From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Psychoanalysis really doesn't emphasize dreams, and there is some scientific support for some of their ideas, and none for others. I removed the material that is questionable and most likely inaccurate. The article needs to be developed but I am sick of psychology for today. I would suggest removing the inaccurate weasel words till someone (probably me at this rate) comes along and expands it. Tmtoulouse 14:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Never mind I will just expand it now. Tmtoulouse 14:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Doesn't emphasize dreams? Psychoanalysis was invented by Freud, and the symbolic interpretation of dreams was at the core of his theory. But Freud was a quack, and no scientific experiment has shown any merit to that junk. RSchlafly 14:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Psychoanalysis is different than psychodynamics, while rooted in Freud Jung, Adler, and others expanded it greatly. The root is the unconscious, mechanisms for exploring the unconscious are diverse. Dreams are only one of those. Most of it has been found to be false in empirical investigation but the reality of the unconscious, and several limited aspects such as defense mechanism have actually stood up to investigation. Tmtoulouse 15:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Contradiction in the article

I’m not going to change this, since I’ve been involved in arguments about it elsewhere on the site and I’m under the impression that I should seek an outside opinion before editing on this issue, but the article as it stands has two mutually contradictory sentences back to back:

However, much of psychoanalysis has not stood up to empirical investigation. Repressed sexuality, dream interpretation, a collective unconscious and many other ideas that are the back bone of psychoanalysis have all been falsified in controlled experiments.
Psychoanalysis has also been labeled as unscientific because it lacks the ability to be falsified.

If the claims have been falsified, they do not lack the ability to be falsified, and if they can’t be falsified, then they haven’t been. One or both of these sentences should go and if one stays it ought to have a reference.--Reginod 22:56, 3 May 2007 (EDT)