Talk:Psychoanalysis/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Unconscious

The primary aspect to psychoanalysis is the unconscious mind. This is very evident from the fact that all psychoanalysts who have existed in history - 1. Freudian school 2. Jungian school of Analytical Psychology 3. Anna Freud School 4. Kleinian Object Relations School 5. Stephen Mitchell School of Relational Psychoanalysis say one thing: and that is that psychoanalysis is about the unconscious mind.

There are other psychotherepeutic therapies - cognitive therapy is behavioral, and linked to CBT. Psychiatry is medical and biological.

To deny the unconscious as being the central facet of psychoanalysis would mean completely misrepresenting the research done by Freud, who did not "create" the discipline, but invented it. All he - and his followers talk about is the unconscious mind.

If the article wants to be based on reliable sources, it must go by the existing research and practice of psychoanalysis. MrsCaptcha (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I added a source and tweaked the definition to fit it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Only about unconsciousness

—I'm not entirely convinced this definition is better. The fact that Freud believed that retrieval of these unconscious thoughts and conscious recollection of them would help the individual seems to be rooted in conscious effects. He also believed that introspection was valuable and that would if anything be conscious. By being aware of the unconscious, does it not become conscious? I'm not arguing that the unconsciousness is not the central tennet, but it certainly isn't alone in being important. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Could anyone respond to these concerns? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The entire point of the relation between psychoanalysis and the unconscious is to bring unconscious processes into consciousness so that it can be addressed by conscious strategies of intervention. That does obviously not mean that the unconscious is not central to psychoanalysis - but the opposite. Please present some sources about the relation between psychoanalysis and the unconscious if further discussion of this is to be a fruitful .·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments concerning writing

Maunus' definition is better than the poorly written, uncited text added by CFCF, since rather than beginning with some vague generality about the unconscious, it properly acknowledges that psychoanalysis is in the first place a set of psychotherapeutic techniques. Maunus' definition is better in other ways as well, and might even be acceptable, though it still probably could be improved further. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

FKC, once again, we are not here to fight about whose definition is better or worse. Your confrontational, argumentative, divisive, insecure attitude that makes you take things personally on one hand and make attacks on others in the same breath is not going to help you or this article or Wikipedia. Clearly, the discussion/improvements have moved forward after Frederic and Maunus entered the talkpage, and what I can see both of them doing is trying to improve the definition and add sources, but from your words it is growing more and more apparent that you are looking for nothing more than an opportunity to create fights and scapegoat someone or the other. MrsCaptcha (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussing whose definition is better or worse is necessary if the aim of editing is to improve the article. Since Maunus' version is better than that of CFCF, it was reasonable of me to say so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is going to be given an award for writing a better definition, and neither is anyone going to be arrested for writing a "poorly worded" one. If that has been acknowledged, maybe we should focus on the final article rather than on users' identities. And now, a little request. I hope that puts an end to this tedious argument with you, FKC. MrsCaptcha (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no interest in engaging in argument for the sake of it. I am interested in discussing how to improve the article. So, I reiterate that I think the content added by Maunus is significantly better than the content added by CFCF, which was indeed poorly written - and that I think one has the right to suggest that something is poorly written without having one's comments removed as violation of WP:CIVIL. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It is uncivil in that it followed a number of rude unprovoked remarks to me and MrsCaptcha and neither concerns the message or content of the text. It is a poor argument in that it carries no weight — I can call everything you write poorly written, or everything you propose poorly written in return — that does not make it so. You did nothing to explain why it was "poorly written" beyond lambast me for following your suggestions (see above before my initial edit). Manaus, it was very wrong of you to reopen this hatt, it only promotes further fruitless discussion and in removing my comment you violated WP:TPO. I will make a note that I have not rescinded my concerns that there may be need to take action if discussion on this page does not adhere to WP:CIVIL. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

My calling your addition poorly written was an observation, and was not intended as an argument. I had already explained the problems with your addition a number times previously, and I will do so again. Your addition read, "Psychoanalysis is a set of theories and associated techniques, many of which relate to the unconscious mind." That sentence does not begin by properly identifying psychoanalysis as a form of psychotherapy, a basic fact that ought to be mentioned in the first sentence, and by stating that "many" of the theories and techniques relate to the unconscious it implies, without evidence, that some do not. If you make poorly written and uncited additions to articles, then you can expect them to be criticized. I certainly will try to be as civil as possible, and I suggest that you for your part try to stop seeing any kind of criticism of your edits as inherently uncivil. As Maunus pointed out, by hatting the discussion, you effectively tried to silence an editor who disagrees with you, and that is not how things are meant to work here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Saying something is poorly written without explaining why is not an observation, it does nothing beyond imply disdain towards others and attempts to invalidate their contributions based upon no rationale. If you mean it was stylistically poor you could have suggested an improvement. If it was grammatically poor you could have gone ahead and fixed that immediately. As for your two points, they are both invalid:

1. You say: "it does not begin by properly identifying psychoanalysis as a form of psychotherapy" — but that was there in the very next sentence. Splitting sentences in two increases the readability, one of the major criticisms Wikipedia has faced over the years. Psychoanalysis is not solely a psychotherapy either, and implying that it is always used in a therapeutic context is incorrect.
2. We have been through this, and it is nicely encapsulated in the essay: WP:SKYISBLUE. You're not going to find a reference for this, this is the problem with all our definitions on Wikipedia. Listing every possible detail in the first sentence is not a solution — it is part of the problem, if not the core of the problem of WP:READABILITY.

Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 08:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

An observation is an observation even if it comes without an explanation. Your assertion that my calling your addition poorly written implies disdain for you unfortunately suggests, as I said, that you tend to see any criticism of your editing as inherently uncivil. That psychoanalysis is a form of psychotherapy is a fundamental fact that ought to be in the very first sentence; your point that it was mentioned in the second sentence would be relevant only if it did not matter where in the lead something is mentioned. It does nothing to make the article more readable to shift basic facts that ought to go first into later sentences. You assert that my other point is not valid, but your response is totally irrelevant. The words "You're not going to find a reference for this" are not a justification for original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

1. You have not implied that previously, and you were previously very uncivil to MrsCaptcha. This is what my interpretation is based off, not some tendency against criticism.
2. Once again, two shorter sentences is better than one long. A longer list is far worse in every way. Fewer people will read it, and fewer people will understand it. If that means we split up important information and only mention it in sentence two, that is a good thing — not a bad thing. It absolutely matters where in the lede things are mentioned, but it is not unreasonable to wait until the second sentence to mention this.

Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 08:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I won't be further engaged in a discussion about you personally. As for the article, the first sentence currently reads, "Psychoanalysis is a set of theories and associated therapeutic techniques related to the study of the unconscious mind", which is not necessarily absolutely perfect but is at least basically satisfactory. It is quite a short sentence and there is no need to make it shorter, least of all by shifting a basic fact such as that psychoanalysis is a form of psychotherapy into a later sentence. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Further discussion of the wording of the definition sentence ought to be based on sources, otherwise it is simply a timesink. So spend a little time googling and present any results that you think call for a tweak to the definition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Maunus is right. There have been far more words added to the talk page than have been added to the article in the same period. And I've just added more.... dammit.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Schools of thought

I shall be adding a section to the article regarding the different schools of thought soon, similar to the ones that I detailed above. MrsCaptcha (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Page numbers

I've added "p." when writing refs because the other book refs use it (the ones with page numbers; lots are missing). But the journal articles don't, and it's easier to write the book refs without it. Does anyone mind if I remove it from the other refs? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Given the lack of objections, I'll remove them with my next edit. If anyone does object later, I'll be happy to put them back, so just let me know. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

In general, I think you are doing a very good job of editing the article, but I have a quibble with this edit, since I am not sure it is worth mentioning Juliet Mitchell by name in the lead. You altered "Several of Freud's colleagues and students went on to establish their own disciplines—including Alfred Adler's individual psychology and Carl Jung's analytical psychology—while Freud retained the term psychoanalysis for his own school of thought" to "Juliet Mitchell writes that Freud fought to retain the term psychoanalysis for his own school of thought, a position accepted by several of his colleagues and students who went on to establish their own disciplines, including Alfred Adler's individual psychology and Carl Jung's analytical psychology"; in this instance, I think the previous version may have been better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, I agree about the name in the lead. The problem is that we stick very closely to her point, so I quickly added in-text attribution. I'm hoping we can find other sources about the same issue, so that we can make the same point more generically. I'm not happy with that paragraph in general, but I can't at the moment see how to fix it. It currently says:

Juliet Mitchell writes that Freud fought to retain the term psychoanalysis for his own school of thought, a position accepted by colleagues and students who established their own disciplines, including Alfred Adler and Carl Jung. Neo-Freudians who contributed to later developments include Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Harry Stack Sullivan and Abram Kardiner.

I'll remove her name for now, and we can talk about how to develop it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. By the way, if you don't like any of my edits, feel free to revert. I won't mind. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sarah, I don't think that, once again, we are here to decide whether we like someone's edits or not, and whether we should revert them or not. We must focus our judgment on the article instead. I have fixed the references. I still don't exactly understand why you changed the referencing digits/numbers into alphabets and/or how or why you did so. Jumping from ref "a" to ref #4 and #5 was more about an unlogical structure than anything else, that's all. MrsCaptcha (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I restored an older version of those sentences that perhaps works better. It now reads:

Since then psychoanalysis has been developed and critiqued, mostly by Freud's colleagues and students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung who founded their own disciplines, and by neo-Freudians such as Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Abram Kardiner and Harry Stack Sullivan. Freud retained the term psychoanalysis for his own school of thought.

SarahSV ^(talk) 03:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

My only remaining concern is that perhaps it would have been worth mentioning that Jung's discipline is called analytical psychology and Adler's individual psychology? That information was in earlier versions of the lead, but was removed. I can see that it could be regarded as off-topic, but I believe it does help to explain what psychoanalysis is to distinguish it by name from other systems or therapeutic practices. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That's in a footnote now. I can't see the point of explaining what psychoanalysis isn't, before we explain what it is. There was an earlier version of that sentence that might make more sense. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is in a footnote, where no one is likely to see it. The first sentence of the lead ("Psychoanalysis is a set of theories and therapeutic techniques related to the study of the unconscious mind, which together form a method for the treatment of mental-health disorders") explains what psychoanalysis is, so I do not believe there should be any concern about "explaining what psychoanalysis isn't, before we explain what it is". Which earlier version of the sentence did you have in mind? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• It began life as "Psychoanalysis (or Freudian psychology) is a body of ideas developed by Austrian physician Sigmund Freud and continued by others."
• "continued by others" became: "and these have been criticized, expanded and developed in different directions mostly by his students (Alfred Adler and Carl G. Jung, and later the neo-Freudians as Erich Fromm, Karen Horney and H. S. Sullivan).
• Then it became a second sentence: "Psychoanalysis expanded, criticized and developed in different directions, mostly by Freud's students (Alfred Adler and Carl G. Jung, and later the neo-Freudians as Erich Fromm, Karen Horney and H. S. Sullivan)."
• Which became: "Psychoanalysis has expanded, been criticized and developed in different directions, mostly by some of Freud's former students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung, Wilhelm Reich and later by neo-Freudians such as Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Harry Stack Sullivan and Jacques Lacan."
• Then it was split into three sentences: "Since then, psychoanalysis has expanded and been revised, reformed and developed in different directions. This was initially by Freud's colleagues and students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung who went on to develop their own ideas independently from Freud. Later neo-Freudians included Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Harry Stack Sullivan and Jacques Lacan."
• Then expanded: "Since then, psychoanalysis has been revised and developed in different directions. Some of Freud's colleagues and students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Jung, went on to develop their own ideas independently. Freud insisted on retaining the term psychoanalysis for his school of thought, and Adler and Jung accepted this. The Neo-Freudians included Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Harry Stack Sullivan."
• Analytical psychology was added: "Over time, psychoanalysis has been revised and developed in different directions. Some of Freud's colleagues and students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Jung, went on to develop their own ideas independently. Jung established the discipline of Analytical Psychology, while Freud insisted on retaining the term psychoanalysis for his own school of thought, and Adler and Jung accepted this. The Neo-Freudians included Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, and Harry Stack Sullivan."
• Individual psychology was added: "Several of Freud's colleagues and students went on to establish their own disciplines—including Alfred Adler's individual psychology and Carl Jung's analytical psychology—while Freud retained the term psychoanalysis for his own school of thought. The neo-Freudians included Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Harry Stack Sullivan and Abram Kardiner.
• Then tightened and in its own paragraph: "Since then psychoanalysis has been developed and critiqued, mostly by colleagues and students of Freud, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung who founded their own disciplines, and by neo-Freudians such as Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Abram Kardiner and Harry Stack Sullivan. Freud retained the term psychoanalysis for his own school of thought."

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I've merged it with part of the first para, so that it's topped and tailed by psychoanalysis:

Freud first used the term psychoanalysis (in French) in 1896; his book Die Traumdeutung (The Interpretation of Dreams), which he saw as his "most significant work", appeared in November 1899. Psychoanalysis was later developed in different directions, mostly by Freud's students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung, and by neo-Freudians such as Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Abram Kardiner and Harry Stack Sullivan. Freud retained the term psychoanalysis for his own school of thought.

Reference and footnote templates

moved from above

Why is your first reference marked as "a", and the next ones going to #4 and 5? There is a problem with the numbering there that needs to be fixed, which has to do something with the way you have coded/tagged it. MrsCaptcha (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The ones marked with a letter are footnotes, as opposed to citations, which are marked with a number. See {{efn}}. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do your references in the article have to start with "a" and then jump to 3 and 4 and 5? I corrected it and you took it back to the illogical numbering. MrsCaptcha (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If at all you want to create sub-references you must do so appropriately, not merely go back to the old edit lazily. This seems to be a general problem here: revert hastily (because it takes less effort of course) instead of try to read, understand, and make corrections/changes as per the way the edit history is progressing. But reading and editing and making corrections and adding material in the appropriate manner/format is a lot more hard work to most of us it seems. MrsCaptcha (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

MrsCaptcha, I've moved your queries about this into one section, in case you didn't see the reply. This is one of the ways, probably the most common way, in which references and footnotes are separated on Wikipedia. Using the {{efn}} template produces letters for footnotes as the default. It can be changed to some other label (e.g. Roman numerals or "note 1"), but the former is no better than the default and the latter produces more visual clutter.

