Psychological Services

Press, Volume C, Issue 29466, 18 March 1961, Page 3

Psychological Services

Sir. The university scheme for psychological services was outlined in “The Press” on February 6. 1960 On that occasion there was no response in your correspondence columns. I believe the letters this time are mere reactions from cultists, with no true interest in psychology, to George Shouksmith’s criticism of Freud. I deprecate Freud being given any credit, even for an "historic” role. It is probable that he actually delayed the advance of psychology towards a common sense approach to mental hygiene, by stimulating interest in a mystical. grossly distorted view of human behaviour. The catharsis of medical psv''hiatrv’s identification with Freudian mumbo-jumbo hr» been a long and painful process.—Yours, etc., VARTAN J. WILSON. March 16. 1961. Sir.—Of Mr Shouksmith’s statement. “We are scientific psychologists” and. “Freud was neither scientific nor a psychologist.” the first suggests advertisements one sees sometimes and the second seems not only illadvised and misleading but 'macks a little of arrogance. There are other analytical techniques than that developed by Freud but Freud is undeniably the fountainhead of all later procedures. Is Mr Shouksmith confusing Freud's theories with his mechanisms, which even a student is warned—or used to be—not to do? What urges Mr Shouksmith to belittle a great man? Why so keen to dissociate himself from Freud? Has he still something of the early emotional reaction against Freud; The term “scientific” is verv loosely bandied about as Mr Shouksmith should know. Freud was trained as a physician and neurologist. What scientific training has Mr Shouksmith had? As Mr Shouksmith has something to offer the public, why not get on with it and leave those he differs from alone?—Yours, etc., MA. (PSYCHOLOGY). March 16, 1961