Freud’s redemption arc: From pseudoscience to PET scans

Image by Choliver1 at r/historymemes

Say “Freud” into any intro psych class and you’ll probably get a few eye rolls, disgusted grunts, and maybe a joke about mommy issues. Freud bashing isn’t something new, it has been going on for decades. Some call him a sex-obsessed maniac, others label him a cocaine head. And sure, a lot of what he said and did was very problematic to say the least. But, if we take a step back, and look at Freud the scientist and not Freud the man, there is a lot that he got right. The discourse around Freud has overshadowed the work he did and the scientific ideas and theories he had, which still deserve scientific attention.

Freud as a meme: The pop-culture problem

Freud has been done dirty by pop culture. In a Psychology Today article named “Freud is Everywhere,” Kristen Beesley points out that while Freud was brilliant, he borrowed liberally from literature and philosophy to build his theories, and didn’t give enough credible scientific evidence to support his claims. That is probably the reason why the scientific community has declared Freud dead (RIP), but his ideas still persist in pop culture, not as facts, but as jokes and memes. If your only exposure to his work is through Reddit threads or Instagram memes, it’s easy to think he was just a sex-obsessed lunatic with a weird thing for cigars. But this image is a caricature. If you would have taken some time to look through Freud’s concepts and theories, you would agree that he was onto something. One of his biggest missions was to map out the unconscious mind, which is still the most ambitious undertakings in psychological science, at least in my opinion.

The problem is that this image has become the dominant narrative. Google “Freud” and you would see thousands of articles bashing him. While some of the criticism is fair, when the discourse becomes so detached from his theories and focuses too much on his personal life, it goes away from science and becomes a kind of intellectual cancel culture. Yes, Freud was a problematic man, and did a lot problematic things, but underneath his weird and bizzare theories, is a lot of insightful (even testable) science.

The mountain of weird

One of the most debunked theories of Freud has to be his psychosexual theory of personality development, in which he postulated that our personality is rooted in innate sexual desires. Yes, this is the theory where he says that every girl is envious of their father’s penis (penis envy) because the girl lacks one, and that every boy wants to have sex with his mother. I think you can see why people were not so happy about this. Like please, I, for one, am not envious of your penis, thank you very much.

Another thing that people did not like about Freud was his misogynistic theory of hysteria which states that psychological conflict (often unconscious) manifests as physical symptoms. The problem with this theory was that most of his case studies on hysteria were on women, and he postulated that hysteria was caused by women’s feelings of inadequacy due to lacking a penis (I have a feeling he is too attached to the idea of a penis being the end all be all, is anyone else thinking what I am thinking?). Keeping the penis envy aside, his theory of hysteria is actually somewhat accurate, some evidence for which is discussed later in this article. But first, we must discuss the elephant in the room, the big theory that everyone talks about: Freudian psychoanalysis.

Psychoanalysis according to Freud

Freud’s biggest contribution to psychology hands down has to be psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis, according to Freud, is a theory of mind and a method of therapy that aims to explore the unconscious roots of human behaviour. Psychoanalysis basically bundles most of Freud’s major concepts, like unconscious mind, defense mechanisms, talk therapy, dream analysis, and so on, into one coherent theory. The problem? A lot of psychoanalysis relies on introspection- looking into your own mind and figuring stuff out. The subjective nature of introspection, and other aspects of psychoanalysis, make it very hard to study it empirically, and in today’s world where science is the new religion, everything needs to be scientifically, and empirically proven to be considered valid, especially in the field of psychology.

Today, psychoanalysis is still prevalent, albeit not as much as it was during Freud’s time. But modern psychoanalysis is different from Freudian psychoanalysis as his model is no longer dominant and newer approaches, like relational and intersubjective models, are now prominent.

Neuropsychoanalysis : The comeback?

Mark Solms, the founder of neuropsychoanalysis did not originally set out to prove Freud right. In one of the episodes of the podcast “Doorknob Comments” Mark Solms mentions that while he was conducting research on brain mechanisms of dreaming, he stumbled upon some interesting data. It was previously believed that brain mechanisms of dreaming and REM sleep are the same. This implies that there is no motivational factor associated with dreams, they happen every 90 minutes and are random. But he discovered that the part of brain that governs dreaming is completely different from the parts of the brain that govern REM sleep. This part of the brain, called the medial forebrain bundle, is essentially associated with motivation. In other words, dreams are not random, but highly motivated, which is exactly what Freud predicted. This led to Solms’ interest in psychoanalysis which years later turned into this ground-breaking field of neuropsychoanalysis.

