Freud,is there even a small amount of truth to his theory?

[skynatasha]

Well, having heard many different opinions about Sigmund Freud,I would like to know what the good people of The SDMB think.

Some say he’s a crackpot others says it has a ring of truth and we are afriad to admit it.

What do you think??

[skynatasha]

@skynatasha

Well, having heard many different opinions about Sigmund Freud,I would like to know what the good people of The SDMB think.

Some say he’s a crackpot others says it has a ring of truth and we are afraid to admit it.

What do you think??

*edits the afraid spelling *oops :o

[Odinoneeye]

Personally, I’ve always thought a lot of his ideas had merit, but they aren’t descriptive of everyone.

I’ve read various psychology theories and pretty much all of them describe some people I know.

I find that Timothy Leary’s biocircuit theory to be the most descriptive of most people.

[Doomtrain]

Freud’s theories are probably the most comprehensive set ever proposed. It really depends which area you’re talking about.

All this is from Theories of Personality by Richard M. Ryckman, 8th Edition, 2004.

Character Types:

There is considerable evidence for the oral receptive character, some evidence for the anal character, and no support for the phallic or genital characters However, the lack of support for Freud’s ideas about the phallic and genital characteristics may be attributed to the absence of reliable and valid measures of such character orientations and a consequent failure to test his ideas

p. 52

Psychoanalytic Therapy:

After examining more than 7,000 case histories of patients, [Eysenck] concluded that psychoanalytic therapy did not significantly facilitate the recovery of neurotic patients…Besides research suggesting that psychoanalytic therapy is not very effective, Bornstein (2001) has maintained that there are two other problems with such therapy…it is too time-consuming and expensive. He proposes that analysts abandon classic psychoanalytic treatment techniques that do not work

p. 66

However…

His once-controversial ideas–(1) that unconscious states exist and influence behavior; (2) that people sometimes have conflicting feelings in situations that motivate them in opposing ways and often lead to compromise; (3) that people show resistance when threatened and then use defense mechanisms to distort information about themselves and others; (4) that early experience plays an important role in subsequent development; and (5)that personality development involves not only in learning to regulate sexual and aggressive feelings but also moving from an immature, socially dependent state to a mature, interdependent one–are now generally acceptable to psychologists…there is abundant research evidence demonstrating the validity of Freud’s views on these matters.

p. 67

[FairyChatMom]

My daughter is taking AP Psych this yeah and she’s declared to me that she thinks Freud was obsessed with sex. Just thought I’d share that observation.

[Pabitel]

A good key to understanding Freud is in knowing that his work was based almost exclusively on rich neurotic German women in the 19th century. Many of his ideas apply very well to this population. It was his attempt to generalize about the entire population from this data that got him into trouble. The worst oversight was that he never worked with anyone who would be considered mentally healthy. So all of his theories are based on individuals with psychological abnormalities.

The way Freud was important was in changing the way we think about the human mind. He was the one who popularized the idea that understanding human behavior could be a systematic process. Before him theories about the human mind were based in superstition and poetry.

[Phlosphr]

Oh where to begin!

I like to think of Freud thusly: For a man who had a coke habit that would kill a small horse, he’s remarkably in tune with this Phallic Stage.*

I’m not being sarcastic, I’m just tired of psychoanalyzing the man who invented the phrase.*

**Jeez…that was sarcastic as well…Ok I’m just tired this morning and into to psych was last semester

[Phlosphr]

Ahem…intRo to psych was last semester…

[ultrafilter]

Freud said a lot of different things. Some were right on, and some were pure bunk.

[Doomtrain]

@ultrafilter

Freud said a lot of different things. Some were right on, and some were pure bunk.

Yea, as we went over his section in my Theories of Personality class, sometimes it was “So he was right on, here,” usually followed by, “What the hell?!”

[KidCharlemagne]

@GMRyujin

Freud’s theories are probably the most comprehensive set ever proposed. It really depends which area you’re talking about.

All this is from Theories of Personality by Richard M. Ryckman, 8th Edition, 2004.

Character Types:

p. 52

Psychoanalytic Therapy:
p. 66

However…

p. 67

Psychoanalytic theory is much more successful at explaining the etiology of neurosis/character disorders than it is at providing a framework for curing them. Alot of people get the two mixed up and throw out the theory because they don’t necessarily believe in the therapy. I’m glad to see a bunch of people in here defending him because I had a feeling it was gonna be me against the world. He is probably the greatest contributor to social science that ever lived even with all his shortcomings.

[Lisa-go-Blind]

@Phlosphr

Ahem…intRo to psych was last semester…

A Freudian slip, perhaps?

[green_bladder]

Sure there’s some truth to his theory, I don’t think he’d be a household name if there wasn’t. I personally believe that his theories do effectively describe most behaviour, but I’ll also agree that some of his stuff is pretty “out there”.

Anyone read Freud’s case study of Little Hans? Another reason why this is my favourite branch of psychology

[Gfactor]

It depends what you mean by truth. If you mean true in the hypothetico-deductive sense, then the question is not very meaningful. In order to be verifiable, a theory must be disprovable. Freuds theories make few empirical predictions, and so cannot be disproven.

See, e.g.,

An important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypotheis is that it be “falsifiable”. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein’s theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

On the other hand the theory that “there is an invisible snorg reading this over your shoulder” is not falsifiable. There is no experiment or possible evidence that could prove that invisible snorgs do not exist. So the Snorg Hypothesis is not scientific. On the other hand, the “Negative Snorg Hypothesis” (that they do not exist) is scientific. You can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to yetis, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster. See also question 5.2 on the age of the Universe.

http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html

OTOH, if you mean true in the sense that it is helpful to those in the business of helping people find meaning in their behaviors, there are those who find it useful. I recall reading about a study done by Irvin Yalom in Existential Psychotherapy the point of which was that therapy is effective because someone is trying to help you find meaning in your life–the particular theory applied by the therapist was not a significant factor in therapeutic outcomes. I have not seen the actual study, and therefore cannot evaluate whether the study was flawed in some way. Nor do I know if it has been replicated.

[Doomtrain]

@KidCharlemagne

He is probably the greatest contributor to social science that ever lived even with all his shortcomings.

Yea, my opinion’s really improved because of my class. You just have to sort through the crap and extract the good stuff. I wouldn’t use his therapy techniques, but some of his theories are still pretty damn good.

[spingears]

In regard to Sigmund Freud…

 Show me a physchiatrist and I'll show you a man that needs one!

[RickJay]

Freud is probably now the most underrated scientist in the history of the world. The fact that many of his theories were wrong really isn’t the point. Many, if not most, of Sir Isaac Newton’s theories were wrong; Newton was a big astrology buff, IIRC. However, history has properly regarded Newton as a giant because of the progress science made as a result of his successes.

Even if you assume Freud’s record was below .500 for right vs. wrong, the fact is that the man kick-started psychology. It’s likely we would be decades behind where we are without his efforts.

[Qwertyasdfg]

Freud’s theories are interesting and generative, but rarely pan out in the lab, and/or they cannot be tested. His theory is such that almost anything can be interpreted through his theories, but one cannot know which interpretation is right (and Freud believed that there was no “right” interpretation.)

I don’t think many serious psychologists still take Freud seriously, every phenomena he explains can be described more reasonably by physiological, behaviorist, cognitive etc. branches of psychology.