Does anyone else not want to use {{efn}}? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to revert this again, because you have separated some of the footnotes from their sources, so that instead of one note after the first sentence, there are now four numbers: two unsourced footnotes and two unconnected citations. In other parts of the text you've left {{efn}} in place. Please wait for others to comment on whether they object to using {{efn}}. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you can enable Reference tooltips by going to your preferences --> gadgets --> browsing, where it's currently the second-last in the list of options. That allows you to read the references and footnotes in a pop-up box when you hover over them. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

My problem is not with the efn tag, but with the illogical numbering. MrsCaptcha (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The options are:

(a) not to use the efn or similar templates, and not to have a separate footnote section; quotations would be included after the citations within the same link;

(b) use the default efn template; this produces a separate footnote section like this, with a, b, c for notes, and 1, 2, 3 for citations;

(c) use the efn template, but choose some other way of marking the notes, such as A, B, C, or "note 1", "note 2", "note 3".

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as my own reasoning tells me, the numbering should be 1, A, 2, B, 3, C... what is the difference between numbered references and lettered references, semantically and conceptually? Why not just follow the traditional numbered references like we do on all articles? MrsCaptcha (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Basic Tenets of Psychoanalysis

These points that have been detailed need more reliable sources. Should I put up a notice there or shall we wait? MrsCaptcha (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The source for the first six points is Erich Fromm, The Revision of Psychoanalysis, and for the 7th point Richard D. Chessick (professor emeritus of psychiatry, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine), The Future of Psychoanalysis. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Psychiatry is not connected to psychoanalysis; it is a different field within mental health dealing with medicine, just as cognitive behaviour therapy is a different field dealing with a different approach from psychoanalysis. MrsCaptcha (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Basic Tenets of Psychoanalysis in lead

Can we delete the basic tenets from the lead entirely? It should be a summary only and overloads this section of our article.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that rather than remove that material altogether, it would make sense to summarize it more briefly. I don't particularly like bullet point lists in any case. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Meta-analyses not adequately explained

The article contains a discussion of the efficacy of psychoanalysis based on some statistical meta-analyses, starting with: "Meta-analyses of Short Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (STPP) have found effect sizes ranging from .34–.71 compared to no treatment and was found to be slightly better than other therapies in follow up.[91]". There's no indication of what the outcome variable might be -and whether or not it is the same in each of the studies- in this or the following sentences. I'm assuming the effect sizes are measured in multiples of standard deviations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.181.190 (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Psychoanalysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501002425/http://www.english.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Freud_MourningAndMelancholia.pdf to http://www.english.upenn.edu/~cavitch/PDF-library/Freud_MourningAndMelancholia.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203064955/http://www.mamsie.bbk.ac.uk/mother_respect.html to http://www.mamsie.bbk.ac.uk/mother_respect.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

John Beebe?

In Special:Permalink/825326954 § Variations in technique, this sentence caught my eye:

As object relations theory evolved, supplemented by the work of Bowlby, Ainsworth, and Beebe, techniques with patients who had more severe problems with basic trust (Erikson, 1950) and a history of maternal deprivation (see the works of Augusta Alpert) led to new techniques with adults.

Am I the only one who suspects that the wikilink to Jungian analyst John Beebe is out of place here? Is there a secondary source that confirms Beebe's relevance in this sentence? (By the way, the breezy narration of this section, not to mention some other sections, with nary an inline citation to a secondary source in sight, looks a more than a little suspect to my eye.) Perhaps the editor who inserted Beebe's name meant to refer to Beatrice Beebe (b. 1946), but although she seems much more relevant to the topic at hand than John Beebe, she is much younger than the other people mentioned in the sentence—Augusta Alpert (1898–1968), Erik Erikson (1902–1994), John Bowlby (1907–1990), and Mary Ainsworth (1913–1999)—and she is already mentioned among her contemporaries elsewhere in the article. User:Profjsb added the sentence in this edit (September 2007), and User:Art LaPella added the link to John Beebe in this edit (October 2007). Biogeographist (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no expertise in this subject, so I presumably made that 2007 edit just because the name and occupation matched. Art LaPella (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed John Beebe from the sentence. He can be restored to the sentence if someone can present a secondary source and a good argument that he belongs in this sentence. This section and others still need more inline citations to secondary sources. Biogeographist (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience status

There seem to be a lot of edits to add the "pseudoscience" template to the page. One reversion mentioned that "There was an arbitration committee ruling that explicitly ruled psychoanalysis should not be identified as pseudoscience", which seems plausible but I don't know where. Could we have a link to that kept on this talk page, to keep it clearer that this should not be changed in the article without consensus / further arbitration? (To me, psychoanalysis sure seems like a pseudoscience, but that's irrelevant to whether it should be marked as such on Wikipedia, per WP:NOR.) Throne3d (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify: I expect this can be found in the talk page archives, somewhere, but I'm suggesting we keep it up the top of the talk page, similar to how Talk:Aluminium mentions the spelling issue up top in the orange-ish boxes. Throne3d (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Please see this page, and see further details here. The arbitration committee was explicit in its statement on the subject: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." The IPs that have persistently tried to have psychoanalysis classified as a pseudoscience are acting in a grossly disruptive manner by ignoring this. It is, of course, possible that the arbitration committee will eventually reconsider its ruling, but until and unless that happens Wikipedia is not going to classify psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh – those notices are placed rather prominently on the relevant pages; I would've expected the IP to notice them. (I'm not sure I'd characterize the behavior as grossly disruptive, but agree it's disruptive.)

My question remains, though: should we add this information to a box at the top of this talk page, to warn people off faster in the future? I don't know what standard of agreement is necessary to decide to add a permanent fixture like this to a talk page, so don't want to be bold and just add it. I expect it would reduce the occurrence of this disruption in the future. Throne3d (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it if you like. I don't see anyone objecting. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done: It seemed like something where agreement would be better than lack of objection – that's the reason I was asking, not just to have a response saying one person doesn't object – but I've gone ahead and added it now. Throne3d (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Psychoanalitic Congress.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of several 'theoretical and clinical approaches' sub-categories

It strikes me that interpersonal psychoanalysis, culturalist psychoanalysis, intersubjective psychoanalysis, feminist psychoanalysis and modern psychoanalysis are all referring to types of psychology rather than psychoanalysis itself. This likely explains the dearth of sources in these sections. I'd thus suggest removing these sections, but as it constitutes a rather large change I thought I'd add the suggestion here first and see if anyone strongly objects for any reason. Itsfini (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ego psychology in Britain

I see my edit was reverted that removed the claim that the predominant school of psychoanalysis in Britain is ego psychology. The request is for sources to justify my edit. I note that 1) there isn't a source for the original claim, 2) the claim is false for Britain (but true for the US) e.g. "the diversity in theoretical thinking that dominates the British psychoanalytic scene stands in contrast to the stronghold of ego psychology in North America for many years." From Introduction to the Practice of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy by Alessandra Lemma, 3) It seems odd to be making claims about British and American psychoanalysis in the section on Lacan which is sourced for stuff about Lacan, who isn't an influential psychoanalyst in the US or Britain - I would remove the claim altogether or find a way to characterise British and American psychoanalysis that isn't false. Malignant Catatonia (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the original claim is unsourced, I would be pro, as you suggest, simply removing it until such time as either claim (for the US or UK) can be backed up with a source Itsfini (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Universality of the concept of "Autonomous ego functions"

In the Psychopathology section of the article, within the first line it mentions how the deficit in "autonomous ego functions" contributing to pathology. This idea is not at all universal or generalizeable to all domains of psychoanalysis, and is only relevant in the Ego Psychology branch of thought. This article should only mention things which are generalizable to ALL domains of psychoanalysis. This NEEDS to be either revised (which I have attempted to do until further discussion) or removed all together. I think personally, the rest of the section stands on its own pretty well and would be better without this blurb, but I may be biased so I wanted to see what other people thought first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itdapupu (talk • contribs) 23:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking into the history of different theories

I'm trying to understand and add information on the influence of psychoanalysis on current theories. Specifically, attachment theory, interpersonal therarpies, and trauma therapies.

