Talk:Psychohistory/Archive 1

2172:

slice of it (freudian psychoanalytic principles, which are obsolete) and apply it to history. I don't think any formally-trained psychologists would consider this to be part of modern psychology. In addition, I am confused by the article: The introduction paints "psychohistory" in broad strokes (and makes it seem like a legitimate field of study), but the article then focuses almost exclusively on the killing of children. So what is the true definition of psychohistory? If it as broad as the intro suggests, then this article is too limited in scope and violates NPOV for only pushing one research agenda. If psychohistory truly focuses on infanticide, then it is even more of a fringe area than it lets on, and the article needs to state it as such. (Along these lines, the citations for courses on psychohistory lead to websites, some of which list the course readings--none of the readings are by this deMause fellow, and the courses seem to be about things entirely unrelated to this article.) -

382:

criticism or "theory" (in the humanities/critical sense). I'm not certain to what extent psychohistory itself pretends to be predictive; most of my readings of it seem to be explanatory and providing a context but falling short of prediction. Not that there's anything wrong with that...as I said, that's kind of what literary criticism and philosophy do. And a field may be semi-legitimate even when its most prominent proponent may be crankish. If this were not so, all of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy would be hub-bub (because of Freud). At any rate, I think people should find out for themselves. I've read some a few articles not written by deMause, and they didn't seem to be written by either lunatics, dimwits, or cranks. And the idea of applying psychological motivation to large-scale group behaviour is not by itself preposterous or patently asinine.

245:"This work is the first comprehensive text in the field of psychohistory that presents both the theory and the practice of this interdisciplinary field. The presentation of psychoanalytic theory in this work includes the fundamental contributions made by Freud as well as the post-Freudian developments. Another unique feature of this work, because psychohistory is so controversial, is that the pros and cons are presented, thereby putting the field in better relief. This work accentuates how psychohistory differs from traditional history, and how psychohistory is more insightful in the study of the individual, the family, and the group. In sum, Psychohistory: Theory and Practice demonstrates how psychohistory is transforming the study of history and why psychohistory is so promising for our understanding of mankind." 2109:

forth by deMause and his many psychoanalytic followers attempts to explain the pattern of changes in the incidence of child abuse in history. This is a perfectly respectable and non-fringe domain of scientific research. They argue that the incidence was much higher in the past, and that there has been an irregular history of improvement. This is an hypothesis that could just as easily have been framed by an epidemiologist as a psychologist. DeMause proposes a theory that society has gone through a series of stages in its treatment and discipline of children. Again, this is well within the bounds of social science. None of these questions are pseudoscientific. Even the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, a bastion of scientific epidemiology, is interested in these kinds of hypotheses.

1807:..." is one of the funniest things I've heard in a while. Anyway, DeMause's playground is not a peer reviewed journal, and it's amusing that you claim it is, given the fulminations from others every time an "Issues in Child Abuse Accusations" (Underwager's playground) article is mentioned here. DeMause, who has few relevant qualifications, invented a field called "psychohistory" which is unrecognized and practiced only by him and his associated disciples. He believes that all of human history can be explained in terms of child sexual abuse, and that at least 60% of girls and 45% of boys are sexually abused, many before the age of 5. He is, to be blunt, a kook, and should not be cited as anything but a minority view. 4303:—is about Freud, not deMause. I agree that Freud's stuff is pseudo BTW. However, Freud is barely touched in the article, and that sentence misleadingly makes the reader believe that such criticism ("pseudohistory") is about Demausean psychohistory. How many, many, many times should I repeat the same thing until you get it? Furthermore, the section is very POVish. When I added the criticism paragraphs that Slubenstein pointed out, the article seemed balanced to us. Then you arrived and your paragraphs unbalanced it. Such POV must be either modified or removed. Otherwise the tag will remain. Ask for a third opinion (I mean: an admin) if you want to be sure if this appraisal is correct. — 4629:

true. I've done some work in the anthropology of human rights - where this issue is fairly important - and there, as elsewhere in sociocultural anthropology, the phrase "cultural relativism" does not mean the same thing as either you or the person you're quoting thinks it does. This view of anthropologists as moral relativists is a view of anthropology from without, and does not represent the discipline itself. When anthropologists talk about cultural relativism, they (or we, if you like) are talking about a research methodology, the aim to understand and interpret cultural values from the POV of the culture from which they originate.

3938:

inexpirenced while i havent been editing wikipedia as long as you have i have been here for over a year and my edit have been more diverse than your rather concentrated fields of expertise, also i have been trained repeatidly by higher institutions about sources, quotations, citations and everything you seem to bring up as an issue that is why i continually meet your demands even though they are not nessesary and beyond the required, do not call me unexpirenced, i will get a quote for the latter half of the sentance when i have some time later this week perhaps, even though the sources provided are ample.

420:

propagandists made no distinction between these, which they portrayed as manifestations of one and the same phenomenon. Worse still, long after 1945 there were apparently serious attempts to "explain" Nazi atrocities as a sudden outburst of (male) sexual perversion. Since "Psychohistorians" are practioners of a relatively new discipline which is widely regarded as suspect, it would be helpful to know whether they think such stuff has any real explanatory force at all. I regard such "explanations" as amusing light entertainment, nothing more. User: Norvo, 16:49 (UTC) 31 Jul 2005

5247:

So have at thee both of you as I've no real opinion. CT - what do you think is inaccurate about the section? IB, what do you think? I do think the page very much blurs the line between psychohistory before and after deMause - about half-way down the page it stops being about the former and becomes almost exclusively about the latter. That's a problem. Pages like this one don't get better unless knowledgeable editors put in the time; that's not me, but it sounds like that is you two. You may have to put up with

2887:

Italian emphasis maintained therefrom. The Atlas/Gazeteer is out-of-print, making it a somewhat rare but also categorically 'banned' book; its contents, however, routinely filter into the minds of American continental populations beginning in early childhood with concomitant mental matches. The book is an occult influence, and can affect the outcomes of a wide range of endeavors including business scheme, social science research, and travelogue mentalities. Marcia L. Neil/beadtot 02:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

86:

generally to historians using psychological theories to explain the behaorior of historical figures. In other words, this page seems to me to be promoting one man's business. Unfortunately, I am neither a trained psychologist nor a trained historian and am not in a position to evaluate this stuff seriously. I would have to do serious research (and I do not think a google search is real research) and I don't have the time. Anyone who does, however, should!

3769:"It is my hope that this book will provide the theoretical foundations for the new science of psychohistory." DeMause i can provide other quotes but he clearly is writing himself in as the founder of psychohistory as a independent discipline, the professor quoted in the article is not wrong in reaching her conclusion that DeMause claims to have invented the discipline, it will stay in the article and the tag about her reliablitiy will be removed. 31: 5099:, I think a better option for now would be to undertake clarification, sourcing, attribution and separation of the different types. Right now I shudder to think of the question you would ask a 3O-giver. A way of dealing with the POV problem (basically the criticisms of psychohistory) that started this is to clearly attribute the criticisms to whoever said them, ensure their points are accurately summarized, and avoid 3905:"provide the exact quotations IN THE TEXT, that all of those sources say it's "pseudohistory") " Basically i don't have to. the sentance the sources are supporting is not a quote, if you would like me to go through and add this tag to every sentance in the article that is not a quote and request one i will, but you cannot be a wikipedian if you are uncomfortable with a summary. 3508:. However, since this article started in 2002 the objective was to present what psychohistory means today: the deMause school. I would recommend you to take all of these critiques of Freud to the psychoanalytical articles. They simply don't belong here. Do a little experiment: if you google the term "psychohistory" it will mostly hit the deMausean school as well as 1957:

get involved in this discussion. But I genuinely believe the article needs at least a major overhaul. Different points of view must be more clearly delineated. As best possible, the degree of their notability (mainstream, majority, minority) should be identified. Points of contention and debates should be covered. Fringe views should be cut.

1633:

building their culture. In "psychohistory" he saw that such a study would become feasible, history would no longer just exclude psychologic facts, neither would psychology just occupy itself with current problems. Searching the net with the question in mind, if this discipline had since developped, I am decieved to find this...

3924:: a pretty commun error in unexperienced wikipedians. That's why exact quotations of each source is imperative: the only way to dispel suspicion that your phrase is OR (besides the eternal problem discussed way above that most of the criticism refers to non-Deamausean psychohistory, while most of this article is about it). — 4783:. It's by the AAA, the biggest and most prestigious group of anthropologists in the world, and is representative of the attitude within the discipline as a whole. It replaced an earlier statement, made in 1947, that was considerably more vague on the subject of relativism and human rights. And no Godwin's Law, please. -R2 4737:: just as the unedited sentence that you disagreed about its phrasing. There are published statements of Mexican anthropologists virtually undistinguishable from moral relativism, the last that I remember in the September 2007 seminary on Aztec sacrifice, with 28 international specialists, celebrated in the Museum of the 1764:"Psychohistory derives many of its insights from areas that are perceived to be ignored by conventional historians as shaping factors of human history, in particular, the effects of childbirth, parenting practice, and child abuse. The historical impact of incest, infanticide and child sacrifice are considered." 1910:

to the same footnote 5, a book by de Mause. Personally, it looks to me as if this article were written by de mause, or friends/followers of him. It really does not look to me like it was written by editors who surveyed the academic literature on "psychohistory" in an attempt to provide an NPOV account of

4438:) 30 years ago, and it didn't impress me. However, since the word "psychohistory" is rarely, albeit sometimes, associated with him, who is notable according to WP standards, yes: this article has to mention his "psychohistorical" work. Hope another editor who has studied closely the Vienna quack does it. — 4535:

added the table and graphic. Both of us found the article with scant reference to Freud —just like the present incarnation— precisely because Freud is not usually viewed as a "psychohistorian". I doubt he ever used the word. As to removing the section tag, I've told you many times that, to avoid edit

3958:

i added a Jacques Martin Barzun refering to psychohistory as psuedoscience this guy is the definition of a good source you cannot agrue this one, ask anyone about the guy. i'm going to remove the tag now because i have a quote (even though you are really asking too much from this one little section).

3326:

be no more than a statement of opinion, even if it had the most august of sources. In any case, as mentioned above, deMause's qualifications are utterly irrelevant to the validity of his theories, and in this article, it is the theories that are under discussion. It is an ad Hominem criticism, and as

2117:

was once considered the dominant scientific approach to mental illness. Tastes and opinions have changed over the decades, but Knowledge is not about to eliminate every article that touches on psychoanalysis merely because its methods are now considered less than fully scientific. Psychohistory arose

2108:

In my view, the psychohistory of Lloyd deMause is indeed a notable approach to history, in the sense in which Knowledge uses the term "notability". I am not personally involved in psychohistory — I am a mathematical sociologist — but here are some thoughts for your consideration. Psychohistory as put

1909:

Alas, I do not think this article is it. I think this article focuses virtually exclusively on the second - a non-notable fringe view that is not encyclopedic. Aside from promotional claims about de Mause in the article, just look at how many claims - including the color chart and the table - all go

1131:

To introduce the controversy from anthropology, a line or two would be the right amount, if you feel it's necessary. I made quite a few minor edits yesterday aimed towards a neutral tone, and I made sure not to go beyond the facts. I don't want to add any more myself. As it's a controversial subject,

762:

Freudian psychoanalysis is currently out of favour in academic circles. Anyone who believes in the blame-the-victim interpretation before arriving at the page would probably be prejudiced against Psychohistory no matter what was written. I would say the Daniel Paul Schreber article is highly relevant

338:

Lloyd DeMause's claims on the abuse of children throughout history are certainly disturbing if true. There is however no shame in an author citing research done by themselves. A paper should cite all appropriate research so that the reader can check its validity. DeMause is a pioneer in this field so

279:

the inventor of this neologism masquerading as a legitimate field of science), is the same whack job who reliably informs us that Japanese mothers "masturbate" their infants, that 60% of all children have been molested repeatedly, that 50% of all male children have been forced to touch their mothers'

5199:

For the information of all concerned editors, I've just finished a chapter of a book (in Spanish) critical of deMausian psychohistory. I cannot include it here until it gets published in a RS (and even then I won't do it: I'll leave to another editor the task). I mention this just to make it all too

5110:

Given the prominence of deMause and how the field seems to have split following his 'arrival', it may be worth creating an article dedicated solely towards his variant; it appears from the text that psychohistory is primarily a 'historical' topic in that there is not much interest beyond deMause and

5071:

so because the article lacks a full overview of psychohistory, the criticism section should also be writtn teleologically? in tunnel vision? your admitting there uis nothing wrong with the section, but rather the article is lacking! th etag will be removed, if you want to add more about freud to the

4850:

Cool. I'm happy to reach a consensus on this. I'm fine with the way you edited it. I agree that cultural relativism, as in the popular rather than anthropological term, can and often is against the spirit of human rights. What I argue is that most anthropologists don't represent that, and that claim

4820:

I don't want to keep the old phrase. Since I am not an anthropologist, I'd recommend you to edit it instead (in case you still want to improve it). Oh yes: my Godwin's rant was only directed against my fellow countrymen (they're really nationalists, pro-Indian here), not to Wikipedians of course! :)

4578:

Agian this article is not about DeMause it is about psychohistory, that is why that source is in place, since the article is entitled psychohistory and the source is about psychohistory, there is not problem here, if you, however, see it as unfitting to the rest of the article you are admitting that

4184:

Cesar Tort as you have said on arthur rubin's talk page plese do not say something like "writing for the enemy" this is wikipedia if you have an axe to grind do not do so here, please. i do not know how much you know about wikipedia but we do not have enemies here, please go somewhere else with this

3688:

The long quotation by Professor Donna T. McCaffrey in the Criticism section is mistaken. DeMause has never claimed to have invented psychohistory, ever. There were many psychohistorians like Fromm and others before him. Also, according to the Knowledge manual of style, such long blocks of quotations

3644:

i think its good Lumos added that, its not a lie thats just a term me and some fellow students use in debates a great deal of the time to mean misrepresentation. A better way of putting it is as an analogy if we title this article psychohistory and then only include deMause's school of psychohistory

3043:

No the statement about his qualifications is a "not" statement, it means that the burden of proof is yours to prove a person gets a degree he is there for accredited by a recognized institute to have some expertise on a subject. When Lloyd deMause writes about history or anthropologic subjects it is

2843:

International Psychohistorical Association which deMause started and was president for many years; he is still treasurer and it is entirely devoted to deMausean psychohistory. The Institute for Psychohistory he founded 40 years ago now has 20 branches in 20 nations and these too of course follow and

2395:

are cited by a much wider circle of historians, and more often assigned in university courses on psychohistory. And tht journal is just one venue. there are other books and article in other journals on psychohistory (like the one I linked above) that either ignore de Mause or mention his theory as

1917:

Frankly, I think it would be easier to delete this article and start from scratch - a summary of Freud's book and Erikson's book; debates among psychoanalysis about the validity of applying this method to historical figures; the reception of these specific works by academic historians; an account of

1886:. I know you were involved in the 2002 flaming with a ranting troll about whether psychohistory is a science or not. The subject is complex. These discussions have a better place in forums such as the one I linked above. And by the way, IMHO the editor who did the best job to improve the article was 512:

The trouble I see with the NPOV tag is that “Psychohistory” is rarely challenged in the academia. How then will it be challenged in Knowledge? Though I don’t subscribe to all of psychohistorians’ claims, I don’t see anything wrong with the article (I wouldn’t see anything wrong with some balancing

78:

Since psychohistory seems strongly influenced by psychoanalysis, and a lot of people think psychoanalysis is psuedoscience, I assume the same people would have similar views of psychohistory. I'm also sure that many historians would view as preposterous the idea that we can analyse the psychology of

5246:

are different. An article can be completely sourced (i.e. the content and coverage of the topic is fine) and still be NPOV if the summary of the sources is inaccurate or biased. The only way to resolve if the page is NPOV is for the editors who think it is, and isn't, to discuss their reasoning.

