Wikipedia

Talk:Psychoanalysis/Archive 1

< Talk:Psychoanalysis
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Sam Spade in topic October

For newer comments, please see the talk page.

2005

May

My apologies

I noticed that major sections (mine) were missing, and I reverted to an earlier version, unfortunately, I did not realize that the lasted versions were at the top of the page. Nevertheless, I am going to add back the major edits that have been made, including Freud Wars, and adaptions. --Joseph Wayne Hicks 04:27, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

June

Strange conclusion.

One section of this article had a number of syntax problems. I think I may have fixed most of them. However the end of one paragraph says:

the Freudian method can be adapted to a variety of cultures, but it cannot be employed in its widest scope as Freud and Firestone would advocate.

The context of this sentence does not support the stated conclusion. I still ask, "Why not?" If the answer is implied in the paragraph itself, the paragraph may need some more work.P0M 03:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. Could you rephrase?--whicky1978 June 28, 2005 23:35 (UTC)

Does that mean that the Freudian method can be adapted to some but not all cultures? -- And that therefore although it has some kind of theoretical "widest scope" it doesn't actually fulfill that promise? Does it mean that the Freudian method can be adapted to some (but not all) cultures and that within the cultures that it can be adapted to it has a narrowed scope? Both possibilities seem to be entirely matters of opinion. Did Freud and Firestone "advocate" that the Freudian method should be employed in all cultures? Did they "advocate" that it could be used, but only partially? Whatever the correct construction on these words is, they seem to be entirely unsupported by either evidence or analysis, so as a reader who knows a fair amount about depth psychology but hasn't been steeped in the minutiae of Freudianism, my bewildered question is still, "Why not?" P0M 29 June 2005 03:17 (UTC)

  • Encyclopedias usually do not provide articulated analysis or evidence to support an idea, but rather give a general, global, disclosure of the available facts. So a summary is presented here of what the research supports, and what the experts in the field report.
  • You know alot about psychology? Is psychology a hobby for you or a career? Have you taken any classes in social science or even earned a degree in the field? The reason I ask, is that I have a BA in psychology, and Freud comes up often in psychology, particularly in the fields of human development, counseling psychology, and clinical psychology.--whicky1978 June 29, 2005 21:41 (UTC)

Grünbaum argues that it is falsifiable, and in fact turns out to be false. that has to be the single most badly constructed sentence ever. it is absolutely unclear what/who turns out to be false...psychoanalysis? or grunbaum when he says it is falsifiable.

September

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Free Psychoanalysis Techniques

Hello,

I have tried out a method for doing psychoanalysis alone in front of a computer. It can also be done on paper.

In both approaches, one freely associates, no matter how embarrassing it seems, always writing down what comes to mind.

In the computer version, perfect secrecy can be reached by never saving the file. With paper, close to perfect secrecy can be achieved by ripping the paper apart and flushing it down the toilet.

I spoke to a psychiatrist about this technique. He first said it is auto-erotic in that it only concerns oneself and not another person. He then admitted that even with this technique, the element of fearing to be observed would be present, because one would still fear getting caught writing down the associations. So this technique can still be worthwhile, he said, recommending me to try it out.

I tried it out and it works. It can be used to achieve clarity and clear problem definitions. These can then be stated in conversations with humans to more effectively create a valve for the problems, and in this way they can gradually evaporate.

Best regards,

Vidar Jensen,

vidarajensen@gmail.com

I believe this qualifies as original research. If no-one objects, I'll move it the archival page in a day or two. // Pathoschild 04:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

The talk page was becoming quite difficult to use, so I archived older comments. Are there any objections to this? // Pathoschild 04:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

October

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hypnosis

Hypnosis needs alot of work too. Sam Spade 16:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

A very poor article

The article is often factually incorrect, and it lacks a neutral pov. Modern psychology and medicine consider psychoanalysis quaint at best.

There is little objective data supporting the efficacy of psychoanalysis, as a quick pubmed search will show. What journal articles there are listed appear to bad literature papers than anything of scientific merit. There is strong opinion in the scientific and medical communities that analysis, particularly in its most rigid forms, is of little merit. Indeed, there is not a single link to any sort of objective nedical research in this article. There is a reason--there is little or no unbiased research showing analyisis is useful. For example: REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Current data do not support the use of psychodynamic psychotherapy techniques for hospitalised people with schizophrenia. If psychoanalytic therapy is being used for people with schizophrenia there is an urgent need for trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(3):CD001360.

