Talk:Psychoanalysis

   ConventionPlease post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion. Make sure to sign your comments by pressing the second-to-last button above the edit box, or by typing out ~~~~ at the end of your comment.
See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

Verification

Needs additional citations for Verifiability, tagged since June 2009.

Original Research

May contain original research, tagged since May 2008.

Criticism/Controversy

The Criticism or Controversy section(s) may not be from a neutral point of view, tagged since November 2009

2010 Comments

These are comments made in 2010 that may still be up for discussion

A Very Poor Article That Smells Funny

Short note re: Victorian era. Do check your history on this. I'm not at present able to recollect any good sources, but I remember from undergraduate studies that it was the Edwardian era that was sexually repressive. The Victorians not so much. A look through any decent history of the period will identify as much. If anyone is still reading these things, that is.--Slenney (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

An even more belated comment. Freud developed psychoanalysis in Vienna at the very end of the nineteenth century, so effectively from the beginning of the twentieth century. This has nothing to do with England. Far from sexual repression being a feature of that era in Vienna, sexual matters were openly discussed, and featured in popular books and plays.Esterson (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Unclear

I suppose this makes sense if it were clarified:

Some more recent forms of psychoanalysis seek, among other things, to help patients gain self-esteem through greater trust of the self, overcome the fear of death and its effects on current behavior, and maintain several relationships that appear to be incompatible.

Fred Bauder 17:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Under the "Research" section, this sentence appears: "In the past 30 years or so, the criticisms have centered on the issue of empirical verification,[37] in spite of many empirical, prospective research studies that have been empirically validated." This doesn't make sense as written, to refer to empirical studies that have been empirically validated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.133.188.104 (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

The article also contains statements to the effect that the lack of empirical research has and is being rectified. This is just plain untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.161.133 (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I had a friend who had to undergo it to become a child psychotherapist and it was weekly for 5 years at £125 a week. Actually it took her 7 years as the analyst said she was "stuck". Thats why its not available on the NHS! Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Because of Your friend? Really?95.89.164.91 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article is biased in favor of p/a. afaik it is commonly accepted in mainstream scientific psychology that p/a is pseudoscience. As this is only mentioned in the criticism section, it creates the appearance that p/a is commonly accepted as true but has just a few critics. O.mangold (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant Criticisms

While, obviously, an article on the subject of Sigmund Freud himself might be enlightened by noting the allegations of an inherent fascistic element to his ideas, I fail to see their relevance in regards to the subject of Psychoanalysis itself. In fact, arguments could be presented identifying the both the quotation and its inclusion in the article as one of several species of Ad Hominem. Neither the political disposition and attitudes of the discipline's practitioners, or the postulated compatibility of the discipline itself to an ill-favored political system have any significance on an objective judgment of it's validity regardless of their validity otherwise. A Science, however disputed in it's legitimacy, can only judged on its provability-- criticisms of it's application are attached to those who have applied it. I would, however, be willing to accept that I simply failed to comprehend this argument in some way. In this case I would only protest that some nuance or ambiguity in the phrasing be rethought. Lky 76.214.49.166 (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Appended to reflect newly registered account.... Badfolk (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Micropsychoanalysis and Silvio Fanti

I would like to let anyone know about my intention of including micropsychoanalysis in the theories section. Micropsychoanalysis was founded by Silvio Fanti in Switzerland in the 1950s. It is a very innovative school of psychoanalysis popular in Switzerland, France and norther Italy. I will wait a few days for comments and reactions and then I will add the entry. I hope anyone agrees and the entry is welcomed. Thank you. --Thespanishdub (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The following link may deserve your attention es:Wikipedia:Consultas_de_borrado/Micropsicoanálisis This article has been deleted from es because of not being neutral and being a primary source instead.--Rapel (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I reinserted the chapter "Micropsychoanalysis" that had been deleted by a user without providing valid sources. Thanks Bluebird33 (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Jung

Jung has not been mentioned in the article. Neither have other psychoanalysts been mentioned. Fellowscientist (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. SylvesterSherman (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

History 1890s

Some paragraphs in the History 1890s section contained inaccurate information, and I have replaced them with three new paragraphs. Esterson (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Milrod research ???

There is ^{[citation needed]} on research by Barbara Milrod that is to empirically support Freud's ideas. I've searched the web and found nothing on that. However I found Barbara Milrod's page ([1]) and don't see there any publications on this topic.

Reimut Reiche, Germany

Reimut Reiche is a well-known psychoanalyst in Germany.

He has written the book:

Psychoanalyse und Klassenkampf - Psychoanalysis and Class Struggle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reimut_Reiche

"Unscientific" as the article's fourth word.

I have added a few days ago, in the very beginning of the article, that psychoanalysis is unscientific. Since then, the term "unscientific" has been replaced by "questionably scientific". I am opening up this discussion, because after doing so, I am going to put back in place the term "unscientific", but I do respect your opinions, which is why I open up this discussion here. Science is the discipline of gathering knowledge via scientific method. According to Webster, scientific method is " principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Freud did not employ such a method, as his "experiments" were based on the study of a very very little amount of volunteers. Psychoanalysis, like homeopathy and many other "alternative sciences", has spread like wildfire. Nevertheless, psychoanalysis is not science. I am not saying the subconscious does not exist, I am saying that sufficient proof (if any at all) has not been brought to support this idea. If it had, psychoanalysis would be a recognized subdomain of scientific psychology.

But it is not. Some people "believe" in psychoanalysis, some don't. Science is not a domain where one can argue whether or not a theory applies the scientific method. It is not questionable. A thing either applies the scientific method, or it doesn't. Psychoanalysis does not, and is therefore unscientific. Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edits violate WP:NPOV, and should be reverted. No doubt it can be sourced that psychoanalysis is unscientific, just as it could be sourced that it is scientific; likewise, we could source the statement that Freud was a charlatan, or that he was the greatest scientific genius of the 20th century. It isn't Wikipedia's job to take sides on issues like this, but to neutrally present the main published views. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to know that the Arbitration Committee held a case related to this issue a few years ago; its ruling can be found here. On the subject of psychoanalysis, it stated that, "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." So, it would be fine to say somewhere in the lead that critics have argued that psychoanalysis isn't a science or scientific in any way, but we can't assert that as fact or present it as Wikipedia's view. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd moved the info out of the lead before reading. Obviously doesn't belong there. Szzuk (talk)

It doesn't make sense to define something by what it isn't. I have moved the question of scientificness further down in the first paragraph. I also agree that the article should not generally describe opinions about the validity of psychoanalysis as fact - in so far as anyone has claimed that psychoanalysis is scientific we can describe the debate between them and those who deny the scientific basis of the theory. We do not need to describe the theory as "unscientific". Just like we don't define astrology or christianity as "unscientific" theories in the lead of those articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Those comments violate WP:Lead, the information isn't discussed in the article body. It's a simple criticism and has been placed in the criticism secion. Szzuk (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

When there is a criticism section that also means that per WP:LEAD, the lead must give a summary of the criticisms...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• • This isn't a featured or even good article. Its a fairly bad one that doesn't need to look worse. I can add a few words if you wish. Szzuk (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

But your argument was non-conformity with WP:LEAD. I agree its a bad article and with your pithy wording.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pithy wording is the best solution in the circumstances. I re-organised the criticism section and removed the banner it had some time ago, it required fairly substantial deletions so I'm aware of the problem. I've no particular answer other than it requires more thought than I have time to give it, I may come back to it. Szzuk (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)