4946:

With due respect, the editor who has not replied to the main pro-tag argument (there's a confusion of attributing criticism to deMause which was directed against Freud) is not me. Again, ask another editor or an admin to give a third opinion on this dispute. Or even better: start a critical section

4632:

I'm not trying to just weasel out of this; this is not a moral stance. For example, there are people working in applied anthropology who are studying female genital mutilation from the point of view of the mothers etc who want to have it done to their children: not to write apologias for it, but to

4356:

but once agian this article is not entitled Demause's Psychohistory, it is just called psychohistory Demause is neither the most famous, earliest or preiminant psychohistorian, this entire article is baised and pov if this is not adressed, i want to see more about Frued and all the others who wrote

2866:

I have never said psychohistory in the de Mausian sense has no place at Knowledge. As for notability, well, Journal of Psychohistory is in the category of "Psychology - Multidisciplinary" in The Web of Knowledge citation index. Just to get a sense of the scale, the second highest rated journal by

2121:

Psychohistory was 40 years ahead of its day in asserting that the incidence of child abuse is and was far greater than conventional wisdom assumed at the time. This is greatly to the credit of deMause and all the people who have contributed to the Journal of Psychohistory for the last 35+ years, no

1956:

What do you think about my suggestion, in the last paragraph of my previous comment, of how to reorganize the article/new plan? I think/hope it would accommodate the works to which you refer. I appreciate your knowledge of this area ... at the very least I hope others with complementary knowledge

1905:

and Freud's book on da Vinci. Second, a theory devised by a guy named de Mause and promoted through his web-site and self-published books and a self-published journal. I think it would be great to have an NPOV, NOR, V compliant article on the first "psychohistory," exploring not only its roots in

1863:

I know Cesar Tort has put a lot of good work into cleaning this article up. But I am still not sure if it counts as a pseudoscience or not. Judging from the article it seems to be the invention of one guy, Lloyd deMause (try googling him) and his students/disciples. I am even more concerned about

1192:

Rembrandt was a splendid choice, Bookish. Indians also used to sacrifice children here: and Mexican anthropologists are just as Neanderthals and totally lacking of compassion and empathy towards the victims as in the US and Europe. That’s why I liked the flaming debate I called your attention to.

381:

Well, a lot of people think 99% of all Freud did was just made up, and don't consider psychoanalysis scientific. I'll be the first to acknowledge that it's not the most _falsifiable_ of theories, so it may not be completely straightforward to describe it as science. It seems closer to say, literary

241:

I recommend a book by Jacques Szaluta, "Psychohistory: Theory and Practice," Peter Lang Published it in 1999. I'm not trying to advertise the book, but it is a good overview of the evolution of the field. It is also important to note that Lloyd DeMause is mentioned, but he is no such thing as the

3699:

DeMause has written or said things than denied it before besides in the last paragraph above this section you argue he did indeed atleast reinvent the psychohistory, so i take that with a large grain of salt, other than that once agian because a section is too long or as you have originally put it

3666:

plus 10 years of the Journal of Psychoanalytic Anthropology (a total of 15,000 pages of scholarly articles) plus 20 deMausean Institute for Psychohistory branches around the world plus the International Psychohistorical Association (31 years of conventions) adds up to "support" for deMause's work.

3575:

I have and you have gotten rid of the citations refering to frued and someone else removed a quote specifically relating to Demause's psychoanalytic skills, the section has been picked over it is fine now, i would like to add the quote back infact but i can be swayed. the section is fine it is not

2171:

This seems to be an example (one of many) of a fringe research focus being portrayed as a broad field of study. That being said, as long as the article makes its fringe status known, I'm fine with it. Psychology is an extraordinarily broad area, and "psychohistory" seems to take an extremely small

1292:

At present, the article focuses on the work of Lloyd deMause, which is understandable, because there appears to be more material on the web by him, or about him, than any other psychohistorian. However, I did find faculty bios for the others mentioned in Notable psychohistorians section. I believe

100:

That psychohistory exists as a field of academic study and discussion surely cannot be disputed - follow the links provided. The page also includes a statement on the differences between psychohistory and history. Can you be more specific than saying that it ‘seems almost derived from a sales

5276:

Just what you say: what is wrong is that the criticism section blurs the distinction between Freud's psychohistory (PH) with deMause's PH. For instance, the "pseudo-history" label was directed against Freud and it looks like it's directed against deMause. The disputed tag should remain until this

4674:

Added comments to your talk page. Could you please adress the thing I had concerns with? Your claim that many anthropologists propose extreme cultural relativism is unsourced as is - and I would argue that it's also a false assumption. The thing that (I assume) your source says is that the source

3481:

The page is labeled Psychohistory not Lloyd DeMause's psychohistory, infact, i think this goes without saying that the two most famous psychohistory books are Moses and Monotheism and civilization and its discontent, i could find sources you want. You could start a new page labeled Lloyd DeMuse's

2432:

The reader is doubtless already familiar with examples of these psychohistorical "abuses." There is a significant difference, however, between the well-meaning and serious, if perhaps simplistic and reductionistic, attempt to understand the psychological in history and the psychohistorical expose

2413:

I am responding to Cesar Tort's reasonable request for sources in the preceeding section. To improve this article so that it complies with our NPOV standards, I think it should draw on some articles that are sympathetics to the project of psychohistory broadly defined, but critical of de Mause's

1632:

had proposed the formation of a new discipline called "psychohistory" in his opus magnum about civilization. Discussing the subject of rationalisation in the context of European history, he underlined the importance of the rational and irrational aspects of people, their ideas and their habits in

419:

In the article there's no mention at all of the uses and abuses of psychohistory. For example, in World War II some Allied propaganda attributed the rise of both Nazism and actual Nazi atrocities to allegedly high levels of homosexuality, sado-masochism and boot fetishism (!) in Germany - and the

4628:

already brought this up at length in the childrearing article, but it's still here. What do you mean here, Cesar? The above sentence gives the impression that "many anthropologists" propose cultural relativism as a system of moral values (or lack thereof), while I can assure you that this is not

3752:

the book is called Foundations of Psychohistory where DeMause does not lay down the history of the discipline before he found it rather he lays down his principles as the foundation of psychohistory, what does that imply? DeMause is implying in some sense that he is the founder of Psychohistory,

3267:

rejecting his theories. They stand and fall on their own merits, not his. More to the point, this article is about Psychohistory, and thus any criticism should be directed towards the theories themselves, NOT the people who promulgate them. Criticism of Lloyd deMause belongs on the Lloyd deMause

548:

which is linked from this article. The same argument would put NPOV there as well. Psychohistory makes the outrageous claim that child rearing affects us in more profound ways than we care to acknowledge and makes most people uncomfortable when they first encounter it. This article describes the

2886:

A single document can generate ongoing cascades of historical psychology -- as example, an Atlas/Gazeteer published by Collier Company in 1907 shows peninsula sinkholes in Golden Gate Park in northern California labeled as "lakes". The city itself is labeled 'San Francisco' with a continuous

1918:

the use by academic historians over the past forty or fifty years of psychoanalytic concepts, and an account of debates among historians about these attempts to use psychoanalytic concepts. This would be a great article! But it would have a very different form as well as content than this one.

501:

I added an NPOV tag, as this article definitely needs more criticism of this idea. The articles from the site this article is based on are anything but objective. But this one site's POV seems to dominate this article with no alternate views given. Until this is remedied, the tag should remain.

315:

Do you have a specific source for all these statistics which you claim are from deMause? That quote about Asian children, in particular, doesn't appear anywhere on the web except on this page and another site trashing deMause. It would be obviously NPOV to call it pseudoscience in the article

74:

What about information on critics of psychohistory? Judging by the fact that its founder accuses mainstream anthropologists of advocating pedophilia, I'm sure there must be quite a few of them. Unfortunately, my cursory Google search could not find any -- is anyone familiar with any in academic

5158:

OK. I'm having some trouble understanding your post, I believe you're saying the page is OK but incomplete because it does not cover Freud. Unfortunately the only way to cover it is to expand through sourced content. I don't have the expertise or interest but I do agree that it looks like a

4360:

Source 21 does apply to Demause (even though it should not have to) because it specifically talks about the foundation of psychohistory and then labels it a psuedoscience in its current form encompassing DeMause, this will not keep the pov tag in place, and please add more information on other

2263:

deal of research and scholarship in psychohistory, but none of it involves demause or his followers. Knowledge articles have to limit themselves to notable views, and among those, emphasize the mainstream views and clearly identify majority and minority views. This article does the opposite.

85:

In fact, none of the several psychotherapists I know of have heard of this guy; also, when I was in college I had a friend who majored in history and talked about "psychohistory" that he had heard about in a few lectures, but the term did not refer to the contents of this page, it refered more

3608:

i have come to relize that you cannot exclude the greatest body of psychohistory to show a small part od it under the heading psychohistory, this is called a lie, i have had several professors teach me this, the article is called "psychohistory" so excluding Asmov, we must include the widest

1083:

Well, the anthropologists are 100% correct that no historical documents are available for the Paleolithic or Neolithic eras. What you have pasted so far is way too looooooooong! I worry that a good article could be spoiled if it incorporates a discussion that is specific to one single mode of

248:

Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, Professor Szaluta was my History professor in college and wrote me a recommendation for Grad School. I do not see myself as a champion of psychohistory as I have serious doubts about the applicability of post-mortem psychoanalysis, but the field is

4778:

Sounds like misrepresentation to me. In any case, there are minority views within each and every scientific discipline. If you want to keep the phrase, I would prefer "some" to "many". I don't intend to argue on this exhaustively, but I feel that the majority view on the relationship between

1900:

Hi, I appreciate your attempts to clean up this article. My concern is that "psychohistory" refers to two very different things (aside from Asimov's fiction). First, an approach, within academic history, by historians who appeal to psychoanalytic theory to explain the actions of historical

1512:

I’ve just seen the main page of this later group and have no objections about whether including it or not. Once I get the EMOL book I may add a brief paragraph below the “Evolution of six psychogenic modes” graph you introduced: the only colored graph in the entire psychohistory literature!

403:

was carried by the University of Oregon's library as an academic journal when I was a student there roughly 10 years ago, so either it's semi-legitimate (at least enough for the taxpayers of the state of Oregon to shell out for the stacks) or the standards at these universities have gone way

5091:

requrest on my talk page and I edited because I've got more words per minute than common sense. I've done a bit of editing, but I'm not very familiar with the field and it's rather unclear as is. There appears to be two major divisions of psychohistory - deMausian and some other, possibly

4693:

We are left with the impression that the item of belief is the opinion of the psychohistorians on the purported relativism, while the "extreme cultural relativism proposed by many anthropologists" is, in this sentence, logically and grammatically taken as a given. Especially as the claim is

1754:"Psychohistory is the study of the psychological motivations of historical events. It combines the insights of psychotherapy with the research methodology of the social sciences to understand the emotional origin of the social and political behavior of groups and nations, past and present." 3937:

i have added two sources one states explicitly that psychohistory is "psuedoscience" the other uses different wording making a similar point.on psuedohistory once agian if everything needs to be an exact quote from a source we would have to redo all of wikipedia, and do not refer to me as

1602:

for all those ills, even if it's true. Think about the readers. Religious people will be offended. Helping mode parents exist in the world today who are religious. They admire Jesus for challenging the status quo. Do you want to alienate everyone who hasn't yet accepted these ideas? --

670:

I am only trying to say that there are some trauma writers who hate Freud’s ridiculous homosexual and blame-the-victim interpretation of Schreber. Freud’s bizarre theory is about a totally unproven and hypothetical sexual orientation of Schreber to his father. I know you have read

5200:

clear that I don't swallow every deMause theory. On the contrary: sometimes I disagree very strongly with him. However, this is a far cry from attributing to him Freudian theories or criticizing him using criticism on Freud. As I said, that's misleading the reader.

5126:

thankyou, everything is referenced, some many times over and attributed to their subjects the only problem is the article is incomplete, it does not cover freud and his following, the tag then belongs on the article itself for being incomplete, using tunnel vision.

2784:. (Impact factor is calculated by dividing the number of current citations to articles published in the two previous years by the total number of articles published in the two previous years, among all journals indexed by the Social Science Citation Index.) Source: 2994:

How many times should I tell you (see my edits summary) that you are confusing deMause's psychohistory with other uses of the same term? Of the above sources only one barely deals with the content of this article. I wonder if you have not already crossed over the

848:

I read somewhere that this was one of the most discussed (and disputed) works by Freud. I don't know whether it's a fact. Can you let me know which phrase? Maybe it would be easy to re-word it. Maybe "well known" instead of "famous"? That would be OK with me. --

4269:

Cesar Tort i have complied with every demand you have put on this very small section and for the last two weeks you havent found anything in need of revison in the section the pov tag will be removed, there is no reason to keep it the issue you brought up were

4448:

good, since we see now thatit is the article and not the critcism section that is pov and missing large portions of releant information on psychohistory, i will move the tag until whom ever adds sections on other psychohistorian, considering 90% is on DeMause

1845:

I have archived old discussions dating from 2002. The most recent archived posts of October and November of 2007 were rather soapboxing and have been targeted to be archived as well. (I didn't archive my own 2008 monologues about endnotes style by the way.)