The claims about Freud are sychophantic,similar to L. Ron Hubbard praize on a Scientology website. Some of the claims are also factually incorrect, too.

Indeed, psychoanalysis clearly meets the definition of quackery and pseudoscience. Whenever the article is edited and criticized for these sort of flaws, the proponents of psychoanalysis immediately swoop down and destroy these neutral, objective comments.

The result of this is a bad page with an embarassing bias.

For more objective sources for the laymen, the Skeptic's dictionaryprovides a good starting place. The problem is that with analysis, so much is wrong that it is hard to know where to begin. // 24.225.95.253, 00:41, September 30, 2005 (UTC)

Reply to "a very poor article"

The last contributor complains that there is "not a single link" to "objective medical research" in the article. He then says that "there is little or no unbiased research showing analysis is useful."

The latter comment is flatly untrue. There is a massive amount of research on psychoanalytically orientied psychotherapy, and a significant amount on full-fledged psychoanalysis. A link to an open-door review of outcome studies in psychoanalysis is the following [1]

I have added this link to the psychoanalysis page. I've also added a section of links to psychoanalysis research papers.

As for the paper on schizophrenia the contributor cites, the article's tentative conclusion that current research data do not fully support the use of psychoanalytic therapy for schizophrenia, and that trials ought to be conducted, says nothing about the use of psychoanalytic therapy for other populations. In fact, few psychoanalytic authors have ever recommended psychoanalytic treatment for schizophrenia. Freud, for example, did not. That's not what it was designed for.

A "quick pubmed search" is hardly enough to give one a good sense of research in contemporary psychoanalysis, or any other form of psychotherapy for that matter. The Psycinfo database would be a better place to search, as psychoanalysis research mostly falls under psychology and psychotherapy research, which is primarily done by academic psychologists, not medical researchers.

It also seems odd to me to criticize an article for a lack of "neutrality" but then say that article ought to be more critical of its topic. Calling psychoanalysis "quackery" is not neutral, it is a judgment. Moreover, without support, it is a judgment that is little more than a bias.

Finally, with regard to the claim that contemporary psychology and medicine "consider psychoanalysis quaint at best"- I refer the author to the remarks in the article describing the changes that have occurred in psychoanalysis since Freud died in 1939. When contemporary psychology and medicine (and "skeptics") criticize psychoanalysis, they mostly are criticizing Freud's old work from the early twentieth century. This is a bit like criticizing modern astrophysics by complaining about Tycho's theories. As a recent article in the APA Monitor on Psychology put it, today's psychoanalysis "is not your parents' psychoanalysis." link to article: [2] Of course psychoanalysis will appear "quaint" if critics focus solely on psychoanalytic writings of 70 years ago. The criticism is circular.

It is hard to respond to the above contributor's other complaints, because he does not specify what is "factually incorrect" about the article and which remarks are "syhcophantic" (sic).

I also want to say something in reply to the contributor who said psychoanalysis ought to be referenced as a "pseudoscience." Whether psychoanalysis is a science or a pseudoscience is itself a controversial question, and the answer to this question ought not to be assumed. Arguments have been made in both directions, and a wide diversity of "standards" for what should count as science have been offered by various writers. There is little consensus on how "science" should be defined. -- (unsigned comment by 172.167.143.241 22:31, October 4, 2005)

thats great, if you make an accoutn this is easier. I would love to see a NPoV article without using terms like psuedoscience. Astrology is a psuedoscience, I don't think this is astrology. Dominick 14:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to reply of "A Very Poor Article"

First the claim stands, this a very poor article. There is a lack of a neutral point of view. Rather, the article shows a definite bias favoring the unproven claims of psychoanalysis--claims that mainstream psychology and psychiatry have disregarded. These actually prove my point. They are neither scientific nor unbiased.

The articles added are clear not "scientific research" in any sense accepted. The articles fall into two basic classes: theories with no data, relying on supposition and anecdote, such as the article about the death of Freud and about attachment theory) or articles claiming to be data oriented but lacking the rigor required in fields of scientific research. The former sort of articles are more akin to history papers. They lack such basics of science such as any sort disprovable thesis, reproducible testing, results of the test, and analysis of data. The latter lack the rigor of experiment design and data analysis required in true scietific work. Were such papers to be presented in most programs in psychology or medicine, they would be dismissed as inadequate and non-scientific.

The papers cited show that the defender of analysis has no idea how peer reviewed science works. Let's review some of the papers listed:

And the rest are the same sort.

