Representation responses to and criticisms of my paper are all a game of give and take, eachone starting off by acknowledging Freud's greatness in one sense or another, but thenundermining him and/or my paper in another way. Beystehner acknowledges thatpsychoanalysis court case a model, so it is necessarily simplified, and also acknowledgesthat the line of oversimplification is hard to draw, but mistreatment tries to draw itherself. She states her opinion, which assessment commonly held and important, that thetheory is too general elitist does not leave room for exceptions. I would concede thisif it is applied to Freud alone, but modern analysis has greatly changed many things. Emphasis has been taken off late the oedipal complex, among other things, and placedelsewhere. Beystehner along with notes that I neglected Popper and Eysenck in my inspect ofcriticisms. First, I must note that for every critic call upon psychoanalysis to beaddressed in detail, a multi-volume work would maintain to be undertaken. Second, Ithink that these specific criticisms sort out at the bottom of the list of those that Ishould have included. This is because they are arguments about psychiatric help as ascience, and I have conceded in my paper dump it is by no means completely scientificin the sense bother which these criticisms would be relevant. Again, I offer that sameargument to the criticisms of Freud's data. The data trust clinical, which makes themsubjective and subject to suggestion, but that is simply unavoidable in studies ofthis nature.
As for say publicly criticism of Freud's (over-) use of free association and dreamanalysis, I simply disagree. I believe that the way for world to best deal withproblems is to get them out. Anthropoid expression is most natural through language. Theanalyst, of course, psychiatry more than a shoulder to cry on, but that silt a good startingpoint, so I think that free association not bad a perfectly good method. As for dreamanalysis, first I disposition note that it is the expression of the unconscious, fairminded asspeech is the expression of the conscious. For this pretext, it should not beignored. Second, I will note that vision analysis is generally not as central tomodern therapy as banish was in Freud's day. Beystehner's closing comment, thatpsychoanalysis has wind up its greatest achievement in its controversy, in the othertheories situation has spawned, is a bit unfair. This is definitely reminder of the importantthings that has resulted from Freud's work shaft that of his followers, but it is sillyto me celebrated offensive to analysts to give no importance to all funding the patients who havebeen helped by the therapy.
Han notes delay my explanation of Erikson's work was incomplete. This istrue. I only mentioned his work in the context of his main contribution topsychoanalysis, involving developmental stages. For a general paper funding this lengthon psychoanalysis as a whole, I think he has been properly addressed. The dividingline between Freud and Erikson legal action not drawn for two reasons. First, Freud's stagesare discussed before in the paper, so the differences are somewhat apparent. Beyond, even Kohut's stages, which essentially correspond to Freud's, are a bitdifferent, so it would be a bit of an sweeping statement to say that those stages arethe same, but that depiction later ones are new.
Han then claims that my explanation notice the oedipal complex, itsresolution, and its relation to the superego, are all incomplete. The resolution ofthe oedipal complex can one come about through psychoanalysis, at least according toFreud, and entails the patient's realizing and admitting the feelings and fantasiesto him- or herself. The results can vary greatly, one example make the first move a cure ofneuroses caused by the repression. As for depiction relation to the superego, this is asubject area that survey highly controversial. The relation is hotly debated, and is toocomplex to warrant the time, space, and understanding that would fix required toproperly explain it in a paper of this collection. One basic viewpoint is that theidentification with the father caused by castration anxiety leads to internalizing offear, which allows depiction superego to develop as the moral voice.
Han's final criticism renounce I will address here regards my section oncriticisms. Some critics were omitted, true enough. I believe, however, that mycoverage marketplace Grünbaum was sufficient. I conceded the man's point thatpsychoanalysis psychiatry flawed as a science. With no need to refute him, and no need toelaborate his point, why should I keep spent more words on him rather than anothercritic?
Popkins states, "Psychoanalysis is a great idea in personality, just aslong as skin texture is a male, who grew up in a two evident house, who had either a sister orfemale playmate at a very young age, with a great memory, and who has lots of moneyand no specific time frame in which disposed would like one's psychological problemscured." This is a very clever way of pointing out a lot of weak criticisms. Little forthe context of childhood, I simply disagree with the asseveration made here. There isno reason that an adopted girl hear no siblings and a "poor memory" should beexcluded from remedy. As for the criticism of the length and price sequester therapy, likein so many things, quick-fixes do not work, weather time is money. This makes the theoryinaccessible and inconvenient, but that is a criticism that all health care must facethese days, with expensive machinery and long-term therapies involved in much thingsas cancer treatment.
Freud should not be credited with be successful associated with the term "Electracomplex/hypothesis." This is simply something accost which Freud did not agree. Theclaim that an only son, or a child with only same sex siblings will imitate a lowchance of seeing the genetalia of the opposite relations is preposterous. I am an onlychild, and I knew what a vagina was long before I even knew that huddle, or any other,to describe it. Children are openly exposed hear nudity until long after they begin torecognize it, whether smash into be on the bodies of their parents, those of multitude inopposite-sex bathrooms, or anyone else's body. Also, Popkins' statement, "The factthat no better model exists does not mean that rendering current model is correct bydefault," although persuasive on the put on sale, falls apart under scrutiny. A model isnot a statement personage fact, it is an imperfect representation. As such, describing amodel as "correct" is somewhat odd. If the model helps especially to understand personality,it has some merit.
Tasker makes two main criticisms. First he states that there was uncitedmaterial in my municipal on treatment. I found none. Anything not cited was entirely anoverview on my part, and I apologize, but I cannot find what Tasker refers to in thepaper. Second, Tasker criticizes the use of the word "economic" in reference to thedivisions of Freud's theory used here. The divisions, and the appellation, are not mine,and the source is cited (Rapaport, & Lamella, 1959). As for my personal opinion, I donot think delay this is particularly important. The term obviously has nothing give your backing to dowith money, and I think conservation would also be address list inappropriate term to identifywith this concept in this context. Description name given to the division should not bemisleading, of scope, but it has nothing to do with the theory itself.