Trying to do this has sort of let me to look into the "theoretical history" of psychoanalysis - how the theories have changed over time... mostly because this seems like a good way of getting a handle of the different theories without straying into OR territory (it can be hard to find sources that compare A to B, and while it is an interesting and fun activity to do the comparisoin yourself, anything your write down is going be OR no matter how obvious your interpretationg is - especially with controversial topics like psychoanalysis).

We'll see if I get to the end of this project. It's interesting stuff. One thing that comes up is that from quite early there were multiple "psychoanalyses" Jung, Klein and ongoing attempts to legitimize the Freudian variety - some academic arguing that there was a bit of "cult of personality" involved with Freud's theories being very much linked with biographical experiences. You have quotes were Freud pretty much says "psychoanalysis is made by me, so this is wrong", and other people went along with this. Part of the issue seems to have been an attempt to render psychoanalysis into a working treatment modality with a theory attached to it - which is kind of "legimate". I've seen this motivation in "contemporary" psychotherapy, where people are afraid of their methodology being changed and diluted when used as an intervention, so becoming less effective (this is no doubt accompanied by a measure of proprietary and self-interest as well).

Another interesting thing I found is in reading is that there was a "split" in psychoanalysis in 1946 (though it had started before) - with the training programs in the UK splitting in two. With one side following a more "modern" form of psychoanalysis - following Klein. I'm suspicious that this may be one of the intellectual forbears of attachment theory, and you might be able to trace the influence through. Talpedia (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A little reordering and header-adding

@Jake Wartenberg:, @PaleoNeonate:, @ParticipantObserver: I've reordered and adding titles to the criticism section. This might be a little bold, the section was getting quite long. Talpedia (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have reviewed these recent changes and don't see a problem with them, —PaleoNeonate – 12:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I have wondered if disease was the best terminology to use IRT the INSERM source, but assuming this is the text of the same source, it's consistent with it. —PaleoNeonate – 12:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Status as Pseudoscience

In the interest of disclosure, this was me while logged out.

The cited source does not describe psychoanalysis as pseudoscientific. Psychoanalysis is described in our article as a set of theories and techniques. According to the source, some of these may be appropriately described as pseudoscience, and some of which are evidence based. The author cites attachment theory and brief dynamic psychotherapy examples of the latter. There is an important distinction to be made between what the author is talking about in the article, classical psychoanalysis, and the subject of our article, which encompasses all psychoanalytic theories and practices.

There have been previous attempts to classify psychoanalysis as pseudoscience that have not reached consensus. Please see here most recently, as well as the arbcom case. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think part of the issue is that psychoanalysis can mean many things. I might use the term "psychodynamic" for the broader category including things like attachment theory - I don't know if this distinction shows up in the literature. When I've read about "neuropsychoanalysis" (the Sohms paper talking about what this is is quite good). Sohms sort of distinguishes psychoanalysis from other framings of psychology in that it looks at experience and emotion. We views Affective neuroscience as the part of neuroscience best suited for applications to neuropsychoanalysis. In this paper Sohms (who is trained in and treats people using psychoanalysis) talks about how we doesn't view psychoanalysis as having as strong a founding as scientific disciplines.
• Perhaps attachment theory is better viewed as "psychodynamic" rather than psychoanalytic rather than psychoanalytic proper.
• It's worth noting that there's a whole section at the end of the article talking about this question. Talpedia (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• • I'm happy to remove the citation from the lead, as citations are not required there. But the lead functions as summary for the rest of the article, and the only section that deals with this issue as far as I can see--the "As a field of science" Criticism subsection--appears to argue solely that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience. There are a number of sources there; the question is not what is argued in this particular source. There are no counterpoints in this article. Thus, as a summary, the pseudoscience descriptor seems concise and accurate. This is not my area of expertise, so I may be missing something, and I have no objections to efforts to add another side of the argument to the criticism section (at which point it would be appropriate to adjust the summary accordingly to say it's considered by some to be a pseudoscience). ParticipantObserver (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't really have strong opinions either way about the lead. Psychoanalysis is highly controversial and this is well documented (and spoken about at length in the article). I'm interested in accurately talking about the influence of psychoanalysis though.
    • We could change the article to more fully reflect the best sources... and what a source says is a reflection of what the best sources are likely to say. You are correct there are no counterpoints in the article at the moment.
    • Like... what I personally think (OR) is going on is that psychoanalysis got itself a bad name, so that people hide the influence it has and try to distance fields that might be quite related from it... but also psychoanalytic training is a bit weird and insular. But that's all opinion.
    • We might like to add something on Neuropsychoanalysis to the section on criticism (as an attempt to place psychoanalysis on a firmer footing).
    • I wonder if we could find anything on how related other models of psychology like "Trauma processing" and "Attachment theory" are psychoanalysis both historically and scientifically. I suspect one problem is that all the psychological literature will be one way - psychoanalysis talking about how it shows up in therapeutic psychology. This history will likely be more balanced by more scientific. Talpedia (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
      • I think it would be great to expand the descriptions of how psychoanalysis has influenced other fields. I'm not very familiar with the relationship between attachment theory and psychoanalysis in particular. I tried to read up on it quickly, but the John Bowlby page actually seems to argue the opposite: that, although Bowlby was a psychoanalyst, the specifics of the theory were contrary to what psychoanalysts argued at the time, and that psychoanalysts were largely hostile to attachment theory. ParticipantObserver (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Sure. But to draw an analogy, protestants might argue that they are vastly different from catholics, but from the perspective of an atheist they are kind of similar :). Talpedia (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    • ParticipantObserver, the "Effectiveness" section also deals with this issue and contains information that is not consistent with Psychoanalysis being categorized as pseduoscience. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't see any such information in that section. That section addresses only the effectiveness of the practice along certain outcome measures, but does not address whether any of the theory of beliefs inherent to psychoanalysis are scientific in nature. That is, talking with a psychoanalyst can be good for your health, but is psychoanalysis scientific? ParticipantObserver (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
        • I appreciate you making that distinction. What do you think of adding to the lede something along the lines of "Classical psychoanalysis has been subject to the criticism that because its claims are not testable and cannot be refuted, it should be classified as a pseudoscience?" I think this would accurately reflect the cited content in the body of the article. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
          • Trying to keep the lede concise, I shifted around some existing citations so that it's more clear where the label is coming from. If you think this is still unclear, please feel free to update the text accordingly. ParticipantObserver (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
            • I listed this discussion at WP:3O. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
              • Good thinking. Thanks! ParticipantObserver (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
          • I don't have a lot of time to look into it deeply, and I watch this page rather than coming from 3O, but at the very least I agree that putting "Classical psychoanalysis has been subject to the criticism that because its claims are not testable and cannot be refuted, it should be classified as a pseudoscience" in the lead would be good. If scientific and WP:MEDRS sources support stronger wording about psychoanalysis in general, or use of WP:WIKIVOICE, then I support that. I also strongly suggest listing this matter at WP:FTN. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
            • Thanks for weighing in, and thanks for the suggestion. I listed the article at WP:FTN. I haven't come across any sources that support the claim that psychoanalysis in general is a pseudoscience, only certain theories. For example, the Popper source in the lede right now, which makes that claim in reference to structural theory. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
              • I think this might be quite difficult. There are a lot of psychoanalytic theories and no single source will address them all. But just because you can't find a particular source saying "this model of psychoanalysis is unscientific" it doesn't mean that it is - and you wouldn't expect it to be unless there was some evidence that it *was* scientific. I guess wikipedia should restrain itself to phrases that are true and leave the implications to the reader. So we could say something like "There a diverse set of psychoanalytic theories. Many of these theories have been critiziced as pseudoscientific including Freud, Jung, Lacan, Object Relations, etc etc". My personal take (OR) is that these sort of theories will always tend *not* to be scientific because they are trying to be useful not true. Do you have a scientific theory of conversation? Probably not, but you have some sort of theory and it works - bits of it will be more or less influenced by science. Talpedia (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Contentious claims applies. We need to show that is the consensus view in the medical health profession. An article from the American Psychiatric Association, "What is Psychotherapy?" defines psychoanalysis as an intense form psychotherapy that concentrates on childhood experience, but does not say it is pseudoscientific. TFD (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

