The quackery of Freud

I’m sort of surprised, that Cecil dismisses the work of Freud as mere quackery in his recent column: Whatever became of B. F. Skinner?.
No doubt his theories and also the question of the therapeutic effectiveness of psychoanalysis remain an open and controversial issue. But accusing the father of psychoanalysis and one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century of quackery is simply ‘Freud-bashing’ and serves no purpose.

I just found a rather lively discussion on this issue in the Great Debates section:
Was Sigmund Freud really a “quack” ?. (Sorry, I considered it as a Comment on Cecil’s Columns.)

In the context of the article I took the author to be saying that because Skinner aimed at results duplicable in the lab, his work was on a firmer scientific footing.

i.e. Skinner = empricism = competence, Freud = unduplicable, speculative = bupkus.

I am not certain the Freud himself was what Freudians became, and I have read a few books written from a Freudian perspective that have stood the test of time, but mainly because the authors were not hamstrung by their Freudianism. Karl Stern’s The Flight from Woman springs immediately to mind.

However, these days I think the only place where Freud is taken seriously is Hollywood.

Hmmm, we can’t edit posts? Tsk. I am a lousy typist. This could get ugly.

I just knew that one little line would cause comment and here it is with a thread all its own.

Personally, I think of Freud as an important pioneer and not to be lightly dismissed. Not that my opinion is worth the electrons I’m typing it on. I can’t really point at a particular idea of Freud’s and say he deserves respect for this or that. Discovery of the subconscious? I’m not even sure it exists. The importance of dreams? Seems like the only people who pay a lot of attention to dreams is the sort of woman who keeps a dream diary and writes about Atlantis and UFOs on message boards. The Oedipus Complex? That was Freud’s problem, not a universal human problem. Yeah, sometimes boys will talk about marrying mom but I don’t think it’s a major force in every man’s life.

These are just my opinions and I don’t want to get into it with anybody who keeps one or more as pets or punching bags. What I’m getting at is that even though I don’t accept his ideas I still think of Freud as an important thinker who made real contributions, not a fad diet book author or miracle breakthrough pill hustler, which is what I think of when I hear “quack” in this context.

I liked the Skinner column, by the way, even though I found that one remark unduly provocative.

My guess is it refers to Freud’s falsification of experimental results to fit his theories.

That’s a good point actually. Too bad he felt he had to resort to that. From a scientific point of view a major flaw.

What I particulary like is the concept of Freudian slips. I find it intriguing how well it frequently fits. Granted though, the original lecture by Freud on this takes it ridiculously far.

Nevertheless he’s not a quack!

<< Nevertheless he’s not a quack! >>

Is it true that Freud’s theories never echo, and that science cannot explain why?

::: ducking :::

A bit off topic but http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_071.html

Now that’s definitely a load. The guy influenced an entire new field of research/science/medicine (call it what you want). And even those who decry him make a very nice echo.

As for the duck, I like it with red cabbage…

The problem is that Freud was not a scientist – he was a philospher in the Greek tradition. He formulated (made up) a set of principles and then used deductive logic to shoe-horn reality into his worldview. What he did was not qualitatively different than deciding that everything consists of a combination of earth, air, fire and water and then using this premise to explain all of chemistry.

Once in a while, some Greeks actually hit on something close to being “correct,” but that doesn’t make their basic method of inquiry sound. Freud’s ideas started a valuable discussion, but a good scientist, he wasn’t.

I can settle with that.
Meaning, he started an important new thing - and wasn’t a quack…

I must disagree that Freud was a quack. His influence on the 20th century was huge. He has been partially responsible for the liberation of women. In fact, he had several women analysts in his group.

As far as science is concerned, yes he did not use the best techniques. Although, the mind is incredibly complex “thing” to test. You cannot simply just call it your brain, your mind and consciousness are both a part of the brain and seperate from it. We are more than our behaviors that can simply be recorded.
Human experience is so subjective and individualized so it is very difficult to test such things.

Further with all the advances in modern psychiatry, we have not solved the problems of depression or deep rooted anger. We know a simple pill does not have the answers…without psychotherapy most people do not show long term improvement.
Also, just look at the present state of the world around us. His books Civilizations and its Discontents as well as Totem and Taboo have many ideas that still have relevance today.

