It was written:
"I wonder if there are differences of opinions on this issue among listserve members along the lines of professional training.� At the risk of forcing a dichotomy that doesn't exist (some of us, myself included, are trained as scientist-practitioners), are there differences on this issue between the the "experimental" TIPSters and the "clinical" TIPSters?"
For the record, I started off as a clinical psychologist. Although I understand that some of Freud forms a basis for useful theory, I am far more impressed by the contributions of cogntive neuroscientists than those of object-relations theorists. Impressed in that these provide me with useful ways to understand human behavior and experience in a way that very little of the old school, pre-scientific psychology does. If Freud made great contributions to Western culture but relatively small ones to psychology (at least the future of psychology) maybe his work should be taught in other disciplines.
I also know plenty of instructors who don't teach the brain because it is somewhat more difficult to learn and communicate while Freud remains "sexy" and conceptually simple. I am not saying that this is why some are defending him here on the list; I am mentioning it because I am deeply� disturbed that I need to teach brain basics in more advanced psychology classes to students who passed psychology 1. These students also have much greater knowledge of Freud than the brain. They are not being adequately prepared for upper division work, IMO.
Nancy Melucci
LBCC
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
