The point is is anyone has a use for psychology they should pick someone alive to listen to instead of Freud.
Those people are likely to cite Freud in one way or the other.
But I’m glad we at least agree no one should be using what he says as medicine.
We don’t agree there. I absolutely think that people should have the option of using psychodynamic psychotherapy (among others). Both as patients and therapists. Where we’ll likely agree is that priming patients towards an analytical framework is highly problematic, see the whole “Freudian patients have Freudian dreams, Adlerian patients have Adlerian dreams” thing. But that’s recognised and worked into modern practice. Noone, literally noone, takes Freud to be an infallible prophet. That’s more of a thing Jungians do, much to Jung’s chagrin (quoth: “I’m glad I’m Jung, and not a Jungian”).
they’ll be a good starting point for you as they’re usually very balanced.
They’re a good starting point but they generally slant heavily American, if not that then Anglo. The US isn’t exactly a role model to follow when it comes to psychology.
If they cite one of the few things Freud is right about, it might not be awful. But better to cite the person who actually has a peer reviewed paper and proved it. Probably a red flag they they haven’t studied properly I’d it’s not buried under copious other citation.
Anyone with a main citation from Freud these days is a century behind.
People have the option of bashing their head against a wall as a patient. Someone should probably try to stop them doing that. Therapists especially. Quacks won’t and that’s the problem.
It’s amazing you’re concerned about a country with decent peer reviewed journals “biasing” articles and not the quacks who still cite Freud
Those people are likely to cite Freud in one way or the other.
We don’t agree there. I absolutely think that people should have the option of using psychodynamic psychotherapy (among others). Both as patients and therapists. Where we’ll likely agree is that priming patients towards an analytical framework is highly problematic, see the whole “Freudian patients have Freudian dreams, Adlerian patients have Adlerian dreams” thing. But that’s recognised and worked into modern practice. Noone, literally noone, takes Freud to be an infallible prophet. That’s more of a thing Jungians do, much to Jung’s chagrin (quoth: “I’m glad I’m Jung, and not a Jungian”).
They’re a good starting point but they generally slant heavily American, if not that then Anglo. The US isn’t exactly a role model to follow when it comes to psychology.
If they cite one of the few things Freud is right about, it might not be awful. But better to cite the person who actually has a peer reviewed paper and proved it. Probably a red flag they they haven’t studied properly I’d it’s not buried under copious other citation.
Anyone with a main citation from Freud these days is a century behind.
People have the option of bashing their head against a wall as a patient. Someone should probably try to stop them doing that. Therapists especially. Quacks won’t and that’s the problem.
It’s amazing you’re concerned about a country with decent peer reviewed journals “biasing” articles and not the quacks who still cite Freud