Talk:Psychoanalytic theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Other ideas that might be worth including[edit]

Building on earlier comments about this article, it might be relevant to introduce new content that speaks to the influence (or lack thereof) exerted by psychoanalytic theory on other various psychological movements/theories (i.e. have more recent theories built upon psychoanalytic principles or is psychoanalytic theory a relic of the past with little or no influence on modern, current psychology).

Just a thought.

Crossfire8228 (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Broader context[edit]

Use of the "psychoanalytic theory" implies that there is a core theory which is complete by itself. This view is not common even among practicing analysts, who in large part recognise that the mind is a function of the brain, so that any full theory of the psyche needs to refer to the brain. An excellent review of this is Kandel ER (1999) "Biology and the future of psychoanalysis", Am.J.Psychiat 156:505.

Psychoanalytic thinking is inseparably bound also to clinical treatment of patients. Some purists claim that achieving insight is the only goal of psychoanalysis; but health insurers generally require more concrete goals such as reduced mental illness or increased time at work. Both of these clinical perspectives assume that the effect on actual patients is important -- so they should be included in this article. An excellent review of the clinical benefits of psychoanalysis is Fonagy, Roth & Higgitt (2005), Bull.Menninger Clinic 69(1):1-58.

This article would not be complete without consideration of substantial attacks on psychoanalysis and its theory, which have reshaped psychiatric practice in the UK and USA over the past 20-30 years. These attacks can be classified as empirical (Gabbard, Gunderson & Fonagy 2002); financial (Detre & McDonald 1997); theoretical (Meehl 1998 calculates that there are many psychoanalytical explanations possible for any single clinical problem); and circumstantial (e.g. past failures with respect to homosexuality and childhood abuse, and the antipathy of many analysts to quantitative research: Gabbard, Gunderson & Fonagy 2002).

Psychoanalytic theorists may have over-reached themselves in attempting to account for all troublesome psychic phenomena. However, their concerted efforts to address more circumscribed areas have produced widely acknowledged, influential advances in the areas of defense mechanisms, attachment, the unconscious, transference and counter-transference, and the treatment of borderline personalities, among others. Each of these advances has been accompanied by individual theories.JUNIOR BENSON

The above attempts to make the article about what it states it is not about; it is not in the first instance a consideration of what clinical psychiatry or neurology makes of psychoanalysis as a clinical practise. That's not to say that theory as it is treated here has nothing to do with clinical analysis — Deleuze, Guattari, and Foucault applied the label of "antipsychiatrists" to themselves, and this does restore some relation to the clinical. One may allow a debate to be framed on the response of clinicians to these criticisms, but this isn't the same subject matter when one starts out by citing the American Journal of Psychiatry. Buffyg 23:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i said hell yea i just edited this damn page on wiki NEW SECTION I have introduced an entirely new section entitled " A Fundamental Revision" This was copied and pasted from a Microsoft Word document.Some time must be spent in getting the references straightened out, editing some WP style, and maybe minor additions and revisions. I hope this is acceptable to those interested in this article, and that you will give me a little editing time before you pile on.All discussions welcome on this page.Islandsage 01:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Still some random edits to make, but please make your comments, corrections, and improvements.Islandsage 17:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that someone ( Bacchiad) abruptly deleted above article as original research. It was not original research, but I read the details of NOR and now realize that original thinking is also forbidden. No harm done. The fun was in the writing, even if it was a sin. It does seem that a warning note or some discussion would have been a more graceful process. The article, same name, may be seen on Strange but Freud would have been banned.Islandsage 17:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right Freud would have to follow Wikipedia policies and it is very doubtful that he would have. Fred Bauder 00:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

== Bracha L. Ettigandu gandu gandu gandu gandu gandu

Another issue of context[edit]

It is unclear what this article is about. It's part of the WikiProject Psychology, but mostly links out to articles about Aesthetics and Continental Philosophy. Also, the article seems excessively preoccupied with Lacan, so much so that the criticism section is all about him. This article should make it clear where "Psychoanalytic Theory" fits among other intellectual fields, and the criticism section should incorporate some of the suggestions from "Broader Context" below.Threepenpals (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of the last edit seems to belong to the talk page rather than in the article, so I have moved it so I can be discussed. Peer review comments section moved to peer review page.

I've addressed this. The body of the article still is stilted toward Lacan and Freudians and obviously there's a lot more to latter day analysis than that. Unclear what the whole space is like though, merges and/or moves may well be in order. (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


I am editing this article for my History of Psychology class, which goes along with the APS Wikipedia Initiative to make articles accurate and a quality source for referencing. KJoseph12 (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As long as you follow WP:MOS, you should be fine. What is the APA Wikipedia Initiative? I've never heard of it. Toddst1 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The APS Wikipedia Initiative is a project to make articles on Wikipedia that have to deal with psychology as accurate as possible in order to make them a useful resource in the classroom. KJoseph12 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

cross outs and red words[edit]

Why are large sections of text like this? I've never seen anyone do this on wikipedia pages before. What's the purpose? Shouldn't the crossed out sections be deleted if they are inaccurate, and if they're not why are they crossed out? (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That's been struck. We don't do draft markups in articles. Toddst1 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Additions and changes[edit]

My partner and I are working on editing this article for a class assignment. The following are the different additions we would like to add to the existing content of the article.

