Thanks, Thing Fish. Ignorance fought!
As I said in an earlier post in this thread, there are still true believers who still accept Freud’s theories, or some modified version of them (of which there are several), and still practice psychoanalysis along either narrowly or broadly Freudian lines. Thing Fish apparently is one of them, and has been educated by such people. However, it remains the case that the influence of this tradition on the science of psychology, which was once not inconsiderable (though never nearly as great as some laypeople seem to believe) is now miniscule, and it is also no longer a very significant strand in the mainstream of modern psychiatric and psychotherapeutic thinking. This situation contrasts sharply with that a few decades ago, when Freudian psycoanalytic theory (and minor variants) played a huge role in psychiatry, and almost completely dominated psychotherapy (which Freud, to give him due credit, had pretty much invented). The decline of the influence and reputation of the Freudian/psycoanalytic theoretical tradition, though incomplete, had been spectacular.
Freud may fairly be said to have founded the field of psychodynamics, and in that sense all accounts of the psychodynamics of the human minds owe something to him. Some modern psychodynamic theories still owe a lot to him, but others have repudiated his ideas almost completely. Psychodynamics does not, any longer, inherently mean Freudian or neo-Freudian theories, despite the fact that some Freudians and neo-Freudians may try to seize teh high-ground of argument by pretending otherwise.
And yes, in a case like this I would give more credence to Wikipedia, which strives mightily for neutrality in controversial matters, than an article in a journal that is largely devoted to scholarly polemic and opinion pieces.
OK, njtt, I would ask for some cites for your broad assertions, or at least request your own academic credentials which might qualify you to offer such assertions…but if you can’t tell the difference between a meta-analysis published in North America’s pre-eminent peer-reviewed psychological journal and an “opinion piece”, you are clearly too hopelessly and proudly ignorant to be worth engaging with further.
Sorry, edit window seems to have passed. Apologies for uncalled for ad hominem attack. Still don’t see any point in continuing discussion, though.
This may be entirely off the point of the OP, but thought it worth a mention in passing:
I’ve just read a book called ‘The Interpretation of Murder’ by Jed Rubenfield which, whilst entirely fictional, uses as a large portion of the plot Freud’s (only?) visit to the United States in 1909, where he was to lecture at Clark University. It covers a lot of his theories in the dialogue between his travelling companions Ferenczi and Jung, along with other characters. It’s a murder/mystery predominantly, but it’s interesting to see how they (he) potentially justified his observations and how his ideas arguably suited that particular time in the development of psychology (and help ‘solve’ the crime too!) It’s a reasonably good time-passer book with a touch of Freud & Jung in it, should you wish an entertaining dip into thier world without the heavy academic reading.
Thank you Aro. I’ll look that one up. Really appreciate that!
davidmich