<p>Hard question to answer. Some of his ideas  appear to have found little in the way of experimental support, some of his ideas are at present untestable, some have been supported by experimental studies. The late psychometrician Paul Kline conducted a number of studies and found mixed results. I can recommend his book on Freudian theory and psychology. He breaks down Freud's theory into various hypotheses and examines each to see what is supported and what isn't. </p>

<p>Some of Kline's research:</p>

<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1977.tb00238.x" rel="nofollow noreferrer">A factor analytic study of the oral character, 1977</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221325.1980.10534099?journalCode=vgnt20#preview" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Etiology of the Oral Character, The Journal of Genetic Psychology</a></p></li>
</ul>

<p>One of his books on Freudian theory: </p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Fact_and_fantasy_in_Freudian_theory.html?id=tcRrAAAAMAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y&amp;hl=en" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Fact and fantasy in Freudian theory</a></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2014-10-15T08:41:39.137Z
2018-06-20T15:37:04.230Z
2018-06-20T15:37:04.230Z
user183974
<p>Freudian psychology (and it's derivatives) are indeed pseudoscience, by and large.  That said, Freud was arguably the first to systematically theorize and study human behavior and cognition, and in so doing laid the foundation for the scientific study of psychology.  It's generally useful for the purpose of such discussions to distinguish between Freudian <em>psychoanalysis</em> and Freudian <em>psychodynamics</em>.  The latter is generally sound though embryonic to the point of near-uselessness to contemporary students (except of course, from a historical perspective).  As such, there are concepts in Freud's work that have been scientifically validated.</p>

<p>The basic premise that we're unaware of the majority of our mental processes, for example, is perfectly valid.  More generally, the idea that behavior is the sum of concrete biological forces (what Freud called <em>psychic energy</em>) has been substantiated by quantitative evidence time and time again.  Once again, the problem is that it's very superficial and hand-wavy by modern standards, not to mention its <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x16d4fv_le-mur-ou-la-psychanalyse-a-l-epreuve-de-l-autisme_webcam#from=embediframe">propensity to be severely abused</a>.</p>

<p>Modern attachment theory, that is, the idea that emotional bonds are an essential part of infant development, also very clearly originates with Freud.</p>

<p>Most interestingly, IMHO, is the concept of defense mechanisms.  Indeed the study of psychology and cognitive science has been impeded for years because of an over-reliance on subjective self-report.  Thanks to Freud, we recognize that people can be unaware of their own misrepresentations of fact.</p>

<p>It's actually quite difficult to find a nook of cognitive science that hasn't been positively influenced by Freudian psychology in some meaningful way.  Freud got many things right, but wasn't very concerned with establishing the validity of his claims.  In practical terms, this means that studying Freud from a historical perspective will be quite informative, but one will have a hard time applying his theories directly to modern research or therapy.  And of course, there are a significant number of Freudian claims that have been positively disproven in all but the most metaphorical sense (the general "death wish" comes readily to mind).</p>