Neuropsychoanalysis combines Freud’s psychoanalytic theories with modern neuroscience. This is not just a few Freud fanboys getting nostalgic, it is serious science. This is a relatively new field of psychology, dating back about 25 years. In “The Second Coming of Freud,” McGowan shines a spotlight on this field, showing how modern neuroscience has started to validate some of Freud’s claims (like the existence of unconscious processes and emotional repression) through actual brain scans and studies on patients with brain injuries.

The point of neuropsychoanalysis is not to slap an fMRI on every psychoanalytical concept and call it a day. Rather, as Solms and Turnbull argue, it’s about bridging the gap between two historically incompatible ways of thinking: the subjective, narrative driven world of psychoanalysis and the objective, data hungry domain of neuroscience. This, as you can imagine, is not an easy task. It’s like trying to cohabitate with that one crazy ex-boyfriend whose entire existence is based around proving you wrong. Yeah, not fun. But dual-aspect monism, which is the underlying principle of neuropsychoanalysis, tries to reconcile this by treating mind and brain not as separate entities but as two sides of the same human coin. Hence, even though psychoanalysis and neuroscience seem like mortal enemies, they have the same goal: a deeper understanding of the human experience.

Why now? Because we finally can

At this point, you might be thinking, why have we started giving so much attention to scientifically proving Freudian concepts, decades after his death? The answer is: because we got the tech. Neuro technological advancements like EEG, MEG, fMRI, and PET scans let us study the brain in ways Freud could only dream of. For example:

— EEG and ERPs track brain activity in real time, showing dynamic processes of emotional response. — MEG maps brain function with precision, pinpointing emotional and cognitive functions. — PET scans and fMRI Visualize what areas of the brain are active during specific psychological events.

I know I threw a bunch of scientific jargon at you, but Freudian theories were essentially predictions without data. Now we can test them, we can have data!

Why bother with psychoanalysis at all?

Now you must be wondering why are we using these amazing tools to find evidence for Freudian concepts? Do we have nothing better to do? Well, the approach of neuropsychoanalysis is a natural evolution of Freud’s ideas, this is how things happen in science, some old white dude many decades ago says something that makes sense to him, and that gets termed as a theory that we (as in humans many decades later after the theory was postulated) test with the tools at our disposal to figure out if what this guy was saying is actually true or was he just high on cocaine (or both?).

Modern and scientifically backed therapy practices like CBT focus primarily on treating the symptoms of a disorder rather than figuring out the root cause. Psychoanalysis, on the other hand, focuses on deeper, unconscious root causes that manifest as these symptoms. Many therapists, however, refuse to use psychoanalysis due to it being costly, taking a long time, and not having evidence based data to support it. That is why it is so necessary to find scientific evidence for psychoanalysis so that we can improve therapy and treatment practices for mental health issues that have deep unconscious root causes.

Academics are divided; the general population has no clue

However, not everyone is ready to RSVP to Freud’s comeback gala. In a recent academic survey conducted by Stefena et al., the psychoanalytic community is split in their views about neuropsychoanalysis. Some analysts are in favor of looking at psychoanalysis through a lens of neuroscience while the others want to keep the couch and cortex separate. But at least the academics are talking about neuropsychoanalysis. The general public, however, did not get the memo.

A quick search on Google would reveal that there are no popular media articles talking about neuropsychoanalysis. M. M. Owen mentions this in “Neuroscience, Psychoanalysis, and Their Discontents” by saying that mainstream psychology is all about neurotransmitters now, and the term neuropsychoanalysis might as well be a secret password to a club no one’s heard of. There can be a few reasons as to why no one is talking about neuropsychoanalysis. Maybe after bashing Freud for decades, people don’t want to consider that what they thought could be wrong, and that there could actually be scientific evidence for his theories, a classic case of denial (which ironically is a Freudian defence mechanism). Maybe journalists do not want to seem radicalize and garner the hatred that Freudian supporters get. Or maybe, and more likely, people just don’t care.

Freud’s critics and Frederick Crews: They’re kinda stupid

I cannot in good faith right an article defending Freudian theories and not mention Freud’s loudest critic: Frederick Crews. He was once a Freud supporter before becoming a leading “Freud-basher.” His critiques, however, often veered into character assassination rather than scientific debate. In “Why Freud Survives,” Menand mentions that Crews famously dissected Freud’s personal letters to his fiancé, Martha Bernays, using them to suggest Freud was in it for the money or not genuinely scientific. For example, Freud once wrote, “I intend to exploit science instead of allowing myself to be exploited by it.” Not a great look, but also, have you seen academic salaries? Just saying. There is a lot more things that Freud wrote to his fiancé which were exposed by Crews in a shameless attempt to “bash” Freud (I will not mention those here, but feel free to read them on your own).