Your proposed changes look very comprehensive and great. Excellent information and linking to other sites. Looking forward to you article!

New Headings[edit]


- Humans are driven by sexual and aggressive drives - Psychoanalytic theorist believe that our behavior is deterministic - Thus we are driven by our unconscious, instinctual drives and conflicts

Personality Structure[edit]

- Id- driven by pleasure principle - Ego- driven by reality principle - Supergo- driven by morality principle

The Unconscious[edit]

- Portion of the mind of which a person is not aware - Use psychoanalytic techniques to access the unconscious - Methods like hypnosis, free association, dream analysis are used - Dreams allow us to explore the unconscious - Latent vs. manifest content -Freudian slips (parapraxes) - Freud believes that our unconscious was exposed when the superego and ego do not work properly, exposing the id

Defense Mechanisms[edit]

- The ego balances the id, the superego and reality. It thus reacts to protect the individual from any stressors and anxiety by distorting reality. This prevents threatening unconscious thoughts and material from entering the consciousness. Types of defense mechanisms: Repression, reaction formation, denial, projection, displacement, sublimation, regression, and rationalization.

Psychology Theories[edit]

Psychosexual Development -Freud’s take on the development of the personality (psyche) - Stage theory- progress through the stages as the libido is redirected -Oral, Anal, Phallic (Oedipus complex), Latency, Genital Lead to Neo-Analytics - believed in the importance of the unconscious and the integral influence childhood experiences play in development yet they do not support the idea that development of the personality stops at age 6. They extended Freud’s work and encompassed more influence from the environment and the importance of conscious thought along with the unconscious. -Ericksons’ Psychosocial Development - Anna Freud - Carl Jung - Alfred Adler - Karen Horney

Critics of Psychoanalytic Theory[edit]

Advantages - Emphasizes the importance of childhood -Begins to explore and address the importance of the unconscious -Explains defense mechanisms and why every individual reacts differently Limits -Sigmund Freud fails to include evidence of the impact of the environment on the individual - Focused on pathology -Much of modern research has not supported many of its notions - It is gender biased and homophobic -The typical “straight” male is seen as the norm and the model

Collectivism vs. Individualism Race vs. Culture Religious Influence Social-Economic Status Language and Identity--Bilingualism Cultural Implications for Testing


Links that we will use throughout the article[edit]

Psychosexual Development Psychosocial Emic Etic Collectivism Individualism biases Stereotype Threat Hypnosis Free Association Dream Analysis Latent & Manifest Content Freudian slips Defense Mechanisms Pathology Erick Eriks Anna Freud Carl Jung Alfred Adler Karen Horney

Citations: Friedman, H. W., & Schustack, M. W. (2011). Personality: Classics theories and modern research. (5th Edition). Bosotn, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gaffney, Tim W., and Cassandra Perryman. "Educational Achievement, Personality, and Behavior: Assessment, Factor Structure and Implication for Theory and Practice." Journal of Applied Measurement 13.2 (2012): 181-204. PsycINFO. Web. 21 Oct. 2012 Mahmood, Omar M., and Sawssan R. Ahmed. Psychological Testing and Assessment. New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY, 2012. PsycINFO. Web. 21 Oct. 2012.

Giamo, Lisa S., Michael T. Schmitt, and H. R. Outten. "Perceived Discrimination, Group Identification, and Life Satisfaction among Multiracial People: A Test of the Rejection-Identification Model." Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 18.4 (2012): 319-28. PsycINFO. Web. 21 Oct. 2012

Hoggard, Lori S., Christy M. Byrd, and Robert M. Sellers. "Comparison of African American College Students' Coping with Racially and Nonracially Stressful Events." Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 18.4 (2012): 329-39. PsycINFO. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. (picture)

Categorizing Psychoanalytic theory[edit]

This article doesn't belong in Category:Theories of aesthetics, I don't think.

