For the record: A correction to the reference I gave for Alan A. Stone's
December 1995 talk to the American Academy of Psychoanalysis: It was
published in the Harvard Review Jan-Feb. 1997. (Not, of course, 1977, as I
erroneously typed.)
Allen E.
-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 04:17:36 -0500
Author: "Allen Esterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: top ten psych studies?
> 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