<p>Another way to look at this is as a modeling problem.  Freudian psychology proposes a number of models of how the human psyche works, most notably the Id/Ego/Superego hierarchy.  At the time, this was a very useful model, but it has since been supplanted by better models that better predict behavior.  This having been said, Freud's groundwork is readily visible:  everybody agrees that automatic non-conscious processing occurs and that it influences conscious perception.  Similarly, it's well known that top-down influences of expectation, cultural bias or attention can affect conscious processing.  In this sense, the Id/Ego/Superego model is alive and well... it's just been refined a <strong>great</strong> deal.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-13T12:38:17.227Z
Nice answer, although I 'd like some references for the points you make. Also, the difference between psychoanalysis and psychodynamics is not all that clear, except for the length of treatment that each approach prefers. Many use the term psychodynamics to refer to an umbrella of approaches originating from Freud http://www.simplypsychology.org/psychodynamic.html but others use the terms interchangeably http://www.bpc.org.uk/about-psychotherapy/what-pp If anything was embryonic in terms of theoretical development, I think that has to be Freud's metapsychology, which is rarely seen nowadays.
Lazaros Mitskopoulos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-13T13:05:29.310Z
@LarryM. What is it, specifically, for which you'd like a reference?  If you want to do bibliographic research, you could, for instance, read Freud's work and then read the literature on subjective self-report.  My claims are general enough that google scholar should be all you need, I think.  Concerning the difference between psychoanalysis and psychodynamics, it's exactly the same distinction as that between *clinical psychology* and *experimental psychology*.  The former aims to treat illness whereas the latter is fundamental research.
Louis Thibault
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-13T13:19:06.373Z
@blz I think some references for the points where you mention or imply that research has been conducted would be educative for the people with little or no experience with psychology who visit this site. Concerning the distinction you make I don't think the clinical-experimental distinction is analogous. The links in my earlier comment plus the wikipedia page on psychodynamics should make this clear.
Lazaros Mitskopoulos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-13T13:24:01.093Z
@LarryM. Again, I think the claims are general enough that a quick bout of googling should yield ample results.  That said, I certainly won't be offended if somebody wants to edit my answer :)  Concerning the distinction between psychoanalysis and psychodynamics, mine was indeed a partial explanation, but I think it's "good enough" given the question.  Your link is a welcome addition to the discussion, though! Thanks!
Louis Thibault
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-17T14:15:18.057Z
I had a high-school teacher in psychology once, he did not like Freud at all and strongly suggested that he might have done more harm then good. Although your answer seem to well cover the aspects in his work that have relevance today, you seem to have a overall positive view of his contributions. While respecting that he "got some things right", might there be any negative effects from his work as well? Effects that depending how you weigh the issue maybe even could tip the scale to the negative side?
Alex
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-20T13:15:09.470Z
@Alex, My answer is tailored to the question, which explicitly asks what Freud got *right*.  That said, the documentary I linked to is a scathing criticism of Lacannian Psychoanalysis (a direct derivative of Freud's work).  I don't know that it makes sense to claim Freud did "more harm than good", though.  How do you measure such things, especially considering how critical to modern psychology Freud's work was?
Louis Thibault
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-13T11:32:40.390Z
2014-10-13T13:06:54.953Z
2014-10-13T13:06:54.953Z
Louis Thibault
<p>I guess this question is quite context dependent, and here in Sweden there is a general movement for more evidence-based psychology. I <em>think</em> one of our biggest medical universities recently abandoned psychodynamics in favour of a more empirical approach to the field. In this general context it feels like it often happens that Freud and his work gets ridiculed and seen as pseudo-science by a lot of people.</p>

<p>I have only a basic knowledge and overview in the field, but I have to confess that I currently subscribe to the pseudo-science view of Freud's work as well. Is there anything he proposed or accomplished that actually has a sound scientific basis? Have there been any studies providing empirical support for freudian psychoanalytic concepts that I can use to form a critical view of his work which is more balanced and fact-dependent? </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-12T18:22:50.660Z
I' ve edited your question in a way that I think will get you better answers. Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood your purpose. I happen to have some things in mind for an answer which I would like to write when I find more free time. In the meantime, you can check the wikipedia page on psychoanalysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis#Criticism and this article http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.2.022305.095328 which however draws some conclusions which are questionable in my opinion.
Lazaros Mitskopoulos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-13T13:14:35.310Z
@Alex, as a tangential addendum to my answer, I'd like to insist on the fact that there's little reason to study Freud outside of his historical, social and literary significance.  You're not going to gain an understanding that even remotely approaches that which modern science has revealed by studying Freud, Jung, Lacan, etc.  You're more likely to be mislead than anything else.  This isn't to stifle your curiosity (I've read much of Freud's work myself!), but if you're trying to get a 30,000-foot view of the field of psychology, don't start with them.
Louis Thibault
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-17T21:34:46.733Z
Also, don't forget that (1) lack of supporting evidence does not automatically translate to presence of refuting evidence and (2) Freud introduced a good amount of concepts and supporting clues vary from concept to concept. Take "defence mechanisms", for instance; nearly all mainstream schools of throught keep them in their vocabulary.
drabsv
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-17T21:43:35.257Z
You might as well ask, "is there anything in psychology that is scientifically sound?" :) My personal superficial knowledge prompts me that besides psychology of sensation and perception, which allows for fairly objective observation and empirical research, all else is either better or lesser supported scientific hypotheses. We just lack the scientific apparatus for meaningful empirical research. We must see advances in empirical research, first, before we can witness at least some degree of sanity in psychology (pun intended :) ).
drabsv
<reference-request><psychoanalysis>
Is there anything in Freudian psychoanalytic theory that is scientifically sound?
Alex
# Is there anything in Freudian psychoanalytic theory that is scientifically sound?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-10-12)

