# Was Sigmund Freud really a "quack" ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 15, 2003, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411 "2003-08-15T16:46:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/21 "2003-08-16T14:09:56Z")
Freud was an arrogant, self-centered prick who believed that he had made a great discovery (psycho-analysis).However, after 100years of this, there is very little proof that psychoanlysis cures anything. Freud did no formalresearch, and alaienated many of his coworkers…lokk at the treatment he meted out to C.G. Jung for example. My takeon freud: a man who started out OK, but became increasingly ego driven, to the point where he couldn’t get out ofhis own bullshit. He did make some valid observations, but in the main, his explanations for human behavior arevery weird. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2003, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/22 "2003-08-17T01:14:28Z")
Newton was an arrogant, self-centred prick, too, a liar and cheat, and 90% of everything he did was mystical, non-scientific bunk. It isn’t easy to be the guy who basically invents an entire field of study. ---
**Author:** ![Milum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2003, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/23 "2003-08-17T01:50:14Z")
Freud was a ignorant egoist who thought he was a genius. Freud, as it turns out, was a quack. Freud’s mistaken ideas caused unnecessary misery and unthinkable pain for **millions** of mentally disturbed people for almost one hundred years. Freud was only ignorant. The many thousands who grew wealthy and became well respected by practicing and promoting the non-productive methods of psychoanalysis were, and are, charlatans and thieves. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2003, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/24 "2003-08-17T02:11:31Z")
I wonder how long it will take for people to recognize and discard the modern equivalents of Freudian psychology. Probably another hundred years… ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2003, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/25 "2003-08-17T17:26:27Z")
**YourOldBuddy** : > [@](#): > > _Psychotherapy works? Not really. It makes ppl feel better but it doesnt cure anything._ It makes you feel better (which is the goal of psychotherapeutic treatment), but it doesn’t work? I don’t get ya. > [@](#): > > - I have never seen proof that therapy works.\* No? Have you ever heard of Google? Try typing in “psychotherapy outcome studies” or “psychotherapy research” and take a look at what pops up. Here’s a small sampling: > [@](#): > > [_INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOTHERAPY OUTCOME AND PROCESS RESEARCH: Challenges Leading to Greater Turmoil or a Positive Transition?_](http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0961/1999_Annual/54442307/p1/article.jhtml?term=) > > The field of psychotherapy research has faced many new challenges during its brief life. The first challenge was the publication of Eysenck’s (1952) review of 24 studies which concluded that psychotherapy is no more effective with neurotics than is spontaneous remission. His article stimulated years of controversy among academics and clinicians about the effectiveness of psychotherapy. **It also inspired a successful, directed effort by researchers to confirm empirically that psychotherapy generally produces beneficial effects** (e.g. Elkin et al 1989, Lambert & Bergin 1994, Lipsey & Wilson 1993, McNeilly & Howard 1991, Smith & Glass 1977)… > > **Hundreds of studies have shown that psychotherapy works better than nothing**. What is not so clear is whether psychotherapy works for reasons specified by theory. Here are a couple of specific studies on therapeutic outcome: > [@](#): > > [_The Efficacy of Toddler-Parent Psychotherapy for Fostering Cognitive Development in Offspring of Depressed Mothers._](http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0902/2_28/64456312/p1/article.jhtml?term=%2BPsychotherapy+%2BResearch) > > The efficacy of Toddler-Parent Psychotherapy (TPP) as a preventive intervention for fostering cognitive development in the offspring of depressed mothers was evaluated. Mothers with major depressive disorder and their toddlers were randomly assigned to TPP (n = 43) or to a nonintervention group (n = 54) and compared to a control group (n = 61) of women with no current or past mental disorder. At baseline (age 20 months), the groups did not differ on the Bayley Mental Development Index. **At post-intervention follow-up (age 3 years), a relative decline in IQ was found in the depressed nonintervention group, whereas the depressed intervention and the normal control groups continued to be equivalent, with higher WPPSI-R Full Scale and Verbal Iqs**. The worst outcome was found among nonintervention children whose mothers had subsequent depressive episodes. **The results confirm the developmental risks faced by offspring of depressed mothers and support the efficacy of the preventive intervention in safeguarding successful cognitive development in at-risk youngsters**. and: > [@](#): > > [_A two-year follow-up of psychodynamic psychotherapy for internalizing disorders in children._](http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2250/3_42/98543047/p1/article.jhtml?term=%2BPsychotherapy+%2BResearch) > > We have hypothesized that brief psychodynamic treatments, with a target on a circumscribed set of