Notably, all these papers cited appear in psychoanalytic journals--not in peer reviewed medical or psychology journals. These are biased papers from biased sources. In no sense do they meet the demands of modern scientific papers.

There is a huge difference between scholarship and science. Unfortunately, true believers in psychoanylis confuse the two. Science calls for an intellectual rigor that most psychoanalyis scholarship, as well as the above poster, lack. You can find all sorts of "scientific" papers justifying creationism, graphology, and other forms of quackery. Nevertheless, just because some group assert claims of scientific validity does not make the claims scientific or reasonable. Psychoanalysis, chiropractic, and creationism are examples of this. The irony is that such pseudosciences, such as creationists and psychoanalysts, argue that the other is fakery. -- (unsigned comment by 24.225.95.253 03:20, October 8, 2005)


Response

I'll take the above criticisms in order.

1. The contributor says that the article shows "a definite bias favoring the unproven claims of psychoanalysis." First, as I read the article, it simply describes what these claims are, and how they are related. The contributor cites no specific examples of where it "favors" these claims. To present such an offhand criticism without supporting citations, I would argue, is both poor scholarship and poor science. Citation of evidence is a basic principle of both scholarly and scientific writing.

Second, I am struck by the contributor's word "unproven." In my 10 years of undergraduate and graduate study of psychology, I have not heard any researcher (psychoanalytic, behavioral, ognitive, or other) state that his or her research has "proven" anything. It is generally accepted that research provides support for and falsification of claims, but never definitive proof, because data are always open to interpretation. The fact that psychoanalysis' claims are "unproven," then, does not distinguish it from any other discipline, scientific or otherwise. Claims can never be definitively proven. This is hardly a real criticism.

2. The contibutor writes that "The articles added are clear not "scientific research" in any sense accepted." To support this criticism s/he elaborates in the following way: "The articles fall into two basic classes: theories with no data, relying on supposition and anecdote, such as the article about the death of Freud and about attachment theory) or articles claiming to be data oriented but lacking the rigor required in fields of scientific research. The former sort of articles are more akin to history papers. They lack such basics of science such as any sort disprovable thesis, reproducible testing, results of the test, and analysis of data. The latter lack the rigor of experiment design and data analysis required in true scietific [sic] work. Were such papers to be presented in most programs in psychology or medicine, they would be dismissed as inadequate and non-scientific."

I agree with the contributor's distinction between the "two classes" of articles in the section. There are indeed two classes. What the contributor calls articles "more akin to history papers" are in fact what researchers call "literature reviews" of research. The other class of articles (which the other does not define) are actual quantitative research papers. I am surprised that the contributor would claim that literature reviews are not scientific simply because they are not themselves quantitative studies. They are not intended to be quantitative research papers themselves, but to summarize the existing research. That's what they are for: nothing less, nothing more. Literature reviews are a generally accepted genre of work published in peer-reviewed psychology journals. To verify this claim, the contributor is welcome to actually look at some peer-reviewed psychology journals.

The contributor also seems to dislike the fact that the majority of the articles linked to are literature reviews, rather than actual studies. In an encyclopedia article, as I understand it, the goal is precisely to review and summarize. That's why I chose these particular articles- to give a broad overview of psychoanalytic research. Citations of a large number of actual studies can be found in the literature reviews themselves. Is it really too much trouble for the contributor to look for these citations in the lit reviews, or must I include every citation to a study in the literature reviews as a reference in the body of the wikipedia article itself?

Reacting to the actual research papers presented, the contributor claims that they "lack rigor of experiment design and data analysis." Well, all I can say to this is that, like anyone else, the contributor is welcome to critique the research papers. I think few will disagree when I state that such critique is part of the scientific process. I recommend that s/he write up his criticisms and submit them to one of the journals in which these articles appear. I will also say, though, that I find myself wondering if s/he is familiar with how research in the social sciences usually works, and the standards that are used there, which of necessity are rarely those of the physical sciences.

3. The contributor then says that "all these papers cited appear in psychoanalytic journals--not in peer reviewed medical or psychology journals. These are biased papers from biased sources. In no sense do they meet the demands of modern scientific papers." In case it is unclear, I want to note, first, that the articles are all from peer-reviewed journals. As for the statement that the psychoanalytic research papers are biased because they appear in psychoanalytic journals, well, I wonder whether the contributor would claim that physics papers are biased because they appear in physics journals, or biology papers are biased because they appear in biology journals. This doesn't seem to me to be a fair criticism. Would the contributor argue that to meet his standards of objectivity, all articles must appear in journals outside of their disciplines?

