We now know that Freud was a troubled individual and an inveterate liar and that he didn’t do any scientific verification but basically made up stories, especially including claimed outcomes. He was an accomplished charlatan and his “work” should have no credibility.
Here is an excerpt from the article that answers your concerns
1. "researchers are nevertheless finding empirical support for several of his ideas, either in their original form or as they have been modified by others."
2. "Consequently, no student of personality should skip over this theory, even if the theory does not play a large role in contemporary studies of personality. Pieces of it have survived and inform various parts of current personality research and theory and so it is worth taking a good look at Freud’s classic theory as well as the contemporary modifications of it."
We now know that Freud was a troubled individual and an inveterate liar and that he didn’t do any scientific verification but basically made up stories, especially including claimed outcomes. He was an accomplished charlatan and his “work” should have no credibility.
Here is an excerpt from the article that answers your concerns
1. "researchers are nevertheless finding empirical support for several of his ideas, either in their original form or as they have been modified by others."
2. "Consequently, no student of personality should skip over this theory, even if the theory does not play a large role in contemporary studies of personality. Pieces of it have survived and inform various parts of current personality research and theory and so it is worth taking a good look at Freud’s classic theory as well as the contemporary modifications of it."
I read the article, thank you, and these claims in no way validate Freud’s frauds.
Then who got it right when it comes to psychoanalysis/unconscious?