symptoms, could be both efficacious and cost-effective for moderate ID (Sigal et al., 1999). The purpose of this article was to evaluate short- and long-term efficacy of a time-limited combined individual and parent-focused PP [_psychodynamic therapy_] for children with ID in a clinical, naturalistic setting…. > > Included children were assigned either to active PP treatment (experimental group) or to community services (comparison group). > > Patients and their families [_in the “experimental group”_] participated in an 11-week psychotherapy based on the protocol La Pratique des Psychotherapies Meres-Bebes (Cramer and Palacio Espasa, 1993), a psychotherapy protocol originally developed for infants and toddlers including only parent-child sessions and focused on the representational world of patents…. > > _Changes on CBCL Total, Internalizing, and Externalizing Scales_ > > For TP, Internalizing and Externalizing significant group by time and time effects were found. Regarding the significant interaction between time and group, t tests between groups showed no significant differences at [T.sub.1] and [T.sub.2], **whereas at follow-up, major improvements in the experimental group appeared** …. > > The analysis of clinical impact for CBCL TP and Internalizing scales (Fig. 1) showed a transition to a borderline range from [T.sub.1] to [T.sub.2] for both groups; **a further improvement to the nonclinical range was observed from [T.sub.2] to [T.sub.3] in the experimental group only, whereas the comparison group remained in the borderline range**. > > The comparison between the experimental and comparison group allows us to point out some similarities and some significant differences in their courses. **Briefly, there is evidence that conditions of treatment influence the rate of change, with major improvements in the experimental group**. Here are a couple of abstracts of meta-studies drawn from [this page](http://www.apa.org/practice/peff.html): > [@](#): > > Reexamined the data of M. L. Smith et al (1980) on the benefits of psychotherapy in 475 controlled studies, using only studies of patients seeking treatment for neuroses, true phobias, and emotional-somatic complaints. The results of 81 controlled trials were integrated statistically using the meta-analytic technique. **The condition of the typical patient after treatment was better than that of 77% of untreated controls measured at the same time, and the rate of relapse in the 1st 2 yrs was small. _Behavior and psychodynamic verbal therapies appeared to be superior to other therapies_**. The relationship between severity of illness and choice of therapy is unknown, and could account for some of the differential effects, but does not vitiate this further evidence of the efficacy of psychotherapy. (94 ref) > –_Does psychotherapy benefit neurotic patients? A reanalysis of the Smith, Glass, and Miller data. Andrews, Gavin; Harvey, Robin. Archives of General Psychiatry; 1981 Nov Vol 38(11) 1203-1208_ > > Results of 375 controlled evaluations of psychotherapy and counseling were coded and integrated statistically. **The findings provide convincing evidence of the efficacy of psychotherapy. On the average, the typical therapy client is better off than 75% of untreated individuals**. Few important differences in effectiveness could be established among many quite different types of psychotherapy. More generally, virtually no difference in effectiveness was observed between the class of all behavioral therapies (e.g., systematic desensitization and behavior modification) and the nonbehavioral therapies (e.g., Rogerian, psychodynamic, rational-emotive, and transactional analysis). > –_Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. Smith,-Mary-L.; Glass, Gene V. American Psychologist; 1977 Sep Vol 32(9) 752-760_ [Here’s](http://www.mmpi-info.com/mmpioutcome.html) an interesting article on using the MMPI to chart change in character structure that result from long-term psychotherapeutic treatment: > [@](#): > > I have noticed in my work with patients in long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy, that the MMPI and the newer form, the MMPI-2 (MMPI/MMPI-2) showed profound changes to personality through out the years of treatment. The MMPI/MMPI-2 changes support the belief that the maturation of personality is only achieved from years of effective treatment, and that brief treatment does not reach deeper levels of personality measured by that test… > > I am unaware of another psychoanalytic practitioner who gives his or her patients, on a regular basis, the MMPI/MMPI-2 at the beginning of treatment, sometimes during, and at the end of treatment. I have been doing this for almost 20 years. This data has allowed me to help my patients to objectively assess their changes, outside of my perceptions and their transferences… > > The MMPI/MMPI-2 is the most used and validated objective test of psychopathology in our field. Yet researchers have found the MMPI/MMPI-2 to be a poor outcome measure, since it wasn’t providing empirical support for brief treatments. Researchers rarely study treatments that last more than 20 sessions. However, this study clearly demonstrated that the MMPI/MMPI-2 was highly reactive to “large dose” treatment, i.e. long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy. **Most the psychopathology scales on the MMPI/MMPI-2 not only significantly changed (most by p\<.001), but they changed from being in the deviant range of functioning to the normal