In response to Stephen Black, on 17 March 2007 Peter Harzam wrote [snip]
> Moreover, if we are judging not by content of the individual's work
> but by the extent of its influence in he number of studies generated,
> Freud's work would win hands down. This is of course an empirical
> matter, and cannot be supported except empirically, by a pervasive count
> through almost a century. (Any offers?) By the way, what on earth
> was the 'lots of trouble' that Freud caused?
May I propose for the "lots of trouble" Freud's theories of
psychiatric/psychological disorders? As Alan A. Stone, former president of
the American Psychiatric Association said in an address to the American
Academy of Psychoanalysis in 1995: "Early in my career as a psychiatrist
and psychoanalyst I believed that every form of mental illness be it
psychosis, neurosis or personality disorder, could be understood in terms
of psychoanalytic developmental stages... Our problem is that based on the
scientific evidence now available to us, these basic premises may all be
incorrect... Developmental experience may have very little to do with most
forms of psychopathology, and we have no reason to assume that a careful
historical reconstruction of those developmental events will have a
therapeutic effect." ("Where will psychoanalysis survive", Harvard Review,
Jan-Feb. 1977, 34-39.)
I would argue that Freud's theories of psychosexual development and the
origins of mental disorders led up a blind alley. As for Stephen's "lots
of trouble", I recommend Edward Dolnick's *Madness on the Couch: Blaming
the Victim in the Heyday of Psychoanalysis* (1998) for all too many
examples.
And those who would still argue that we owe to Freud the notion that it is
good to allow psychologically/emotionally disturbed people to talk freely
about their problems should consult Henri Ellenberger's *The Discovery of
the Unconscious* (1970), and Eric Caplan's history of U.S. psychotherapy:
*Mind Games: American Culture and the Birth of Psychotherapy* (1998).
Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
http://www.esterson.org/
------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:45:40 -0500
Author: Harzem Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: top ten psych studies?
>
> > On Mar 17, 2007, at 11:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> That someone was me, of course. I don't think it's so hard to deny
> >> Freud's influence, if by "influence" we mean a lasting effect on the
> >> direction of evidence-based psychology. He caused lots of trouble,
> >> certainly, and had a powerful effect on literature and popular
> >> culture,
> >> but on real scientific psychology? Not a chance.
> >>
> >> As for Piaget, his methods may not have been experimental, but his
> >> observations launched a million experiments to see if he was right.
> >> His
> >> work has had a profound and lasting influence on current research in
> >> child psychology.
> >
>
> > It seems to me the two paragraphs above are contradictory: both based
> > on questionable methods, but one favorable
> > to the one preferred (Piaget) , and unfavorable to Freud.
> > Moreover, if we
> > are judging not by content of the individual's work but by the extent
> > of its influence in he number of studies generated, Freud's work
> > would win
> > hands down. This is of course an empirical matter, and cannot be
> > supported except empirically, by a pervasive count through almost a
> > century. (Any
> > offers?) By the way, what on earth was the 'lots of trouble ' that
> > Freud caused?
> > Peter
> >
> > Peter Harzem, B.Sc.(Lond.), Ph.D.(Wales)
> > Hudson Professor Emeritus
> > Department of Psychology
> > Auburn University
> > Auburn, AL 36849-5214
> > USA
> > Phone: +334 844-6482
> > Fax: +334 844-4447
> > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Personal E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