Lastly, he must be taken in context. Many people forget that and try to apply his ideas to a modern culture. Our modern culture has advanced because of his ideas…but he was living in the times of both oppression and liberation of women and jews…a confusing time. You can see it in art, music and literature coming out of vienna. Anyone interested in understanding Freud beyond his writings I would recommend Peter Gay’s biography, Carl E. Schorske’s “Fin-De-Siecle Vienna” and the writings of Arthur Schnitzler.

Well, I don’t know. . . define “quack.”

Freud was partially responsible for liberating women? Yeah, there’s something I can see. After all, what better way to liberate them than to label their claiims of abuse as ‘fantasy’ and thereby cater to the age-old stereotype of the lying woman.

Feminists have been criticizing Freud for quite some time, for coming up with his original theory, and then repudiating it when he got burned by the establishment. He’d have had to stand up for women, and he doesn’t seem to have been particularly interested in that, according to Jeffrey Masson, who had the unpublished contents of the Freud Archives at his disposal.

I’m not so sure either I can agree on the womens liberation point, but the rest Sad Waters says is definetly true. Besides for all the critics: no one has yet solved the problems Freud first addressed.

What are you talking about T. Mehr, those problems were easy to solve. First, I got a duck, and then I took her down to an alley know for producing and echo…

j.c. if you start to dream about the duck, that’s where it becomes interesting…

I wholeheartedly disagree that Freud was a quack.

Most people who would claim that Freud is a quack don’t fully understand Freud’s theories, nor have read any of his works. It is true, many of Freud’s theories were spawned in an age that was oppressive and chauvanistic - and Freud fell into some of those stereotypes. However, his contribution to the field of psychology is astounding.

One of the reasons that Freud was such an influential man for his time was simply BECAUSE nobody could validate his claims - it spurred a frenzy of tests and research to try to disprove him, thereby vastly advancing psychology as a science. Psychology as we know it is an incredibly new science, and no other person in the field of psychology has had such a huge influence on its growth and advancement. I think that the new trend in popular culture to slander and mock one of the great founders of psychology is a real travesty. It’s true - SOME of his theories must be thrown out, but that’s how ANY science works.

You say that his theories were proven wrong, or have yet to be validated (or are impossible to validate). Any great thinker that is ahead of his or her time must out of necessity go out on a limb to claim things that have not been claimed before. I agree - some of his theories don’t make much sense and have been “proven wrong”. However, if we were to focus on only what a great thinker got wrong, or could not validate, we would be condemning Newton, Einstein, and innumerable other minds. Newton’s contribution to mathematics and physics was only about 10 percent of what he was interested in - the other 90 percent would now be called “quackery”. Einstein’s theories have yet to be “validated”, and yet an entire field of study practically hinges on many of the things that he said. For instance the notion that time as we experience it is an illusion cannot be verified, and probably never will be.

I work in a psychology lab that actually tests some of the theories that Freud originally proposed (refined by his daughter Anna Freud of course) regarding defense mechanisms, and I can tell you that he was quite right with some of his theories. Freud is not to be dismissed, it would seem. Maladaptive defense mechanisms are positively correlated with other maladaptive or undesirable hardships in life, such as poor grades, depression, criminal behaviour, etc. etc. etc.

For interest’s sake, before outright dismissing Freud, it might be useful to examine our own minds to determine exactly why we reject Freud - Freud angered many people in his own lifetime because of what he proposed to them about themselves. People don’t like being told that they are largely influenced by their unconscious. Sometimes, an outright refusal to believe in such a notion is because it poses too much of an interpsychic threat to one’s own ego. Freud’s theories that haven’t been thrown out entirely don’t have to be upsetting if you realize that the GOAL of identifying the unconscious’s role is to hopefully “take the reins” , so to speak, of your own life so that the conscious doesn’t have to be slave to the unconscious.

Just some food for thought…

*Steps down from the now sagging soapbox"

I guess, that most people just echo the crap they have heared. Now who has realy put some thought to psycological theories?
And, yes it can be scary to examine your own mind. So it’s much easier to outright deny it.