Talk:Freudian slip/Archive 1

Archive 1

Other meaning??

Paraprax as Freuds term of slip-of-speech is certainly correct, but I've also somewhere (borrowed book in the 1980's) read that the term is also applied to a certain science philosophy attitude that disregards the necessity of using established methods, and only regards verification as a measure of correctness. Such as f.ex.: "it doesn't matter if you got the results by demon conjuring, the only real issue is whether it's true". Rursus 10:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have investigated this matter, and found that Prof. Ingemar Nordin at the University of Linköping, LiU, Sweden - in science philosophy contexts - uses the word paraprax as a sort of generalized term counterpart (scientific) paradigm (Thomas Kuhn), which is a set of:

scientific theory,

metaphysical theories,

scientific ideals, and,

tacit knowledge of how to use the theory (?= methodology ?).

The generalization paraprax (Ingemar Nordin), spans over many enterprises of society, not just one enterprise like science only. I would translate Prof. Ingemar Nordin's term paraprax to productive force culture. But while the psychology derives (?) the term from Greek para- and praxis, Nordin creates his word by mutation of paradigm and praxis.

Conclusion: Prof. Nordin's term is usable - but I've found that it's just him using it this way. Therefore I recommend not adding this meaning to the article, until it's use is widespread. Qaþ: User:Rursus 12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Paraclix

Freudian slips are going to happen less and less. They will be replaced more and more, due to the use of computers, by Freudian mouseclicks. How can they be documented? An exemple: you think you click on a specific line but, behold, something totally different opens up. The opened-up page displays something you despise. And a few minutes ago you discussed with your neighbour. Checking this line and the line you were supposed to open tells you they are not next to each other. So it can't be Parkinson to blame. [This statement is a false argument. Based on the relation of programming and hardware you can end up with a misalligned visual representation for the location of the mouse, this is a common occurance. No studies have been shown to prove this. A very comprehensive and complex control system will need to be in place for software/hardware/content.] Harry polman

As long as human speech exists, there will be Freudian slips.

There's a Far Side cartoon of a "Freudian Slide" showing Freud sliding into second base in a baseball game. I found it quite clever.--Daveswagon 02:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It's when you say one thing, but mean your mother. Istvan 03:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to say, "It's when you mean one thing, but say your mother."? The concept in what is currently stated is backwards in a similar way as, "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Is this how it is popularly stated?

Makes perfect sense. "It's when you say one thing, but mean a mother." is a freudian slip when trying to explain what a freudian slip is. 87.94.56.103 (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL Saccerzd 19:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The (apparently) direct quote beginning "Sometimes the truth has a way of coming out..." needs attribution and a source. - dcljr (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that's just a common saying. I might be wrong. Jeff Silvers 02:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt there will be "Freudian mouseclicks". Your browser screwed up, your mouse spazzed, or your hand jerked when you clicked on that link. There is no reason to associate it with a Freudian Slip. Clickin on the wrong link is more akin to turning to the wrong page in a book or losing a game of darts because you can't hit your mark.

Does anyone have any famous Freudian Slips?

Sure -- Condoleezza once referred to George W. Bush as "My husb... the president.." despite having never been married. It was a big topic for media humor for a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.82.82 (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Slip of the tongue redirect

Slip of the tongue redirects here, but I'm not sure that this is appropriate. Technically, not every slip of the tongue is "freudian" in nature (i.e. having deeper significance). Sometimes people simply mis-speak. Any thoughts? --71.36.251.182 23:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO I think the redirect is OK. If it's not, the objector can create a separate mis-speak article. Rursus 15:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lapsus

Lapsus is the latin term for a Freudian slip. While the word didn't initially have the exact meaning (the mis-speaking was not related to the unconcious) today all over Europe it is being used as the synonym of "Freudian Slip." It should be mentioned somewhere and possibly there should be a link added to the definition of Lapsus.

It is not a synonyim of lapsus, and two articles shouldn't be merged. Freudian slip and lapsus are two different things (there are several types of lapsuses..). Freudian slip is when you say exactly what are you trying to hide, and because you think of it so much, it comes to surface. So in my opinion, Freudian slip is a lapsus, but not every lapsus is a Freudian slip. -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 21:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep status quo, per 'above' -Andrew 02:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I suppose, I was going to say "yes, merge them, but the merged article should be Freudian slip", when I read the above comment. I now believe that they should be separate articles but the content of Lapsus (almost all a dupe) should be deleted/rewritten to make the above clear. Also, how about if Slip of the tongue redirects to Lapsus rather than Freudian slip, that seems to be the truth? - 203.118.142.35 09:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Joke

As a common joke goes, it can be like "saying one thing, but meaning another."

Is that even a joke? It looks like a straight definition to me. I was under the impression that the joke went that Freudian slips are "saying one thing, but meaning your mother". — TheJames 00:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Freudian Slips and Lying

Wouldn't some Freudian Slips result from Lying? 70.184.32.37 04:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Last Sentence

Could someone explain for me the last sentence? Unless I am confused, it seems to open a whole new topic in a very unclear way and leave it hanging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.82.82 (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The obligatory lightbulb joke

How many freudian psychoanalysts does it take to change a lightbulb?