We need to be careful here. Psychoanalytic theories are two different things. They are a model of the mind (not the brain) and a set of therapeutic interventions based on these theories. In the first role, psychotherapy is in the domain of research psychology not medicine. In the latter, it's probably in the domain of therapeutic psychology (though psychiatry might have something to say as well). A reality here is that most talking therapies, including the more accepted ones like CBT and interpersonal therapies will not have good science for their models of the brain - just claims about their effectiveness. Talpedia (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Responding to the third opinion request, there may be some value to weighing in from a purely objective perspective to the term "pseudoscience". As a similar argument being presented against string theory the Popperian perspective (which he championed himself against Freud), claims the falsifiability criterion an absolute categorical analysis of any science; both its means and ends. As with highly abstracted natural sciences, psychoanalysis cannot posit experimental testable results as a rigorous method, at best it can conduct studies for probabilistic results; which is known to be problematic as per the replication crisis. So indeed it is not scientific within this very restricted regard. However, just like axiomatic theorems which cannot be physically tested, many of the theories and ideas of psychoanalysis can be provable by logic and testing by resultant diagnosis in patients as experiments. So, from this view, the article can reflect a more objective vision which may state: from a purely reductive perspective due to criterions such as falsifiability psychoanalysis may be; and has been, judged as pseudoscience [references contra here]. However, as a pure scientific endeavor, it produces logically sound arguments which can be testable in individual cases, and be provable in this domain [reference pro here]. So it is not purely scientific in the natural sense, but can be scientific in its methods. Hope this contributes constructively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.232.83 (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, lots of physics is only probabalistic (quantum mechanics comes to mind). This can be overcome by using a *lot* of repetitions, indeed experimental error itself makes everythign probabalistic. I think the replication crisis has more to do with the fact that people are complicated, difficult to source, and expensive.

I don't think psychoanalysis quite has a logical theory suitable for the application of science. It does however a logic and theory of sources - it identifies different processes and parts of the mind, limits their function, and ask how they can interact. But there is still an awful lot of room for interpretation there. Allowing for case-by-case "overfitting". Isn't most analysis carried out "after the fact" in psychoanalysis (creating a risk of confirmation bias)? This makes it kind of similar to subjects like history or paleontology. History scholars are better at interpreting the world than lay opinion - but would you call them scientists? I wouldn't call what they do pseudoscience though. Talpedia (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm kind of aware that I am saying a lot without talking about what sources say. I might want to pull some sources into this. Talpedia (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Quantum physics is a rather inadequate comparison; yet often brought to discussion, as it is not probabilistic in this same sense. The equations are exactly and analytically solvable in every possible case, hence a physical and exact theory of natural science. Digressing to the point, the reconciliation here is simple and should finish a long discussion: psychoanalysis is mostly unscientific with respects to exact measurable results; therefore to any exact criterion of falsifiability. But, it is scientific within a domain of discourse that is its internal logic; therein is so for provability. The article should make this point from the outset, and expand upon it in the specific subsection 'as a field of science'. Furthermore, concerning the cognitive approach, to make the point sharp; psychoanalysis cannot predict neural pathways and synaptic signaling patterns based on its theory. Thereby, it is measurably unmeasurable. Thusly, we can state simply its scientific value is in analyzing human mental behavior; never predicting it. If we reach consensus on this point, I suggest to write a paragraph reflecting the view that it is a theory scientific in its method (as intended by Freud whom modeled it stemming from Darwin), yet mostly unscientific in its experimental measurability; simply for the mind is vast and complex. 15:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand the point about quantum physics. I agree with your statements about it, but what other sort of "randomness" could exist in a model or system or whatever apart from that it makes probabalistic statements about reality.

If you compare psychoanalysis to maths, I'm not sure it's quite the same. Generally, it is the case that any question in maths has precisely one answer that you can verify. I'm not sure that this is the case with psychoanalysis. I can imagine multiple possible answers that are all "correct" but different. (If what you are doing is science, rather than art or logic, what you might do at this point is go to reality to distinguish between the different arguments and improve your model - but without recourse to reality, such an activity becomes poorly defined). I guess a good comparison might be to law, morality or history. Talpedia (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Briefly, quantum physics is only probabilistic with respects to specific measurements (i.e uncertainty principle and collapse of the wavefunction), but fully exact and analytical with respect to the theoretical construct (i.e quantum electrodynamics and dirac equation); there is no point to discuss its mathematics here. About math and logic, there is not preciesly one answer to each problem; very roughly this is godel's incompleteness theorem. This is why the former is exact natural science, and psychoanalysis is 'soft' social science; analytical vs perturbative solution. Again and finally digressing, the proposed resolution is to state psychoanalysis is both unscientific in exact measurablity so falsifiability, but scientific in its internal methodological analysis so provability. For a wiki entry this should cover every base for lay and professional readers. Further discussion of logic and its comparison is not utile. If this point is agreed let us create a closing statement of the criticism section reflecting this. 16:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jake Wartenberg, ParticipantObserver, and Talpedia: As a response to third opinion request the prior discussion has been made, I suggest if we can reach consensus on this point, to write a paragraph in the lead and expansion in the criticism section stating along these lines: psychoanalysis is therefore unscientific with respect to a falsifiability criterion in exact measurability, but is scientific insofar as it is provable in its methodological analysis of human behavior. 16:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit suspicious that psychoanalysis isn't really well-defined to be provable. But if literature of this type exists I think it would be very interesting to include - and I would personally be interested to read it. Looking at the literature that addresses this claim with an eye towards finding a cite for this sentence in the lede seems like a good place to start. Talpedia (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

