Posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2006, at 23:53:02
In reply to Re: psychoanalysis » alexandra_k, posted by Daisym on September 25, 2006, at 23:18:15
> One of the groups we get to use for class is Bruce Perry's ChildTrauma Academy.
>
> They've developed CTA's Neurosequential Model of Therapeutics. This might be what you are looking for. I think the map of the brain they are creating is fascinating.
>
> www.childtrauma.orgThanks. I took a look but the PDF of the model either didn't download properly or they didn't scan it in properly...
What I really need is peer reviewed books / research papers...
Basically... There are text books on such things as 'cognitive psychology'. They state the underlying assumptions of the cognitive psychology framework. Such things as the mind being an information processor. Information processing taking time (so the longer it takes to do a task the more information processing is going on) etc etc. It is controversial whether theoretical frameworks can be adequately captured as axioms (a bunch of statements like that). But the notion is that there is a general framework (like cognitive psychology) and then people go on to adopt the general framework and do research within it. The research within a framework consists in specific hypotheses and models etc.
So... I'm wondering whether psychoanalysis in general is a framework in much the same way that cognitive psychology is. I'm wondering whether I can find a statement of the underlying assumptions. I figured they would be the id, ego, superego stuff and the basic defences. Then the notion was that different varieties of psychoanalysis (Freudian, Object Relations theorists etc) would offer more specific models or hypotheses from within that framework.
But two problems:
1. What are the basic assumptions (can over simplify rather thats okay). I need to reference somewhere fairly authorative. Text book is okay, peer reviewed journal article / book is best.
2. What are the more specific hypotheses / models that have been offered?In particular the specific hypotheses / models need to be capable of falsification otherwise they don't count as scientific.
(Yeah so the general framework of psychoanalysis can't be falsified but that doesn't matter because general scientific frameworks can't be falsified either. What is crucial is whether people who adopt the framework are involved in the scientific enterprise of coming up with more specific hypotheses / models that ARE falsifyable and the adequacy of (scientific) theoretical frameworks is a function of the success of the modelling...)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:686042
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20060911/msgs/689278.html