My impression is that a lot of Freud’s predictions failed to bear out, and where they turned out right, they are usually better explained (more coverage of phenomenon with a simpler model) by less elaborate theories.
For example, the idea of “Freudian slips” (where accidents of speech reveal prurient obsessions) was somewhat born out, but priming theory explains the same general phenomenon without the obsessive focus on sex that was so characteristic of Freud… and which probably accounted for a large part of his success in popular culture. Also, some of his claims were just plain fraud.
Nowadays, Freudian psychology has much more relevance to literature majors than psych majors, because he offered a theory of human souls that claimed to be scientific, was full of sex, and worked at about the same level of explanation that animist theories of nature do (with lots and lots of use of the intentional stance). It was a very useful theory for novelists, but not so useful to neuro-physiologists.
My impression is that a lot of Freud’s predictions failed to bear out, and where they turned out right, they are usually better explained (more coverage of phenomenon with a simpler model) by less elaborate theories.
For example, the idea of “Freudian slips” (where accidents of speech reveal prurient obsessions) was somewhat born out, but priming theory explains the same general phenomenon without the obsessive focus on sex that was so characteristic of Freud… and which probably accounted for a large part of his success in popular culture. Also, some of his claims were just plain fraud.
Nowadays, Freudian psychology has much more relevance to literature majors than psych majors, because he offered a theory of human souls that claimed to be scientific, was full of sex, and worked at about the same level of explanation that animist theories of nature do (with lots and lots of use of the intentional stance). It was a very useful theory for novelists, but not so useful to neuro-physiologists.