There is some rare literature concerning psychology generally in logic as interfaced with philosophy of mind, may research later. The point can be made less specifically as a de-facto definition of psychology, falsifiability, and provability, simply to summarize the prior well-cited points. Not to say that psychoanalysis is an axiomatically formal theory; that is two stretches too far, simply to say that its analytical methodology agrees with the scientific method in its empirical self-consistent logic. And thereby, the only domain in which it may be exact: the ability of its varied theories to analyze and not predict behavior.17:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

RavenclawNewHaven writes: I am new to this discussion board & hope I am putting these remarks in the right place. The argument that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience began with Karl Popper's critique; he maintained that at least some of the theory's assertions were not falsifiable. As I recall, a prime example of a problematic idea was that of reaction formation. This was a cogent critique of psychoanalysis as it existed in the 1930s. After his magnum opus was translated and published in English (1959), American behavioral psychologists (who were engaged in a long & bitter feud with their psychoanalytic colleagues) were delighted to cite the great philosopher of science. It is certainly legitimate to discuss Popper's critique. However, this needs to be balanced against consideration of the many strands of psychoanalytic theory that have been subjected to empirical investigation. As others have noted, this would include attachment theory (starting with Bowlby) and the efficacy of several forms of psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy (cf. Lester Luborsky, the Beth Israel team, Otto Kernberg's transference-focused psychotherapy, and many more examples). It would also include the study of defense mechanisms (Phoebe Cramer, George Vaillant, and Christopher Perry come to mind), transference, and primary process thinking (Robert Holt, mainly). Readers could be left to decide whether Popper's critique still holds. RavenclawNewHaven (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The comment on Popper and the list of empirically grounded strands of psychoanalytic theory is helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate's sourced overview

• Birx, H. James, ed. (2010). 21st Century Anthropology: A Reference Handbook. Vol. 1–2. SAGE. ISBN 9781412957380.

  Misc: p. 458, 460, 470, 717, 786, 852

  p. 956, section "Psychoanalytic anthropology" on influence on pre-1950s anthropology

• Birx, H. James, ed. (2005). Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Vol. 1–5. SAGE. ISBN 9781452265360.

  p. 72 chapter "Ancestor worship"

  p. 575-581 chapter "Counseling" ("historical perspectives of counseling")

  p. 613 chapter "cross-cultural research"

  p. 716 chapter "death rituals"

  p. 738 chapter "deviance"

  p. 851 chapter "ethnographic writing"

  p. 862 chapter "ethnopsychiatry"

  p. 1005 chapter "Freud, Sigmond"

  p. 1543 chapter "Marxism", quote: "applied pseudoscience of psychoanalysis" notably, distancing from pseudoscientific psychoanalytic Marxism would be later studies like Critical Theory and more modern political science that followed

  p. 1603 chapter "Modal personality", example of DuBois 1930s anthropology informed by psychoanalytic studies of the epoch (contextual)

  p. 1962 chapter "psychiatry, transcultural" and p. 2149 "symbolic" more 1920-1940s cultural studies informed by psychoanalysis (contextual)

• Curd, Martin; Psillos, Stathis, eds. (2013) [First published 2008]. The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science (2nd, revised ed.). ISBN 9781135011093.

  p. 40: "Popper went to lengths to discredit Marxism and psychoanalysis for being pseudo-sciences: unfalsifiable theories claiming scientific credentials."

• Shermer, Michael; Linse, Pat, eds. (2002). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Vol. 1–2. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781576076538.

  p. 167-168 IRT pseudoscientific interpretations of OOBE, quote: "This theory relies heavily on psychoanalytic concepts that have not stood up well to psychological research, generally being found to be either untestable or false."

  p. 200 psychoanalysis criticized as pseudoscientific for not making and sticking to specific predictions

  p. 373-383 chapter "Psychoanalysis as Pseudoscience", relevant subsections: "Cult characteristics", "Thought control", "Recovery memory therapy".

• Cordón, Luis A (2005). Popular Psychology: An Encyclopedia. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780313324574.

  p. 90 "The larger problem with Freud's theory, at least from the point of view of those who prefer to regard psychology as a science, is that his ideas are simply not scientific. Where the goal of scientists is usually to use observations to make predictions about future events, psychoanalysis excels at providing post hoc explanations, but doesn't produce testable hypotheses."

  p. 163 "Neo-freudians" (including Jung): "Like Freud, the neo-Freudians have contributed enduring concepts and vocabulary (inferiority complex, birth trauma, and return to the womb, for example) to Western culture. Also like Freud, their impact on current psychology is rather limited, due to the untestable, end therefore unscientific, nature of their ideas."

---

My mini-summary:

• Starts with Freud. Considering many of Freud's controversial beliefs, psychoanalysts divided on what to believe but started a life of its own. Neo-freudians have also been influential to psychology, but psychoanalytics has little impact on current psychology science.
• Was influential for psychology and anthropology (some terms and early study of culture and religion) as well as in popular culture and some modern pseudoscientific practices.
• Left behind today in favor of cognitive psychology and modern psychiatry that are more practical and evidence driven. Modern psychiatry and psychology remain in flux and still face controversies and difficulties. Psychoanalysis is frequently criticized for its lack of falsifiability and testability and contrasted with science, as pseudoscientific.
• In therapeutic psychology, its practice can be considered pseudoscientific today, especially aspects related to the paranormal or resting on other untestable/unfalsifiable tenets and claims. Was also considered pseudoscientific by Popper. Particularly left behind by mainstream psychology, but still practiced or believed by pseudoscientific therapists include beliefs about memory recovery, mind control, the use of hypnosis and oversimplifications like that every disorder results from past psychological experiences (for some this even extends to purported previous lives, or are claimed to be related to innate cosmological reasons/conditions).

—PaleoNeonate – 16:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a good set of references. Might be worth looking into transference and countertransference, repressed memories, and "processed" as a possible influences. All these concepts show up a reasonable amount in therapeutic psychology. Talpedia (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay time for some actually sources! I'm a little worried that this might stray into OR, but everyone here seems friendly enough. So let's explore and hopefully formalize stuff with good quality sources later:

Looking at the APA Handbook on Trauma Psychology 2017. We have 29 mentions of transference

"[Mentalization based therapy] includes significant attention to transfer-ence and countertransference in a qualified sense" p. 383

"convey unconscious transference–countertransference transactions, which revive earlier attachment memories, especially of intensely dysregulated affec-tive states. Working with borderline personality disorders, Meares (2012) has described a form of therapeutic conversation that can be conceived as a dynamic interplay between two right hemispheres." p.400 (Modern attachment theory)

"The therapeutic relationship becomes the catalyst and container for traumatic transference to emerge and to be processed (Kinsler, Courtois, & Frankel, 2009)" p.565

From [Transference] (using wikipedia in lieu of a more reliable source for laziness we have) "Transference was first described by Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, who considered it an important part of psychoanalytic treatment."

