The discussion provides another good example of Freud's prediliction for revision without regret. Allen notes that Freud first tells us that his patients were seduced (raped!) by all sorts of people, and then tells us it was almost always the father. How can you trust someone capable of such revision of his primary data? The story of the revision of the primary data started one step earlier than Stephen indicates. Although in his later reports Freud wrote that female patients in the mid-1890s had told him they had been seduced by their father, in the 1896 Aetiology of Hysteria paper he reported that before they come for analysis the patients know nothing about these [infantile sexual] scenes, that they have no feeling of remembering them, and assured him “emphatically of their unbelief (1896, S.E. 3, p.204). In other words, it was Freud who insisted that they had been sexually abused in early childhood, and the patients who denied it. In a letter to his confidant Wilhelm Fliess, Freud reported how he analytically reconstructed an infantile sexual scene involving fellatio from symptoms such as eczema around the mouth. When the patient rejected his scenario Freud threatened to send her away to induce her compliance. Stephen wrote: Allen notes that Freud first tells us that his patients were seduced (raped!) by all sorts of people, and then tells us it was almost always the father. How can you trust someone capable of such revision of his primary data? Freud by no means claimed that the sexual scenes he had analytically 'uncovered' were generally rape. In one paper he wrote that the supposed infantile experiences were submitted to with indifference or with a small degree of annoyance or fright. His inconsistency on the question of the supposed abusers is explicable by the fact that in his reconstructions reported in 1896 he kept to the categories reported in the contemporary literature on child abuse (eg, Krafft-Ebing), then his story changed when his account required fathers (eg, for his later Oedipal explanation of his alleged findings in 1895-96). The seduction theory debate raises the tricky issue that College lecturers and instructors don't have the time to check out original sources outside of their field of interest. Masson's version of events seems plausible, but it is erroneous in almost every respect, not least because it is based on the false traditional story of the episode which for most of the twentieth century was taken as historical fact. Everybody thinks Freud put forward the seduction theory because so many of his (female) patients were telling him that they had been sexually abused in childhood. The truth is that before he came up with the theory in October 1895 he had not claimed a single case of having uncovered repressed memories of infantile abuse, then in papers sent off for publication only four months later he was claiming to have uncovered such abuse for all his 16 patients. In other words, the theory came first, and claims of one hundred percent 'corroboration' promptly followed. Stephen wrote: And Allen, if you're still out there, I notice an absence of any background information, either in a signature file or on your website. Care to tell us something about yourself? My academic background is a degree in physics, and I've lectured on physics and maths in Further Education (now retired!). I've been involved with Freud scholarship for nearly two decades, and have published one book Seductive Mirage (1993) and some papers. And may I please have a copy of your History of the Human Sciences paper? (on Masson and the seduction theory). It's on its way! If anyone else wants a copy, let me know: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Allen Esterson --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more animal research
I have also received another book Fernandez, L. (2000) Readings in psychology: A debate and issues approach. Kendall/Hunt. It contains many of the same issues (some with different articles). It also gives forms after each section to help with the debate. For example it gives an audience prep form that I think I will be using this year. It asks the reader to state the issues in their own words demonstrating that they understand the topic and its relevant arguments, discuss 2 points on the yes side, 2 on the no, give their opinion, factors that contribute to the development of their views on this topic, and asks what information would be necessary to change their thinking. It also gives questions on rating the debaters such as listing a quote they thought was significant and why, side they felt was most convincing, and how has their thinking been affected. At 03:44 AM 10/24/2001 +0800, you wrote: tasha howe wrote: thanks for responding so quickly to my original post. i don't think i was clear in my request. i want students to address a controversy WITHIN psychology. We could choose any number of topics that are controversial in the country or between psychologists and citizens (e.g. spanking, homosexuality), but they need to present on a controversial issues WITHIN psychology and from the articles they showed me, it seemed that there is no controversy. some want stricter regulations than others do, but there's no pro/con animal research, is there? thanks. Hi Tasha, You might want to take a quick look at Taking Sides books. I've pasted info about few of them below. The URLs link to the publishers web site which includes a listing of the debates. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Abnormal Psychology (Taking Sides) by Richard P. Halgin (Editor) - http://www.mhhe.com/catalogs/0072371935.mhtml Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Psychological Issues (Taking Sides) by Brent Slife - http://www.mhhe.com/catalogs/0072480645.mhtml TAKING SIDES: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Educational Psychology by Leonard Abbeduto - http://www.mhhe.com/catalogs/0072350768.mhtml Linda -- Linda M. Woolf, Ph.D. Book Review Editor, H-Genocide Associate Professor - Psychology Coordinator - Holocaust Genocide Studies, Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights Webster University 470 East Lockwood St. Louis, MO 63119 Main Webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Deb Dr. Deborah S. Briihl Dept. of Psychology and Counseling Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698 (229) 333-5994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://chiron.valdosta.edu/dbriihl/ Well I know these voices must be my soul... Rhyme and Reason - DMB --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
thanks!