range of functioning after an average of 3 years of treatment**. Scale A, a first factor scale of the MMPI items, is very stable and a good overall measure of psychopathology, decreased by 50.3%. The F scale, another index of overall pathology decreased by 42.3%. There were major reductions in the areas of somatization, depression, intimacy problems, anger, narcissism, anxiety, identity diffusion, impulsiveness, and insecurity. There were also concomitant increases in maturity. **In other words, the MMPI/MMPI-2 not only showed a significant and powerful decrease in psychopathology with long-term psychotherapy, but also showed a significant increase in personality maturation as well**. Now, regarding these examples, some caveats are in order: 1. There are also numerous studies that reveal psychotherapy to be ineffective, even detrimental, to a patient’s health. 2. All studies, both positive and negative, suffer from profound methodological difficulties (although I must admit, I found the MMPI paper pretty compelling at first glance). 3. This area of research is one of the most controversial and highly politicized fields I’ve ever encountered. The profoundly underdetermined nature of the evidence, along with methodological (and ethical) limitations imposed by the subject matter, allow for a broad range of interpretation; and, in addition, there’s a gigantic market at stake. All research in this field must be treated as tentative, at best. 4. Having said that, there is a growing consensus among researchers that psychotherapy, including psychodynamic psychotherapy and psychoanalysis, are effective treatment choices, especially for patients suffering from “emotional” disorders (such as clinical depression). ---
**Author:** ![Dumbguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dumbguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dumbguy)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2003, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/26 "2003-08-17T20:58:44Z")
Freud gets a bad rap because his most talked about theories are the dopeyest ones. No doubt he was strangely obsessed with crapping and oral sex, but he also brought about a paradigm shift in our perception of human consciousness. Freud popularized the concept of the _subconscious_, the idea that people’s actions are sometimes driven by motivations they aren’t completely aware of. Before Freud, it was assumed that people understood themselves. And much of our modern vocabulary for discussing human behavior, like _denial_ and \* rationalization\*, stems from Freud’s theories. Freud also developed a nodal model for the brain where nodes represent concepts and activated nodes bleed energy to connected nodes, which are thematically related. These days nodal brain models and ‘spreading activation’ are pretty much standbys of cognitive science, but Freud had the idea before nerve cells and action potentials were even dreamed of. Sure, Freud was an egomaniac and perhaps even a con man and a pervert. Genius isn’t always pretty. Pythagoras thought beans had souls, fer chrissake. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2003, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/27 "2003-08-17T23:39:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by astro \* > \*\*This is not a question about the man topic of [Cecils’ article on B.F. Skinner](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030815.html), but a question about his brief characterization of Sigmund Freud as a “quack” at the end so I am placing the question here. I know it has now been shown that Freud was way off base on some of his assumptions, but I thought that he was fairly well regarded overall as an insightful pioneer in exploring the nature of consciousness and how this related to behavior. > > Has Freud now really been demoted to a mere “quack” by history? \*\* When people call others “quacks” or such, it only detracts from their own veracity. I read all of Freud’s books except the last one. I didn’t read it because I found an old newspaper clipping of an interview of him. Freud was very popular, and the “in” crowd of socialites would often quote and discuss his work at their parties. They were called Freudians. Sometimes these discussions would make the local newspapers, or radio, because of the controversial nature of Freud’s theories. The newspaper reporter, in the clipping, asked Dr. Freud what he thought of the “Freudians” who quoted his works in the media. Freud replied: “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; me, I am not a Freudian, and I would rather be quoted by my critics, than by my friends, because they quote me more accurately; however, these ideas and concepts of mine are merely the tools of my trade, it is really love that heals.” No need to read the last one after that. Love Leroy ---
