Talk:Dora (case study)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Cool article. While you're working on it, could you add some reference? I'd like to read more about Ida. Rklawton 18:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently at work at the moment, but I intend to put some more references in when I get home.

Try checking out the book "In Dora's Case" for some more critical commentary of Ida's treatment by Freud. Unfortunately, Dora's case seems to have become a Free-for-All for anyone who feels like it to dismiss Freud and all of his theories, I have had tourble finding anything that supports Freud in relation to Dora, simply because of the sheer number of critical articles, papers and books.

quality; neutral pov[edit]

As with most of the articles in Wikipedia about Freud, this is poorly written (the first two paragraphs are almost devoid of punctuation; phrases such as "comments like" rather than "comments such as"), and is entirely negative in its assessment. It immediately offers a supposed feminist critique (but links to no outside sources and gives no references) of Freud, and offers a total of one footnote to an article calling Freud a fraud that includes an interview with Frederick Crews, Freud's most vocal opponent. No balance of any kind is suggested. The article gives no summary of the case or introduction to the characters involved, and hence later comments about "Herr K" will likely be unintelligible to readers. The "criticism of Freud's account" is almost entirely a summary of the case, and does not offer a critique—it merely asserts that it was malpractice, without saying why. It's also just a long quote of another web page, which isn't allowed.

I've fixed the grammar and punctuation of the first part of the article, and will remove the portion about feminist critiques--this does not belong in a biographical article about Ida Bauer, and it is repeated verbatim (equally poorly punctuated) in the main article about Freud--also with no citation to any outside sources of actual feminists actually criticizing Freud. It is against Wikipedia guidelines to simply quote long portions of other people's writing, and so I am deleting the section on "criticism of Freud's account" for the time being. Does anyone want to write a summary of some of the critiques of Dora? And does anyone have any more biographical information about Ida Bauer, which is what the bulk of this page should probably actually be about? Prosopopeia 01:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

This is a HUGE quote, and nothing but the first sentence appears to be "criticism". The rest of the quote is merely going over what Dora told Freud and what Freud made of it. I'm removing it (again). Feel free to put in another "Criticism" section (as the article will need it), but do not replace the quote. --DearPrudence 09:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malpractice[edit]

Freud's handling of the "Dora" case can only be described as a case of gross misconduct. Here are the facts known to Freud (please see Fredrick Crew's article "The Unknown Freud", New Review of Books, 1993 and Lakoff and Coyne's book "Father Knows Best: The Use and Abuse of Power in Freud's Case of Dora", Teachers College Press).

1. D's father was syphilitic and having an affair with wife of close family friend, Herr K. 2. Herr K had sexual interest in D when she was only 14 and pressed his interest on her again when D went to Freud at age 18. 3. D's father in an attempt to appease Herr K and to mitigate his own indiscretions with Herr K's wife, tells D to accept Herr K's advances. 4. D confronts father about this and he sends her to see Freud.

Freud's analysis with these facts in hand? D is told to accept her responsibility and to go along with the wishes of both her father and Herr K. Why? So that Freud could claim that D was hysterical and that in denying the advances of the pedophilic Herr K, she was repressing her own sexual desires. His advice to D, just go along with her father and Herr K and everything would be okay. That type of advice in today's standards of practise would likely result in a removal of one's license to practise for professional misconduct.

The importance of D's case for the psychoanalytic approach is that it represents one of many clear examples of why the "scientific" foundation on which it is built is at best shaky and at worst delusional —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.242.137 (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

criticism section again[edit]

It's been two years, and the criticism section still consists exclusively of passive voice constructions with no references. It "is often discussion" in feminist circles, we are told. Is it? I have rarely if ever heard my colleagues in Gender & Women's Studies mention it. His comments "are seen to imply" passivity. By whom? It's certainly true that Freud has been extensively critiqued by others—give a citation. I'll say again, however: this does not belong in an article on Ida Bauer. Criticism of Freud—unless it's specific to Dora's case—should be in an article on Freud. (talk)

Recent changes[edit]

I've tried to clean it up a little, demarcate some space for expansion. I will have some more content in the next few days.Phyesalis (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name 'Dora'[edit]

In the article it is said: "Freud gave her the name 'Dora' after a maid working in the Freud house by the same name." Is there any reference for that statement?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.20.61 (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some more information[edit]

[1], [2], [3], [4], engl., engl., engl..

Austerlitz -- 88.72.20.61 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Propaniac (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Bauer → Dora (case study) — Common name of the case, which is the article's primary subject. Pnm (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale: Dora is the common name for the case, and Ida Bauer is the common name for this person. Since this isn't a biographical article, it seems that Dora would be a better name. Renaming will be helpful to a user who may not know her real name, especially in contexts like Category:Dreaming or Category:Women and psychology. Both subjects are likely notable, so the other alternative would be to recreate Ida Bauer as a biographical stub after the rename, like Anna O. and Bertha Pappenheim. --Pnm (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lots more Google results for +dora +freud (321,000) than +"ida bauer" +freud (12,300). --Pnm (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, per above, This is another title that makes no sense. The article seems to be about the case study and not Ida Bauer. So why is it titled Ida Bauer? Also Dora is a disambiguation title, when it should be Dora (disambiguation), then you can use the Dora for the case study or for something else. In this case I would use Dora (case study) because it is lead to a specific topic. It is a waste of name space to have 1 page with 2 titles, Dora and Dora (disambiguation). EunSoo (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mental masturbation?[edit]

"Freud's case study was condemned in its first review as a form of mental masturbation, an immoral misuse of his medical position." When my friends have used the term mental masturbation, they use it to mean engaging in meaningless thought. But in the context of this article, it seems to have a more sinister definition. Wiktionary seems to support that definition, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mental_masturbation. Should the term we use here be changed?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes I made here.[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dora_%28case_study%29&diff=656722914&oldid=626975466 One of my changes here as to simplify the language. I changed the word recounted to described, the word rationale to reason, the word pendant to appendix,etc. I think those changes are good beyond dispute. H.W. Fowler said in The King's English, that when writing in English, one should use the simplest words possible. I changed "as early as" to "beginning", because in the context of that time period, and in Austria where the legal age for sexual activity was 14 then and still is, it was not that unusual that this man was interested in her. Although it would be unusual today, it wasn't that unusual for the time's standards. I felt like saying, "as early as" might be editorializing. However, I do not care as much about that change simplifying the language, so if other editors want to revert that change back I do not care.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:PaulBustion88 is a WP:Sockpuppet of User:RJR3333. See here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dora_(case_study)&oldid=1215208795"