Reviews
Dream Psychology: Psychoanalysis for Beginners by Sigmund Freud, Montague David Eder, André Tridon
annamgoodman's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.75
Both really interesting and really boring. I learned a lot but it could’ve been shorter.
epicpinkfluffyunicorn's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.0
I was confused but made good points
mark_lm's review against another edition
3.0
Fascinating. I never know what to make of Freud, monumental genius or self-deceiving doofus. Interesting discussion of his children's dreams, including his later to be famous daughter. Interesting review of previous 19th century work on dreams in the first chapter. Basically, he describes the dream, then he states that it seems meaningless without analysis. Then he gives the analysis. Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "Thus we can see that these authors had worked out their conclusions far better than their arguments."
Ifrah. The Universal History of Numbers. p. 402
Ifrah. The Universal History of Numbers. p. 402
clay1st's review against another edition
3.0
I was surprised at how easy to read this was. I was also impressed at Freud's frequent references to the the foundational work in the field which he analyses in what appears to be a very balanced way.
I think his theory that dreams are a an expression of unconscious desires is less strong than his actual analysis of dreams, which take into account contextual and psychological factors to hypothesise about unmet needs and repressed desires of the individuals he analyses. Freud's emphasis on dreams as the foundation for this work is, in my opinion, a red herring for the real work of psychoanalysis that he is doing. It was a thing of its time, modern psychoanalysis has moved further and further away from dream analysis, but the foundations for modern psychoanalysis can still be seen if you read between the lines in this book.
I think his theory that dreams are a an expression of unconscious desires is less strong than his actual analysis of dreams, which take into account contextual and psychological factors to hypothesise about unmet needs and repressed desires of the individuals he analyses. Freud's emphasis on dreams as the foundation for this work is, in my opinion, a red herring for the real work of psychoanalysis that he is doing. It was a thing of its time, modern psychoanalysis has moved further and further away from dream analysis, but the foundations for modern psychoanalysis can still be seen if you read between the lines in this book.
virtualmima's review against another edition
2.0
The only part of this book that's worth reading is the first chapter, and only because it's just a compilation of other people's dream theories. Unfortunately, Freud dismisses all of that in favor of his own dream theories that are entirely wrong. I don't understand why he would reject the other people's theories that could easily have built a solid foundation for a greater study of dreams, in favor of something so untrue that it seems like the kind of thing that your average street psychic would use to analyze you.
Dreams have no deeper meaning. If they ever do on occasion, it's only because randomness will eventually generate something that appears to be meaningful. Those are the dreams that are more likely to leave a lasting impression. Freud's method is nothing new. Since the beginning of human language, people have analyzed their dreams either as premonitions for the future or some form of mystical reading of a person's inner psyche. The only thing Freud did was update this popular prejudice to the industrial age.
His research methods are as questionable as any other quack. He begins with a premise, puts all of his confidence and certainty into that premise, and then forces it upon everyone's dreams. Like Jung and many of his other followers, his greatest asset is confirmation bias. By selecting the few dreams that appear to fit his premise, and by reaching hard with some others, speaking with an air of authority, he gives the illusion that he knows what he's talking about.
Freud is a typical reductionist. All of his ideas oversimplify human behavior into a few pseudo-psychological causes. He's so stubborn in believing that dreams are all wish fulfillment and that all dreams have a deeper meaning, that even if someone has a dream that proves his theory wrong, he just insists that the wish being fulfilled was his theory being disproven. I bet he'd even say that about some of my meaningless dreams that I had long before I even knew who he was, even though there was no wish being fulfilled. I don't deny that sometimes dreams can be wish fulfillment, but to say that all of them are is just factually incorrect.
It improves again around chapter five, where he stated that dreams are the guardians of sleep, because without them we'd have every cause to wake up. He also discusses some of the origins of dream material from the first chapter in more detail, such as long and short term memory as well as somatic feelings. The main issue remains that he continues to rely on the premise that dreams, or at least parts of dreams, are formed by the mind in advance for the purpose of wish fulfillment. To fill in the gaps of his theory, he emphasizes the idea of symbols representing repressed desires. Ironically he uses a bunch of examples of dreams that don't include wish fulfillment when it's not what's being discussed (such as the guy who dreams his memories verbatim). In a desperate last resort, he says that the very act of staying asleep is a type of wish fulfillment, although this would disprove the need for any other type of wish fulfillment within the dream. As long as things remain interesting or confusing, the dream will go on and the dreamer will remain asleep. If a wish is fulfilled, then the dream would be complete and there'd be nothing to keep the dreamer asleep.
The use of symbolism is another desperate move, since anything can symbolize anything. In a sexually repressed society such as Freud's, one could easily turn anything into sexual symbolism and the patient would believe it, because most likely they will have some kind of a repressed sexual desire they never told anyone about. Or they may trust the therapist more than themselves, and by seeking out an old unrelated memory they could find validation in that. There's no way to establish causation from a basic correlation between a dream event and an old memory. A dream is composed of a bunch of things together and it is improvised, not planned. One's will in a dream comes from their perception of the dreamspace, which is constantly transforming due to the limitations of memory during sleep. In dreams the only forms of memory that exist are the working memory and active recollection.
