I'm writing in response to Chris's following message: >Allen Esterson wrote: >> Chris Green wrote: > >>> But I'm sure we all have similar experiences: we go >>> to write something like "Crown Prince", and what comes >>> out is "Clown Prince", and neither the writer nor the Prince >>> is pleased. Someone should study why we do this. >> >But I did not. That was a quotation from Stephen's original post.
My (A.E.) original message ran: Stephen Black wrote: > I meant to write "recovered memory therapy", of > course, only my fingers got in the way, thus confusing > an issue I was trying to clarify. But I'm sure we all have > similar experiences: we go to write something like > "Crown Prince", and what comes out is "Clown > Prince", and neither the writer nor the Prince is pleased. Chris Green wrote: >> But I'm sure we all have similar experiences: we go >> to write something like "Crown Prince", and what comes >> out is "Clown Prince", and neither the writer nor the Prince >> is pleased. Someone should study why we do this. >I'm sure that Freud offered up an explanation. :-) Maybe my use of the multiple > signs confused things, but since I had started by explicitly quoting Stephen writing the "Crown Prince" stuff, I thought it was pretty evident that it came from Stephen and that I was indicating that Chris had started by quoting Stephen (hence my double >> at that point). Chris wrote: >All I wrote was: >> I'm sure that Freud offered up an explanation. :-) > >>You mean that Stephen was *not consciously aware* that he >> regards much of the therapy which focuses on the production >>of recovered memories from childhood as actually producing >> false memories in many instances? i.e., that the disturbing >> idea that led to the slip was *unconscious*? :-) >No, I only meant that the parapraxia of typing "clown prince" >instead of "crown prince" was a topic that Freud discussed at > length. I didn't say it was the RIGHT explanation. I was only > responding to the implicit claim that it had not been studied. I didn't say that you *had* suggested that it was the RIGHT explanation, Chris. If you look carefully you'll see that I ended the passage with a "smiley" sign, to indicate that I was responding in the same spirit in which you had written your paragraph. Chris wrote, quoting me first: >> Sebastinao Timpanaro exposed the fallacy of 'explaining' this kind >> of verbal error in Freudian terms in chpater 9 of his book *The >> Freudian Slip: Psychoanalysis and Textual Criticism* (1976) >Lots of people have said lots of things about Freud and >his explanations. While I'm not a big fan of psychoanalysis, >only rarely do I find the retorts any more convincing than >the things-retorted-agaunst (the original "torts", I suppose?). >And only even more rarely do I actually expend my time and >energy finding out what people have to say about Freud these >days. There are so many other interesting topics in the history >of psychology. :-) I'm not sure if Chris is referring to my "retort" in this instance. Presumably not, since all I did was suggest that people check out the explanation provided by Timpanaro for this kind of verbal slip without providing details of it, so the question of my response being convincing or not doesn't arise. One thing that *is* certain (and this, of course, was the main point I was making through all the jocularity � ha! ha!) is that Stephen's slip is not an example of a *Freudian* slip, as the notion that Stephen erroneously introduced in place of what he intended writing was one that he was perfectly conscious of holding. Chris may find this whole thing rather boring, but I think there is still a certain interest in the fact that probably the great majority of the verbal slips people routinely call "Freudian" fail to fit a fundamental criterion for their actually being Freudian slips (regardless of whether one thinks the *accurate* application of his notion has some validity or not). I also suspect that (judging by examples on this topic provided in College psychology texts) a large proportion of psychology teachers who discuss Freudian slips with their classes may not be aware of this, which is perhaps more to the point. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------- > Mon, 06 Dec 2004 > Author: "Christopher D. Green" > Subject: Re: Koocher responds > Allen Esterson wrote: > > > Chris Green wrote: > > > >>> But I'm sure we all have similar experiences: we go > >>> to write something like "Crown Prince", and what comes > >>> out is "Clown Prince", and neither the writer nor the Prince > >>> is pleased. Someone should study why we do this. > >> > But I did not. That was a quotation from Stephen's original post. > > All I wrote was: > > >> I'm sure that Freud offered up an explanation. :-) > > > > > > You mean that Stephen was *not consciously aware* that he regards much of > > the therapy which focuses on the production of recovered memories from > > childhood as actually producing false memories in many instances? i.e., > > that the disturbing idea that led to the slip was *unconscious*? :-) > > No, I only meant that the parapraxia of typing "clown prince" instead of > "crown prince" was a topic that Freud discussed at length. I didn't say > it was the RIGHT explanation. I was only responding to the implicit > claim that it had not been studied. > > > Sebastinao Timpanaro exposed the fallacy of 'explaining' this kind of > > verbal error in Freudian terms in chpater 9 of his book *The Freudian > > Slip: Psychoanalysis and Textual Criticism* (1976) > > Lots of people have said lots of things about Freud and his > explanations. While I'm not a big fan of psychoanalysis, only rarely do > I find the retorts any more convincing than the things-retorted-agaunst > (the original "torts", I suppose?). And only even more rarely do I > actually expend my time and energy finding out what people have to say > about Freud these days. There are so many other interesting topics in > the history of psychology. :-) > > Regards, > -- > Christopher D. Green > Department of Psychology > York University > Toronto, Ontario, Canada > M3J 1P3 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 > fax: 416-736-5814 > http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ > ============================ > . > > > --------------070804080400070404080809 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> > <html> > <head> > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> > <title></title> > </head> > <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"> > Allen Esterson wrote:<br> > <blockquote type="cite" > cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Chris > Green wrote:<br> > <blockquote type="cite"> > <blockquote type="cite">But I'm sure we all have similar > experiences: we go<br> > to write something like "Crown Prince", and what comes <br> > out is "Clown Prince", and neither the writer nor the Prince <br> > is pleased. Someone should study why we do this.</blockquote> > </blockquote> > </blockquote> > But I did not. That was a quotation from Stephen's original post.<br> > <br> > All I wrote was:<br> > <blockquote type="cite" > cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> > <blockquote type="cite">I'm sure that Freud offered up an > explanation. :-)<br> > </blockquote> > <!----><br> > You mean that Stephen was *not consciously aware* that he regards much > of<br> > the therapy which focuses on the production of recovered memories from<br> > childhood as actually producing false memories in many instances? i.e.,<br> > that the disturbing idea that led to the slip was *unconscious*? > :-)</blockquote> > No, I only meant that the parapraxia of typing "clown prince" instead > of "crown prince" was a topic that Freud discussed at length. I didn't > say it was the RIGHT explanation. I was only responding to the implicit > claim that it had not been studied. <br> > <blockquote type="cite" > cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Sebastinao > Timpanaro exposed the fallacy of 'explaining' this kind of<br> > verbal error in Freudian terms in chpater 9 of his book *The Freudian<br> > Slip: Psychoanalysis and Textual Criticism* (1976)</blockquote> > Lots of people have said lots of things about Freud and his > explanations. While I'm not a big fan of psychoanalysis, only rarely do > I find the retorts any more convincing than the things-retorted-agaunst > (the original "torts", I suppose?). And only even more rarely do I > actually expend my time and energy finding out what people have to say > about Freud these days. There are so many other interesting topics in > the history of psychology. :-)<br> > <br> > Regards,<br> > <div class="moz-signature">-- <br> > Christopher D. Green<br> > Department of Psychology<br> > York University<br> > Toronto, Ontario, Canada<br> > M3J 1P3 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