1486:

Cesar, thanks for contacting Lloyd. I updated the International Psychohistorical Association link. However, the psychohistory moderated discussion group at Topica still exists. The other link Lloyd provided is a login address, but there is a website for the

1293:

the article would appear less partisan if their academic titles were included, together with links to faculty bios. It would be also fair to arrange it in alphabetical order and add Bruce Mazlish, Emeritus Professor of History at MIT. Here is my suggestion:

832:

However, one of the most famous studies among Freud's writings is a post-mortem analysis of Daniel Paul Schreber. Psychoanalyst W.G. Niederland published a re-appraisal of Freud's interpretation in 1959: "Schreber: Father and Son" (Psychoanalytic Quarterly,

1028:

is inaccurate since it's impossible to gain significant data about child-rearing practices from archeological remains dating to the Neolithic. Anthropologists also determined that deMause drew his analyses from anthropological data of modern hunter-gather

284:. You can always tell a DeMause written paper by the way in which he ingeniously sites other articles written by himself as source material. DeMause is nothing more than another paranoid, megalomaniac like L. Ron Hubbard, right down to the way in which he 93:

The text in this topic seems almost derived from a sales folder. I have neither the expertise nor the time to delve into this, but I was, in another life, a psychology grad student, and I have never heard of this field. I question the NPOV of this text.

1937:

At least deMausan psycho-historians have published a lot, and are prominent enough so that other academics still criticize them. Even the book of Colin Heywood, who as I told you elsewhere has no ties with the deMause school, mentions his work in his

3183:

this question: Do you have a specific quote in which Hunt states that deMause's approach is "pseudohistory"? If not, the above-sentence must go. On the other hand, if you do have the source, it must be quoted verbatim and attributed to the author.

5308:

That's not how it works (and that's not my userID); the tag is removed when all editors agree it should be removed because the issues are dealt with. Ask CT what he thinks, if it should be removed or not, then decide. If you both disagree, then

159:

That does not bode well. Please, if you know of a college that teaches a course in this field, link to it. If you know of a "psychohistorian" who has published, link us. As of now, this does not appear to me to be a legitimate scholarly field.

613:

to Psychohistory instead of Psychogenic mode. I noticed the word "psychoclass" appears nowhere in the article, although the word appears frequently in the writings of psychohistorians. Perhaps it should it be mentioned and briefly explained. --

3576:

too large do not remove further content from it please, i think me calling someone else in on this would be a failure on my part, i know you dislike hitorians and anthropologist but there are many on wikipedia and in the archieves of this page.

4947:

on Freud's psychohistory so that sourced criticism on Freud is not mixed up with sourced criticism on deMause or vice versa (Freud's and deMause's "psychohistories" are as different from each other as Jungian and Freudian psychoanalysis). —

2629:

This is just a start but I think adding an account of these diverse works will not only enrich the article, it will ensure that it is NPOV compliant by providing views of psychohistory other than de Mause's I repeat, this does not require

1054:

is a matter of objective fact and that some of the practices which mainstream anthropologists apologize for, such as beatings of newborn infants, result in brain lesions and other visible neurological damage. Other practices may result in

5216:

WLU resolved the issue please do not revert his work by readding a new tag, everything is factual it is sourced as you requested, we are not attributing the flaws of freud to demause everything is clearly labeled in this little section.

4633:

understand it so that it can be changed. If you understand that genital mutilation is an important part of initiation rites, you can take steps to try and institute other initiation practices, ones that do not involve genital mutilation.

2150:

This article seems to push a fringe POV, in effect promoting one person's view of things. If there is a real branch of psychology called psychohistory, does this article provide an acurate NPOV account of it?20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

3796:

In a 1994 interview with deMause in The New Yorker, the interviewer wrote: "To buy into psychohistory, you have to subscribe to some fairly woolly assumptions , for instance, that a nations's child-rearing techniques affect its foreign

442:

The essays I read on this site are biased and in some cases obscenely wrong in their assertions. Almost all the references and citations I saw are internal. I ammended the description so it won't appear that this is an objective site.

2112:

Unfortunately, the way in which deMause and his followers explain and justify their theories makes very heavy use of psychoanalytic concepts. This strikes many as pseudoscientific. However, I would like to remind everyone that Freud's

2057:

This article seems to puch a fringe POV, in effect promoting one person's view of things. If there is a real branch of history called psychohistory, does this article provide an acurate NPOV account of it?20:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

1561:. As promised above, I have now added info to make psychohistory theory more comprehensible —though undoubtedly more utopian for outsiders! I also removed a reference at the end of the article under the heading “Individual studies”: 543:

I have added some academic criticism I found in a google search. But why pick on Psychohistory, there are hundreds of articles on Knowledge which describe a fringe subject and don’t give a "balancing" point of view. Take for example

3736:, ofcourse your going to ask me to find an exact quote, this is where interprtation comes in, if the professor in the article quote believes DeMuse is implying it in this writing that is her interpretation and we should respect it. 2447:

I realize Cesar Tort may disagree with this assessment. But NPOV demands that we include multiple points of view including conflicting points of view and this is a notable, verifiable POV that should be represented in the article.

5356: 3392:

page. The word psychohistory is used in many different contexts (even Isaac Asimov's novels). Please address those concerns. Otherwise the claim that most historians believe the contents of this page is "pseudohistory" will be

5052:

theory in the article of psychoanalysis, and then using Freud's critics to debunk Jung. Attributing to Jung the Oedipus complex theory is just wrong (as it is attributing to deMause speculations about Moses). Is it clear now?

5367: 288:

credits Freud as a co-inventor of Dianetics, er, sorry, I mean Psychohistory. When I can stop doubling over in laughter, I'll consider what is going to be needed in the way of a critisim section for this article. The main

2258:

of psychohistory. In short, it is inaccurate. Cesar Tort says that he coubts "psychohistory" is used in academic circles adie from the de Mauseian sense. He is wrong, I hopoe in good faith, but dead wrong. There is a

3120:

On the other hand, one of the footnotes you added corrupted the page, as you can see in the incarnation of this article before my recent revert. Be careful with the exact spelling in the templates when adding endnotes.

468:

This is really loaded. It seems to be there's a rabid insistance on child abuse today rather than denial (depending on which society you are meaning). But this is far from as matter-of-fact as presented in the article.

922:

archives? I printed and read them! I also learnt more there about the animosity between psychohistorians and anthropologists than in any printed text. Psychohistorians of course are right and anthropologists wrong!

4960:

We have an article on psychohistory and the criticism section is the same. if you want us to treat psychohistory as two different disciplines create two pages, until then what are the grievences agianst the criticism

1613:

Whether it's grandiose or not is irrelevant. Are you saying that it's an inaccurate description of what psychohistorians believe? If so, change it, but don't revert a whole bunch of unrelated stuff in the process.

4675:

believes that anthropologists are what they are, not that that is what the discipline actually is. It may seem like a subtle nuance, but I think it's a very important one. Especially as the sentence is phrased thus:

2796: 1749:

Seems to me that your article is becoming a discussion about the development of the psique, along life (in childhood, as teenager, as mature person and as senior); to me the original definition en your article was:

1109:

I am satisfied with having discussed both subjects here in talk page. I have no strong feelings about leaving the article as it is. Perhaps you may simply want to add a line or two of the above to the article?

3321:

You cannot claim that material is "sourced" unless you provide an external reference TO the putative source. You have not done so, therefore the entry is inadmissable, especially since the last sentance would

4398:

have pointed out the fact that Freud blamed the women and even some children he "analyzed". DeMause on the other hand sides the child. Freud's and deMause's psychohistories are as distant from each other as

2802:

For all these reasons it would seem that psychohistory — a discipline founded by deMause — has a legitimate claim to space within Knowledge. Now let me turn to my view on the notability of deMause himself.

242:"inventor" of the field as he claims. His presence on the web and the way he dominates the one or two listservs I've seen tend to skew the perception. Here is the publishers description of Szaluta's book: 129:

I have, contrary to your speculation, no personal opinion about "psychohistory", but based on the links provided, "psychohistory" does not appear to be a legitimate field of study. Are you able to provide

3466:'s psychohistory as "criticism" of the content on this page? Wouldn't that be totally out of place? Take for example the source that criticizes Freud's psychohistory: it has little, if anything, to do with 3249:

Changing subjects, thanks Arthur Rubin for fixing the broken link. Before your copyedit it made all the text under endnote #26 look corrupted (I also tried to explain this to Ishmaelblues without success).

446:

In fact, a lot of these articles seem to be projecting modern ideas into the past rather than actually deciphering the psychology of the past, the exact opposite of what such an endeavor should strive for.

2126:, a popular and influential author, wrote that the Journal of Psychohistory was "the first journal that didn't gloss over the facts of childhood". For all of these reasons, I believe that psychohistory is 4601:

This dispute can be solved by starting the Freud section and citing the critical source ("pseudohistory") to Freud's views. Since you added the critical source about Freud you should start that section.

4985:

I never said "to treat psychohistory as two different disciplines", merely that the sourced criticism that you added is mostly about Freud, not deMause. One article is fine for both "psychohistories". —

4048:

i have removed two tags because i have either satisfied it in the text or in the discussion page to which you have not refuted, please talk thing out on this page before taging, it the wikipedian way.

4011:

Do you mean that in each and everyone of those sources appears the word "pseudo-historical" referring to psychohistory? If not, the phrase is OR by synthesis and should be either removed or rewritten. —

5181:

Hi WLU. I am so glad to see you here! As I told you, I myself added the criticism section a few months ago. Most of the article deals with deMausian psychohistory and then, the first paragraph of the

3220:

How many times do I have to explain that, unless you are quoting a source which specifically states these very words ("Such qualifications cast doubt on the creditability of deMause's psychohistory")

3624:

Don't say "lie". Please be civil. In fact, before Lumos added the long sentence, most of the article dealt with deMause's use of the term. Other uses of the term were barely described in the article.

134:

information not taken from sites run by self-taught "psychohistorians"? Are you able to provide external links that are not sites run by those promoting their own online classes in "psychohistory"?

4390:, who wrote a bit of "psychohistory" long before deMause published his first essay. Freud's "psychohistory" is so different to deMause's that one may well consider them opposing schools of thought. 1416:. I found only citations. The journal doesn't appear to have a publisher's website. Charles Strozier was the founding editor. I added a brief description of The Wellfleet Psychohistory Group to the 125:"Ideally, the psychohistorian should be trained in both history and psychoanalysis. many have no formal training in either area. Thus, psychohistorical scholarship is somewhat variable in quality." 1719:

this page completly overlooks the fact that psychohistory has not been a respectable form of historical analysis since the 1950's - expect future edits from me correcting this page -ishmaelblues

5092:

unadjectived version. The former seems the more controversial. Criticisms, as well as methods, notable publications, notable psychohistorians and so forth, should be separated out and clarified.

660:

Schreber is mentioned only as an example of Freud doing a post mortum analysis. If there is a controversy here what is it? It would be better to mention what it is than to remove it for neatness.

5196:

I don't care if someone wants to split the article. Please do it. But I do care that attributing criticism on deMause which has been directed on Freud is wrong. So I have added a {disputed} tag.

3847:

the title alone of source 21 should be provide enough of a "quotation" to justify the statement. If everything had to be a quote instead of a summary the all of wikipedia would have to be redone.

260:

This statement has been here for about 5 months now and the article has matured a lot since than and contains a statement of the field's marginal status . I propose to remove it within 7 days .

3097:

revert again. Please discuss in talk page. You have not addressed my concerns discussed above. If you want to say that psychohistory lacks value because deMause didn't finish his PhD you need a

2321:

Whereas deMause is non-mainstream indeed, the article is pure regurgitation of what appears in his writings (and the writings of other psychohistorians). See for example what I have just posted

1573:

The above reference was only peripherally connected to the article content. Since present-day psychohistory was the product of an American scholar I standardized the text to American English. —

316:

title. Please do write a criticism section for this article; it needs one. There's plenty of criticism out there. (You'll have to make it a lot less POV than what you wrote above, though.)

5357:

http://books.google.com/books?id=E2eKDjo4B_IC&pg=PA339&lpg=PA339&dq=psychohistory+is+a+pseudoscience&source=web&ots=-knG9Orf0f&sig=67DnfhcAk8Z8HFdvLmpRsn1vn1U&hl=en

5040:. Otherwise it makes no sense to criticize something the WP readership doesn't even know what it's about. Since Freud's "psychohistory" is his speculations of Moses, etc., a section is needed 4327:

But making the arguemnet that because the article is incomplete the crictism section should also be incomplete is nonsense the tag will be removed if this is the basis of sustaining the label.

959:

Amazon mail to Mexico is so slow... But I have finished deMause’s FOUNDATIONS and have printed and read the main chapters of his EMOL book thanks to his web page. I’ll post a draft soon... —

5368:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gSOsU9Kv9F0C&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=psychohistory+is+a+pseudoscience&source=web&ots=ublUJ7EaOU&sig=67eSvY2nxbYPgRItllTnxbfDkqM&hl=en

2960:—I wonder if you have read the article? ("Psychohistory is taught at a few universities as an adjunct to history or as a post graduate study. The following have published course details...") 2522:

For many, erikson and Loewenberg are the fathers of modern psychohistory, not de Mause. i am not saying the article should expunge itself of discussion of de Mause or his followers, but it

1198:

There have been so many article changes in the last few days that I didn’t notice if you added that sentence about psychoclasses? (BTW, I don’t understand the meaning of “double****.info”) —

735:

link would find out that Freud's interpretation is disputed. It gives prominence to Schatzman's Interpretation. I included the Niederland article in the References on that page, and added:

1594:

Political violence of any other sort will disappear as well, along with religion itself, magical thinking, mental disorders, crime, jails, wars and other inhumanities of man against man.

1153:

Not long ago this article was pov tagged. See DanielCD’s posts above: in my view, legitimate concerns. Perhaps what you may add should address such concerns to avoid future tagging? —

4565:

We haven't resolved it since there's still the confusion of Freud ("pseudohistory" quotation) with deMause. Again, do you agree I take steps for an official mediation in this article? —

3543:

lets not remove valuable information because it is "big" honestly how does that sound, and telling by the extensive discussion section here i would have to say the length is appropriate

2736:, has annual meetings every year for 30 years. I have never attended, but friends tell me that they are well-attended by psychoanalysts, therapists, and authors from around the world. 3210:

You re-added all of these footnotes without discussion to support your claim that Demausean psychohistory is widely regarded as "pseudohistory". Also, you re-added this sentence:

155:

I was unable to find one single mention of "psychohistory" by any legitimate scientific journal. Or one single mention of 'psychohistory" by any legitimate institute of learning.

4531:

I arrived to Knowledge (March 2006). I added the section "A psychoclass of postmodern times" in 2007 and the "Criticism" section in 2008. When I started to copyedit the article,

4097:

Psychohistory remains a controversial field of study, and deMause and other International Psychohistorical Association scholars have had detractors in the academic community.

229:

I have hade changes to the page in line with the objections already given . Unless more objection are posted I intend to remove the article from the list of articles with POV

4579:

this article is bais toward DeMause. So now that that is settled is there any other reason that the tag should remain in place after all the revision that has been done to it.

1906:

Freud and erikson but its development and debates concerning its use among professional historians, providing an accurate and neutral account of all notable points of view.