I guess this question is quite context dependent, and here in Sweden there is a general movement for more evidence-based psychology. I *think* one of our biggest medical universities recently abandoned psychodynamics in favour of a more empirical approach to the field. In this general context it feels like it often happens that Freud and his work gets ridiculed and seen as pseudo-science by a lot of people.

I have only a basic knowledge and overview in the field, but I have to confess that I currently subscribe to the pseudo-science view of Freud's work as well. Is there anything he proposed or accomplished that actually has a sound scientific basis? Have there been any studies providing empirical support for freudian psychoanalytic concepts that I can use to form a critical view of his work which is more balanced and fact-dependent?

**Tags:** reference-request, psychoanalysis

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I' ve edited your question in a way that I think will get you better answers. Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood your purpose. I happen to have some things in mind for an answer which I would like to write when I find more free time. In the meantime, you can check the wikipedia page on psychoanalysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis#Criticism and this article http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.2.022305.095328 which however draws some conclusions which are questionable in my opinion.  
> **username_2**: @username_0, as a tangential addendum to my answer, I'd like to insist on the fact that there's little reason to study Freud outside of his historical, social and literary significance.  You're not going to gain an understanding that even remotely approaches that which modern science has revealed by studying Freud, Jung, Lacan, etc.  You're more likely to be mislead than anything else.  This isn't to stifle your curiosity (I've read much of Freud's work myself!), but if you're trying to get a 30,000-foot view of the field of psychology, don't start with them.  
> **username_3**: Also, don't forget that (1) lack of supporting evidence does not automatically translate to presence of refuting evidence and (2) Freud introduced a good amount of concepts and supporting clues vary from concept to concept. Take "defence mechanisms", for instance; nearly all mainstream schools of throught keep them in their vocabulary.  
> **username_3**: You might as well ask, "is there anything in psychology that is scientifically sound?" :) My personal superficial knowledge prompts me that besides psychology of sensation and perception, which allows for fairly objective observation and empirical research, all else is either better or lesser supported scientific hypotheses. We just lack the scientific apparatus for meaningful empirical research. We must see advances in empirical research, first, before we can witness at least some degree of sanity in psychology (pun intended :) ).  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-10-13. Score: 13 | Accepted answer

Freudian psychology (and it's derivatives) are indeed pseudoscience, by and large. That said, Freud was arguably the first to systematically theorize and study human behavior and cognition, and in so doing laid the foundation for the scientific study of psychology. It's generally useful for the purpose of such discussions to distinguish between Freudian *psychoanalysis* and Freudian *psychodynamics*. The latter is generally sound though embryonic to the point of near-uselessness to contemporary students (except of course, from a historical perspective). As such, there are concepts in Freud's work that have been scientifically validated.

The basic premise that we're unaware of the majority of our mental processes, for example, is perfectly valid. More generally, the idea that behavior is the sum of concrete biological forces (what Freud called *psychic energy*) has been substantiated by quantitative evidence time and time again. Once again, the problem is that it's very superficial and hand-wavy by modern standards, not to mention its [propensity to be severely abused](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x16d4fv_le-mur-ou-la-psychanalyse-a-l-epreuve-de-l-autisme_webcam#from=embediframe).

Modern attachment theory, that is, the idea that emotional bonds are an essential part of infant development, also very clearly originates with Freud.

Most interestingly, IMHO, is the concept of defense mechanisms. Indeed the study of psychology and cognitive science has been impeded for years because of an over-reliance on subjective self-report. Thanks to Freud, we recognize that people can be unaware of their own misrepresentations of fact.