4. The contributor writes that there is "a huge difference between scholarship and science." Yes, there are profound differences in methodology, but it is worth noting that all scientific research depends on scholarship. Scientists do not just go out and look for findings randomly, they ground their studies in their own scholarly reading and synthesis of the existing literature- syntheses that are aided by scholarly literature reviews. If scholarship inherently lacked adequate intellectual rigor, as the contributor seems to be suggesting, then we'd have to trash every bit of scientific research out there. All research depends on prior scholarship on previous research. By the way, I should also note that the standard format of empirical dissertations in psychology doctoral programs includes a review of the scientific literature.

Overall, my impression is that this contributor has had little exposure to actual research in the social sciences,and is holding to an idealistic view of science so that he can use it to attack ideas he dislikes. Psychoanalytically, one may wonder if her/his charge of "pseudoscience" is a projection, as his own scholarship lacks adequate citation and lacks an adequate review of the literature at issue, psychoanalytic and psychological. Previously, s/he assumed psychoanalysis lacked research, without adequately checking (with the exception of the "brief pubmed search"). Now s/he assumes that the research cited is not representative of work done in the social sciences (that "such papers" would be "dismissed" by "most programs" of psychology- I guess Columbia, Yaleand NYU, all of which do psychoanalytic research, don't count), again without adequately checking. What I see here is a person with some big preconceptions about psychoanalysis who really isn't bothering to test them.

Addendum: An example of this, by the way, can be found in the author's recent revision of the paragraph on psychoanalytic treatment of psychosis, where among other things s/he conflates psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy (two significantly different approaches), and misses the well-known work of Karon and colleagues, who have been studying psychoanalytic psychotherapy of schizophrenia for several decades and had positive findings. To fix this problems and make this section NPOV, I've retained her/his references but added the Karon work. There are, incidently, a number of other complexities about psychoanalytic treatment of schizophrenia that complicate the whole thing (for example, the wide variety of ways of working with patients that are called "psychodynamic," and the massive overlap between some psychodynamic therapy techniques and those of many other therapies) but for a wikipedia article it doesn't seem appropriate to go into too much detail. -- (unsigned comment by Leo Bolero at 15:25, October 8, 2005)

A response to the above

The above editor is apparently being obstreperous. I will merely touch upon a few of the errors.

In my years of medical training and practice, I have seen researcher use terms such as "provable," "proven," and similar. For example, someone would state that acetaminophen is a proven treatment myalgia in some cases. Be this as it may, psychoanalysis does not meet the criteria for science, as Popper and others have noted.

Citing the citing of B.P. Karon shows the above editor's bias. A search of PubMedfor research by Karon shows no recent publications. Karon's body of work simply cannot be called adequate research to show that analysis is effective. That is why Karon's work is not considered sufficient in the two cites I posted. And the responder who linked to Karon shows ignorance of the standard for research of health sciences, as these articles searched the literature on schizophrenia long after the bulk of Karon's work on schizophrenia was done. The reason is simple reason for this is that Karon's work has been superceded by more empirically rooted work. (Also, 28 articles shown in PubMed is hardly a huge body of work, with much of done before the advent of second and third generation antipsychotics.) Simply put, science has passed by Karon's work.

As to the complaint of conflation of psychoanalytic/psychodynamic, this again is a strawman. Psychoanalytic theory could be viewed as a subtype of a psychodynamic. Consequently, if there is no evidence of psychodynamic techniques being effective, it follows that there is a lack of evidence for its subtype, psychoanylitic. (Of course, one of the problems is that there are few firm definitions in dynamic or analytic theory. Individuals enter the field, create theories that are difficult or impossible to test, and create terms that lack firm definitions.)

Again, the pscychoanalytic papers cited are not scientific papers in the generally accepted term. The papers cited in the papers are rarely primary research. The reason is there is little scientific literature supporting psychoanalysis. A quick search of the [PubMed]database reveals there are very few papers that involve theory, data generation, and data analysis published in peer reviewed journals.

The fact that he characterizes the issue as a social science is also revealing. What psychoanalysis in treating psychosis is an attempt to treat a condition caused by various problems in the brain, making it a neuroscience issue. Research is revealing that deepression, schizophrenia, and even personality disorders exist primarily due to neurological issues. Consequently, treatment of these is not in the realm of social sciences but rather the health or biological sciences. What may be adequate scholarship in social sciences does meet the stricter criteria for reseach in the biological sciences. Notably, too, the social sciences are moving away from these standards and toward more rigorous research.

