Miles Jackson wrote:
>
>> All that said, I should note that I'm very interested in research that
> directly tests Freudian hypotheses. However, I'm more than a little
> disappointed that these neuroscientists are inaccurately representing
> Freud's basic ideas.
It's possible the neuroscietists are not to blame. Scietific American ceased to be a very dependable source a couple decades ago. I'm still subbinng to it but I'm not sure why. I've seenn about three articles and half a doze page fillers over the last couple years that had much of interest to them.
Even when it is the researcher himself writing the article it is apt to be misleading. Ian Tattersall, a well-regarded anthropologist & primate specialist, published ann article in SA a few years ago that caught my attentionn. I bought two of his books, inncludinng one that the article had clearly been extracted from. The book gave a _very_ different impression of the material than the article had.
Carrol