2937:

Please sign your comments as it has been suggested to you in talk page. If you place such pov without proper sourcing as you did in the lead, it might be reverted as well. —

2346:. If this article were based on sources from that journal it would look quite different - but would be encyclopedic an din line with current mainstream research. See also 3529:

With so many critical info added (some of it contested above) I wonder if we are following WP guidelines of style. Take a look at a much shorter version of this article in

3176:

Of the above, only a single critical chapter on "Psychology, Psychoanalysis and Historical Thought" in Lynn Hunt's book mentions psychohistory as understood in this page.

79:

long dead historical figures at all accurately (as opposed to just taking together whatever lose pieces of information we can find to make a story that fits our ideology).

1167:

Cesar: I suspect child sacrifice is the hardest part of Psychohistory for most people to swallow. I think pictures make a bigger impact than words, so I added two things:

4661:

Hi, 193.184.161.226. I just left a welcome message in your talk page. It'd be easier for you to edit Knowledge if you register with a name or pseudonym. Welcome again! —

4477:

oh i thought that was what you implied when you said 3 comments above, you say the article does not include frued or other psychohistorians because you do not like them.

2839:

but, pace internet's Jstor, it's seldom mentioned by anyone in any journals or books I know of. It was only published for a few years, then abandoned. Nowadays there is

3187:

As to the other references, numbered above, I am copying and pasting what I wrote in my edit summaries, and you completely ignored, about my removals of these sources:

4497:

as for the pov tag in the criticism section we have established that having criticism of freud is valid so unless there are anymore grievances the tag will be removed.

946:

yet? He discusses the antipathy of anthropologists towards psychohistory. If you think a brief summary is appropriate can we discuss a draft here on the talk page? --

3215:"Lloyd deMause does not have a degree from any accredited in institution in History . Such qualifications cast doubt on the creditability of deMause's psychohistory." 2347: 570:

Fair enough. Yes, there are lots of articles that are a little off. As long as there's some mention that there are contrary opinions, I think we can lose the tag. --

4464:

Reverted. I had asked you to request for a third opinion —an admin— before doing these sort of unilateral changes. Tagging the whole article is a serious action. —

2819:"Cesar Tort says that he coubts "psychohistory" is used in academic circles adie from the de Mauseian sense. He is wrong, I hopoe in good faith, but dead wrong." 2795:

ranks #4662 out of all 8000 journals ranked. Within the category of "Psychology - Multidisciplinary", the Journal of Psychohistory ranked #52 out of 106. Source:

3662:

But you are missing the point. Presently, most of what is known as "psychohistory" is not Freudian, but deMausean. Surely you must realize that 35 years of the

1443:

is almost completed. I hope you will like it. Of course, you or anyone of your colleagues can edit it and make the changes you deem it necessary. Cesar Tort

3482:

Psychohistory, and a few of the citations could be removed that i have added but everything i have wrote and especially the last few edits are completly valid

3447:

As for the other arguement, the statement has 8 citations and cesar tort provided mild criticism of 4, this is not cause for reversal, that would be Vandalism

2294:

What are you talking about? If there is a great deal of psychohistorical research unrelated to the content of the article, surely you can provide some sources.

3563:

If you address my above concerns about the meaning of "psychohistory" for the editors who started the page six years ago we'll have a meaningful discussion. —

1983: 1092:

and the external link to "Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence". It contains a large amount of psychogenic data from modern hunter-gather societies. --

526:

I agree with the idea about Psychohistory. The focus from this one site is what I'm referring to. I mean just what you say, add some balancing statements. --

4621:"Psychohistorians also believe that the extreme cultural relativism proposed by many anthropologists is contrary to the letter and spirit of human rights." 4684:"Psychohistorians also believe that the extreme cultural relativism proposed by many anthropologists is contrary to the letter and spirit of human rights." 3884:

quotation in the deMause article. By cutting and pasting it here in the criticism section you made it appear as if it were a critical remark. It was not. —

701:

Trauma writers who hate Freud's interpretation would probably also be aware that Niederland came to basically the same conclusion as Morton Schatzman. --

4432:

Had I read Freud I would do it. Unfortunately, the guy is so repulsive to me that, as far as I can remember, I read only one of his books (I think it was

4237:. Yes: starting the criticism section was my idea and I added the material Slrubenstein called my attention to. On the other hand, I dispute the material 2224:

I haven't checked that up. But I very much doubt that in academic circles the word "psychohistory" is being used aside deMause's or his followers' views.

4636:

The core tenet of sociocultural anthropology is that to interpret meaning, you have to see it from the inside. Understanding does not imply acceptance.

4536:

warring, this step should be done with a third party. That is the way Knowledge operates. Do you want me to request help from an admin on this matter? —

4342:

Ask for a third opinion before such unilateral decision. (BTW, if a Freud section is added, all Freud-related criticism of this section should be moved

3823:

i am not missing a point this quote was added to DeMause's wikipedia article by another wikipedian, so are we both missing the point and you are right?

1213:

A psychogenic mode in Psychohistory is a type of mentality (or psychoclass) that results from, and is associated with, a particular childrearing style.

4931:

the criticism section tag will be removed shortly, it has been up for months and cesartort has not brought forth anything to dispute in the section.

4742: 2066:

and this article doesn't draw on any of the vast number of articles it has published. Instead this article presents the fringe views of de Mause and

487:

history, rather than examine history. These groups will claim to be doing "psychohistory" and be scholarly while actually trying to push an agenda. --

3700:"big" does not mean it is right to remove sourced information from it the criticism section takes up maybe 15% of the article at the absolute most. 1565:

Freud, Sigmund (1967). "Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Twenty eighth President of the United States: A Psychological Study", Boston, Houghton Mifflin in:

3263:

Reverted again. It's not only merely an opinion, it's logically invalid. Lloyd deMause's qualifications or lack of them is no basis for accepting

792:

is my favorite of his books! If you think readers won’t be deceived by that phrase into Freud’s crank views, let the phrase stay (it pretty much

5254:

I say agan, what's wrong with the page right now? Are there any sources that can be used to fix it? Can and should the page be re-organized?

5006:

one article seems to make sense to me too, one criticism section then also, since that is resolved are there any other problems in this section?

2155:

It's probably not NPOV, but realistically I don't think anyone could read this article and not realize that this is a pretty fringe discipline.

796:

as a pro-Freudian phrase). The Niederland article is relevant, of course; but not mention of the Vienna quack. I only want disambiguation. —

428:

I'm assuming this in the references: "Sigmund Freud, collecting works" is "Collected works", but I'm noting it here just in case I'm wrong. --

4701: 4646: 4527:. Please revise the article's history by clicking on the "history" link. You will find other editors started the article in 2002, four years 2001:

He is correct in his assertion that deMause's theories deserve their own article -- even if he's amazingly rude in the way he treats others

1346: 2322: 1883: 1768: 1182:

It's probably not a good idea to link to any articles about religion, so I only included the painting. Do you remember double****.info? --

919: 4417:

good good now put that into the article! put a section on the different schools in the article that what it needs, otherwise it is baised.

3388:

Ishmaelblues: you haven't addressed my concerns at the top of this section: most of your footnotes are unrelated to the actual content of

2658:

stated not to include critical content on deMause's views such as what Kohut, or whoever, wrote. That would be indeed a violation of NPOV.

3227:

I ask you again the question I asked in your talk page and you avoided to answer: do you agree with a form of mediation in this article?

3201:

rm - this source mentions the word "psychohistory" in relation to Freud: again, a subject almost unrelated to the content of this article

4866: 4790: 4723:

Slrubenstein has already edited that phrase. I also left you a link in your talk page which might throw light about some of my sources:

2902: 1642: 5232: 4378: 4064: 3273: 3148: 3059: 2929: 1734: 1499:

What do you think, Cesar? Do you want to add the website for the second group? There wasn't much information about it on the site. --

714:

I agree. But this is not explained in the text and a casual reader may erroneously interpret it as an endorsement of Freud’s views. —

5317:. But I still think that judicious editing and sourcing by both of you would be the best way to deal with this. Make sure there is 1659: 4028:

i'm going to move those older source to a new sentance, but these demands you keep placing on this one little section is harrasment.

4313:

you bring up a good point we should have alot more about Freud in here, the article is incomplete, i'll have to add something soon

3996:

an eminent, leader within the historical community over the last seven decades, Jacques Martin Barzun put it "pseudo-historical"

3196:

rm - this source does mention deMause - in a footnote! Hardly a source for the claim that the source states psychohistory is pseudo

3470:'s psychohistory. Is this now clear? Most of your sources simply don't deal with the content of this page and therefore must go. — 2914:==Perphaps it is unsuitable to put the part i have added to the intro, so i will put it into the criticism section. -ishmaelblues 2118:

in the 1950s, and it must therefore be treated, in my opinion, as a continuation of Freudian analysis applied to entire cultures.

4734: 3920:

Still missing the point. Here we go again. If those texts don't say that "psychohistory is pseudohistory", then your sentence is

3804:—was not critical at all to deMause. How do I know? Because I have read the whole article. You added it as if it was a criticism! 3429:"The deMuse is Criticized for having 'no known credentials in psychotherapy' only having a graduate degree in Political Science." 2433:

that can at times verge on historical pornography. For examples of the more frivolous and distasteful sort of psychohistory, see

5104: 4233: 4203: 2201: 1942:. Curiously, it seems that deMause's historical data has been influential in that book (though Heywood differs from deMause's 1865: 1530:

I looked at the Topica list. Apparently, the new list will replace it. To play safe, I replaced the Topica link with a link to

5203:

Thanks again for your input, WLU. I hope other editors will cooperate here and that the page will be cleaned sooner or later.

2062:

Note, i requested the comment. But subsequent research leads me to think the answer is "no." There is a mainstream journal,

1999:

Will someone please ban ARK? His non-stop slander, personal attacks, and foul language are damaging the Knowledge community.

5111:

others of his school. If this is accurate, great (better if referenced). If not, then perhaps the page needs more editing.

2214:"none of the readings are by this deMause fellow, and the courses seem to be about things entirely unrelated to this article" 650:

and radically departs from Freud’s theory. Freud blames Schreber; current trauma writers blame Schreber’s abusive father. —

5189:

Critics of the discipline consider psychohistory to be "pseudoscience" and Jacques Barzun has called it "pseudo-historical".

3290:

Ditto! Thanks 78.32.151.60. I couldn't have said it better. I'll wait for a couple of days and revert the other paragraph (

1758:"...with the purpose of designing and applying methods to promote Humanity to a higher levels of Welfare & Development" 2007: 1809: 3376:

And now still another editor agrees with us and has removed Ishmaelblues's ad hominem paragraph, stating in edit summary

1995: 1799: 975:

Early infanticidal childrearing is a psychohistorical model developed by deMause which purports that childrearing in the

327:

Regarding the Main Link to be to Asimov. I agree, although I have been an Asimov fan since high school, but who hasn't? (

5103:

like "noted historian", "expert" and other words that serve no real purpose except adding POV and weight to comments.

3609:

sampling of "psychohistory" avaliable to focus only on demause once agian requires a change to the name of the article

5345: 5193:

This is misleading the reader and the section should be tagged as "disputed" until further editing and clarification.

1454:

Splendid job. I have no changes to content. However two websites have changed recently: The IPA website is now simply

1360: 2694:

I've added the long Thomas Kohut quotation and removed two quotations by deMause. Article looks much more NPOV now. —

5159:

discussion of Freud is missing and I encourage you to add more information about his involvement in psychohistory.

4725: 2566:

roots of German policy towards England before the First World War," in John C. G. Rohl and Nicolaus Sombart, eds.,

2396:

one marginal theory in the psychohistorical research. The issue is not quantity but notability. And this article

2316:"much of this article appears to be OR based on the writings of a few non-mainstream authors such as Lloyd deMause" 298: 38: 4705: 4650: 4404: 3509: 2030:

nor a deMause "follower". In fact, I have written a devastating critique of some deMause theories in my web page.

3206:

rm - this source mentions the word "psychohistory" in a totally unrelated subject to the content of this article

2829:

there are no other major "schools" of psychohistory. Isn't the work of 35 years of over 100 contributors to the

1914:

views, emphasizing mainstram or majority views over minority views (i.e. applying the principle of due weight).

1412:

I used four different search engines to find out more about the psychohistory journal for university academics,

1015:

This particular model is a psychological concept that attempts to explain anthropological data, especially from

895:

That would defeat the point I was making. Please don't do anything for now, and think it over for a few days --

3663: 2849: 2831: 2708: 2372: 2092: 1772: 3530: 2954:"No accredited institute of higher learning in the United States has a department dedicated to psychohistory." 1681:

Children's rights movement, deschooling and free schooling, natural childbirth, Taking Children Seriously and

1665: 4112:

refer all of each specifically to deMausean PH, or to PH in general? In WP articles precision is important. —

691:! The Schreber affair is too controversial and not really germane to psychohistory. It should be removed. — 4862: 4794: 2898: 2464:

Gerald Izenberg “Psychohistory and Intellectual History” in History and Theory, Vol. 14, No. 2. (May, 1975),

1646: 788:

Wow! (Ups! I wrote a word in Spanish! Hope you understood it, Bookish :) I really, really LOVE Masson. And

4550:

well we resolved the question over source 21 a few paragraph up is there any other problems in th esection?

3234:

please: the burden of evidence rests upon you. If you're really committed to adding the disputed info, per

3191:

rm - it's not clear from the abstract that "Naturalistic Psychohistory" is the same subject of this article

1826:

Please remind that WP is not a place for soapboxing. However you are absolutely right. The above sentence:

1178:

An external link to an article about Inca child sacrifice (with photographs) from Discovery Channel Canada.

5296: 5228: 5146: 5132: 5077: 5011: 4968: 4936: 4584: 4555: 4502: 4482: 4454: 4422: 4374: 4332: 4318: 4275: 4190: 4159: 4145: 4131: 4060: 4033: 3964: 3943: 3910: 3852: 3828: 3774: 3758: 3741: 3721: 3705: 3650: 3614: 3581: 3550: 3487: 3452: 3418: 3366: 3311: 3277: 3144: 3055: 2925: 2872: 2645: 2405: 2355: 2269: 2075: 1962: 1923: 1873: 1730: 1034:

In return, deMause and his followers accuse most anthropologists and ethnologists of being apologists for

5036:

I already stated what the problem is. If you want to include sourced criticism on Freud's psychohistory,

1604: 82:

Actually, if you ask me most 'therapists' are pseudoscientists anyway, but thats another story... -- an.

4858: 2894: 4730: 1310: 3732:

DeMause very clearly makes himself the foundation of psychohistory in his free online book found here

3361:

Qualifications have nothing to do with the validity of his theories? i think it has alot to do with it

2676:

articles. (I didn't pay much attention to this periodical because it only appeared a couple of years.)

