Talk:Neuropsychoanalysis

"Repression of trauma"

Repression of trauma results from hormones shutting off the retranscribing action of the hippocampus. That claim is an obvious brainchild of 1980s Recovered memory therapy (see the non-scholarly and non-scientific, basically pulp sources The Courage to Heal by Bass & Davis, or Michelle Remembers by Pazder, for instance), based on a short-time error on behalf of Freud from his 1896 essay Zur Ätiologie der Hysterie claiming that repression would essentially be repression of traumatic sexual experience during infancy, an error that he himself admitted within half a year in a letter to Wilhelm Fliess and that by his 1905 Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality he'd fully replaced with his temporary concept of Oedipus complex before fully figuring out the relevant psychological apparatus with Id, ego, and super-ego between 1920-'23 whereby it is personal impulses that are being repressed as according to prevalent moral values, not traumatic memories. I'd therefore say that line has to go from this article. --77.185.86.24 (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing how long the comment has been here without anyone responding, I'm just going to go ahead and delete the line. If anyone can find a real source to cite, please feel free to add it back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.198.57 (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Serious Conceptual 'Misframing' of Neuropsychoanalysis as a "Movement"

As someone who has been a regular contributor to Neuropsychoanalysis, I could not object more strenuously to Neuropsychoanalysis being referred to as a 'movement'. Unfortunately, the notion of 'movements' (which really translates into a group committed to a particular psychological or metapsychological ideology) has done more to hamper progress both in the broader fields of psychology and within psychoanalysis (as a sub discipline within psychology) than almost any other aspect. This investment in "movements" has lead to schools of psychological thought engaging in metapsychological debates and oftentimes in attacks on one another, instead of concentrating on researching fundamental theoretical hypotheses using some version of a scientific method and empirical testing of constructs.

Psychoanalysis ended up marginalizing itself in large part because it became a movement instead of the core ideas of psychoanalysis energizing a fundamental empirical research effort. This status of psychoanalysis as a movement, and in some sense almost a cult, led regrettably to the isolation of psychoanalysis from the emerging developments in the clinical neurosciences that took place in the 60s and 70s, and the failure of any significant bridging effort between psychoanalysis and biological psychiatry and psychopharmacology and behavioral neurology, until quite recently. It was this failure (based in the status of psychoanalysis as a movement) that the fundamental venture of Neuropsychoanalysis was intended to correct. The notion that Neuropsychoanalysis is just another movement in that sense couldn't be more mistaken. Instead, it reflects an effort to mitigate these historical failures of psychoanalysis by actually doing research that might shed light on how the brain works, particularly in terms of its emotional dynamics. Science, if it is to produce anything of real or lasting value in terms of an understanding of nature, can never be 'a movement'. The moment scientific camps take on the form of an ideological movement, and lose a fundamental appreciation that all ideas, including their cherished assumptions, are provisional and subject to continual empirical testing and revision, it has lost its way and has stopped in some sense being a true scientific venture. Of course, there are dozens of examples of ideology and politics dominating scientific ventures, yielding scientific camps of thought, reification of concepts, and an inability to see the limitations of a particular theory. At least science in theory strives to do better than that, but movements do not.

Douglas Watt Harvard Medical School

Repeated Misattribution Re: Douglas Watt's identity

As one of the contributors referenced in this review, I have corrected this web page now twice, around the serious error that I am the person referred to by the wiki entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Watt. Whoever is reverting my corrections, please, please wake up!!!

The person referenced in that link has been DEAD for 25 years and was a politician, and was never someone in the clinical neurosciences. (I am still quite alive as rumors of my death in this regard are quite exaggerated)

Consistent with the sloppiness and lack of critical thinking expressed in those reverted edits (which put a serious mistake back into the piece after it had been twice corrected), this brief review of N-PSA could use a real clean up from someone who knows something about Neuropsychoanalysis!!

Douglas Watt Board of Editors Neuropsychoanalysis Cambridge City Hospital Harvard Medical School —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.129.233 (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Rename page

A Google search suggests that the subject of this page is stated as a single, non-hyphenated, word: Neuropsychoanalysis. Should the page be renamed from Neuro-psychoanalysis to Neuropsychoanalysis? I'd like to see if we can build consensus on the proposal prior to taking (or not taking) action. Thanks. —Waldhorn (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of feedback, I'll be WP:BOLD and rename the page to Neuropsychoanalysis.  —Waldhorn (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, a disambiguation page already exists for the title Neuropsychoanalysis. I'll leave it be for now. —Waldhorn (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggested external link

I would like to add the following link under the "external links" heading. https://www.therapyroute.com/article/what-is-neuropsychoanalysis-by-m-solms. The link is to a three-part video recording of a seminar, delivered by Prof Mark Solms, which outlines what neuropsychoanalysis is and offers clinical material to illustrate the points made. Many regard Prof Solms as a founder of neuropsychoanalysis (he is certainly one of the most prominent figures in this field). In name of transparency: I am an editor of the platform on which Prof Solms generously allowed the material to be published (no money changes hands). --Enzosinisi (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: Per EL:MIN, this article does not need more links in Neuropsychoanalysis § External links. This article needs editing to address all the issues noted in the cleanup tags and to better explain the relation between this subject and other uses of neuroscience in the mental health professions. Biogeographist (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Add new sources and new information

I believe this article could benefit a lot from newer sources of information. The most recent source being cited is from 2011. There has been a lot of new research and new information on the topic of Neuropsychoanalysis in the past nine years, so I believe this article should be revised according to the new information we have. Stafuss1 (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Text is a bit purple

The text here seems a little "purple" (c.f. purple prose) and perhaps a bit more editorializing / value-laden than the style used elsewhere on wikipedia i.e. it reads like an essay. I was tempted to edit it in the name of "ease of skimming" and "ease of reader less familiar with some of these concepts", but... it is quite well written, and I felt a bit like I was taking a paint roller to a mural.

Opinions? Should I go ahead with some butchery?

Talpedia (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)