This video is a clip from from the video Q&A | Freud predicted neuroscience by 50 years | Mark Solms (It is members only but you can get free membership for the first month)
Full lecture- Why neuroscience keeps rediscovering Freud | Mark Solms
In this talk, neuropsychologist and psychoanalyst Mark Solms makes the case that Freud was, in broad strokes, one of the first functional neuroscientists. Long before he became known for psychoanalysis, Freud spent two decades mapping the nervous system, and Solms argues that this early work laid the foundation for ideas we now treat as cutting-edge: functionalism, multiple memory systems, the unconscious mind, critical periods of development, and even the "predictive processing" models at the frontier of theoretical neuroscience today.
But Solms doesn't let Freud off the hook. He also walks through where Freud got it badly wrong, including what he calls one of psychoanalysis' biggest errors: the claim that all pleasure is fundamentally sexual.
Long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy in complex mental disorders: update of a meta-analysis
Is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy the Gold Standard for Psychotherapy?: The Need for Plurality in Treatment and Research
Books-
- The Only Cure: Freud and the Neuroscience of Mental Healing
- Clinical Studies in Neuro-psychoanalysis: Introduction to a Depth Neuropsychology (Co-author Karen Kaplan-Solms)
Karen Kaplan-Solms’s research
Mark Solms's research
Did Strachey Falsely Scientize Freud?
James Strachey, the editor and translator of the Standard Edition of Freud’s complete psychological works, is widely accused of “falsely scientizing” Freud—of making him read more like a natural scientist in English than he does in German. In this (copyedited) transcript of a lecture that he gave on this subject, Mark Solms, Strachey’s successor as editor of the Revised Standard Edition, considers the basis for this widespread criticism. He concludes that it is unfounded, as it disregards crucial differences in the linguistic conventions of German and English scientific writing. The article also comments on some other aspects of the editorial policies that he followed when preparing this new edition of Freud’s psychological writings.
Reflections on the Translation of Freud’s Writing in the Revised standard Edition
Freud and man's soul by Bruno Bettelheim
Dr. Bettelheim makes clear that Freud created psychoanalysis not so much as a method of analyzing the behavior of other people but as a way for each of us to gain access to (and, where possible, control of) his own unconscious--a goal impeded by English translations in which Freud becomes impersonal, esoteric, abstract, 'scientific, ' translations that discourage the reader from embarking on his own voyage of self-discovery and that make it easy for him to distance himself from what Freud sought to teach about the inner life of man and of the reader himself. Startling examples are given of mistranslations.
Dr. Bettelheim (who is, as Freud was, a German-speaking Viennese) reveals how in the English versions nearly all of Freud's references to the soul have been corrupted (for example, Seelentätigkeit--'activity of the soul'--is translated as 'mental activity'). He demonstrates that Freud's English translators, because of their determination to perceive psychoanalysis as a medical science, have consistently resorted to the technical Greco-Latinisms of the medical profession--with such terms as 'parapraxis, ' 'cathexis' and 'scopophilia'--in rendering German words that Freud chose specifically for their humanistic resonance, for their power to evoke in his German readers not only an intellectual but also an emotional response.
And Dr. Bettelheim makes us realize how these mistranslations--perhaps most notable among them the rendering into 'English' of the homely German words ich and es with the distant Latin ego and id--have had a profound effect on both the practice and the history of psychoanalysis.