thanks for all of the great responses on animal research and controversial issues! i hate to do my students' legwork for them, but their presentation is next tuesday so you all helped them tremendously. brownie points from the teacher. -- *** Tasha R. Howe, Ph.D Assistant Professor of Psychology (Developmental) Transylvania University 300 N. Broadway Lexington, KY 40508 Phone: (859) 233-8144 FAX: (859) 281-3507 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.transy.edu/homepages/thowe/ftpdpages/index2.html Another website I created: http://www.scbwi-midsouth.com/ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: here we go again
In this instance, there are regulations regarding use of state property for promotion of religious or political beliefs. If this indeed is the case, then I would respectfully submit to you that this is an issue between the poster and his/her institution. I don't think it is our responsibility to determine whether or not another poster is violating his/her institutional regulations. By the way, if someone asserts an atheistic, agnostic, or New Age belief system, isn't that using state property for the promotion of religious beliefs? Perhaps I ought to object when people make comments that stem from their atheistic or agnostic worldviews? All people have a worldview. I'm just suggesting that we respect people's beliefs and not belittle people who have religious or faith-based worldviews. There is a difference between respecting someone else's beliefs and allowing them to preach to you in a public forum, especially if the root message is, You are basically an evil person who will go to Hell unless you believe as I do. That IS the basic message of the religion in question. Evangelism shows a lack of respect for others who may be of other faiths. It is just impolite! Interesting...I don't ever recall Jim or anyone else telling someone that they are going to hell unless you hold their particular beliefs. As an evangelical Christian, I would disagree with your evaluation about the basic message of Christianity. All I'm asking is for a little civility in our discussions about religion. I think that some people on this list are unaware that their comments come across as demeaning and derogatory to those who hold faith-based worldviews. Thanks for listening. Rod Hetzel Department of Psychology LeTourneau University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Great are the works of the Lord; They are studied by all who delight in them. (Psalm 111:2) --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: more animal research
Steven Davis quoted from an abstract that read, in part: It is also questioned whether psychologists view the use of animals in psychological research as beneficial, noting that Plous found that 92.2% of psychologists who were mental health workers indicated they they rarely, never, or only occasionally used findings from psychological research on animals. This might be amended to: SAID that they used findings from research on animals or WERE AWARE THAT they used findings from research on animals or even WERE AWARE THAT they used findings from research. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * *http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html* --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: working women
Rod wrote: Interesting conversation, here. When I teach my Marriage and The Family class, I will occasionally have students who hold a Christian world view discuss the roles of men and women within a marriage. Sometimes male students will assert that there would be fewer problems in marriages if wives would simply learn how to submit to their husbands. They usually cite Matthew 5:22 (Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord) as the proof text for their argument. In turn, I usually cite Matthew 5:21: Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. But doesn't that _support_ their view of women? They are telling you that the Bible directs women to submit to men--and you are telling them the Bible requires submission as a proof of faith. There's no contradiction there, only _justification_ for submitting to the male in the first place! I also refer them to other passages that illustrate one of the underlying Biblical principles of equality in Christ (meaning both men and women are of equal value) and responsible stewardship of gifts (God has given talents and strengths to both men and women and He expects all of us to exercise these gifts). Two points: 1. You provide no Biblical reference for your statements that Christianity emphasizes equality between men and women (which, even the most cursory reading of the Bible as a whole _clearly_ demonstrates is not the case), thus it has to be assumed that you are providing not a literal injunction, but an _interpretation_ that may well not be shared by all (or even most) people who read the Bible. 2. I could understand such a response in a _theology_ class, but what role do Biblical injunctions have in a psychology class on marriage and family--apart from a discussion of the psychological effects of religious beliefs on a family (a subject that is _highly_ debatable--most devout Christians [obviously] see the effect as positive; many others see it as negative and a means for a patriarchal religion to oppress women)? Unless your institution is a private one that does not accept any form of Federal funds (including Pell Grants and other forms of student aid), it would seem incredibly out-of-place for a psychology instructor to suggest in a classroom that the Bible is in any way an appropriate (or inappropriate, for that matter) guide to behavior. The Bible calls for marriage to be based on *mutual* submission between husbands and wives. It does? Where? I've read the Bible several times (in various versions) and I've _never_ seen such a concept. Mutual respect, yes. Mutual support, yes. But submission? Sorry, but the only injunctions specifically presented in the Bible are (1) to submit to God;: (2) to submit to the sacrifice of Jesus, and; (3) for a woman to submit to her husband. It does not suggest, and does not condone, marriages in which partner is wielding power or dominance over the other partner. Again, where is the cite? The _only_ cites you provide are those that contradict that statement. Read a