**Author:** ![YourOldBuddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/bc79bd/32.png) [@YourOldBuddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YourOldBuddy)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/28 "2003-08-18T00:09:19Z")
Untreated is not the same as non-psychotherapy. Any placebo effect or just human contact has healing effects. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/29 "2003-08-18T00:47:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > The newspaper reporter, in the clipping, asked Dr. Freud what he thought of the “Freudians” who quoted his works in the media. Freud replied: “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; me, I am not a Freudian, and I would rather be quoted by my critics, than by my friends, because they quote me more accurately; however, these ideas and concepts of mine are merely the tools of my trade, it is really love that heals.” If you _happen_ to remember where the clipping was from, then I’m sure the historian Peter Gay, author of _Freud: A Life For Our Time_, would be fascinated. [From here](http://wire.ap.org/APpackages/20thcentury/centstories/080899freud.html) regarding just the plain vanilla “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”: > [@](#): > > A comment often attributed to Freud, which biographer Peter Gay could find no evidence he said or wrote. And the [American Psychoanalytic Society](http://www.apsa-co.org/ctf/pubinfo/ask/archive/askarchiveG.html) would **definitely** be interested: > [@](#): > > After some research and discussions with colleagues, no definitive source for this quotation could be located. The usual reference in the literature reads like this one: “Freud is reputed to have said that a cigar is sometimes only a cigar[”], and we know that potential “Freudian” symbols are not always used to denote “things symbolized.” I would be interested if anyone discovers an actual source for the statement. ---
**Author:** ![mindputty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@mindputty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mindputty)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/30 "2003-08-28T03:27:31Z")
Freud has been misunderstood for ages. It is a ridiculous irony that those who call Freud an “egotist” would probably not have that word to slander him with, were it not for Freud’s huge impact on modern society. Or was it that Freud was “unconsciously” sex-crazed? Popular belief regarding Freud has always been inaccurate because most people didn’t understand his theories, nor did they read his works. A modern psychoanalyst would probably groan if you brought up penis envy. In fact, don’t ask most psychologists about Freud - most clinicians these days aren’t psychoanalytically oriented, and would probably condemn psychoanalysis. As in most things, psychologists can sometimes become divided over an issue, and the issue of Freud is by means no exception! Unfortunately, as most things go, those most opposed to Freud don’t really understand his theories, and have not read his works. P.S. Just because a theory cannot be validated empirically doesn’t mean that it is quackery. Anyone familair with Schroedinger’s Cat? Was Schroedinger a quack as well? ---
**Author:** ![mindputty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@mindputty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mindputty)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/31 "2003-08-28T03:35:13Z")
Freud has been misunderstood for ages. It is a ridiculous irony that those who call Freud an “egotist” would probably not have that word to slander him with, were it not for Freud’s huge impact on modern society. Or was it that Freud was “unconsciously” sex-crazed? Popular belief regarding Freud has always been inaccurate because most people didn’t understand his theories, nor did they read his works. A modern psychoanalyst would probably groan if you brought up penis envy. In fact, don’t ask most psychologists about Freud - most clinicians these days aren’t psychoanalytically oriented, and would probably condemn psychoanalysis. As in most things, psychologists can sometimes become divided over an issue, and the issue of Freud is by means no exception! Unfortunately, as most things go, those most opposed to Freud don’t really understand his theories, and have not read his works. P.S. Just because a theory cannot be validated empirically doesn’t mean that it is quackery. Anyone familair with Schroedinger’s Cat? Was Schroedinger a quack as well? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/32 "2003-08-28T06:44:12Z")
Nothing much to add except a couple of links. [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940211.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940211.html) [http://www.skepdic.com/psychoan.html](http://www.skepdic.com/psychoan.html) Also, the strongest criticism I have for Freud is of his limited range of subjects. He basically treated the well-off, middle-class, repressed people of that era. No surprise then, that he reached the conclusion that repressed thoughts, mostly of sex, is the cause of virtually every disorder we have. If he’d examined the poor population instead he would have reached very different conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/33 "2003-08-28T13:12:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dumbguy \* > **No doubt he was strangely obsessed with crapping and oral sex…** As a person from a Germanic country, especially considering the time he lived in and the obsession with crapping throughout Europe and America, the former isn’t surprising. He wasn’t close to as nutty about it as some doctors. As a guy the latter isn’t surprising. The difference is that he spoke and wrote about it, which wasn’t common back before the _Penthouse_ letters section. ---