2663:

However, Freud's views on daVinci; Erickson's on Luther and so on don't belong to his article, but to

2018:"Personally, it looks to me as if this article were written by de mause, or friends/followers of him." 1356: 1223:

double**** is from something I wrote on your talk page about Christians in Knowledge a while back. --

5220: 4854: 4786: 4697: 4642: 4366: 4208:

is Knowledge slang; it's not my rhetoric. I am copying and pasting here my post in Rubin's talk page:

4052: 3136: 3047: 2917: 2890: 2785: 2437:. For more serious and scholarly attempts to understand the psychological dimension of the past, see 2288:

deal of research and scholarship in psychohistory, but none of it involves demause or his followers."

1788: 1722: 1638: 1492: 732: 640: 2844:

discuss his work. That's about it. What in the past was called "psychohistory", such as the work of

2749:) is listed in the 2005 catalog of journals held by 500 or more libraries around the world. Source: 1302: 4901: 4751:"Se sacrificaban niños desnutridos para eliminar a la población que es una carga para la sociedad" 3462:

This is unresponsive to the issue. Do I have to repeat it again? What if I use sources criticizing

3332: 2135: 1306: 1060: 571: 527: 503: 488: 470: 448: 429: 5400: 3689:

should be avoided. Since it's also factually incorrect, I would propose to remove it altogether. —

3378:"The assertions in this paragraph are *not* sourced, are unvarnished opinion, and plainly violate 4242: 4216: 3336: 2719: 1459: 680: 47: 17: 5291:

WLO cleared up the confusion with his edit the tag will be removed, i thought he did a good job.

3787:

You are still missing the point. The quotation you just copied and pasted into the article from

3598:

In fact, you restored all of them. (And you have not replied to my objections: only reverted). —

2400:

the mot notable theories and research in psychohistory, which have nothing to do with de Mause.

1171:

Rembrandt's painting of the sacrifice of Isaac, from the Old Testament. Alice Miller used it in

217: 2634:

discussion of de mause. it means putting psychohistory in a broader context, and is essential

2574:

Peter Iver Kaufman "Social History, Psychohistory, and the Prehistory of Swiss Anabaptism" in

5292: 5224: 5142: 5128: 5073: 5007: 4964: 4932: 4747:"Undernourished children were sacrificed to eliminate the people who were a burden to society" 4625: 4580: 4551: 4498: 4478: 4450: 4418: 4370: 4328: 4314: 4271: 4224: 4186: 4155: 4141: 4140:

now that all of the things cesar tort had issue with have been resolved i will remove the tag.

4127: 4056: 4029: 3960: 3939: 3906: 3848: 3824: 3770: 3754: 3737: 3717: 3701: 3646: 3645:

that is like zooming in on the eye of the mona lisa and telling someone that IS the mona lisa.

3610: 3577: 3546: 3483: 3448: 3414: 3362: 3307: 3306:

Please do not revert sourced matiral as i have not done, this is the foundation of wikipedia

3235: 3231: 3180: 3163: 3140: 3051: 2921: 2868: 2641: 2401: 2351: 2265: 2254:

is fringe, it is note, see my coment below. The problem is that this article presents only a

2156: 2071: 1958: 1919: 1869: 1726: 1417: 1368: 1322: 1186: 1089: 1016: 328: 196: 164: 137:

I searched for the topic myself. The vast, vast majority of "psychohistory" hits were either:

95: 87: 2387:

The issue is not how many articles were published, but hat their notability is. Articles in

5248: 3238:

dig the references and use them to source your statements. Take special attention to avoid

2178: 2037:

However, I agree with what JHK posted in 2002: deMause's theories deserve their own article.

1817: 1328: 688: 592: 3413:

the parts i just added cannot be removed they are direct quotes from University professors.

2031: 5278: 5207: 5054: 5049: 4986: 4948: 4905: 4900:. What would you tell me about a few deMause's quotations I just took the trouble to type 4822: 4758: 4662: 4603: 4566: 4537: 4525:"the article does not include frued or other psychohistorians because I do not like them" 4465: 4439: 4434: 4408: 4347: 4304: 4257: 4246: 4170: 4113: 4012: 3925: 3885: 3807: 3690: 3672: 3635: 3599: 3564: 3534: 3513: 3471: 3438: 3399: 3350: 3295: 3254: 3239: 3122: 3106: 3081: 3034: 3001: 2966: 2938: 2857: 2853: 2809: 2695: 2682: 2664: 2391:

are more often cited by ... other followers of de Mause. Articles that were published in

2376: 2329: 2300: 2234: 2096: 2043: 1947: 1891: 1850: 1831: 1705: 1662: 1574: 1514: 1477: 1382: 1241: 1199: 1154: 1111: 1072: 1047: 976: 960: 933: 924: 871: 797: 715: 692: 651: 625: 596: 545: 514: 183: 111:

Here you go, from the link you provided to the international psychohistorial association:

5107:, don't try to inflate them by puffing up who said the facts with unnecessary adjectives. 3629:

I have watched over this article for a long time. Maybe I sould unwatch it pretty soon...

2750: 275:

Oh my God, I can't believe we have an article on this crap. This Lloyd DeMause guy, (who

4289:

complied with my objections. Just one example among many others. This sentence's source—

3080:

since deMause himself created that field. Unsourced opinions must and will be removed. —

2587:

Nancy Anderson, "No Angel in the House: The Psychological Effects of Maternal Death."

2542:

George Moraitis and Carl Pletsch, "Psychoanalytic Contribution to Method in Biography,"

5243: 4391: 3505: 3379: 2715: 2637: 2488:

I think it should provide an account of alternate genealogies of psychohistory namely:

2460:

I think it should provide an account of important criticisms of psychohistory, namely:

2131: 2114: 1828:"He believes that all of human history can be explained in terms of child sexual abuse" 644: 643:

which is too controversial a subject among psychohistorians and trauma writers such as

369: 306: 101:

folder’. It sounds as though you disagree with the subject and wish it didn’t exist.

4245:. But as I said, from now on I will discuss in that page instead of doing it here . — 2791:

At Journal-Ranking.com, which uses a more broadly-based index of journal quality, the

2764:

of 0.47 in 2001. In the list of all social science journals, ranked by impact factor,

2562:

Thomas A. Kohut, "Kaiser Wilhelm I1 and his parents: an inquiry into the psychological

1830:

is absolutely erroneous and only reflects ignorance about deMause and psychohistory. —

1531: 5378: 5326: 5314: 5259: 5164: 5116: 5100: 3921: 3788: 3467: 2984: 2845: 2761: 2314:

I have no problem with Mattisse's requests of citations. However, his statement that

2160: 1932:

I don't think so. I copy and past what I have told you in another editor's talk page:

1655: 1629: 1615: 1587: 1342: 1316: 971:

I am basically paraphrasing, copying and pasting the summaries in the flaming pages:

483:

Care should be taken here, as there are groups that are out there trying to actually

405: 383: 317: 290: 5389: 3044:

your responsibility to provide qualification. It is the criticism section mind you

2338:

Cesar Tort is pushing a fringe POV. The mainstream journal of psychohistory is not

1974:"Frankly, I think it would be easier to delete this article and start from scratch." 1658:. If you want an open forum to discuss psychohistory issues, you are welcomed here 932:

Perhaps a brief summary of that debate should appear in the Psychohistory article? —

648: 5346:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2656(1973)12%3A4%3C367%3APOANP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N

5330: 5310: 5300: 5281: 5263: 5236: 5210: 5168: 5150: 5136: 5120: 5096: 5081: 5057: 5015: 4989: 4972: 4951: 4940: 4908: 4825: 4798: 4761: 4738: 4709: 4665: 4654: 4606: 4588: 4569: 4559: 4540: 4532: 4506: 4486: 4468: 4458: 4442: 4426: 4411: 4400: 4395: 4350: 4336: 4322: 4307: 4279: 4194: 4173: 4163: 4149: 4135: 4116: 4068: 4037: 4015: 3968: 3947: 3928: 3914: 3888: 3856: 3832: 3810: 3778: 3762: 3753:

although he is not, he certianly has carved out his own little niche in the field.

3745: 3725: 3709: 3693: 3675: 3654: 3638: 3618: 3602: 3585: 3567: 3554: 3537: 3516: 3491: 3474: 3456: 3441: 3422: 3402: 3370: 3353: 3340: 3315: 3298: 3281: 3257: 3243: 3152: 3125: 3109: 3084: 3063: 3037: 3004: 2969: 2941: 2875: 2860: 2812: 2698: 2685: 2648: 2408: 2379: 2358: 2332: 2303: 2272: 2237: 2180: 2164: 2139: 2123: 2099: 2078: 2046: 1965: 1950: 1926: 1894: 1887: 1876: 1853: 1834: 1820: 1776: 1738: 1708: 1698: 1691: 1618: 1607: 1577: 1538: 1535: 1517: 1503: 1500: 1480: 1424: 1421: 1402: 1399: 1385: 1286: 1283: 1265: 1262: 1244: 1227: 1224: 1202: 1183: 1157: 1136: 1133: 1114: 1096: 1093: 1075: 1064: 963: 950: 947: 936: 927: 899: 896: 874: 853: 850: 800: 771: 768: 747: 744: 718: 705: 702: 695: 672: 664: 654: 628: 618: 615: 599: 574: 553: 530: 517: 506: 491: 473: 451: 432: 408: 386: 331: 320: 264: 4733:. In Mexico, anthropologists really behave like Aztec apologists even in cases of 1882:

Hi Slrubenstein. I am glad to see you here. I have responded to you more fully in

1084:

childrearing instead of psychohistory as a whole. Also, it makes the subject look

3018:"Such qualifications cast doubt on the creditability of deMause's psychohistory." 2582:

Psychohistory: Readings in the Methods of Psychology, Psychoanalysis, and History

1364: 1325:, a psychiatrist specializing in psychological motivations for war and terrorism. 813:

I'm not sure which phrase you mean. Did I miss something because it was clear to

3733: 2556:

a study of the bourgeoisie in Western Europe and America from the 1820s to 1914.

2173: 1816:

I totally disagree with the above statement and am looking for help to rebut it.

1695: 1051: 1043: 1039: 661: 610: 550: 340: 261: 230: 222: 102: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

339:

one would expect a certain amount of self referencing to his own earlier work.

3881: 3224:

in the article, against WP policies? It's OR by synthesis. Do you get it now?

3011:

I am awaiting a few hours to revert the above so as not to cross over the 3RR.

2371:

was put out for a couple of years, one-tenth the number of subscribers as the

2200:

Not necessarily. But it certainly is a major area of study, as you can see in

2091:

was put out for a couple of years, one-tenth the number of subscribers as the

1193:

Verily verily I say to you that all of this is about a clash of psychoclasses!

684: 463:

Why there is still denial in modern societies about the reality of child abuse

208: 190: 4223:. If you see the history of the page, Ishmaelblues, you'll know that, after 3431: 2867:

impact factor, Annual review of Psychology, has an impact factor of 11.706.

2514:

Peter Lowenberg, "The Psychohistorical Origins of the Nazi Youth Cohort" in

1056: 1025: 364: 301: 202: 4780: 4755:"to distance itself from the Hispanists who consider it bloody and savage" 3028:

opinion. If you don't find a RS for this opinion, I will revert it as well.

1890:, now retired. He spent lots of time doing the color chart and the table. — 3874:"his quote was added to DeMause's wikipedia article by another wikipedian" 2584:

edited by Geoffrey Cocks and Travis L. Crosby, Yale University Press, 1987

1336: 282:

Half of all Asian children are killed shortly after birth by their parents

144:

a promotional mention of the "psychohistory" discussion list you linked to

5322: 5255: 5160: 5112: 5048:

is understandable. Otherwise it looks like attributing, say, to Jung the

3349:

As I told you in your user page, I've already asked help from an admin. —

2027: 2002: 1063:

proposed by many anthropologists is contrary to the letter and spirit of

679:. Well: Schreber’s father was none other that the author of bestselling 2530:

George Moraitis, "A Psychoanalyst's Journey into a Historian's World: An

1803:

Excuse the offtopic comment, but the phrase "a peer reviewed journal at

1694:? If so it should simply say so. As it is it's neither clear nor POV. -- 4757:. Rationalizing child sacrifice in this way is pretty Nazi, isn't it? — 4753:), and another organizer stated that anthropological scholarship seeks 1132:

it could easily be spoiled by digressions or a surfeit of material. --

4296:

Critics of the discipline consider psychohistory to be "pseudoscience"

1059:, dissociation and magical thinking. They also claim that the extreme 549:

subject and does not sell it. I don’t think it deserved the NPOV tag.

5251:

for a while, but if you talk it out you'll end up with a better page.

4741:. The organizer of the event even stated in front of the media about 3463: 2452:

Manuel, F. (1972), "The use and abuse of psychology in history." In:

1035: 980: 237:

Psychohistory is a valid, if not entirely recognized, academic field.

3504:'s views are quackery. That's why I am a big fan of Freud's critic 2835:

notable enough to merit an article of its own? Yes: we can use the

1350: 647:

and Morton Schatzman. Schatzman wrote a whole book about Schreber

3501: 3166:

has once more reverted without discussion in talk page. He wrote:

1598:

That claim is far too grandiose. Few people will believe there is

1493:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psychohistory-historicalmotivations/

174:

A Google search on ‘Psychohistory courses’ found lots, here a few

3292:"many in the history profession consider it pseudohistory. " 3171:"many in the history profession consider it pseudohistory. " 2727:

Some facts about psychohistory as a legitimate domain of inquiry:

591:

I see no reason at all why this article should be separated from

189:

Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut has a course see

1332: 216:

There is a bibliography of published works on Psychohistory see

171:

I agree PH is not mainstream but it has academic connections .

5401:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/shrinking-history/

1441: 1008:

children aren't considered useful to any adult in any other way

5141:

good well keep the section as yo uedited it, i rather like it.

3133:

please do not revert source information it is agianst policy

1992: 1796: 1460:

http://www.psychohistory-historicalmotivations@yahoogroups.com

1455: 1398:

I'll wait a day or two to see if anyone else has a comment --

763:

to Psychohistory. BTW, I also have a copy of Jeffrey Masson's

115:"There are no formal training programs for psychohistorians." 25: 4154:

alright so why is the pov tag still on the criticism section?

4126:

hmm your right about this one i'll change the sentance a bit.

2497:

Psycho-Myth, Psycho-History: Essays in Applied Psychoanalysis

2130:, and played a significant role in the history of science. — 1240:

It looks then that the article is OK by now. Do you agree? —

293:

link should be about Asimov's famous Foundation novels, with

218:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8623/literature.htm

1756:

And to give to this science a Social Relevance I would add:

3880:

You missed the point: *I* am the wikipedian who added that

3716:

i reduced the qoute down for you, it does flow better now.

