rationalskepticism.org

Shrunk wrote:I think this thread has given a somewhat mistaken impression of the current status of Freudian thought. I'm in no position to dispute the information that has been provided regarding the situation in psychology and other academic disciplines. However, I teach in the continent's large psychiatry residency program, and here it remains a requirement that all trainees treat at least two patients in long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy, in addition to other modalities such as CBT, IPT, etc. This will not, of course, generally entail a strictly Freudian approach, and will also involve various post-Freudian or even anti-Freudian schools such as ego-psychology, object relations, self-psychology and the newer intersubjective approaches. However, an understanding of these approaches is at best difficult without some understanding of their Freudian background.

There is also a burgeoning field of research that provides evidence for the efficacy of psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic therapy, and again I'll just provide a Google Scholar hit list of some of these:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en& ... =&as_vis=0

I'll readily admit that this evidence falls short of being overwhelming and unequivocal. However, it does exist and indicates that the question of the efficacy of psychoanalytic treatment remains, at worst, a matter of continued debate.

In addition, my understanding is that in areas of the humanities, such as artistic and cultural criticism, Freudian approaches remain ascendant, albeit usually in the form of later elaborations such as those of Lacan. The more informed can correct me if I'm wrong here.

I have always been interested in the continued use of Freudian concepts in psychiatry, given there general abandonment in psychology programs. In Germany it is a little different as the psychoanalytic movement is a powerful body but generally it is my experience that psychology has increasingly moved to CBT.

I would agree that there is now some convincing evidence for defence mechanisms, however, aspects of the general Freudian approach including the psycho-sexual stages, dreams, and the unconscious remain largely unproven and evidence such as the tendency for individuals to confabulate when recalling dreams clearly indicate central aspects of Freudian theory is wrong. In addition I think the central focus on the unconscious and early childhood is at the very least questionable.

In relation to literature, Freudian approaches are popular. For instance I think a Freudian reading of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein is perhaps the dominate reading, likewise some feminists have used Freudian concepts to interpret aspects of movies like vagina dentata, Carrie, etc. I think however, this conflates the issue. If the question is, what is the position of Freud in psychology today I do not think readers would get an incorrect view from this thread.

In sum, aspects of Freudian theory have some preliminary support from research and a strong tradition in psychology, but for the most part there are serious questions relating to the data, method, and theoretical basis of many of Freud's ideas. For these reasons, Freudian theory is generally no longer considered a central area of psychological research.