So it does seem to be the case that transference is a psychoanalytic concept that is in active use in "mainstream" therapeutic psychology. To what degree it is the same concept as that conceptualized by Freud is a different matter. Talpedia (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Talpedia, thanks for collecting these sources. WP:FRINGE/PS says the standard we should use in deciding whether to label something as pseudoscience is whether it is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community." The The cited source that was originally included as justifying the pseudoscience also describes the level of controversy in the scientific community around the level of acceptance that psychoanalysis should be granted. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Overemphasis

I agree that certain psychoanalytical theses/concepts fail to live up to the scientific standards and that this should be mentioned. But putting it into the first sentence as part of the definition overemphasizes this point. The article on the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, does not mention these problems. The article in the Macmillan encyclopedia of philosophy only mentions them at the end, but in a more balanced form, distinguishing between a "watered-down" version and a "distinctively Freudian" version:

The evidence for some of the best-known hypotheses of the popularized, watered-down version of Freudian theory is quite strong but not new: the evidence for some sort of unconscious mind, intentional forgetting, slips of the tongue, and defensive behaviors was known to psychologists and philosophers of the nineteenth century, before Freud invented psychoanalysis.

...

If we limit the discussion to what is distinctively Freudian, scholars still disagree about what the evidence shows.

...

Another review of the very same experimental evidence concludes that it provides almost no support for any distinctively Freudian hypothesis (Erwin 1996).

I suggest that we remove the term "pseudoscientific" from the first sentence. The second paragraph of the lead already addresses criticism. Maybe the term can be included there. But I would restrict it to certain hypothesis or authors and not apply it to psychoanalysis as a whole. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This suggested change has been made, though personally I think that--whenever identifying a pseudoscience as such--the label should be highly emphasized to avoid misleading readers. ParticipantObserver (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the current formulation also avoids "WP:ARB/PS, principle 17" as cited in User:Kilopylae's recent revert. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I would agree. If RS supports it, we could probably go further — possibly a statement like "most medical practitioners agree that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience"? (I'm not an expert on what RS says here). Kilopylae (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The excerpts cited from the Macmillan encyclopedia earlier don't paint such a strong picture. Psychoanalysts may themselves be considered medical practitioners depending on how the term is defined. But I think what matters is not so much what the medical practitioners themselves think but what is published in the academic literature. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Categorized as pseudoscience

A recent edit removing the category "Pseudoscience" has just been reverted. It seems to me that this categorization is controversial and therefore the removal is justified, see WP:ARB/PS, principle 17. This is also in line with how the lead presents the topic: it doesn't state in its own voice that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience, see the recent discussion and consensus on this in Talk:Psychoanalysis#Overemphasis. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I have yet to see a reliable source that contests this label (thus, the label is NPOV). Psychoanalysis is commonly and consistently defined by reliable sources as having the characteristics of a pseudoscience (meeting WP:CATDEF). Categories on Wikipedia are intended to facilitate the browsing of relevant information. A link that enables easy browsing of relevant info does not seem to me to violate WP:ARB/PS principle 17. Since psychoanalysis is commonly labeled a pseudoscience, readers of the psychoanalysis article may be interested in the pseudoscience article, and vice versa. ParticipantObserver (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

For a source, have a look at the article in the Macmillan encyclopedia of philosophy I cited in the section "Overemphasis". Some authors and theses in this field are controversial but it seems they are also not generally accepted within psychoanalysis. As I see it, categorizing psychoanalysis as pseudoscience is more or less the same as explicitly stating that psychoanalysis as pseudoscience, which violates the principle cited earlier. If there is a less strong category (alleged pseudoscience or something alike) we could use that instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't follow. The Macmillan quote indicates that some of the hypotheses are pre-psychoanalysis, and that there is evidence supporting those pre-psychoanalysis hypotheses. The same quote indicates that there is either no evidence for psychoanalysis or that "scholars still disagree about what the evidence shows." That is either in support of Freudian or post-Freudian psychoanalysis being a pseudoscience, or at least is indifferent. ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that while ARBPS was an important precedent (and I understand that some editors refer to it as a guide), the statements there were related to that particular case and are not policy (but related WP:FRINGE/QS WP:FRINGE/ALT are "generally commonly accepted guidelines", along with policy WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, etc). —PaleoNeonate – 04:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The quote does not mention "pre-psychoanalysis". It states that there are different strands in psychoanalysis ('a "watered-down" version and a "distinctively Freudian" version'), "the evidence for ... [the] watered-down version ... is quite strong" but concerning "what is distinctively Freudian, scholars still disagree about what the evidence shows." If you want to categorize specific theories within psychoanalysis, like the traditional Freudian theory, as pseudoscience, I think you would have a stronger case. But many psychoanalysts also reject traditional Freudian theory. So categorizing all of psychoanalysis as pseudoscience goes to far.

I agree with the comment on WP:ARB/PS, principle 17. This earlier consensus supports the removal of the category, but it is not an absolute guideline and could be counterbalanced if sufficient evidence against it was presented. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

"...but not new: the evidence for some sort of unconscious mind, intentional forgetting, slips of the tongue, and defensive behaviors was known to psychologists and philosophers of the nineteenth century, before Freud invented psychoanalysis." discusses pre-psychoanalytic evidence for some of these ideas (as psychoanalysis was established by Freud). The rest of the quote discusses psychoanalysis, and says there is no evidence or that people don't agree about the evidence. It does not contest the idea that psychoanalysis is unscientific. You can have evidence supporting lots of claims that are not scientific. I don't feel a stronger case is needed for the pseudoscience label than what we have here: a whole lot of scholars allege that this is a pseudoscience, we have many reliable sources arguing that, and we have no reliable sources arguing against the label. It is not a contested label. ParticipantObserver (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Your argument would be valid if the "watered-down version" was not psychoanalysis at all, but this is not what the source says. Here is another paragraph explaining what is meant by the uncontroversial "watered-down version":

In evaluating the Freudian evidence, one issue concerns its subject. There is a watered-down, commonsensical version of Freud’s theories and there are the original, distinctively Freudian versions articulated and modified over the years principally by Freud himself. On the watered-down version, the unconscious exists if a person has mental states that exist below the threshold of consciousness, whether or not these states can be brought to consciousness without the aid of psychoanalysis. Repression is said to occur whenever one tries to keep something painful out of consciousness, which obviously happens when one tries to forget a sad love affair or a hurtful insult. There are “Freudian slips,” it is said, if people make linguistic mistakes with sexual innuendoes, regardless of what causes the errors. Defense mechanisms such as “projection,” “reaction formation,” and “displacement” are said to be operative so long as certain types of defensive behavior are displayed, such as attributing to others one’s own faults or doing just the opposite of what one would like to do, no matter what causal mechanism explains the behaviors.

I had a look at the 11 encyclopedia entries on psychoanalysis listed in full length here and here: none of them mentions the terms "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific". Phlsph7 (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Either the psychoanalysis article does not currently discuss this "watered-down" version, or it is discussed under a different name (possibly one of the things in the "Theoretical and clinical approaches" section?). Regardless, I don't disagree that there is some evidence in support of some of the things that psychoanalysts mention/discuss. However, the sources all either indicate that the approach as a whole is unscientific (and therefore pseudoscience) or do not discuss this categorization. I don't see any reliable source seriously contesting the categorization of psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience, and there are a whole bunch of reliable sources alleging that this is a pseudoscience. this entry does describe it as a science, but the entry is written by an expert in "psychoanalytic criticism" and does not mention or refute any of the allegations in the psychoanalysis criticism section. I note that there are many entries on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience that these other encyclopedias do not explicitly describe as a pseudoscience. We do have this category label on Wikipedia, even if it does not exist elsewhere. ParticipantObserver (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

For an explicit rejection of the label, see here: "The data may not always be in, but Lacewing’s argument is that there is nothing pseudoscientific about the central model that precludes it in principle from receiving meaningful and objective confirmation or disconfirmation." Phlsph7 (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. This criticism would be good to discuss as a counterpoint in the criticism section. ParticipantObserver (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

While we're at it, we can dispense with blog posts by non-doctors/non-psychologists given undue prominence in a boxed post. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The crux of the issue is whether psychoanalysis is effective at treating people, not whether it is a pseudoscience. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Should Psychoanalysis be included in Category:Pseudoscience? Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: for recent discussion, please see #Status as Pseudoscience. There may be more in the archives. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Summary of my arguments for removing the category "Pseudoscience". Most of these arguments have already been discussed in more detail in the sections "Overemphasis" & "Categorized as pseudoscience".