3075:

cast doubt on the creditability of deMause's psychohistory"

1804: 201:

State University of New York Rockland see HIS 213/4 at

197:

http://www.unr.edu/planning/0304cycle/psychohistoryplan.pdf

147:

a promotional mention of the several websites you linked to

4361:

psychohistorians or this article will be labeled the same

1420:

article. It was all I could find using search engines. --

918:

Hey Bookish: Have you read the flaming discussion in the

195:

University of Nevada has a Department of psychohistory,

2474:

Hans Ulrich Wehler, 1980 "Psychoanalysis and history" in

4694:

unsourced, I think the phrasing should be changed. -R2

4386:

What sort of tortuous logic is this? Source 21 is about

3294:) if no valid reason is given in talk page to keep it. — 2616:

The Roots of Nazi Psychology: Hitler's Utopian Barbarism

737:

He basically came to same conclusion as Morton Schatzman

5185:

section is, suddenly, about Freud and psychoanalysis!:

5088: 3437:

DeMause has never claimed expertise in psychotherapy. —

2848:

and the like, today has changed its name and is called

2770:

it ranked higher than 37% of all journals in psychology

184:

http://www.bu.edu/bridge/archive/2003/10-31/psycho.html

2499:. NY: Hillstone, A Division of Stonehill Publishing, . 4407:" with both of them. And please sign your comments. — 1024:

Anthropologists point out that speculating about the

186:

And CAS HI 503 at www.bu.edu/history/crsinven.html

2768:

appears on page 17 out of 27 pages. In other words,

1683:

the abandonment of genital mutilation of infant boys

870:

let’s just remove mention to Freud in that phrase! —

2526:include these other views. More works to draw on: 1901:individuals, following the model of Erik Erikson's 5379:http://www.edconroybooks.com/si/CONROY144189I.html 3592:"I have and you have gotten rid of the citations " 2825:As far as I know (I may be wrong but I doubt it), 2456:ed. F. Gilbert & S. Graubard. New York: Norton 741:When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Life of Animals 5390:http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-76737821.html 4779:anthropology and human rights can be found here: 2190:"if psychohistory truly focuses on infanticide.." 1986:in which you were involved almost six years ago?: 979:and in contemporary pre-literate hunter-gatherer 359:his personal obsessions into a formalized set of 182:Boston University has a Pychohistory Course see 2983:"and many in the history profession consider it 2732:The International Psychohistorical Association, 2510:Decoding the Past: The Psychohistorical Approach 739:. By the way, I have a copy of Jeffrey Masson's 120:"Psychohistorians are essentially self-taught." 4851:is no longer present here, so it's peachy. -R2 1211:I just added the word psychoclass in brackets: 999:infants are useful to parents as erotic objects 2672:On the other hand, yes, of course, we can use 2418:Thomas A. Kohut “Psychohistory as History” in 2375:, then about 7 years ago stopped publishing. — 2095:, then about 7 years ago stopped publishing. — 1704:I didn't write it but, yes: I'll correct it. — 3734:http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/contents.htm 2551:The Bourgeois Experience: Victoria to Freud, 1654:Next time please sign. Also, please remember 1319:, founder of The Institute for Psychohistory. 8: 4227:asked me to take into serious consideration 3667:The criticism paragraphs you added refer to 2882:Root document(s) of psychohistory journalism 2518:, Vol. 76, No. 5 (Dec., 1971), pp. 1457-1502 2422:, Vol. 91, No. 2. (Apr., 1986), pp. 336-354. 1884:talk:Early_infanticidal_childrearing#sources 1787:Recently this appeared on the talk page for 1676:The bottom-right section of the table says: 355:anything, he just makes up theories, ie: he 5038:a section is needed on Freud' psychohistory 4898:"most anthropologists don't represent that" 2772:in impact factor. It was very close to the 1088:. Is that what you want? Please check out 209:http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~history/cours.htm 207:City University of New York See HIS 360 191:http://www.wesleyan.edu/course/hist251f.htm 150:the websites and discussion list themselves 2625:, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Apr., 1973), pp. 394-401 2621:Hans W. Gatzke "Hitler and Psychohistory" 256:The neutrality of this article is disputed 2146:Is this a notable approach to psychology? 2122:matter how psychoanalytic their methods. 1359:, Professor of History, Graduate Center, 203:http://www.sunyrockland.edu/courses/h.htm 4781:http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/humanrts.htm 2636:to comply with Knowledge policy, namely 2610:Psychology and Historical Interpretation 2578:Vol. 68, No. 4 (Oct., 1988), pp. 527-544 1624: 1305:, Professor of Modern European History, 5338: 4221:"You did not add most of the criticism" 4215:This discussion, of course, belongs in 3684:Long block - violation of WP guidelines 1762:Therefore, what is all that crap about 1440:The Knowledge article on psychohistory 983:can be summarized by three basic ideas: 351:? Have you read his papers? He doesn't 2568:Kaiser Wilhelm II: New Interpretations 1553:I have now read Lloyd deMause’s books 280:gentiles, and, oh, here's a nice one: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3093:I've reverted as promised and please 2053:Is this a notable approach to history 817:because I wrote it? Here is the text: 7: 5321:to remove the tag before doing so. 4169:Do I have to explain it once more? — 2948:As to this sentence you just added—: 1690:Is that supposed to be referring to 1590:from the "postmodern times" pulpit: 920:Talk:Early infanticidal childrearing 609:I updated the redirect page to send 5313:should be involved - I'd suggest a 4082:Harassment? Does these references—: 3016:But now you just added in article: 1050:. They claim that what constitutes 5105:Let the facts speak for themselves 4219:. I just want to respond here to: 3671:sense of the word psychohistory. — 2603:Life Histories and Psychobiography 1583:A psychoclass for postmodern times 1345:, Professor of History, Emeritus, 639:I would like to remove mention to 24: 2782:Journal of Mathematical Sociology 2734:founded in 1977 by Lloyd de Mause 2070:as if they were they only views! 1430:deMause’s comment on this article 990:children are not considered human 271:Knowledge is a Weird Encyclopedia 4357:in the hay day of Psychohistory 2778:Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 1447:de Mause’s reply (19 June 2006): 29: 3222:you are adding your own opinion 2714:I am retrieving a part of what 2596:White racism: A psychohistory. 2202:Early infanticidal childrearing 1866:Early infanticidal childrearing 914:fascinating flaming discussion! 479:Areas of Psychohistorical Study 3922:Original research by synthesis 3500:I totally agree with you that 2774:Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 2623:The American Historical Review 2534:Experiment in Collaboration," 2516:The American Historical Review 2420:The American Historical Review 1739:18:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC) 1666:06:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 1625:Norbert Elias' "psychohistory" 1567:Sigmund Freud, Collected Works 1434:Yesterday I wrote this email: 363:, and then calls it research. 1: 2747:founded and edited by deMause 1777:02:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 1559:The Emotional Life of Nations 1532:Psychohistory Discussion List 944:The Emotional Life of Nations 299:Psychohistory (pseudoscience) 141:a discussion of Asimov novels 4231:criticism of the article, I 2876:16:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2861:05:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2813:21:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 2699:15:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 2686:21:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2649:20:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2435:The Journal of Psychohistory 2409:12:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2389:The journal of Psychohistory 2380:19:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2359:19:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2340:The Journal of Psychohistory 2333:16:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 2304:19:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2273:19:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2238:02:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 2181:01:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 2165:00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 2100:19:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2079:19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2068:The Journal of Psychohistory 2047:01:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1966:00:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1951:23:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1927:23:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1895:17:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1877:14:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1854:19:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 1821:16:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 1555:Foundations of Psychohistory 1458:and the discussion group is 683:books that drove Germany to 433:15:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 321:05:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 4241:added, and gave my reasons 2570:(Cambridge, 1982), 63-89. 2492:Freud, on Leonardo Da Vinci 2426:On Page 341, Kohut writes, 1835:05:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 1745:Definition of psychohistory 1456:http://www.psychohistory.us 1261:Yes, it seems OK to me. -- 689:eliminationst anti-Semitism 5419: 5277:confusion is ironed out. — 4607:18:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 4589:03:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 4570:03:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 4560:01:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 4541:00:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 4507:22:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4487:22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4469:21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4459:18:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4443:20:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4427:19:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4412:18:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4351:05:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4337:05:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4323:23:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 4308:04:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 4280:03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 4174:00:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC) 4164:22:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 3694:03:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 3676:22:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 3655:23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 3639:22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 3619:20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 3603:19:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 3586:19:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 3568:17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 3555:13:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 3538:17:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 3517:22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 3492:21:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 3475:21:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 3457:19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 3442:22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 3423:19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 3403:14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 3371:02:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 3354:01:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 2064:The Psychohistorial Review 1709:00:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC) 1699:23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 1656:Knowledge is not a soapbox 1619:22:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 1608:21:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 575:22:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 554:08:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 531:23:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 518:23:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 507:15:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 492:15:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 474:15:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 452:15:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 332:01:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 4405:psychohistory (fictional) 4249:19:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 4195:20:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 4150:17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 4136:16:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 4117:15:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 4069:13:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 4038:12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 4016:05:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3969:03:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3948:03:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3929:02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3915:02:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3889:01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3857:00:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3833:00:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3811:00:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3779:21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3763:21:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3746:21:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3726:20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3710:20:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3510:psychohistory (fictional) 3341:23:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 3316:22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 3299:00:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 3282:00:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 3258:06:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 3153:20:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 3126:19:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 3110:19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 3085:01:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 3064:01:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 3038:19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 3005:04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 2970:04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 2942:04:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 2454:Historical Studies Today, 2140:03:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 1578:00:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 1569:, supplement, S. 686-692. 1539:17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 1534:at Psychohistory.com. -- 1518:17:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 1504:16:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 1481:14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 1425:15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 1403:22:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 1386:22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 1331:, Department of History, 1287:21:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 1266:22:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 1245:19:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 1228:19:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 1203:18:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 1187:18:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 1158:16:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 1137:10:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 1115:00:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 1097:00:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 1076:23:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 964:22:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 951:22:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 937:22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 928:22:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 900:23:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 875:22:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 854:22:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 801:21:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 772:19:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 748:19:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 731:Anyone who clicks on the 719:18:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 706:18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 696:17:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 665:17:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 655:16:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 629:23:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 619:23:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 600:18:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 343:20:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) 311:02:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) 225:01:56, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC) 167:17:44, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) 105:09:52, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) 5331:20:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC) 5301:20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC) 5282:18:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC) 5264:17:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC) 5237:17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC) 5211:15:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC) 5169:17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC) 5151:14:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC) 5137:14:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC) 5121:13:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC) 5082:18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC) 5058:06:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC) 5016:04:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC) 4990:03:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC) 4973:00:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC) 4952:23:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 4941:21:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 4909:18:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 4826:17:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4799:17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4762:17:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4710:10:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4666:18:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 4655:08:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 4260:21:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC 4204:wp:Writing for the enemy 4200:Don't misunderstand me. 3664:Journal of Psychohistory 3531:User:Cesar Tort/SRA list 3525:Long "criticism" section 3327:such, logically invalid. 3242:any of the sources into 2850:developmental psychology 2832:Journal of Psychohistory 2793:Journal of Psychohistory 2758:Journal of Psychohistory 2743:Journal of Psychohistory 2709:Journal of Psychohistory 2601:William McKinley Runyon 2598:NewYork: Vintage Books. 2576:The Journal of Religion, 2536:Annual of Psychoanalysis 2439:The Psychohistory Review 2393:The Psychohistory Review 2373:Journal of Psychohistory 2344:The Psychohistory Review 2318:is only partially true. 2250:The problem is not that 2093:Journal of Psychohistory 1984:this series of exchanges 1805:http://www.geocities.com 1779:MEXICO, AGS, Dagoflores 1414:The Psychohistory Review 1297:Notable psychohistorians 1162: 1086:a lot more controversial 409:11:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC) 401:Journal of Psychohistory 387:11:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC) 374:20:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) 265:21:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC) 233:23:34, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) 70:Critics of psychohistory 4726:Encyclopædia Britannica 4180:"Writing for the enemy" 3101:from a RS stating this 1783:Attack on psychohistory 404:down...take your pick. 297:nonsense pointed to by 5191: 4298: 4251: 4099: 3998: 3799: 2989: 2910:page break (arbitrary) 2806: 1940:A history of childhood 1596: 5187: 4743:Aztec child sacrifice 4294: 4213: 4095: 3994: 3794: 2981: 2724: 2608:Wm. McKinley Runyon, 2508:Peter Lowenberg 1983 2367:As stated above, the 1592: 438:www.psychohistory.com 254:Notice of removal of 42:of past discussions. 5087:I'm here because of 3072:"Such qualifications 2837:Psychohistory Review 2674:Psychohistory Review 2594:Kovel, J. (1970). 2589:Psychohistory Review 2544:Psychohistory Review 2538:, 7 (1979): 287-320 2481:David Stanard, 1980 2469:Clio and the Doctors 2369:Psychohistory Review 2089:Psychohistory Review 1789:Satanic_ritual_abuse 1437:Dear Lloyd deMause: 1163:Rembrandt's painting 1149:avoid future tagging 733:Daniel Paul Schreber 641:Daniel Paul Schreber 513:statements either). 5315:request for comment 5249:m:The Wrong Version 4617:Cultural relativism 4234:wrote for the enemy 3179:I'd like to ask to 1307:Brandeis University 1061:cultural relativism 1017:primitive societies 624:Absolutely agree! — 5311:dispute resolution 5072:article go ahead. 5046:about that subject 4217:talk:psychohistory 3268:article, not here. 3181:User: Ishmaelblues 3164:User: Ishmaelblues 3159:Burden of evidence 3099:specific quotation 2976:And now you added: 2707:Impact factor of 681:poisonous pedagogy 249:definately valid. 18:Talk:Psychohistory 5239: 5223:comment added by 5044:. Then criticism 4870: 4857:comment added by 4801: 4789:comment added by 4712: 4700:comment added by 4657: 4645:comment added by 4626:user:Slrubenstein 4382: 4369:comment added by 4225:user:Slrubenstein 4071: 4055:comment added by 3244:original research 3155: 3139:comment added by 3066: 3050:comment added by 2933: 2920:comment added by 2906: 2893:comment added by 2483:Shrinking History 2310:Citation requests 2012: 2011: 1814: 1813: 1741: 1725:comment added by 1650: 1641:comment added by 1418:Robert Jay Lifton 1369:Boston University 1323:Robert Jay Lifton 1173:The Untouched Key 1090:James W. Prescott 677:For Your Own Good 67: 66: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5410: 5403: 5398: 5392: 5387: 5381: 5376: 5370: 5365: 5359: 5354: 5348: 5343: 5218: 4852: 4784: 4752: 4695: 4640: 4364: 4050: 3901:OR by synthesis? 3134: 3045: 2915: 2888: 2718:posted today in 2504:Young Man Luthor 1993: 1982:Do you remember 1903:Young Man Luthor 1797: 1720: 1636: 1357:Charles Strozier 1329:Peter Loewenberg 942:Did you receive 593:Psychogenic mode 372: 367: 309: 304: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5418: 5417: 5413: 5412: 5411: 5409: 5408: 5407: 5406: 5399: 5395: 5388: 5384: 5377: 5373: 5366: 5362: 5355: 5351: 5344: 5340: 5179: 5050:Oedipus complex 5042:on that subject 4929: 4750: 4735:human sacrifice 4702:193.184.161.226 4647:193.184.161.226 4624:I realize that 4619: 4435:Totem and Taboo 4267: 4182: 3903: 3686: 3527: 3411: 3161: 2912: 2884: 2854:psychobiography 2766:J.Psychohistory 2712: 2665:psychobiography 2618:by Jay Y. Gonen 2476:Social Research 2312: 2148: 2055: 1861: 1843: 1785: 1747: 1717: 1674: 1627: 1600:only one source 1585: 1551: 1432: 1299: 1280: 1165: 1151: 1048:child sacrifice 977:Paleolithic Era 916: 637: 607: 589: 546:Psychogeography 499: 459: 440: 426: 370: 365: 307: 302: 273: 239: 72: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5416: 5414: 5405: 5404: 5393: 5382: 5371: 5360: 5349: 5337: 5336: 5335: 5334: 5333: 5289: 5288: 5287: 5286: 5285: 5284: 5269: 5268: 5267: 5266: 5252: 5178: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5171: 5124: 5123: 5108: 5093: 5069: 5068: 5067: 5066: 5065: 5064: 5063: 5062: 5061: 5060: 5025: 5024: 5023: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5019: 5018: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4994: 4993: 4992: 4978: 4977: 4976: 4975: 4962: 4955: 4954: 4928: 4925: 4924: 4923: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4914: 4913: 4912: 4911: 4882: 4881: 4880: 4879: 4878: 4877: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4834: 4833: 4832: 4831: 4830: 4829: 4828: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4802: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4764: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4669: 4668: 4618: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4573: 4572: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4472: 4471: 4446: 4445: 4415: 4414: 4392:Jeffrey Masson 4354: 4353: 4311: 4310: 4300: 4299: 4291: 4290: 4266: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4253: 4252: 4210: 4209: 4181: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4004: 4003: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3932: 3931: 3902: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3877: 3876: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3805: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3782: 3781: 3766: 3765: 3749: 3748: 3729: 3728: 3713: 3712: 3685: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3642: 3641: 3631: 3630: 3626: 3625: 3606: 3605: 3595: 3594: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3558: 3557: 3544: 3526: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3506:Jeffrey Masson 3495: 3494: 3478: 3477: 3445: 3444: 3434: 3433: 3410: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3395: 3394: 3385: 3384: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3344: 3343: 3329: 3328: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3285: 3284: 3270: 3269: 3230:Finally, read 3218: 3217: 3208: 3207: 3203: 3202: 3198: 3197: 3193: 3192: 3174: 3173: 3160: 3157: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3088: 3087: 3070:The statement 3041: 3040: 3030: 3029: 3021: 3020: 3013: 3012: 3008: 3007: 2997: 2996: 2991: 2990: 2978: 2977: 2973: 2972: 2962: 2961: 2957: 2956: 2950: 2949: 2945: 2944: 2911: 2908: 2883: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2823: 2822: 2805: 2804: 2799: 2798: 2788: 2787: 2753: 2752: 2738: 2737: 2729: 2728: 2720:this talk page 2716:User:Aetheling 2711: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2689: 2688: 2678: 2677: 2669: 2668: 2660: 2659: 2627: 2626: 2619: 2613: 2606: 2599: 2592: 2585: 2579: 2564: 2563: 2554: 2553: 2547: 2532: 2531: 2520: 2519: 2512: 2506: 2500: 2493: 2486: 2485: 2479: 2472: 2471:(Chicago 1974) 2465: 2458: 2457: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2424: 2423: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2362: 2361: 2311: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2296: 2295: 2291: 2290: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2184: 2183: 2168: 2167: 2147: 2144: 2115:psychoanalysis 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2082: 2081: 2054: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2039: 2038: 2034: 2033: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2010: 2009: 2006: 1997: 1990: 1988: 1987: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1954: 1953: 1934: 1933: 1898: 1897: 1860: 1859:Pseudoscience? 