Two. One to change the bulb, and the other to hold the penis.

Ack! The ladder, I mean the ladder! >.<

- Stormwatch 01:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good joke, Stormwatch, but is it appropriate for use here? No offense meant, I'm just hoping children don't stumble across this section. Danny Sepley (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Because, of course, children have neither penises nor the concept of penises?! I wondered whether you were being serious, but decided you're probably just a repressed American, since Americans have no trouble with violence and killing but get extremely hung up about normal body parts.

Not to mention the hundreds of wikipedia pages on sexual organs, sexual perversions, sexual toys, sexual rituals, and Sigmund Freud. Then again, Freud says it's an adult's delusion that children are pure and asexual. 204.69.190.75 (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What about reading the word "ladder" in the joke above as "bladder" , while needing to go to the bathroom and having the bladder in mind . would that be a reading f.s. ?

Examples

Recently, on YouTube, I saw a video where President Bush made a Freudian slip--that's what led me to this article in the first place to better understand what it is. Now, what he said was "Our enemies are very creative, and so are we. They never stop thinking of ways to harm our country, and neither do we." It's plain that he was simply accidentally misusing parallel structure, but it is hilarious nonetheless to most people who dislike Bush. The problem is, I think common courtesy dictates that YouTube videos cannot be used for citations. I have no other proof that he ever made this slip. Under what other circumstances could I add such a thing? It would seem degrading to the president if I added it without proof. Please contact me on my talk page if possible, as my memory isn't so good on what page I was discussing. Danny Sepley (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The example given (Rice calling Pres. Bush her husband) is not supported by the citation. The Guardian article does not contain that phrase or anything similar. Perhaps we should find clearer examples? Any suggestions? Solomon Rose (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

http://mindprod.com/politics/bushismsfreud.html#FREUD EDIT: This link is more to the point. 71.28.91.99 (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The example is invalid anyway, as it is clearly an example of a slip of the tongue, not a Freudian slip.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Page move?

According to the article:

The Freudian slip is named after Sigmund Freud, who described the phenomenon he called Fehlleistung (literally meaning "faulty action" in German), but termed as parapraxis (from the Hellenic παρά + πράξις, meaning "other action") in English.

So,.. should this article be moved to parapraxis? Sexkcd (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be. After all, when Freud discussed parapraxes, they included all mental mistakes, from misreading a sentence to accidentally saying one thing instead of another. The "Freudian Slip," as it was later termed, only refers to slips of the tongue. 204.69.190.75 (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

--so what would an intentional parapraxis be termed? (In other words an intentional misnomer such as "loud-mouth mute" or "idiotic genuis") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.247.31 (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Examples

This needs them. 74.32.237.31 (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a single example of a Freudian slit on this page. I know that Wikipedia administers have a thing about lists but at least give an example if you've got a whole article about it.--Xania ^talk 02:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Freudian slit"? That sounds very much like a Freudian slip to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.35.86 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Defaulting to mobile?

Is it just me, or is this page, and only this page, defaulting to mobile view for some reason? Is there anything in the code that might cause that? Twin Bird (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you using an i(diot)Phone or i(diot)Pad by any chance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.35.86 (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Historical use

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Does anyone know any candidates for the earlier or earliest historical usage of this phrase and whether or not it predates parapraxis? 184.146.167.125 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freudian slip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071205074434/http://www.smithsrisca.demon.co.uk/speech-errors.html to http://www.smithsrisca.demon.co.uk/speech-errors.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Alternative explanations

The "Alternative explanations" sections has two references to MacMahon that don't make sense. I imagine references got shuffled around w/ changes re moving content to the "Speech error" page? I'm not savvy enough to quickly see where the edits came in and where the proper references were lost. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielsgriffin (talk • contribs) 16:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Alternative explanations

The "Alternative explanations" sections has two references to MacMahon that don't make sense. I imagine references got shuffled around w/ changes re moving content to the "Speech error" page? I'm not savvy enough to quickly see where the edits came in and where the proper references were lost. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielsgriffin (talk • contribs) 16:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

edits to article

There were (and still are) several things about this entry that are problematic. I deleted the jokey reference to "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," since it violates the neutral POV advocated by Wikipedia--it's also commonly ascribed to Freud, but doesn't appear anywhere in his writings. Some people claim it was said in a lecture, but there's no evidence for that, either; it appears to be apocryphal. The article also referred to the "subconscious" mind, but the term subconscious only appeared in pop psychology--Freud's term, and the "real" term, is unconscious. I think more edits are still needed here. The "example" of "Dr. Fraud" doesn't seem like a Freudian slip at all, but like--no surprise--an attack on Freud and his theories; I think it also violates the POV rule.

The order of presentation (and the amount of coverage) for the sections skew the article's direction out of focus from the Freudian slip. I'd like to implement some changes such as moving the "Evidence" section ahead of the "Alternative explanations" section in addition to providing more information under "Evidence." Fermentedtoes (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)