was sigmund freud wrong about the human mind?

Question

The unconscious or subconscious mind, according to classical Freudian psychoanalysis, is a "part" of the mind that stores repressed memories. The theory of repression maintains that some experiences are too painful to be reminded of, so the mind stuffs them in the cellar. These painful repressed memories manifest themselves in neurotic or psychotic behavior and in dreams. However, there is no scientific evidence either for the unconscious repression of traumatic experiences or their causal agency in neurotic or psychotic behavior.

The unconscious mind is also thought by some, such as Jung and Tart, to be a reservoir of transcendent truths. There is no scientific evidence that this is true.

It would be absurd to reject the notion of the unconscious mind simply because we reject the Freudian notion of the unconscious as a reservoir of repressed memories of traumatic experiences. We should recognize that it was Freud more than anyone else who forced us to recognize unconscious factors as significant determinants of human behavior. Furthermore, it seems obvious that much, if not most, of one's brain's activity occurs without our awareness. There is no question that we sense many things without being consciously aware of them (see clever Hans phenomenon, for example). There is also no question that unconscious factors can affect behavior or motor action (see ideomotor action, for example). There is little question that many unconscious factors drive such complex phenomena as language ability. Consciousness or self-awareness is obviously the proverbial tip of the iceberg. But most interest in the unconscious mind has been restricted to potentially harmful memories that might be stored or stirring there, memories of bad experiences that influence our conscious behavior even though we are unaware of their impact. Others have shown interest in the unconscious mind as a reservoir of universal truths or a place where the "true self" dwells. Neither of these views seems well supported by the empirical evidence.

It is assumed that the unconscious is distinguished from the conscious by the fact that we are aware of conscious experience, but unaware of the unconscious. However, there is ample scientific data to establish as a fact that some conscious perception goes on without self-consciousness. It is possible to be unaware of having experienced something and unable to remember the experience, but still give evidence that one has had the experience. Several examples should suffice to establish this point.


1. blindness denial. There are cases of brain-damaged people who are blind but who are unaware of it.

2. jargon aphasia. There are cases of brain-damaged people who speak unintelligibly but aren't aware of it.

3. blindsight. There are cases of brain-damaged people who see things but are unaware of it.

4. oral/verbal dissociation. There are cases of brain- damaged people who cannot orally tell you what you just said, but they can write it down correctly. Furthermore, they can't remember what they wrote down or what it refers to.

5. sensing without seeing. There are many cases of people whose brains are not damaged who give evidence that they have seen or heard something even though they are not conscious of having seen or heard the item in question.


Somehow it does not seem appropriate to speak of the first four cases listed here as involving the unconscious mind, even though the perceivers are not aware of what they are perceiving. It might be less confusing to abandon talk of the unconscious mind in such cases and refer instead to "lost memory" or "fragmented memory" or "implicit memory" (a term coined by Daniel Schacter and Endel Tulving). It is not repression of traumatic experiences that causes memories to be lost. Memories are lost because of inattentiveness in the original experience and because the original experience occurred at an age when the brain was not fully developed. Memories are also lost because we have no recognizable need to reference the original experience. (Many fragments of pleasant experiences, such as the name of a place or a product, may be influencing present choices without one's being aware of it.) Memories are lost because of brain damage, loss of consciousness during an experience, neurochemical imbalance, cognitive restructuring, and sensory, emotional or hormonal overload. On the other hand, all the empirical evidence indicates that the more traumatic an experience the more likely one is to remember it. Novel visual images, which would frequently accompany traumas, stimulate the hippocampus and left inferior prefrontal cortex and will generally become part of long-term memory.

Neuroscience tells us that a memory is a set of connections among groups of neurons that participate in the encoding process. Encoding can take place in several parts of the brain. Neural connections

Answer 1

Freud was not wrong. His theories, while not always embraced, cannot be disproved.



Jung did not believe that the unconscious was "only" a reservoir of transcendent truths. He broke the unconscious down into two levels: the personal unconscious, where repressed memories could exist, and the universal unconscious, where transcendental truths and images from the history of man were stored.

Answer 2

Of course he's right. Psychoanalytical theory has moved on since Freud, but that's development, not outright rejection. Just take a look at a baby or toddler who's angry - if you've ever experienced the force of the rage and hatred that child feels, you'll know we've got all that inside. Those of us who received a good enough upbringing, with loving enough parents, learn to manage all those destructive feelings - so while we might say to a friend "I could have killed that idiot who nearly ran me down!", we don't even begin to take seriously the notion of being a threat to another human's life. But it's no accident that that's the language we use - it's an accurate reflection of the inner impulse. Unfortunately, those of us who don't get a decent childhood often find it difficult if not impossible to develop our more constructive and creative sides in ways that enable those to dominate. We don't learn to control impulses for 'evil' actions. And we don't even care. This is psychological damage. If human development from childhood works the way it should do, we turn out compassionate and caring people. But if it goes wrong - as it seems to do rather often - people's inner selves are distorted by these infantile impulses (which are necessary when we're infants to alert our parents to our feelings, but would 'naturally' be minimised as we grow up).

Answer 3

Sigmund Freud is a loon.