Talk:Psychoanalytic theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Psychoanalytic theory has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Most of the last edit seems to belong to the talk page rather than in the article, so I have moved it so I can be discussed. Peer review comments section moved to peer review page.

[edit] Broader context

Use of the term "psychoanalytic theory" implies that there is a core theory which is complete by itself. This view is not common even among practicing analysts, who in large part recognise that the mind is a function of the brain, so that any full theory of the psyche needs to refer to the brain. An excellent review of this is Kandel ER (1999) "Biology and the future of psychoanalysis", Am.J.Psychiat 156:505.

Psychoanalytic thinking is inseparably bound also to clinical treatment of patients. Some purists claim that achieving insight is the only goal of psychoanalysis; but health insurers generally require more concrete goals such as reduced mental illness or increased time at work. Both of these clinical perspectives assume that the effect on actual patients is important -- so they should be included in this article. An excellent review of the clinical benefits of psychoanalysis is Fonagy, Roth & Higgitt (2005), Bull.Menninger Clinic 69(1):1-58.

This article would not be complete without consideration of substantial attacks on psychoanalysis and its theory, which have reshaped psychiatric practice in the UK and USA over the past 20-30 years. These attacks can be classified as empirical (Gabbard, Gunderson & Fonagy 2002); financial (Detre & McDonald 1997); theoretical (Meehl 1998 calculates that there are many psychoanalytical explanations possible for any single clinical problem); and circumstantial (e.g. past failures with respect to homosexuality and childhood abuse, and the antipathy of many analysts to quantitative research: Gabbard, Gunderson & Fonagy 2002).

Psychoanalytic theorists may have over-reached themselves in attempting to account for all troublesome psychic phenomena. However, their concerted efforts to address more circumscribed areas have produced widely acknowledged, influential advances in the areas of defense mechanisms, attachment, the unconscious, transference and counter-transference, and the treatment of borderline personalities, among others. Each of these advances has been accompanied by individual theories.JUNIOR BENSON

The above attempts to make the article about what it states it is not about; it is not in the first instance a consideration of what clinical psychiatry or neurology makes of psychoanalysis as a clinical practise. That's not to say that theory as it is treated here has nothing to do with clinical analysis — Deleuze, Guattari, and Foucault applied the label of "antipsychiatrists" to themselves, and this does restore some relation to the clinical. One may allow a debate to be framed on the response of clinicians to these criticisms, but this isn't the same subject matter when one starts out by citing the American Journal of Psychiatry. Buffyg 23:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NEW SECTION I have introduced an entirely new section entitled " A Fundamental Revision" This was copied and pasted from a Microsoft Word document.Some time must be spent in getting the references straightened out, editing some WP style, and maybe minor additions and revisions. I hope this is acceptable to those interested in this article, and that you will give me a little editing time before you pile on.All discussions welcome on this page.Islandsage 01:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Still some random edits to make, but please make your comments, corrections, and improvements.Islandsage 17:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that someone ( Bacchiad) abruptly deleted above article as original research. It was not original research, but I read the details of NOR and now realize that original thinking is also forbidden. No harm done. The fun was in the writing, even if it was a sin. It does seem that a warning note or some discussion would have been a more graceful process. The article, same name, may be seen on Wikinfo.org. Strange but Freud would have been banned.Islandsage 17:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right Freud would have to follow Wikipedia policies and it is very doubtful that he would have. Fred Bauder 00:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)