Now imagine that you’re a scientist, who is trying to solve the mystery of the human psyche, you published some articles and coined some theories, hoping that your work would be appreciated. But decades later, someone decides to expose your private chats between you and your partner and decides to discredit your life’s work on the basis of said chats. How would you feel?

The point is Crew’s criticism became more about Freud the man than Freud the scientist. He was, in a sense, engaging in the very kind of psychological projection Freud described. It is ironic: in their rush to degrade Freud, many of his critics actually end up proving him right.

Not all Freud is sexual Freud: Some previous evidence for Freudian hysteria

In a paper titled “On the scientific prospects for Freud’s Theory of hysteria” Michael mentions Freud’s theory of hysteria (now called conversion disorder) which states that psychological conflicts (often unconscious) manifest as physical symptoms. According to Freud the defence mechanism of repression keeps distressing memories and emotions out of consciousness. But in cases of hysteria these emotions (still repressed) come out in the form of physical symptoms. Michael found that patients with conversion disorder showed altered brain activity in regions linked to emotion regulation. In other words, something was going on in these patients’ brain regions linked to emotional regulation which is supporting Freud’s claim that the symptoms are caused by repressed emotions.

Micheal also mentions that 91% of these patients had significant psychological stressors which supports Freud’s claim on the role of unresolved psychological stress in symptoms of hysteria. Micheal also mentions evidence for Freud’s concept of repression such as the Bayesian Brain Model which states that the brain minimizes uncertainty by forming predictions based on prior experiences thus in conversion disorder the brain may generate physical symptoms as a “prediction” when psychological conflicts are repressed. This is Freud, just in fancier, modern packaging.

I am only bringing this up to point out that there is actually solid scientific data backing a lot of Freud’s ideas, it just doesn’t get much airtime. Ask anyone around you what they think of Freud, and odds are they would not have anything nice to say. That’s because the story we usually hear about him skips over the evidence and zooms in on the bizarre stuff he got wrong.

I do not like Freud!

I know I just wrote a whole article defending Freudian theories, but don’t kill me just yet (please). I do not like Freud. I know he was very problematic, and there is absolutely no reason for giving him grace. But, I am not here to idolize or demonize, I am just here to evaluate and build on what actually is true and what works. And some of Freud’s ideas do work, especially when seen through the lens of modern neuroscience.

I know there is a big debate on separating the art from the artist, but in this case, it is necessary. I don’t want us to put Freud on a pedastal and say that he is the best, because he isn’t. But, this is not about him, this is about the betterment of science, and framing Freud to be this cocaine-addicted, anti-feminist, stupid scientist is not doing anyone any good. Testing out theories, and finding better ways to improve mental health treatments and psychological testing is a far better way to utilize our resources. At the end of the day, skipping his theories just because he was a problematic man is maybe taking something far superior away from us, something that has the potential to change what we know about the human mind.

References

Beesley, Kristen. “Freud is Everywhere.” Psychology Today. 5 May 2017. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/psychoanalysis-unplugged/201705/freud-is-everywhere#:~:text=Freud%20wrote%20for%20the%20educated,About%20the%20Author%3A%20Dr.

Brenner, Grant, and White, Fara, hosts. “Neuropsychoanalysis, Revisiting Freud, and Living Well: A Conversation with Dr. Mark Solms” Doorknob Comments, 27 December 2024. https://open.spotify.com/episode/32beeA76TgyT37umHgmYMj?si=KLr7rP8ARmWzijsYbsObaA

McGowan, Kat. “The Second Coming of Sigmund Freud.” Discover Magazine, 5 March 2014. Updated 25 October 2024, www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-second-coming-of-sigmund-freud.

Menand, Louis. “Why Freud Survives.” The New Yorker, 21 August 2017. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/28/why-freud-survives

Michael, M. T. “On the Scientific Prospects for Freud’s Theory of Hysteria.” Neuropsychoanalysis, vol. 20, no. 2, 2018, pp. 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15294145.2018.1544851

Owen, M.M. “Neuroscience, Psychoanalysis, and Their Discontents.” Medium. 12 December 2018. https://medium.com/@Matt0wen/neuroscience-psychoanalysis-and-their-discontents-ce6554f1f35f

Solms, Mark, and Oliver H. Turnbull. “What is Neuropsychoanalysis?” Neuropsychoanalysis, vol. 13, no. 2, 2011, 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/15294145.2011.10773670

Stefana, Alberto, et al. “Where is Psychoanalysis Today?” International Forum of Psychoanalysis, vol. 30, no. 4, 2021, 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/0803706X.2021.19915