On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, R wrote:
> erikson was a very talented guy, and interesting in his own right. his
> stages of psychological development focused attention on a much improved,
> different way of viewing typology and human development although his roots
> were post freudian. his book on Luther was entertaining, too. but for my
> tastes, they just don't make it. i'd rather read history without the psych,
> partly because the psych is always theoretical. that's my subjective
> opinion.
I don't get why many people have this misconception of psychology. Research psychologists test hypotheses by conducting rigorous, thoughtful experimental studies. Yes, psych is theoretical, but mainstream psychologists are just as interested in testing their theories--and throwing out theories inconsistent with data--as physicists and biologists are.
> what [Freud] did accomplish that stands out is to focus attention on
> the concept
> of the unconscious. in this, his movement was truly a revolution in
> contemporary thought of his day, and changed all of our lives.
This claim is a reflection of the incessant, diligent and effective hagiography of Freud by his enthusiasts. In fact, the concept of the unconscious was not revolutionary in Freud's era (e.g., see Nietzsche); Frued elaborated ideas like the repression of aggressive urges that had been kicking around in philosophy since at least Aristotle. --That said, he was a wonderful writer, and he was very effective at promoting (propagandizing?) his ideas.
--Did he change all our lives? Well, many people have benefited from psychoanalysis, and most training programs in clinical psychology include Freudian techniques. However, I can think of a dozen psychologists off the top of my head who have had more influence on the discipline of psychology and settings in which psychology is practically applied in our society--e.g., schools, the military, medical clinics, courtrooms.
In short: Freud's no quack, but he's not as revolutionary and important as "lay" people assume.
Miles