My understanding is that Rorschach did indeed select cards that seemed to do a
decent job of distinguishing schizophrenic (or perhaps more broadly psychotic)
individuals from non-schizophrenic individuals. So Christopher Green is
correct that at least some of Rorschach stimuli were selected
A few points in response to Stephen's and Aubyn's postings on 21 October:
Stephen wrote:
Blaming Freud and his undeniable deadness are not the issue here.
The question was whether Freudian concepts are still used in the
practice of present-day clinical psychology. Unfortunately, they are.
And I
I have to completely disagree with Dennis's previous postings about the placement of
Freudian theory in History and Systems courses and not in Developmental.
Dennis wrote:
I teach Developmental Psychology and noticed that the problems Gary
points were more obvious in those texts. So, a few
Much more importantly
(IMHO), censoring one's history course to suit ones personal
theoretical sensibilities is just plain Orwellian. Freud was
influential -- you teach it. You don't have to enodrse it. (I assume
you teach about, say, eugenics without endorsing it, yes?)
Astonished,
--
Phrenology was influential but, other than for a brief mention in the context of localization of function, would you spend much time on it? Would it be Orwellian to not mention it?
Michael T. Scoles, Ph.D.Interim Chair, Dept. Psychology CounselingUniversity of Central ArkansasConway, AR 72035
I don't know what place you mean. Making a point with another example doesn't put you anywhere special.
You are saying that phrenology, as silly as it was, deserves mention in a historical context. That is what some are arguing when it comes to Freud. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/22/04 2:07:33 PM
Allen wrote
I've rebutted Aubyn's repeated contention that the assumption behind my
postings on Freud is that psychology suffers from an uncritical acceptance
of Freudian dogma more than once, and I don't know what more I can say to
disabuse him of his conviction that this is the case.
Aubyn
Aubyn writes...
I include what seem to me to be the most relevant parts of this thread below
my signature line.
I may have been unclear, but Christopher has grasped the point of my
question, Allen. I do understand (and take for granted) that Freud was long
the dominant voice in psychiatry, and
Aubyn Fulton commented:
In my experience Freud has never been much more than a
marginal figure within American academic psychology - and barely more than
that within most currents of American clinical psychology.
And Allen E. replied:
No one argues that Freud remains influential in
Stephen Black wrote:
i) the extraordinary madness of the recovered memory movement which
took the Freudian concept of repression to new heights of absurdity
and, in the process, caused serious harm to many.Only a few years
ago, acceptance of this outrageous therapy was widespread in
clinical
I asserted that Freudian-inspired nonsense continues to cause
significant mischief in the current practice of clinical psychology.
In support, I cited the sorry history of recovered memory therapy
which is based on the Freudian notion of repression of traumatic
early childhood events.
Chris
Aubyn writes...
I appreciate the on-going discussion, but feel the need to re-state my
original claim, which (perhaps no great loss) seems to have been a bit
muddled in the back and forth. The claim is in 2 parts:
A. Freud has been a marginal figure in American academic psychology
departments. By
I think it would be interesting to conduct a survey of clinical
psychologists on this list.
1. When did you receive your training?
2. Where did you receive your training?
3. Were the ideas of Freud a significant part of your training?
4. If Freud were not a significant part of your training,
Stephen Black wrote:
In other words, the Rorschach is a fine example of a well-constructed
and validated test, exactly as an empiricist would have wanted?
No, it is mostly worthless. But my understanding is that it was
constructed along empiricist lines. My point was that the two are not
A response to Aubyn Fulton's thought-provoking (for me!) comments on 18
October:
I have found Dr. Easterson's periodic comments about Freud to this list
to be interesting and informative - but I often feel like I have walked in
late to a symposium or a debate. This feeling has not diminished
Allen Esterson wrote:
No one argues that Freud remains influential in current academic psychology or academic clinical psychology. But I think a check on the historical record will show that Aubyn is mistaken when he writes (18 Oct) that Freud has never been much more than a marginal figure in
Christopher Green wrote on 20 October:
Allen Esterson wrote:
No one argues that Freud remains influential in current academic psychology or
academic clinical psychology. But I think a check on the historical record will
show that Aubyn is mistaken when he writes (18 Oct) that Freud has
Correction. Re-reading Christopher's message, and Aubyn's original
posting, it seems I misunderstood one point they were making. I have
always understood (evidently mistakenly) that the term clinical
psychology overlapped with academic psychiatry to the extent that they
each included
Aubyn
wrote...
I know there are pockets of Freudology
out there... (SNIP) In my
experience Freud has never been much more than a marginal figure within American
academic psychology - and barely more than that within most currents of American
clinical psychology.
Riki wrote...
You are
PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 5:38 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: [tips] Freud again
While on the subject of the adducing of selective facts to 'corroborate' a
pet theory while ignoring material that is not in accord with it... (see
my previous message, 16 October
While on the subject of the adducing of selective facts to 'corroborate' a
pet theory while ignoring material that is not in accord with it... (see
my previous message, 16 October):
Yesterday I wrote:
...Cioffi's exposure of the manifestly false accounts Freud gave of the [seduction
theory]
On 13 May 2004, Stephen Black wrote [snip]:
When I teach Freud, I end with the following quotation from the great
Nobel prize-winning scientist, Peter Medawar:
[Freud's theory] although posing as science, had in fact more in
common with primitive myth than with science... it resembled
I wrote:
When I teach Freud, I end with the following quotation from the great
Nobel prize-winning scientist, Peter Medawar:
[Freud's theory] although posing as science, had in fact more in
common with primitive myth than with science... it resembled
astrology rather than
As I didnt receive the 10 May Digest on Tuesday, and I understand that
there were problems with the Digest that day so other TIPSters may also
not have received it, Im re-posting below my response to some pertinent
comments made by David Gents in relation to previous postings on this
subject.
On 13 May 2004, Allen Esterson wrote:
While I agree that Freud should be covered in basic psychology, the
problem is that a lot of mythological stories are presented in College
psychology texts about the origins and development of psychoanalysis and
about Freuds case histories
Allen's
Stephen Black wrote:
Nevertheless, a handy web search suggests that deep space astronomers do
call what they do experiments, even if they don't randomly assign planets to
conditions. For example, NASA has something called Clementine Deep Space
Probe Science Experiment, and I think their
I had mentioned that the above TV programme had opened with a quote
from Freud to the effect that he had invented a new scientific method
for studying the mind. I sneered. On the contrary, I said,
Percival Bailey had an old paper in which he claimed that Freud's
scientific period ended in
27 matches
Mail list logo
