Why Did Empirical Dream Researchers Reject Freud? A Critique of Historical Claims by Mark Solms

Datos Bibliográficos

ID3900746
AutoresG William Domhoff (0000-0003-3628-8555)
Año2004
Volumen14
Número1
Páginas3-17
Fecha de publicación2004-03-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaDreaming (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1053-0797 • E-ISSN: 1573-3351
EditorialAmerican Psychological Association (APA) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1037/1053-0797.14.1.3
OpenAlexW2101362503
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas6
Referencias citadas52

Neuropsychologist and psychoanalyst Mark Solms (1997) made a major contribution to dream research through his clinico-anatomical studies, which reveal the outlines of the neural network that underlies dreaming. However, in more recent work he misunderstands the history of the rapid eye movement (REM)/non-REM (NREM) controversy in a Freudian-serving way and ignores the considerable systematic empirical evidence that contradicts the key claims of the Freudian dream theory he is trying to revive. After summarizing Solms’s claims about the history of laboratory dream research, this article suggests a different version of that history and summarizes the empirical findings that explain why Freudian theory is not considered viable by most dream researchers

Dream · Psychoanalysis · Psychotherapist · Memory and Neural Mechanisms · Psychology · Sleep and related disorders · Sleep and Wakefulness Research