The whole point of a dream is not wish fulfillment. A dream's purpose is to keep the dreamer asleep. In order to do this, it must convince the sleeper that the dream is reality. Freud almost figured this out except that his stubborn acceptance of his initial theories prevented him from doing so. If wish fulfillment occurs in a dream, it's because it's necessary in that moment to keep the dreamer asleep. But the wish of a dreamer may not correspond at all to their wishes when they are awake, and this is yet another fallacy that Freud ignores. In order to believe in the dream, the dreamer must be interested, engaged, and convinced of the dream's reality. An external sensation is a serious threat that can easily wake up a sleeper if it is not immediately rationalized into the logic of a dream. That's why the sound of an alarm clock may be distorted during a dream if the dreamer wishes to remain asleep. But there's also the possibility that the dreamer may suddenly remember that they need to be awake early, so they consciously exit the dream the moment that an external sensation prompts them to, rather than rationalize it into dream logic.
Symbols do not exist in dreams either, unless either the symbol or the signifier is explained within the dream. Even then, the disconnection between symbols from their signifiers can often be so prominent that even what might be an obvious symbol in waking life might have nothing to do with what was dreamed. It's not uncommon for a certain object or being within a dream to be identified as something entirely incorrect. If the meaning of something is not revealed to the dreamer at some point during the dream, or immediately at the point of waking, then chances are that it's probably not a symbol at all. And if the dreamer wouldn't normally interpret something to be a symbol for something else in their waking life, then it's highly unlikely that it would appear as a symbol in a dream. When discussing symbols it sounds more like he's trying to analyze unrealistic dreams in fiction like the bible or Shakespeare instead of real people's dreams. The sexual symbolism is particularly unconvincing most of the time. Although it brought attention to the neuroticism people in a repressive culture experience pertaining to sexuality, it's highly unlikely that the dreams had anything to do with it.
Freud constantly makes the mistake of thinking that just because something happens once, or even several times, that means it's universal law. Even if it's common for people to experience things like wish fulfillment and symbolism in dreams, that doesn't mean it happens to everyone. The types of people who would go to someone in the first place in search of dream interpretation would already be likely to believe that dreams can be interpreted, otherwise they wouldn't be there. The stereotype of dream interpretation, as told in many myths and stories throughout history, is that the events of the dream are symbolic and tell a coherent narrative that can be deciphered by the right people. If someone already believes this, then it's not unlikely that they already think in terms of symbols, possibly a bit superstitious in general, and in the freedom of a dream they continue to internally emphasize things that could have symbolic value. Or if in waking life they're always chasing after wish fulfillment, they're likely to replicate this same behavior in a dream. By no means does this indicate that there's a universal law where all dreams must have symbolism and wish fulfillment. Freud clearly has not analyzed every dream of everyone who's ever lived, and does not have even close to enough information on dreams to figure out any universal laws. What he should've focused on was figuring out how light, sound, time, memory, and sensation in general in represented in a dream, instead of jumping ahead of himself with all that confirmation bias. He also never explains why believes in his claims, preferring instead to use only an unscientific essentialist positivism to invent ideas rather than to justify rationally the necessity of their correctness. It seems like it never even occurred to him to ask himself why all dreams must be wish fulfilments, and why they all must contain a deeper meaning.
Had Freud stopped after the first chapter, he never would have become famous. And that would have been a good thing, because all of the influence he's had on psychology has been negative. If it weren't for Freud, if someone smarter had been credited with founding psychoanalysis, then the entire field of psychology would be much better off today. His pseudoscience destroyed everything.
Dreams have no deeper meaning. If they ever do on occasion, it's only because randomness will eventually generate something that appears to be meaningful. Those are the dreams that are more likely to leave a lasting impression. Freud's method is nothing new. Since the beginning of human language, people have analyzed their dreams either as premonitions for the future or some form of mystical reading of a person's inner psyche. The only thing Freud did was update this popular prejudice to the industrial age.
His research methods are as questionable as any other quack. He begins with a premise, puts all of his confidence and certainty into that premise, and then forces it upon everyone's dreams. Like Jung and many of his other followers, his greatest asset is confirmation bias. By selecting the few dreams that appear to fit his premise, and by reaching hard with some others, speaking with an air of authority, he gives the illusion that he knows what he's talking about.
Freud is a typical reductionist. All of his ideas oversimplify human behavior into a few pseudo-psychological causes. He's so stubborn in believing that dreams are all wish fulfillment and that all dreams have a deeper meaning, that even if someone has a dream that proves his theory wrong, he just insists that the wish being fulfilled was his theory being disproven. I bet he'd even say that about some of my meaningless dreams that I had long before I even knew who he was, even though there was no wish being fulfilled. I don't deny that sometimes dreams can be wish fulfillment, but to say that all of them are is just factually incorrect.