**Author:** ![T.Mehr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@T.Mehr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.Mehr)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/34 "2003-08-28T13:17:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dropzone \* > \*\*As a person from a Germanic country, especially considering the time he lived in and the obsession with crapping throughout Europe and America, the former isn’t surprising. \*\* Huuuuh, could you brief me on the **obsession with crapping throughout Europe and America** , please? Never heard about it… ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/35 "2003-08-28T13:35:15Z")
> [@](#): > > crapping throughout Europe :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Sad\_Waters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@Sad\_Waters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sad_Waters)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/36 "2003-08-28T14:27:17Z")
Once again with regards to Freud: 1. people take his ideas out of the social and historical context of the times he lived and developed his ideas and theories. 2. people do not realize the impact he has made on the society and the mind of an entire century in terms of liberating sexual freedom and a forum to discuss ideas about ourselves as indivduals with personal experiences and histories. He revolutionized the idea of the self and helped make it legitimate for indivduals to look at themselves and evaulate themselves more freely in the face of “social rules” of the times. 3. He had an MD, he was a neurologist. 4. Modern psychoanalysis has continued and evolved since his theories. Just a few…Melanie Kline, Fred Busch, Karen Hornei, even philosophers: Kristeva, Lacan and Yalom. 5. Usually people that make such statments like Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor and YourOldBuddy have no understanding of Freud in historical context. I would recommend reading Peter Gay’s biography or Carl Schorske’s “Fin-de-Siecle Vienna” before making such sweeping and ignorant statements. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/37 "2003-08-28T15:01:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by T. Mehr \* > \*\*Huuuuh, could you brief me on the **obsession with crapping throughout Europe and America** , please? Never heard about it… \*\* A quick, entertaining, and distressingly realistic primer in the health fads of the late 19th century is _The Road to Wellville._ What seems like a wacky and bizarre comedy is actually a docudrama with Bridgit Fonda AND Lara Flynn Boyle naked. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/38 "2003-08-28T15:11:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sad Waters \* > **2. people do not realize the impact he has made on the society…** As my wife would say, he singlehandedly destroyed art and literature by making all but the looniest artists and writers painfully aware of what they were saying and what it said about them to people with the limited exposure to Freudian psychology that virtually everybody in the West has received. Had she been born a hundred years later Louisa May Allcott would’ve been in therapy trying to fix her Electra Complex, or at least too embarassed to tell anybody about it, rather than writing some of the most “father fixated” books of all time. ---
**Author:** ![Sad\_Waters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@Sad\_Waters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sad_Waters)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/39 "2003-08-28T15:57:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dropzone \* > \*\*As my wife would say, he singlehandedly destroyed art and literature by making all but the looniest artists and writers painfully aware of what they were saying and what it said about them to people with the limited exposure to Freudian psychology that virtually everybody in the West has received. Had she been born a hundred years later Louisa May Allcott would’ve been in therapy trying to fix her Electra Complex, or at least too embarassed to tell anybody about it, rather than writing some of the most “father fixated” books of all time. \*\* I think what you wife has to say is a cop out. So you wife does not view any art or literature past I would say hm…1940 worth anything since Freud has destroyed the minds of generations of would be intellects? As far as Louisa May Allcott is concerned, you could never know that. As far as the Oedipus and Electra complexes are concerned: there is nothing to be “fixed”…in freud’s theory it was a natural development of a child’s relationship to their first love-objects: their mother and father. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411/40 "2003-08-28T16:49:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sad Waters \* > **So you wife does not view any art or literature past I would say hm…1940 worth anything since Freud has destroyed the minds of generations of would be intellects?** Would you be disappointed if I said yes, that’s exactly what she means, though not because their minds were destroyed but because they have become too self-conscious? > [@](#): > > As far as Louisa May Allcott is concerned, you could never know that. True, she might’ve kept up her strict regimen of self-medication instead of seeking therapy, which would’ve allowed her to stay one of America’s looniets writers. > [@](#): > > As far as the Oedipus and Electra complexes are concerned: there is nothing to be “fixed” According to Freud, perhaps. To Americans with a limited understanding of his theories and whose deepest belief is that anything, especially something as “pervy” as an Oesipus complex, can and must be fixed, I disagree. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-sigmund-freud-really-a-quack/195411.md?page=3)