few of the injunctions in Romans and Corinthians (as well as the OT, which are even harsher)--they don't support your interpretation. When the husband is submitting himself to God, he is also submitting himself to his wife. When the wife sees that her husband is submitting to her, she then feels free to submit to her husband. Let's be sure I got this straight. A man is required to submit to God. A woman is (sans any scriptural injunction to do so, btw) expected to view submission to a supernatural being as equivalent to submission to _her_. Seeing this, a woman is to submit not to the supernatural being alone (as is required of her husband) but to both the being _and_ her husband. Sounds like rather nice justification for oppressing women to me--and like something that does NOT belong in a college classroom where social science views of marriage and family are being taught. This sort of mutual submission involves respect, humility, empathy, compassion, and love. The pattern of mutual submission is a perfect blueprint for a marriage (and one, I would suggest, that most clinicians, at least implicitly, try to help their clients develop). You mean clinicians should instruct the women they work with to submit to the will of their husbands (including allowing _him_ and him alone to be their spiritual authority)? Sorry, but that went out with the Victorian era--today clinicians are far more interested in seeing that women feel empowered, not disempowered as such an approach must, by necessity, encourage. Problems in marriages develop when one of the partners is not willing to submit to his or her spouse. You can't be serious! Marriage is based on mutual trust, mutual respect, and equality--NOT on submission or on the oppression of women. That _anyone_ would
pass/fail on core content course?
I just had a student ask me a question I can't answer: She is doing poorly in a class (biopsych) but is passing with a C-. She is interested in going to grad school in psych. She is thinking of taking this course pass/fail. Her question: does a pass for this course on her transcript look better or worse than a C- ? Is there common wisdom on this one? Any of our grad school folks care to comment? -Chuck -- - Chuck Huff; 507.646.3169; http://www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/ - Psychology Department, St.Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: here we go again (and stop)
On 24 Oct 2001, at 10:35, James Guinee wrote: There is a difference between respecting someone else's beliefs and allowing them to preach to you in a public forum My last comments, I promise: 1. Mike and others are absolutely correct -- preaching the merits of (or denouncing the evil of) a religion is clearly inappropriate in this forum. 2. But there is a difference beteen clarifying a religious teaching (i.e., this is what religious people think) and evangelizing that teaching (i.e., this is what YOU should think). I would think that it is appropriate in a public forum to clarify, but not to testify. If I have conflated the two, I apologize. especially if the root message is, You are basically an evil person who will go to Hell unless you believe as I do. 3. This IS an impolite message, as well as unbiblical. No religious person can speak with absolute assurance about another person's eternal destiny, only his/her own. And while I have removed the bible verse, please note the conspicuous use of my people and my name. The SUBJECT of that bible verse (despite Falwellian shenanigans) is people IN the church, not OUTSIDE of it. = For the record, I don't feel attacked. Most people have been very respectful. I've seen a few comments I thought were unfair, and perhaps mischaracterizations of religion. In those instances I will assert my right to join in the debate, and from now on, will be more careful to separate explaining a religious point of view from pushing it onto someone else. To me psychology has great tools to examine the subject, but instead it occasionally gets trod upon, or more often, completely ignored. William James, for instance, wrote insightfully about The Varieties of Religious Experience. And Gordon Allport, the originator of individual psychology and a past president of APA, coined the terms intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity, to describe individuals whose religious beliefs were an end in themselves or a means to other ends, respectively. But the variable of religious beliefs is dreadfully underutilized in psych research. Given that a smaller percentage of psychologists are religious (in the traditional sense) then the general public, is this a reflection of personal views -- if one thinks a variable is meaningless, one doesn't examine it. Allen Bergin once talked about the treatment of religion by psychologists in this way: he compared it to being like an entomologist who ran across an insect he couldn't classify. Growing increasingly exasperated and frustrated, he finally put the insect down on the ground and stepped on it. Jim Guinee, Ph.D. Director of Training Adjunct Professor President, Arkansas College Counselor Association University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center 313 Bernard HallConway, AR 72035USA (501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax) No one can make you feel inferior without your consent -Eleanor Roosevelt ** --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: native born Africans