It improves again around chapter five, where he stated that dreams are the guardians of sleep, because without them we'd have every cause to wake up. He also discusses some of the origins of dream material from the first chapter in more detail, such as long and short term memory as well as somatic feelings. The main issue remains that he continues to rely on the premise that dreams, or at least parts of dreams, are formed by the mind in advance for the purpose of wish fulfillment. To fill in the gaps of his theory, he emphasizes the idea of symbols representing repressed desires. Ironically he uses a bunch of examples of dreams that don't include wish fulfillment when it's not what's being discussed (such as the guy who dreams his memories verbatim). In a desperate last resort, he says that the very act of staying asleep is a type of wish fulfillment, although this would disprove the need for any other type of wish fulfillment within the dream. As long as things remain interesting or confusing, the dream will go on and the dreamer will remain asleep. If a wish is fulfilled, then the dream would be complete and there'd be nothing to keep the dreamer asleep.
The use of symbolism is another desperate move, since anything can symbolize anything. In a sexually repressed society such as Freud's, one could easily turn anything into sexual symbolism and the patient would believe it, because most likely they will have some kind of a repressed sexual desire they never told anyone about. Or they may trust the therapist more than themselves, and by seeking out an old unrelated memory they could find validation in that. There's no way to establish causation from a basic correlation between a dream event and an old memory. A dream is composed of a bunch of things together and it is improvised, not planned. One's will in a dream comes from their perception of the dreamspace, which is constantly transforming due to the limitations of memory during sleep. In dreams the only forms of memory that exist are the working memory and active recollection.
The whole point of a dream is not wish fulfillment. A dream's purpose is to keep the dreamer asleep. In order to do this, it must convince the sleeper that the dream is reality. Freud almost figured this out except that his stubborn acceptance of his initial theories prevented him from doing so. If wish fulfillment occurs in a dream, it's because it's necessary in that moment to keep the dreamer asleep. But the wish of a dreamer may not correspond at all to their wishes when they are awake, and this is yet another fallacy that Freud ignores. In order to believe in the dream, the dreamer must be interested, engaged, and convinced of the dream's reality. An external sensation is a serious threat that can easily wake up a sleeper if it is not immediately rationalized into the logic of a dream. That's why the sound of an alarm clock may be distorted during a dream if the dreamer wishes to remain asleep. But there's also the possibility that the dreamer may suddenly remember that they need to be awake early, so they consciously exit the dream the moment that an external sensation prompts them to, rather than rationalize it into dream logic.
Symbols do not exist in dreams either, unless either the symbol or the signifier is explained within the dream. Even then, the disconnection between symbols from their signifiers can often be so prominent that even what might be an obvious symbol in waking life might have nothing to do with what was dreamed. It's not uncommon for a certain object or being within a dream to be identified as something entirely incorrect. If the meaning of something is not revealed to the dreamer at some point during the dream, or immediately at the point of waking, then chances are that it's probably not a symbol at all. And if the dreamer wouldn't normally interpret something to be a symbol for something else in their waking life, then it's highly unlikely that it would appear as a symbol in a dream. When discussing symbols it sounds more like he's trying to analyze unrealistic dreams in fiction like the bible or Shakespeare instead of real people's dreams. The sexual symbolism is particularly unconvincing most of the time. Although it brought attention to the neuroticism people in a repressive culture experience pertaining to sexuality, it's highly unlikely that the dreams had anything to do with it.
Freud constantly makes the mistake of thinking that just because something happens once, or even several times, that means it's universal law. Even if it's common for people to experience things like wish fulfillment and symbolism in dreams, that doesn't mean it happens to everyone. The types of people who would go to someone in the first place in search of dream interpretation would already be likely to believe that dreams can be interpreted, otherwise they wouldn't be there. The stereotype of dream interpretation, as told in many myths and stories throughout history, is that the events of the dream are symbolic and tell a coherent narrative that can be deciphered by the right people. If someone already believes this, then it's not unlikely that they already think in terms of symbols, possibly a bit superstitious in general, and in the freedom of a dream they continue to internally emphasize things that could have symbolic value. Or if in waking life they're always chasing after wish fulfillment, they're likely to replicate this same behavior in a dream. By no means does this indicate that there's a universal law where all dreams must have symbolism and wish fulfillment. Freud clearly has not analyzed every dream of everyone who's ever lived, and does not have even close to enough information on dreams to figure out any universal laws. What he should've focused on was figuring out how light, sound, time, memory, and sensation in general in represented in a dream, instead of jumping ahead of himself with all that confirmation bias. He also never explains why believes in his claims, preferring instead to use only an unscientific essentialist positivism to invent ideas rather than to justify rationally the necessity of their correctness. It seems like it never even occurred to him to ask himself why all dreams must be wish fulfilments, and why they all must contain a deeper meaning.
Had Freud stopped after the first chapter, he never would have become famous. And that would have been a good thing, because all of the influence he's had on psychology has been negative. If it weren't for Freud, if someone smarter had been credited with founding psychoanalysis, then the entire field of psychology would be much better off today. His pseudoscience destroyed everything.
adamz24's review against another edition
3.0
Superb edition. The book's a joy to read, except for when it's not. Beware of reading it in coffee shops with a diverse (but almost uniformly kooky) clientele. People may attempt to tell you about their dreams.