1857: 1842: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1812: 1811: 1808: 1801: 1794: 1784: 1781: 1769:189.166.31.247 1746: 1743: 1716: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1688: 1687: 1673: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1626: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1605:81.174.211.214 1584: 1581: 1571: 1570: 1550: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1507: 1506: 1496: 1495: 1489: 1488: 1474: 1473: 1465: 1464: 1449: 1448: 1431: 1428: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1375: 1373: 1372: 1354: 1340: 1326: 1320: 1314: 1303:Rudolph Binion 1298: 1295: 1279: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1206: 1205: 1195: 1194: 1180: 1179: 1176: 1164: 1161: 1150: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1069: 1068: 1031: 1030: 1021: 1020: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 994: 993: 992: 991: 985: 984: 969: 968: 967: 966: 954: 953: 915: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 806: 805: 804: 803: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 765:Final Analysis 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 724: 723: 722: 721: 709: 708: 668: 667: 645:Jeffrey Masson 636: 633: 632: 631: 606: 603: 588: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 536: 535: 534: 533: 521: 520: 498: 495: 466: 465: 458: 455: 439: 436: 425: 422: 418: 416: 415: 414: 413: 412: 411: 392: 391: 390: 389: 376: 375: 336: 335: 324: 323: 272: 269: 251: 238: 235: 227: 169: 152: 151: 148: 145: 142: 92: 71: 68: 65: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5415: 5402: 5397: 5394: 5391: 5386: 5383: 5380: 5375: 5372: 5369: 5364: 5361: 5358: 5353: 5350: 5347: 5342: 5339: 5332: 5328: 5324: 5320: 5316: 5312: 5307: 5306: 5305: 5304: 5303: 5302: 5298: 5294: 5283: 5280: 5275: 5274: 5273: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5265: 5261: 5257: 5253: 5250: 5245: 5241: 5240: 5238: 5234: 5230: 5226: 5222: 5215: 5214: 5213: 5212: 5209: 5204: 5201: 5197: 5194: 5190: 5186: 5184: 5176: 5170: 5166: 5162: 5157: 5156: 5155: 5154: 5153: 5152: 5148: 5144: 5139: 5138: 5134: 5130: 5122: 5118: 5114: 5109: 5106: 5102: 5098: 5097:third opinion 5094: 5090: 5086: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5079: 5075: 5059: 5056: 5051: 5047: 5043: 5039: 5035: 5034: 5033: 5032: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5028: 5027: 5026: 5017: 5013: 5009: 5005: 5004: 5003: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4999: 4998: 4991: 4988: 4984: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4979: 4974: 4970: 4966: 4963: 4959: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4953: 4950: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4938: 4934: 4926: 4910: 4907: 4903: 4899: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4889: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4868: 4864: 4860: 4859:79.134.97.139 4856: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4845: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4838: 4827: 4824: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4800: 4796: 4792: 4791:79.134.97.139 4788: 4782: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4763: 4760: 4756: 4748: 4744: 4740: 4736: 4732: 4728: 4727: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4711: 4707: 4703: 4699: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4667: 4664: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4656: 4652: 4648: 4644: 4637: 4634: 4630: 4627: 4622: 4616: 4608: 4605: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4590: 4586: 4582: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4571: 4568: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4557: 4553: 4542: 4539: 4534: 4530: 4526: 4522: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4508: 4504: 4500: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4488: 4484: 4480: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4470: 4467: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4456: 4452: 4444: 4441: 4437: 4436: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4424: 4420: 4413: 4410: 4406: 4402: 4397: 4393: 4389: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4380: 4376: 4372: 4371:Ishmaelblues 4368: 4362: 4358: 4352: 4349: 4345: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4334: 4330: 4325: 4324: 4320: 4316: 4309: 4306: 4302: 4301: 4297: 4293: 4292: 4288: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4265:not resolved? 4264: 4259: 4255: 4254: 4250: 4248: 4244: 4240: 4236: 4235: 4230: 4226: 4222: 4218: 4212: 4211: 4207: 4205: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4192: 4188: 4179: 4175: 4172: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4161: 4157: 4152: 4151: 4147: 4143: 4138: 4137: 4133: 4129: 4118: 4115: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4098: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4070: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4054: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4039: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4017: 4014: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 3997: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3949: 3945: 3941: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3930: 3927: 3923: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3912: 3908: 3900: 3890: 3887: 3883: 3879: 3878: 3875: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3858: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3834: 3830: 3826: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3812: 3809: 3806: 3803: 3798: 3793: 3792: 3790: 3789:Lloyd deMause 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3767: 3764: 3760: 3756: 3751: 3750: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3730: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3714: 3711: 3707: 3703: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3692: 3683: 3677: 3674: 3670: 3665: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3640: 3637: 3633: 3632: 3628: 3627: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3604: 3601: 3597: 3596: 3593: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3583: 3579: 3569: 3566: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3556: 3552: 3548: 3545: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3536: 3532: 3524: 3518: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3480: 3479: 3476: 3473: 3469: 3468:Lloyd deMause 3465: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3454: 3450: 3443: 3440: 3436: 3435: 3432: 3430: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3408: 3404: 3401: 3397: 3396: 3391: 3387: 3386: 3383: 3381: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3355: 3352: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3331: 3330: 3325: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3300: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3272: 3271: 3266: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3256: 3251: 3247: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3228: 3225: 3223: 3216: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3205: 3204: 3200: 3199: 3195: 3194: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3185: 3182: 3177: 3172: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3165: 3158: 3156: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3127: 3124: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3111: 3108: 3104: 3103:about deMause 3100: 3096: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3086: 3083: 3079: 3078:is an opinion 3076: 3073: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3039: 3036: 3032: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3022: 3019: 3015: 3014: 3010: 3009: 3006: 3003: 2999: 2998: 2993: 2992: 2988: 2986: 2985:pseudohistory 2980: 2979: 2975: 2974: 2971: 2968: 2964: 2963: 2959: 2958: 2955: 2952: 2951: 2947: 2946: 2943: 2940: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2909: 2907: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2895:66.239.212.82 2892: 2881: 2877: 2874: 2870: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2846:Erik Erickson 2842: 2838: 2834: 2833: 2828: 2820: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2811: 2801: 2800: 2797: 2794: 2790: 2789: 2786: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2762:impact factor 2759: 2755: 2754: 2751: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2730: 2726: 2725: 2723: 2721: 2717: 2710: 2706: 2700: 2697: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2687: 2684: 2680: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2647: 2643: 2640: 2639: 2633: 2624: 2620: 2617: 2614: 2611: 2607: 2604: 2600: 2597: 2593: 2590: 2586: 2583: 2580: 2577: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2569: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2552: 2548: 2545: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2537: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2525: 2517: 2513: 2511: 2507: 2505: 2502:Erik Erikson 2501: 2498: 2495:Ernest Jones 2494: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2484: 2480: 2477: 2473: 2470: 2466: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2455: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2440: 2436: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2421: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2411: 2410: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2394: 2390: 2381: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2360: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2331: 2326: 2324: 2319: 2317: 2309: 2305: 2302: 2298: 2297: 2293: 2292: 2289: 2285: 2282: 2281: 2274: 2271: 2267: 2262: 2257: 2253: 2252:psychohistory 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2239: 2236: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2215: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2203: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2191: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2182: 2179: 2177: 2176: 2170: 2169: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2145: 2143: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2119: 2116: 2110: 2101: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2080: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2052: 2048: 2045: 2041: 2040: 2036: 2035: 2032: 2029: 2026:I am neither 2025: 2024: 2019: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2005: 2004: 1998: 1994: 1991: 1985: 1981: 1980: 1975: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1964: 1960: 1952: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1936: 1935: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1925: 1921: 1915: 1913: 1907: 1904: 1896: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1858: 1856: 1855: 1852: 1847: 1840: 1836: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1819: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1795: 1792: 1790: 1782: 1780: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1765: 1760: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1744: 1742: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1714: 1710: 1707: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1697: 1693: 1686: 1684: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1671: 1667: 1664: 1660: 1657: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1648: 1644: 1643:195.176.186.2 1640: 1634: 1631: 1630:Norbert Elias 1620: 1617: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1606: 1601: 1595: 1591: 1589: 1588:Mindblindness 1582: 1580: 1579: 1576: 1568: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1560: 1556: 1548: 1540: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1519: 1516: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1505: 1502: 1498: 1497: 1494: 1491: 1490: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1479: 1472: 1471: 1467: 1466: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1457: 1451: 1450: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1442: 1438: 1435: 1429: 1427: 1426: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1404: 1401: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1387: 1384: 1381:Good ideas. — 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1355: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1343:Bruce Mazlish 1341: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1327: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1317:Lloyd deMause 1315: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1301: 1300: 1296: 1294: 1290: 1288: 1285: 1277: 1267: 1264: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1246: 1243: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1229: 1226: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1214: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1204: 1201: 1197: 1196: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1185: 1177: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1160: 1159: 1156: 1148: 1138: 1135: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1116: 1113: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1098: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1074: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1032: 1027: 1023: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1013: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 998: 997: 996: 995: 989: 988: 987: 986: 982: 978: 974: 973: 972: 965: 962: 958: 957: 956: 955: 952: 949: 945: 941: 940: 939: 938: 935: 930: 929: 926: 921: 913: 901: 898: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 876: 873: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 855: 852: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 816: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 802: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 782: 781: 780: 773: 770: 766: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 749: 746: 742: 738: 734: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 720: 717: 713: 712: 711: 710: 707: 704: 700: 699: 698: 697: 694: 690: 686: 682: 678: 674: 666: 663: 659: 658: 657: 656: 653: 649: 646: 642: 634: 630: 627: 623: 622: 621: 620: 617: 612: 604: 602: 601: 598: 594: 586: 576: 573: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 555: 552: 547: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 532: 529: 525: 524: 523: 522: 519: 516: 511: 510: 509: 508: 505: 496: 494: 493: 490: 486: 481: 480: 476: 475: 472: 464: 461: 460: 456: 454: 453: 450: 444: 437: 435: 434: 431: 423: 421: 410: 407: 402: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 388: 385: 380: 379: 378: 377: 373: 368: 362: 358: 354: 350: 346: 345: 344: 342: 333: 330: 326: 325: 322: 319: 314: 313: 312: 310: 305: 300: 296: 292: 291:Psychohistory 287: 283: 278: 270: 268: 266: 263: 259: 257: 250: 246: 243: 236: 234: 232: 226: 224: 220: 219: 215: 211: 210: 205: 204: 199: 198: 193: 192: 187: 185: 180: 179: 175: 172: 168: 166: 161: 157: 156: 149: 146: 143: 140: 139: 138: 135: 133: 127: 126: 122: 121: 117: 116: 112: 109: 106: 104: 98: 97: 90: 89: 83: 80: 76: 69: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5396: 5385: 5374: 5363: 5352: 5341: 5318: 5293:Ishmaelblues 5290: 5242:Content and 5225:Ishmaelblues 5205: 5202: 5198: 5195: 5192: 5188: 5182: 5180: 5177:disputed tag 5143:Ishmaelblues 5140: 5129:Ishmaelblues 5125: 5101:weasel words 5095:Regarding a 5074:Ishmaelblues 5070: 5045: 5041: 5037: 5008:Ishmaelblues 4965:Ishmaelblues 4933:Ishmaelblues 4930: 4902:in Wikiquote 4897: 4754: 4746: 4739:Templo Mayor 4731:this article 4724: 4638: 4635: 4631: 4623: 4620: 4581:Ishmaelblues 4552:Ishmaelblues 4549: 4533:User:Bookish 4528: 4524: 4520: 4499:Ishmaelblues 4479:Ishmaelblues 4451:Ishmaelblues 4447: 4433: 4419:Ishmaelblues 4416: 4401:Isaac Asimov 4396:Alice Miller 4387: 4363: 4359: 4355: 4343: 4329:Ishmaelblues 4326: 4315:Ishmaelblues 4312: 4295: 4286: 4272:Ishmaelblues 4268: 4238: 4232: 4228: 4220: 4214: 4201: 4187:Ishmaelblues 4185:mentallity. 4183: 4156:Ishmaelblues 4153: 4142:Ishmaelblues 4139: 4128:Ishmaelblues 4125: 4096: 4057:Ishmaelblues 4030:Ishmaelblues 3995: 3961:Ishmaelblues 3940:Ishmaelblues 3907:Ishmaelblues 3904: 3873: 3849:Ishmaelblues 3825:Ishmaelblues 3795: 3771:Ishmaelblues 3755:Ishmaelblues 3738:Ishmaelblues 3718:Ishmaelblues 3702:Ishmaelblues 3687: 3668: 3647:Ishmaelblues 3643: 3611:Ishmaelblues 3607: 3591: 3578:Ishmaelblues 3574: 3547:Ishmaelblues 3528: 3484:Ishmaelblues 3449:Ishmaelblues 3446: 3428: 3415:Ishmaelblues 3412: 3389: 3377: 3363:Ishmaelblues 3360: 3323: 3308:Ishmaelblues 3305: 3291: 3274:78.32.151.60 3264: 3252: 3248: 3240:synthesizing 3229: 3226: 3221: 3219: 3214: 3209: 3186: 3178: 3175: 3170: 3162: 3141:Ishmaelblues 3132: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3077: 3074: 3071: 3052:Ishmaelblues 3042: 3025: 3017: 2982: 2953: 2922:Ishmaelblues 2913: 2885: 2869:Slrubenstein 2840: 2836: 2830: 2826: 2824: 2818: 2807: 2792: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2757: 2746: 2742: 2733: 2713: 2673: 2655: 2642:Slrubenstein 2635: 2631: 2628: 2622: 2615: 2609: 2602: 2595: 2588: 2581: 2575: 2567: 2565: 2557: 2555: 2550: 2549:Peter Gay's 2543: 2535: 2533: 2523: 2521: 2515: 2509: 2503: 2496: 2487: 2482: 2475: 2468: 2459: 2453: 2446: 2438: 2434: 2425: 2419: 2412: 2402:Slrubenstein 2397: 2392: 2388: 2386: 2368: 2352:Slrubenstein 2343: 2339: 2327: 2320: 2315: 2313: 2287: 2284:"There is a 2283: 2266:Slrubenstein 2260: 2255: 2251: 2213: 2189: 2174: 2149: 2127: 2124:Alice Miller 2120: 2111: 2107: 2088: 2072:Slrubenstein 2067: 2063: 2056: 2017: 2000: 1989: 1973: 1959:Slrubenstein 1955: 1943: 1939: 1920:Slrubenstein 1916: 1911: 1908: 1902: 1899: 1888:User:Bookish 1870:Slrubenstein 1862: 1848: 1844: 1827: 1815: 1793: 1786: 1767: 1763: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1752: 1748: 1727:Ishmaelblues 1718: 1692:circumcision 1689: 1682: 1680: 1675: 1635: 1628: 1599: 1597: 1593: 1586: 1572: 1566: 1558: 1554: 1552: 1475: 1469: 1468: 1453: 1452: 1439: 1436: 1433: 1413: 1411: 1374: 1291: 1281: 1278:Faculty Bios 1212: 1181: 1172: 1166: 1152: 1085: 1070: 1065:human rights 970: 943: 931: 917: 833:28:151-169). 814: 793: 789: 785: 764: 740: 736: 676: 673:Alice Miller 669: 638: 608: 590: 500: 484: 482: 478: 477: 467: 462: 445: 441: 427: 417: 400: 360: 356: 352: 348: 337: 329:MartinGugino 294: 285: 281: 276: 274: 255: 253: 252: 247: 244: 240: 228: 221: 213: 212: 206: 200: 194: 188: 181: 177: 176: 173: 170: 165:Puffy jacket 162: 158: 154: 153: 136: 131: 128: 124: 123: 119: 118: 114: 113: 110: 107: 99: 96:Puffy_jacket 91: 88:Slrubenstein 84: 81: 77: 75:literature? 73: 60: 43: 37: 5219:—Preceding 4853:—Preceding 4785:—Preceding 4696:—Preceding 4641:—Preceding 4365:—Preceding 4051:—Preceding 3135:—Preceding 3046:—Preceding 2916:—Preceding 2889:—Preceding 2821:—way above. 2342:but rather 2256:fringe view 1944:conclusions 1818:Abuse truth 1721:—Preceding 1637:—Preceding 1351:faculty bio 1337:faculty bio 1311:faculty bio 1052:child abuse 1044:cannibalism 1040:infanticide 611:Psychoclass 605:Psychoclass 457:Child Abuse 36:This is an 5279:Cesar Tort 5208:Cesar Tort 5055:Cesar Tort 4987:Cesar Tort 4949:Cesar Tort 4906:Cesar Tort 4823:Cesar Tort 4759:Cesar Tort 4663:Cesar Tort 4604:Cesar Tort 4567:Cesar Tort 4538:Cesar Tort 4523:said that 4466:Cesar Tort 4440:Cesar Tort 4409:Cesar Tort 4348:Cesar Tort 4305:Cesar Tort 4258:Cesar Tort 4247:Cesar Tort 4171:Cesar Tort 4114:Cesar Tort 4013:Cesar Tort 3981:You added: 3926:Cesar Tort 3886:Cesar Tort 3882:New Yorker 3808:Cesar Tort 3691:Cesar Tort 3673:Cesar Tort 3636:Cesar Tort 3600:Cesar Tort 3565:Cesar Tort 3535:Cesar Tort 3514:Cesar Tort 3472:Cesar Tort 3439:Cesar Tort 3409:Just added 3400:Cesar Tort 3351:Cesar Tort 3296:Cesar Tort 3255:Cesar Tort 3236:WP:PROVEIT 3232:WP:PROVEIT 3123:Cesar Tort 3107:Cesar Tort 3082:Cesar Tort 3035:Cesar Tort 3002:Cesar Tort 2967:Cesar Tort 2939:Cesar Tort 2858:Cesar Tort 2810:Cesar Tort 2780:, and the 2696:Cesar Tort 2683:Cesar Tort 2546:, 7 (1979) 2414:theories: 2398:leaves out 2377:Cesar Tort 2330:Cesar Tort 2301:Cesar Tort 2235:Cesar Tort 2097:Cesar Tort 2044:Cesar Tort 1948:Cesar Tort 1892:Cesar Tort 1851:Cesar Tort 1832:Cesar Tort 1706:Cesar Tort 1672:Mutilation 1663:Cesar Tort 1575:Cesar Tort 1549:info added 1515:Cesar Tort 1478:Cesar Tort 1383:Cesar Tort 1242:Cesar Tort 1200:Cesar Tort 1155:Cesar Tort 1112:Cesar Tort 1073:Cesar Tort 1029:societies. 961:Cesar Tort 934:Cesar Tort 925:Cesar Tort 872:Cesar Tort 798:Cesar Tort 716:Cesar Tort 693:Cesar Tort 685:groupthink 652:Cesar Tort 626:Cesar Tort 597:Cesar Tort 515:Cesar Tort 286:graciously 214:References 5319:agreement 5183:Criticism 4285:You have 4270:resolved. 2827:presently 2591:11 (1982) 2132:Aetheling 1057:psychosis 1026:Neolithic 132:objective 61:Archive 1 5233:contribs 5221:unsigned 4961:section? 4867:contribs 4855:unsigned 4787:unsigned 4698:unsigned 4643:unsigned 4379:contribs 4367:unsigned 4065:contribs 4053:unsigned 3797:policy". 3393:removed. 3333:Denorios 3149:contribs 3137:unsigned 3060:contribs 3048:unsigned 3024:This is 2930:contribs 2918:unsigned 2903:contribs 2891:unsigned 2632:deleting 2467:Barzun, 2028:user:Ark 2003:user:JHK 1841:Archived 1735:contribs 1723:unsigned 1639:unsigned 1616:Pfalstad 635:Schreber 572:DanielCD 528:DanielCD 504:DanielCD 489:DanielCD 471:DanielCD 449:DanielCD 430:DanielCD 406:Revolver 384:Revolver 361:opinions 357:projects 353:research 349:research 318:Pfalstad 5244:WP:NPOV 3669:another 3380:WP:NPOV 2987:. " 2760:had an 2654:I have 2638:WP:NPOV 2612:(1988). 2128:notable 1912:notable 1536:Bookish 1501:Bookish 1422:Bookish 1400:Bookish 1284:Bookish 1263:Bookish 1225:Bookish 1184:Bookish 1134:Bookish 1094:Bookish 948:Bookish 897:Bookish 851:Bookish 794:appears 769:Bookish 745:Bookish 703:Bookish 616:Bookish 258:warning 178:Courses 39:archive 4529:before 4449:alone. 3464:Asimov 3095:do not 2776:, the 2605:(1982) 1696:Ptcamn 1487:group: 1036:incest 981:tribes 662:Lumos3 551:Lumos3 485:revise 371:(talk) 341:Lumos3 308:(talk) 262:Lumos3 231:Lumos3 223:Lumos3 103:Lumos3 4639:-R2 4521:never 4388:Freud 4344:there 4243:there 3502:Freud 3324:still 2656:never 2286:great 2261:great 1470:Lloyd 1363:(see 1349:(see 1335:(see 1309:(see 1282:From 786:Guau! 767:. -- 743:. -- 587:Merge 424:Typo? 347:What 16:< 5327:talk 5297:talk 5260:talk 5229:talk 5165:talk 5147:talk 5133:talk 5117:talk 5089:this 5078:talk 5012:talk 4969:talk 4937:talk 4863:talk 4795:talk 4729:and 4706:talk 4651:talk 4585:talk 4556:talk 4503:talk 4483:talk 4455:talk 4423:talk 4403:'s " 4394:and 4375:talk 4346:). — 4333:talk 4319:talk 4276:talk 4191:talk 4160:talk 4146:talk 4132:talk 4061:talk 4034:talk 3965:talk 3944:talk 3911:talk 3853:talk 3829:talk 3775:talk 3759:talk 3742:talk 3722:talk 3706:talk 3651:talk 3615:talk 3582:talk 3551:talk 3488:talk 3453:talk 3419:talk 3390:this 3367:talk 3337:talk 3312:talk 3278:talk 3246:. 3145:talk 3056:talk 3026:your 2995:3RR? 2926:talk 2899:talk 2873:Talk 2756:The 2646:Talk 2524:must 2406:Talk 2356:Talk 2348:this 2323:here 2270:Talk 2175:Nick 2161:talk 2136:talk 2087:The 2076:Talk 1963:Talk 1946:). — 1924:Talk 1874:Talk 1773:talk 1731:talk 1647:talk 1557:and 1361:CUNY 1333:UCLA 1046:and 790:F.A. 784:Oh. 497:NPOV 399:The 366:func 303:func 295:this 108:--- 5323:WLU 5256:WLU 5161:WLU 5113:WLU 4927:Tag 4904:? — 4287:not 4239:you 4229:his 3791:—: 3533:. — 3512:. — 3105:. — 2871:| 2856:. — 2852:or 2841:one 2741:The 2644:| 2404:| 2354:| 2268:| 2157:P4k 2074:| 1961:| 1922:| 1872:| 1715:wtf 1661::) 1367:at 1365:bio 1347:MIT 687:'s 675:’s 595:. — 5329:) 5299:) 5262:) 5235:) 5231:• 5167:) 5149:) 5135:) 5119:) 5080:) 5014:) 4971:) 4939:) 4869:) 4865:• 4797:) 4745:: 4708:) 4653:) 4587:) 4558:) 4519:I 4505:) 4485:) 4457:) 4425:) 4381:) 4377:• 4335:) 4321:) 4278:) 4193:) 4162:) 4148:) 4134:) 4067:) 4063:• 4036:) 3967:) 3946:) 3913:) 3855:) 3831:) 3777:) 3761:) 3744:) 3724:) 3708:) 3653:) 3617:) 3584:) 3553:) 3490:) 3455:) 3421:) 3382:". 3369:) 3339:) 3314:) 3280:) 3265:or 3151:) 3147:• 3062:) 3058:• 2932:) 2928:• 2905:) 2901:• 2722:: 2478:40 2350:. 2325:. 2163:) 2142:. 2138:) 2008:” 1996:“ 1868:- 1810:” 1800:“ 1791:: 1775:) 1737:) 1733:• 1649:) 1371:). 1353:). 1339:). 1313:). 1289:: 1042:, 1038:, 815:me 502:-- 469:-- 447:-- 277:is 267:~ 163:- 5325:( 5295:( 5258:( 5227:( 5206:— 5163:( 5145:( 5131:( 5115:( 5076:( 5053:— 5010:( 4967:( 4935:( 4861:( 4793:( 4749:( 4704:( 4649:( 4602:— 4583:( 4554:( 4501:( 4481:( 4453:( 4421:( 4373:( 4331:( 4317:( 4274:( 4256:— 4206:" 4202:" 4189:( 4158:( 4144:( 4130:( 4059:( 4032:( 3963:( 3942:( 3909:( 3851:( 3827:( 3773:( 3757:( 3740:( 3720:( 3704:( 3649:( 3634:— 3613:( 3580:( 3549:( 3486:( 3451:( 3417:( 3398:— 3365:( 3335:( 3310:( 3276:( 3253:— 3143:( 3121:— 3054:( 3033:— 3000:— 2965:— 2924:( 2897:( 2808:— 2745:( 2681:— 2667:. 2441:. 2328:— 2299:— 2233:— 2204:. 2159:( 2134:( 2042:— 1849:— 1771:( 1729:( 1685:. 1645:( 1513:— 1476:— 1175:. 1110:— 1071:— 1067:. 1019:. 923:— 334:) 94:~ 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.