(1) the article in the Macmillan encyclopedia of philosophy states that some versions of psychoanalysis are uncontroversial and empirically well supported.

(2) the label "pseudoscience" is explicitly rejected here.

(3) from the 11 encyclopedia entries on psychoanalysis listed in full length here and here none of them mentions the terms "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific". Several of these articles even label it as a science.

(4) the current article does not label psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience, all such assertions are attributed to opponents of psychoanalysis.

(5) there was a previous unanimous consensus that psychoanalysis is not to be labelled as a pseudoscience: see WP:ARB/PS, principle 17.

(6) many of the sources cited in favor of labeling psychoanalysis as pseudoscience are directed at Freud's version of psychoanalysis but not at psychoanalysis at large. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I’d say that the category is appropriate. Categories are aids to navigation. There is considerable discussion of whether or not this is pseudoscientific (for example the topic is discussed quite a bit in Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, (University of Chicago Press, 2013)), so the article is going to be of interest to people who want to know about pseudoscience. Brunton (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Navigation works both ways: people who are interested in psychoanalysis may not necessarily be interested in pseudoscience, but people investigating pseudoscience will almost certainly be interested in subjects that are often characterised as pseudoscience, even if those subjects are not actually pseudoscience themselves. It is entirely appropriate to allow them to do that by following links from the “pseudoscience” category. As TFD says below, categories are not a shaming exercise. We’re talking about a navigation aid here, not whether we should describe psychoanalysis as pseudoscience, which would be another discussion. Brunton (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Having the article in the category does describe psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience. The relevant guideline states that categories should be "defining characteristics" that the subject is "commonly and consistently" defined as having by reliable sources, and that categorizations should be "generally be uncontroversial." It's pretty clear from the discussion that both of these things are not the case. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking up the guidelines. I think together with the sources cited above, this makes for a very strong case against the categorization. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Categories are navigation devices not a shaming exercise. Readers interested in pseudoscience can click on categories at the bottom of article pages to find other articles about pseudosciences. But there is little or no likelihood that after reading about psychoanalysis, a reader will move on to astral projection, perpetual motion and UFOs, or that after reading about those topics they will want to read about psychoanalysis. It just provides clutter. If readers want to know about pseudoscience after reading this article they are more likely to click on the link to Pseudoscience, which explains what it is, and follow the links to different types of pseudoscience. TFD (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• No per the arguments outlined by Phlsph7. Also per the guideline linked by Jake Wartenberg: psychoanalysis is not commonly or consistently defined as pseudoscience, and such a definition would certainly not be uncontroversial.Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is not uncontroversial. But psychoanalysis is, in fact, both commonly and consistently defined by reliable sources as having the characteristics of a pseudoscience (meeting WP:CATDEF). ParticipantObserver (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide a list of the sources you have in mind? I have presented 12 reliable sources, none of which uses the label and many of which oppose it, either directly or indirectly. To me it seems like a fool's errand to argue for the "commonly and consistently" despite this evidence, but let's see which sources you have to show. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I presume the sources in the extensive section on pseudoscience which includes a few books on the topics, and quotes from a historian who wrote biographies of both Jung and Freud, on the topic might be a good starting point. I'd like to reconcile the different literature here. I suspect freud vs psychoanalysis as a whole might be one of the factors here, along with when the sources were written and whether the sources come out of psychoanalysis itself or psychology more generally Talpedia (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking primarily of every source in the "Debate over status as scientific" section. I think so far in this discussion I've seen only one source that directly opposes the term (suggesting that is the minority view). ParticipantObserver (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The section contains 11 sources, many of which are specifically about Freud but not about psychoanalysis in general. It would have to be shown that the sources addressing psychoanalysis in general, if there are any, don't just criticize it but label it as a pseudoscience. And even if that was achieved, it seems unlikely that this alone shows that the subject is "commonly and consistently" defined as pseudoscience and that this categorization is "generally uncontroversial", given the evidence presented against it so far. This leaves a lot of work for the defenders of the categorization that hasn't been attempted yet. But without it, I don't see a case for keeping the category. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

As you say, most of the reliable sources you have presented do not use the label or do not directly oppose it. However, I agree that it is not uncontroversial, since there is a minority view directly opposing the label. ParticipantObserver (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Categorizing fields into science and pseudoscience is in my opinion a minority pursuit. There is a range of fields between pure physics and intelligent design that make claims that cannot be tested. Film criticism for example does not have an objectively tested formula for measuring the merit of various works but we don't say that the claim that Citizen Kane is a better movie than Plan 9 from Outer Space is pseudoscience. Is it in the same category as ufology? TFD (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per statements by Phlsph7, TFD and the Arbitration committee's statement, which explicity mentions psychoanalysis: "3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.". It's NOT generally referred to as a pseudoscience, and claiming otherwise seems like POV pushing. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• No. Per WP:CATPOV, Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.. We should add it to a relevant list article instead. Maybe there is one for "things that have been called pseudoscientific". MarshallKe (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• No From the discussion above and as summarized by user Phlsph7, psychoanalysis may contain bits of information to that effect, but should not be characterized as "Pseudoscience" in general. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Psychodynamics

I'm interested in drawing out the connections (and differencnes) between psychoanalysis and other more "accepted" forms of therapy both historically and theoretically. This books looks pretty good at talking about how psychoanalytic theories are applied outside of psychoanalysis proper,. I'm leaving it here so I can come back to it latter.

Yes, so solidifying and embellishing the partial passing of the baton from strict psychoanalysis to a broader psychodynamic psychotherapy is important...as that is what has happened. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JasmineHutson21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

fixing a date

Under "Further reading," the book by Borch-Jacobsen and Shamdasani is correctly stated to have been published in 2012. In footnote 10, however, the date is given as 2011-11-24, which does not make sense, because books, unlike magazine articles, are not cited with a specific date. My problem is that I don't know how to change footnote 10, because its contents are hidden behind symbols that I don't understand.Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

According to google books, it was published 24 November 2011. Do you have a source stating that it was published 2012? Phlsph7 (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the back of the title page says, "First published 2012." The Library of Congress catalog also says 2012. [1] Apart from this particular case, how does one get behind those symbols? Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it up, I fixed the date. I'm not sure which symbols you are talking about. If you edit the source code (i.e. not visual editing), the template contains the parameter "|date=" and you enter the date right behind it. See Help:A_quick_guide_to_templates and Template:Cite book. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Winter 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2023 and 3 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nhollingsworth (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nhollingsworth (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)