Talk:Psychosexual development

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Psychosexual development article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Psychology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources?

Interesting, but I would really like to see a reference section. Even just Freud's relevant work.--Bookandcoffee 18:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction

The bit about "Some of these theories have been disproved" -- it seems a bit tacky. Anyone averse to its removal?Bvanderveen 22:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, I don't believe it should be taken down. Part of Wikipedia is disclosure... were it not for that passage, many people would come here and think it to be true. Science is not a world of absolute answers, and it's more than likely helpful to know what didn't work or wasn't right. Vegasrebel29 11:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some spelling and grammer errors in this article. It would also be cool if where it says that some of this has been disproven to link to the theories that have disproven it.Sparticuz 01:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

The "anal phase" is just that. It has nothing to do with sadism and the original source has it wrong or is reffering to something else - probably related to a connected theorie or contemplation.Preacher 18:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stages of development

Would it be useful to include details of the areas of the psyche associated with each stage in the table in order to relate it further to Freuds pd explanation? B Walker 15:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

This article is about Freudian PD, anyway, unless it is extended to include other theorists the table, etc should be here. -- Paul foord 08:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

This page needs a ton of work, especially considering the impact it has had on modern Psychology. While many modern psychologist do not share Freud's PD theories, most will admit to the impact it had. Anyways, I am gonna do a major overhaul of this article in my sandbox with lots of references. Feel free to edit it there if you want or do it here and I'll incorporate any changes that have been made.--Iosef 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made some changes, because I found some major errors. I think that the page needs an introduction, like something talking about how Freud came developed his theory and what he thought of it. This should be in the most general terms. Then that can move into an elucidation of the individual stages, that are already drawn out here. Jkominki 02:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the German page, and it is much better than this one. The German edition of this page traces the development of Freud's theory of the psychosexual development throughout the span of several decades. In that case, it is a better overview of the overarching idea that drives Freud's theory of psychosexual development. I was thinking of translating it, and then adding the information somehow to this page. What would your opinion be? Maybe I should do it, and then set it up in the sandbox. Jkominki 00:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means go ahead and translate the page. If you want to translate it and then figure out what info you can add you may want to set up your own sandbox to compare what you have with the current article. Do it however you want but if they have more information we could always use it, just try and make sure you use information that is from cited sources. Remember, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and should usually not be used as an important reference. Otherwise go for it.--Iosef 01:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a great point, Iosef: first and foremost, Wikipedia should be written on a level that allow for someone who is not familiar with the subject or the field of knowledge in which the subject is contained, to gain an understanding of said topic. That means that an article should be written in such a way as to allow non-psychologists an idea of what the idea means in the broader context of ideas. In practice, this means clearly mapping out the main ideas, and giving a brief overview of their context, and suggestions for further reading--with sources! I will start on the translation very soon and look for the necessary materials pertaining to Freud. Jkominki 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias towards the psychoanalytic view

I attempted to correct the apparent bias towards the psychoanalytic view. Examples of such a bias were statements such us "The concept of psychosexual development, as envisioned by Sigmund Freud at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, is a central element in the theory of psychology". This statement is not even verifiable but false. As far as I understand, the concept of psychosexual development, as envisioned by Sigmund Freud at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, is not even central to modern psychoanalysis itself, as the sources in the article (such as Merlino's comments) imply. The lack of a scientific critique (which I introduced as a stub) also threw much doubt on the neutral point of view of the article given the probably already large and substantial corpus of scientific criticism against Freud's theory of psychosexual development. I am no expert on this, so I just attempted to make the article more NPOV.

Remember: From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.

Balance When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.234.184.20 (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical Changes

The section : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosexual_development#Feminist_critique

has every single sentence starting with "Freud..." It gets annoying after a couple of times to see sentences repetitively start with a proper noun. I've edited the sentences and used pronouns instead. Cheers! Julyda4th (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text

[1], [2], [3]. Maybe there is something to be found in order to expand the article.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.14.169 (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reader

Elisabeth Young-Bruehl: Freud on Women: A Reader (editor) (Norton, 1992, ISBN 0393308707)

Austerlitz -- 88.75.208.29 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

I tagged this as refimprove. It has a total of 8 footnotes and has large tracts of text with no apparent sources. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theory and criticism

This is not my area of expertise but I would have thought that a theory such as this proves itself by predicting outcomes or otherwise proving itself useful. I don't see any evidence of this shown in the article. Likewise the criticism section centres mainly on the idea that "this theory is flawed because Freud was into sex stuff a bit too much." Surely his motivations are irrelevant to how valid or useful this theory is? There has to be some more concrete crticism out there? Anyone? --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern scientific work?

It would be nice if there was a sister article, or more information on modern, peer-reviewed work, versus Freud's theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.4.233 (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoanalysis versus other schools of psychology

This article presents only the psychoanalytic view on psychosexual development. Surely, it's classicly traditional (and therefore indeed should be dealt with on this website), but few professionals consider psychoanalytic theory fully authentic and there are people who classify psychoanalysis as pseudoscience. Shouldn't there be another article dealing with the non-psychoanalytic understanding of psychosexual development? Mortimer Lanin (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]