And, yes, there are still analysts in major research universities--but their numbers are dwindling. And in my experience, in biological based training, most psychology programs would refuse to accept dynamic papers from trainees.

What the article on psychoanalyis lacks a historical perspective on why psychoanalysis arose. One of the big reasons it occurred was there no effective treatment for mental illness at that time. In the one hundred plus years, more effective therapies have developed--both more effective "talk therapies" and pharmacotherapies. (And even psychosurgeries, such as vagal nerve stimulation and stimulators for severe OCD.) Analysis is a holdover from the days of pre-science where proof of efficacy and research were not required. -- (unsigned comment by 24.225.95.253 at 18:15, October 8, 2005)

Reply

It is striking that after the above contributor had called psychoanalysis "quackery," compares it to creationism, and derides the article, s/he now complains that the present editor is being "obstreperous." Gosh, wonder what provoked my obstreperosity?

The contributor reiterates the claim that psychoanalysis does not meet the criteria for science, and cited Popper, who has already been cited in the actual article. Popper is one voice among many in the debate over psychoanalysis and science, and moreover, his view of what counts as science has been strongly argued against by influential contemporary philosophers of science such as Lakatos. Many believe that Popper's view of science is outmoded. This issue has not been decided. But at any rate, since Popper's argument is, after all, described in the actual article, I'm not sure why the contributor needs to refer to it again.

Again, the contributor relies on pubmed to support his/her claims. Pubmed simply is not where the bulk of psychotherapy research articles are to be found. Psycinfo is the standard database used for lit searches on psychotherapy research, not pubmed. This is consistent with my impression that the contributor is someone (a medical professional, I gather) who has not been exposed to psychology research.

Re schizophrenia, I am not interested in continuing that debate because it is of minimal relevance for the psychoanalysis article. As I stated above, very few psychoanalysts support the use of psychoanalytic treatment for schizophrenia. Re Karon, he is still publishing papers, which would be apparent if the contributor had done a psychinfo search rather than a pubmed search. Karon is a psychologist and publishes much of his work in psychology journals. At any rate, I do agree with the contributor's linked paper's conclusion that more research is required in this regard. I can also accept the assertion that the recent research cited "casts doubt" on Karon's claims. This statement acknowledges the continued uncertainty of the issue, rather than assuming it has already been decided.

I do want to address the contributor's assertion that my citation of Karon is biased. Actually, my own views of psychoanalytic treatment of schizophrenia are more negative than he may be assuming. I think that analysts who use analytic treatment with schizophrenia effectively are really doing something so far from a typical insight-oriented psychodynamic treatment that it is somewhat misleading to call what they do "psychoanalytic." Although these clinicians use psychodynamic case formulation and listening, the actual techniques used (by Karon and most others) are very far from what is typically considered "psychoanalytic." So there is a problem here of how broad the category of "psychoanalytic" ought to be, and this problem, I'd argue, ought to be address before authors simply state that they are working "psychoanalytically" with schizophrenic patients. When I work with schizophrenic patients, for example, I use more of a supportive counseling approach that is supplemented by psychoanalytic listening to help me be optimally sensitive to a patient's moment-to-moment emotional state. But I wouldn't call what I do "psychoanalytic" therapy, because little or nothing is being "analysed" or uncovered. So my own position is not so much for or against analytic therapy with this population, but rather that the entire debate has been built on a shaky foundation of concepts of treatment that are being used in an imprecise manner.

On the other hand, the contributor's claims about the relationship of psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy are simply false. Here's why: So-called "psychoanalysis" is done at a minimum of 3 times weekly and generally involves the use of the couch, almost exclusively insight-oriented interventions, and free association. So-called "psychodynamic therapy", on the other hand, is face-to-face, does not use the couch, and relies more heavily on supportive interventions. These are actually two different forms of treatment, and have been shown by IPA research to be appropriate for different populations. This distinction is relevant to the schizophrenia issue because no one at all today does full-fledged on the couch psychoanalysis with schizophrenic patients, Karon included.

Finally, I am struck by the fact that although I've noted that the research literature reviews linked to in the article cite plenty of actual research articles, the contributor seems to continue to ignore this fact, and tries to say that the reason few of the articles are actual studies is that few actual studies exist. I can't help but wonder if the contributor actually believes what s/he is saying. Did he or she not actually read through the articles and notice the citations of research studies? Did Masling's citation of his many-volumed review of empirical research in psychoanalysis, for example, escape his notice?

