Robinson, Leahey, Freud Let\'s Review

Robinson, Leahey, Freud

Let's review Robinson's argument for the importance of Darwin to Freud. How did Darwin's theory affect Freud's conceptions of the psyche? What historical evidence does Robinson cite to support his ideas?

We must first remember that to Freud, Darwin's basic premise was less natural selection, which Freud did not agree wholeheartedly, but more the biological notations of the process of evolution -- gradual change over time. Indeed, the premise of Freud's work requires that there be an evolution of cognitive thinking, and certainly the development of the brain and function follows. Many of Freud's theories, in fact, were based not just on clinical work, but on "biological and neuro-physiological assumptions of the day" (Sulloway, 1992).

Historically, Freud draws extensively on the ideas of inheritance and acquired characteristics. For example, Freud uses this to explain how the memory of primal crime is passed down from generation to generation. In terms of sexology, many contemporaries of Freud see his work as being influenced by Darwin. "It was largely through the sexologists that Freud was prompted to substitute an evolutionary and phylogenetic conception of psychosexuality for the physiochemical one with which he… began [his] pioneering study of neurosis" (Robinson, 1993, 76).

2. What influences does Leahey offer for Freud's ideas? Do you see his approach as different from Robinson's? If so, how?

Thomas Hardy Leahey sees Freud as the inheritor of a long line of quantitative scientists that utilize scientific measurement as a way to understand a particular discipline or theoretical basis. Darwin, of course, is part of this tradition, but for Leahey there are other, lesser known, scientists who contributed to a larger extent to Freudian theory. For instance, Donders and Helmholtz both worked on the paradigm of stimulus response as a way to explain mental processes and reaction time, while Fechner "… conceived and carried out the first systematic research in experimental psychology" (Leahey, 210). Leahey's approach is similar to Robinson's in that it allows Freud to be part of a systematic line, but different in that Leahey sees the process as a combination of far more players.

3. Can you think of any other psychologist from 100 years ago who is still as well-known today? What do you think are some of the important contributions of Freud? Why do you think psychologists are not so impressed with these contributions?