It's actually quite difficult to find a nook of cognitive science that hasn't been positively influenced by Freudian psychology in some meaningful way. Freud got many things right, but wasn't very concerned with establishing the validity of his claims. In practical terms, this means that studying Freud from a historical perspective will be quite informative, but one will have a hard time applying his theories directly to modern research or therapy. And of course, there are a significant number of Freudian claims that have been positively disproven in all but the most metaphorical sense (the general "death wish" comes readily to mind).

Another way to look at this is as a modeling problem. Freudian psychology proposes a number of models of how the human psyche works, most notably the Id/Ego/Superego hierarchy. At the time, this was a very useful model, but it has since been supplanted by better models that better predict behavior. This having been said, Freud's groundwork is readily visible: everybody agrees that automatic non-conscious processing occurs and that it influences conscious perception. Similarly, it's well known that top-down influences of expectation, cultural bias or attention can affect conscious processing. In this sense, the Id/Ego/Superego model is alive and well... it's just been refined a **great** deal.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Nice answer, although I 'd like some references for the points you make. Also, the difference between psychoanalysis and psychodynamics is not all that clear, except for the length of treatment that each approach prefers. Many use the term psychodynamics to refer to an umbrella of approaches originating from Freud http://www.simplypsychology.org/psychodynamic.html but others use the terms interchangeably http://www.bpc.org.uk/about-psychotherapy/what-pp If anything was embryonic in terms of theoretical development, I think that has to be Freud's metapsychology, which is rarely seen nowadays.  
> **username_2**: @LarryM. What is it, specifically, for which you'd like a reference?  If you want to do bibliographic research, you could, for instance, read Freud's work and then read the literature on subjective self-report.  My claims are general enough that google scholar should be all you need, I think.  Concerning the difference between psychoanalysis and psychodynamics, it's exactly the same distinction as that between *clinical psychology* and *experimental psychology*.  The former aims to treat illness whereas the latter is fundamental research.  
> **username_1**: @blz I think some references for the points where you mention or imply that research has been conducted would be educative for the people with little or no experience with psychology who visit this site. Concerning the distinction you make I don't think the clinical-experimental distinction is analogous. The links in my earlier comment plus the wikipedia page on psychodynamics should make this clear.  
> **username_2**: @LarryM. Again, I think the claims are general enough that a quick bout of googling should yield ample results.  That said, I certainly won't be offended if somebody wants to edit my answer :)  Concerning the distinction between psychoanalysis and psychodynamics, mine was indeed a partial explanation, but I think it's "good enough" given the question.  Your link is a welcome addition to the discussion, though! Thanks!  
> **username_0**: I had a high-school teacher in psychology once, he did not like Freud at all and strongly suggested that he might have done more harm then good. Although your answer seem to well cover the aspects in his work that have relevance today, you seem to have a overall positive view of his contributions. While respecting that he "got some things right", might there be any negative effects from his work as well? Effects that depending how you weigh the issue maybe even could tip the scale to the negative side?  
> **username_2**: @username_0, My answer is tailored to the question, which explicitly asks what Freud got *right*.  That said, the documentary I linked to is a scathing criticism of Lacannian Psychoanalysis (a direct derivative of Freud's work).  I don't know that it makes sense to claim Freud did "more harm than good", though.  How do you measure such things, especially considering how critical to modern psychology Freud's work was?  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2014-10-15. Score: 5

Hard question to answer. Some of his ideas appear to have found little in the way of experimental support, some of his ideas are at present untestable, some have been supported by experimental studies. The late psychometrician Paul Kline conducted a number of studies and found mixed results. I can recommend his book on Freudian theory and psychology. He breaks down Freud's theory into various hypotheses and examines each to see what is supported and what isn't.

Some of Kline's research:

* [A factor analytic study of the oral character, 1977](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1977.tb00238.x)
* [The Etiology of the Oral Character, The Journal of Genetic Psychology](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221325.1980.10534099?journalCode=vgnt20#preview)

One of his books on Freudian theory:

* [Fact and fantasy in Freudian theory](https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Fact_and_fantasy_in_Freudian_theory.html?id=tcRrAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y&hl=en)


---