I also want to note how much the contributor relies on what might be called arguments of legitimation- criticisms based on generalizations about how widely psychoanalysis is accepted and by whom. Is science, in his estimation, essentially a popularity contest? Let's remember how broadly accepted astrology and creationism are, and how difficult a time Galileo had getting his ideas recognized.

Regarding the distinction between the physical and the social sciences, the involvement of the brain or lack thereof is not particularly relevant. The issue here is which disciplines are at work empirically studying psychoanalytic ideas, and the main discipline doing that is psychology. If the contributor wishes to criticize research methods in psychology, s/he is welcome to do so, but such criticisms belong in the psychology section, not here.

Finally, it seems that the contributor still has yet to provide support for his assertion that the article is "biased." He takes my citation of Karon to mean that the schizophrenia section is biased, but this single piece of ambiguous evidence demonstrates little. -- (unsigned comment by 148.4.151.110 at 20:25, October 8, 2005)

addendum

I just noticed that the contributor apparently changed the title of the section of online research papers to "online papers on psychoanalysis" rather than "online papers on psychoanalytic research." Just because a paper is not itself a research study but only reviews research studies, the title of the section in which it is placed can't include the word "research?" Nah. I've changed the title to "about psychoanalytic research" instead of "on psychoanalytic research." Hopefully writing "about" rather than "on" research makes it explicit enough that most of the papers are lit reviews. Good grief. -- (unsigned comment by Leo Bolero on 22:21, October 8, 2005)

Resonse to addendum: Calling them research papers does not make them research papers. They are almost exclusively papers about theories, some with occasional anecdotal claims, and they cite other anectdotal papers. That maybe research in the sense of term paper being research, but it is not research in the sense of science. This belief again shows the bias of the writer. I replaced biased laguage with neutral POV language, and it is edited out. -- (unsigned comment by 24.225.95.253 on 22:40, October 8, 2005)

reply

No, I'm not going any further with this. The lit reviews cite many research papers, but I'm not going to list them all here, because that would be silly. I'll simply undo your edit, because this is nuts. -- (unsigned comment by Leo Bolero on 23:00, October 8, 2005)

Response

Contrary to your assertion otherwise, Pub med is the standard for health research--scientific papers on health science. Pscinfo, being The American Psychological Association website, is limited to psychological psychotherapy papers. Folks other than psychologists practice psychotherapy. Interestingly, no cites were made to papers with reproducible empirical evidence supporting psychoanalysis available on Psycinfo.

The reason that I compare analysis to such things as creationism and chiropractor is that it is similar to these pseudosciences. It is an explanatory model that arose without any real scientific research, and the suppositions of this model continue to follow blindly.

The entry continues to be poor and biased, giving a viewpoint consistent with the advocates of psychoanalysis, who represent a tiny, isolated portion of the mental health community, and a portion that is falling further and further out of the mainstrean as data reveal the hollowness of their assertions. I repezatedly point this out, showing the sources are primarily limited to the analytic community's sources, and have had outside sources edited out by the true believers. (An example of the bias is the first sentence--the psychoanalysis claims to do these thing, but no support is offered to these claims. When the sentence was corrected to point out that makes psychoanalysis to elucidate, it was edited out.)

The key thing showing bias and lack of neutral point of view is the lack of discussion of efficacy of pscychoanalysis. Presumably, people see analysts to obtain help with mental health issues. No discussion exists on this. No proof is offered that psychoanalysis is effective in treating anything. No mention is made of the cost of psychoanalysis, nor of its fall from favor over the last 50 years as a treatment modality. Once the reigning method of mental health treatment, analysis has been all but disgarded by most of the medical and psychological community. There is a reason for this: more effective treatments have replaced it. —preceding unsigned comment by 24.225.95.253 (talk • contribs) 22:19, October 8, 2005

Reply

Folks other than psychologists practice psychotherapy, but not many folks other than psychologists research it. And many psychological publications are not referenced in pubmed. Also, psycinfo does not only include publications in which psychologists publish, but also other mental health publications.

Again the contributor treats science as a popularity contest, as if more popular ideas were somehow more true or rigorous. I suspect that if he living in Copernicus's time he would argue that the idea that the earth is not the center of the universe represents the view of a "tiny, isolated portion" of the scientific community and therefore ought to be ignored.

Regarding the comparison with creationism, the fact that psychoanalysis arose without quantitative research at its beginning is an historical fact, but says nothing about the validity of psychoanalysis, especially now that there is quantitative research. Logical positivism, the philosophical foundation of much of contemporary science, was partly originated by Auguste Compte, who was floridly psychotic. That doesn't mean all contemporary science is invalid. The origins of an idea do not invalidate the idea.

