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, what was the primary perspective of your training?
My answers: 1. MS 1970, PhD 1972 2. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 3. Yes 4. The faculty also tried to present an eclectic approach.
Dr. Bob Wildlbood Lecturer in Psychology Indiana University Kokomo Kokomo, IN 56904-9003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 21 Oct, 2004, at 18:51, Aubyn Fulton wrote:
Aubyn writes among a bunch of other stuff... 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 this I mean that most psychology departments in US research
universities have never, at any time in the last century or this, been
comprised of a large number of faculty who have taken Freud as a basic point
of departure in their research program.
B. Freud has never been much more than a marginal figure within clinical
psychology (which I distinguish here both from psychiatry and from academic
psychology). I agree that Freud has not been marginal in clinical
psychology, and few clinical psychologists with doctorates more than 10-15
years old would have missed significant coverage of Freud in their training.
But even here Freud has not had a monopoly, nor held the kind of
authoritative sway he did in psychiatry for so long.
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