According to Wikipedia:Categorization: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." (bolding mine). I don't think there is anything in the Psychoanalytic theory article to justify putting it in the Category:Theories of aesthetics. If Psychoanalytic theory mentioned in the Aesthetics article, that's not a good enough reason if the Psychoanalytic theory lacks a significant discussion of how psychoanalytic theory relates to aesthetics. Readers will go to the Psychoanalytic theory article expecting to see discussion of aesthetics and won't find it. Star767 14:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

So that content should be developed. Psychoanalytic theory is actually one of few major theories of aesthetics, and Freud talks about aesthetics, and others expand on the consequences of psychoanalytic theory for aesthetics and continental theory quite substantially. You just don't have experience in that area, so this is new to you. I wish everything in the philosophy department was fully developed, but it isn't. That doesn't mean we dismantle the organization of things that would cause for that development to occur. Greg Bard (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, all that content you mention should be developed in the Psychoanalytic theory to justify its inclusion in the Category:Theories of aesthetics. Right now, its inclusion is very confusing. Star767 18:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I think most of this should be in a separate article with only a brief introductory paragraph here. For a time, Freud theories framed literature in the United States; it was simply assumed to be true. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you think the {{Aesthetics}} template and the current inclusion in the Category:Theories of aesthetics is justified for the current version of Psychoanalytic theory? Star767 19:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
No, at least an introductory section needs to be in the article. Wouldn't hurt even now though; it's a world view for some. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is justified. If one were to name the top few prevailing views in aesthetics, one could not fail to include psychoanalytic theory. However, the approach being recommending here is a good one. ie. a summary paragraph, and a whole separate article on psychoanalytic theory in continental philosophy. It would be nice if there already were such an article, but in the absence of it people will be going here for that content. Greg Bard (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
But why sent readers to an article that doesn't contain the material that the template and category says it does? Star767 20:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Because we aren't just sending readers, we are sending writers too. This is a very basic concept, and it has a very significant effect here at Wikipedia. Why bother creating a stub article at all? It's because it's presence speeds up the process of developing content. Why make a redlink? It's because it indicates what is in demand for development. I notice you do a lot of deleting of this kind of seed material, whether it's categories, or templates or what ever. I really wish you would stop that, especially in areas which you may not be an expert. I don't get involved with any of your contributions in the psychology category, and as far as I am concerned they are just fine with me. So why do you bother tagging up articles with things like "too many see also links?" You aren't contributing something that any person can't already see directly. I really hope you consider this as you go forward. Greg Bard (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
(This is an article the Category:Psychological theories and you're involved.) Since all this time, nothing about aesthetics has been added to Psychoanalytic theory, why not add a redlink to the template to encourage at least a stub on the subject? Aesthetics of psychoanalytic theory, or Freud's theory of aesthetics or whatever. (I have no idea, but you probably do.) Star767 20:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposing merge with Psychoanalysis[edit]

This article and Psychoanalysis cover the same information, but Psychoanalysis is more complete. There doesn't seem to be a reason to have two separate articles on the same subject. Star767 00:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. I have not been very involved in these articles though. I would recommend you to invite editors who have contributed a lot to these two articles, to give their opinion. Lova Falk talk 09:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have now moved this discussion to Psychoanalysis, as it is that article into which this article is proposed to be moved. Lova Falk talk 10:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is off as the proposer has been blocked indefinitely.Lova Falk talk 18:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done

If this discussion is blocked then why is it still a discussion showing up on the page?

No criticism section[edit]

A merger was proposed to the article on psychoanalysis. It was claimed that that article is almost the same as this one. However, a major difference is that that article has a criticism-section, whereas this one does not one at all. (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge from duplicate article[edit]

Came across Freud's Psychoanalytic Theories when it was PRODded. It looks to be a student article. It has some content issues, but more importantly it's entirely redundant to this article and psychoanalysis. That said, it looks like there's material there that is not here, making it a shame to just delete. I was torn whether it would be best to move that back to the student's sandbox where it was developed or start this discussion. Since the students wrote it in 2013 and have not been back since, moving to a sandbox would almost certainly doom it to a stale draft deletion down the road. So this isn't so much a "proposed merger" in the sense that it would be controversial but a "does anyone want to salvage material from this other page?" Anyone who answers yes might consider moving it to a sandbox to draw from and/or tag it for CSD as a duplicate when no longer needed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Might as well ping the students who worked on it: MarissaKane, Sbugen, and Hollig1. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not about the article being no longer need - Start-up level student assignments are not needed in the first place when there are B-level summaries available (eg the Freud article) and all the basic Freudian concepts have their own articles with scholarly sources and not student psychology textbooks and Yahoo forums cited and are mercifully free from inanities like is "when an infant develops an attachment for the mother early on in life" given as a definition of the Oedipus complex. That anyone could claim the current article is an adequate summary of 100 years of Psychoanalytic theory defies belief. In my opinion both articles should be deleted. By all means sandbox them. Almanacer (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Almanacer: Both articles as in this article as well as the student article? Are you saying that there's no useful content in either one? I was surprised to see that this page existed when I was looking at the other closely related pages. You likely have a better sense of the content and structure of related articles, so while a PROD didn't seem like the right way to go to me, that's not to say I endorse any of the content. You could certainly nominate one or both for deletion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Both articles are student projects - see above "This article is currently or was the subject of an educational assignment." Neither include topics not covered elsewhere in better (higher rated) articles. Almanacer (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)