And again, we are given a lot of vague, derisive generalizations: "poor", "biased," "hollow," etc, which are not defined or supported by evidence.

Regarding the first sentence of the article, which I did not personally edit, the assertion that the claims of psychoanalysis have not been supported is simply not true, I don't get it. Reading the lit reviews of psychoanalytic research I linked to the article, does the contributor think the authors of these reviews invented the studies they cite? Is it a conspiracy, with lit reviews reviewing nonexistent studies, conjuring up imaginary research and then getting their colleagues to also cite it? Crikey.

I still do not see the kind of intellectual rigor in this contributor's writings that would satisfy any standards of scholarship of which I am aware.

As for the cost of psychoanalytic treatment, it nowadays ranges from anywhere between 10 bucks a session with an analytic candidate to 250 with a senior training analyst. I will add this fact in the technique section. -- (unsigned comment by Leo Bolero on 23:00, October 8, 2005)

Response Again, no evidence is provided of the efficacy of psychoanalysis. Instead, ad hominem attacks--but that is consistent with psychoanalysis. Ask for proof, and you will get attacked as a non-believer. You can make claims, but none of the papers you have cited offer any reproducible evidence that psychoanalysis is effective, let alone cost effective, in treating anything. You, along with this article, do not address this. There is undoubtedly a reason for this--the lack of data supporting psychoanalysis as a treatment modality.

As to your incorrect claims about PubMed, I suggest you search it. There tens of thousands of articles on psychology and psychoanalysis in its database. (For example, a search using the terms "depression" and "psychotherapy" results in 8750 hits, while "psychoanalysis" generated 8630 hits.) There are not many about rigorous statistically valid studies on the in efficacy of psychoanalysis in it, as there are not many of these anywhere.

Of course your posts, similar to psuedosciences such as psychoanalysis, creationism, chiropractic, and homeopathy, are lacking in verifiable, objective data. -- (unsigned comment by 24.225.95.253 on 23:55, October 8, 2005)

Reply

Evidence for the efficacy of psychoanalysis is cited in the research articles and in the open-door review of outcome studies in psychoanalysis that is linked to the article. The studies cited are quantitative and replicable. I really think I've done enough work in this regard, and am not willing to continue searching for and linking research papers to the article forever, especially when you automatically deny the existence and/or validity of those I do present without, apparently, reading them closely enough to know what the research is that they cite.

But maybe repeating this fact won't help. I don't seem to be getting through by the use of reason. Let's instead examine your position: you say first that "no evidence is provided of the efficacy of psychoanalysis." Then you say "none of the paper you have cited offer any reproducible evidence that psychoanalysis is effective." You've also said that the research cited "lacks rigor." So, psychoanalysis has no efficacy research, and this nonexistent research is not reproducible, and lacks rigor. Here, you've essentially blended two incompabible criticisms together. Somehow, psychoanalytic efficacy research both does not exist and is not rigorous.

Most of your postings (for verifiable data, scroll upward) have followed this paradoxical argument-psychoanalytic research doesn't exist, and psychoanalytic research is poor research. Not only do the articles I linked lack citations of research, the reseach they cite is bad research. Not only do outcome studies of psychoanalysis not exist, they lack scientific rigor.

If you didn't make this double argument, your position would be in more trouble than it already is, because on the one hand, if you simply said psychoanalytic research did not exist, then you'd have to explain just what are these citations of studies in the papers that I linked.

If on the other hand, you simply said that psychoanalytic research is poor research, then you'd have to concede that psychoanalysis has research and would have to agree to allow a section to be titled "papers on psychoanalytic research."

But either of these maneuvers would require you to compromise, to concede some ground in the argument, and you aren't willing to do that. "No!," you say, "Psychoanalysis has no research!" Then confronted with citations of studies, you reply, "Well, it is poor research!" And then you switch back to the former position (no research) when needed.

This isn't about reason, it isn't about science. This is about cutting down psychoanalysis in any way that you can, really, from any angle you can. If it isn't bad because it has no research, it is bad because it has poor research, or it is bad because it didn't begin with research, or it is bad because it is expensive, or it is bad because other therapies are supposedly better. The constant refrain: it is bad. Any weapon you can use to drive this home, you pick it up and start stabbing away.