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In his email of yesterday (today in American terms as we are 8 to 10 hours ahead of you; it's 5 am or 05:00 over here), Mike Sylvester asked a fellow South African Tipster a question re the amount of native born Africans on your faculty. Now, seeing that TIPS is also about learning about other cultures: The last time I looked I was white (just give me a second; okay, I still am). My ancestors came to South Africa in 1657. Therefore I'm African. As a matter of fact, more African than many Americans are American --- with all due respect. Should I ever emigrate to the US (still my no 1 choice if I ever have to leave) , would I be called an African American? Well, well that's an American concept; I'll let you decide (!) Okay, now let's see, Mike: Tell me, how many native born Americans are you on your faculty? And how important is it over there? South AFRICANS have this tragic history where race and colour (oops, color) dominated. We are really trying very hard to put this behind us. And okay, maybe many of us tend to be hypersensitive about it. Something else you might find interesting. In South Africa and many European (eg Britain) and other countries, faculty refers to the American College, ie Faculty of Social Sciences instead of College of Social Sciences. What you call faculty, we would call staff or personnel. Etc, etc. So, are these cross-cultural differences interesting, or what! Regards from this side of the ocean. Dap Dap: You raise some very important issues of identity and national and cultural significance.Noting that the tipsters who posted had Dutch sounding and Indian sounding last names,I wanted to know what percentage of their respected faculty were black and born in Africa.Although someone born in Africa could be labelled as African,social,political and cultural identification factors may place some restictions on that person when it comes to national identity. Consider the case of the Leakeys' of Kenya.Some consider themselves as Kenyans and some are undoubtedly so. However many Kenyans would not vote for Michael Leakey and I suspect because he is white.So being born and raised in Africa would not necessarily make one African for certain types of politico-social agenda. The question of what identity one has depends on the country's definition. In the U.S one's race is defined by blood lineage. And regardless of one's physical appearance,if there is evidence of negroid background this person would be classified as black. One the other hand,in Brazil,there is the concept of Social race where one's identity is defined more by appearance. Many fair skinned blacks in the U.S would be considered white in Brazil. So if you came to the U.S you could claim to be an African-American but your classification would be white.And you may be able to use your double identity to your advantage.As a matter of fact,I know a white dude born and raised in Zimbabwe who is a minister to an black congregational church.Seems to be enjoying it.On the other hand,I know of many folks of East Indian heritage from South Africa and Kenya who consider themselves Kenyans for certain strategic purposes.But they would not consider themseles Africans. There are Aficans who come to the U.S and do not consider themselves as black.AS a matter of fact those Africans have the worst type of negative attitudes towards the American bkack. And such is the attitude also of some Caribbean blacks against the the African-American. Some wwhite people in the U.S give better treatment to blacks from the Caribbean and Africa than blacks born and raised in the U.S Some white Americans have been heard to comment to their Caribbean black friends and Africans that they are not black. I can go and on with this discussion,but I will stop here. It appears that one can play or do not play the race card pdepending on the perceived socio-politico-psycho-national- cultural-economic-tipster payoff. Michael Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pass/fail on core content course?
Chuck: If I saw that a student had taken a core class like biopsych on a P/F system then I would be tempted to assume either she had begun the class P/F, and probably had not worked hard on learning material from the beginning, or that she had done very poorly (low D range) was attempting to mask that fact by use of the P/F system. My reaction is that this action would not help, and may, indeed, hurt my reading of her record. Ken --- On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:01:51 -0500 Chuck Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just had a student ask me a question I can't answer: She is doing poorly in a class (biopsych) but is passing with a C-. She is interested in going to grad school in psych. She is thinking of taking this course pass/fail. Her question: does a pass for this course on her transcript look better or worse than a C- ? Is there common wisdom on this one? Any of our grad school folks care to comment? -Chuck -- - Chuck Huff; 507.646.3169; http://www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/ - Psychology Department, St.Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057 -- Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D.[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Psychology Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
submission in marriage (was working women)
Is a good marriage based on equality of power in all situations? There is a large marital conflict literature and we know a great deal about communication differences between happy and distressed couples. There is also the family feud between Gottman and Markman about whether it makes sense to teach communication skills to distressed couples. Do we know how happily married couples settle disagreements when a compromise is not possible? For example, when I was first married we had a rear wheel drive car. I wanted to get snow tires and my wife did not. Buying one snow tire would make things worse, so there was no apparent compromise. If both members of a couple are equal in all situations, there often will be impasses. I suspect that impasses are harmful as they would make it more likely that one, or both, partners will resort to more coercive techniques. I have had the hunch that one reason my wife and I have such a happy marriage is that we know when to be submissive to the other person. That is we figure out who cares most about the given situation. Then the person who cares less submits to the other. We do not explicitly discuss who cares most, but I think it often guides our decision making. Does anyone know of any data on this? Joe Joe Horton Psychology and Social Sciences Department 7373 Admiral Peary Highway Mount Aloysius College Cresson, PA 16630 (814) 886-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/24/01 01:36PM Marriage is based on mutual trust, mutual respect, and equality--NOT on submission or on the oppression of women. That _anyone_ would teach such a concept to impressionable college students is outrageous--that it would be done in the context of a marriage and family course in a psychology or sociology department is unconscionable! --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