I am curious, analytically, about what put you on the attack. A bad experience with an analyst? Discomfort with the kinds of icky things Freud talks about? A sense of inferiority you handle by putting down others' ideas? -- (unsigned comment by Leo Bolero on 00:54, October 9, 2005)


Response: Really, I get this feeling that you don't understand research or the idea of efficacy. The papers posted, with one exception, do not address efficacy as you claim. If they do so, then cite some studies that do so, here in the discussion area. I did not see a whole lot of such papers in the list posted. You keep on saying these papers to which you linked do this, but I looked at them and did not see one that really addresses the issue efficacy of any specific population, let alone a randomized population. These papers look at cases and historical ideas but do not examine data on the efficacy of psychoanalysis to the degree of rigor required in research for such therapies as CBT, DBT, or IPT. None of the papers you listed do that. Read them--they are not about efficacy data. They are about theories and some anecdotal reports. That is not considered good research. There are no cohort studies, no randomization of patients, no comparisons, nothing. The only paper cited that comes close is Wilczek, A. et al. (2005). Change after long term psychoanalytic psychotherapy. However, the design contains numerous flaws, such as a lack of blinding, lack of comparison to other or alternative therapies, etc. Also, there is no way for showing that the population is self selecting, etc. But it is far closer to a reasonable examination of analysis than the others.

I am curious about your inability to answer the questions trutfully and your need to make ad hominem attacks. You characterize disagreeing with views psychoanalysis as "as putting others down" and "cutting down psychoanalysis...." Apparently, when unable to answer questions, you result to insults posed as quasi-intellectual posturing. Why this is personalization when the efficacy of analysis is questioned? Why this inability to admit you have not addressed the questions? Your responses to your own failing seem like an extreme example of projection.

You seem unable to realize that this article on psychoanalysis fails to address the core questions that must be asked of any type of therapy: Is the therapy safe and effective?

There is nothing in this article addressing this question; you certain seem unable to provide data that does so. Let's see some data. When other therapies are shown to be ineffective in healthcare, they are discarded. The frontal lobotomy, for example, is no longer regarded as appropriate in almost all cases. -- (unsigned comment by 24.225.95.253 at 01:48, October 9, 2005)

2004

October

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Validity of Psychoanalysis

I think that ist article is not NPOV. There are more effective pychotherapies out on the market, and many psychologists think that Psychoanalysis ist neither scientific nor effective. --unsigned

Your point is well taken, in fact, psychoanalysis is listed as a pseudoscience on Wikipedia. Freud conceived of science in a nineteeth century way and his methods and conclusions would not meet modern standards. However, there is a vast body of writing, research, and theoretical writing as well as professional experience. Material critical of psychoanalysis is certainly welcome in the article, but so is material regarding the theories and practices of both orthodox psychoanalysis and the other schools. Fred Bauder 22:33, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Just because there are more effective treatments does not mean the article is not NPOV. Psychoanalysis (especially its modern form) has advantages over other treatments because it is more comphrehensive. Joseph Wayne Hicks 03:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

The article as it stands is not NPOV simply because it does not talk about the many critics of psychoanalysis, including Karl Popper, Ernest Gellner, Adolf Gr&uumlaut;nbaum, Frederick Crews, Edward Erwin, et al. The s olution to this is very simply to add more material about the criticisms of psychoanalysis. I will start. --Macrakis 05:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

" In spite of its popularity in some circles, recent studies examining utilization a nd psychotherapists' identification with various schools of therapy indicate that interest in psychoanalysis is clearly waning." Can you provide source? --pippo2001 22:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article apparently being controversial, I've added a temporary NPOV tag to prevent further POV edits. // Pathoschild 04:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

2003

September

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Effects on scizophrenia?

From the article:

and the prevailing view is that psychoanalysis may worsen the symptoms of schizophrenia.

Cite, please? -- The Anome 09:18, 4 Sep 2003 (UT C)

The article apparently no longer states this. // Pathoschild 04:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Undated: Validity of psychoanalysis

As such, its effectiveness is questionable and it is a very expensive therapy, often a patient will see an analyst for 50 minute sessions over a period of years at a rate of $100 a session or more.

[[

Whose POV is it, that psychoanalysis's effectiveness is questionable? I myself happen to think this is true, based on my eclectic reading, but I'd like to see a methodical study comparing psychoanalysis to, say, simply doing nothing. I seem to remember a comment by Erving Goffman that a certain researcher or hospital found out that inmates got better faster just from hanging out == on the ward than by having any psychoanalysis sessi ons at all -- can anyone else confirm this? --Uncle Ed

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psychoanalysis/Archive_1&oldid=598600079"