I think we all agree that Freudian theories don't fit this site's scope. But I also think we all agree that Freudian theories have been, and probably still are, too influential to be put aside as off-topic.

I think we should stop putting Freudian Psychology-related questions on hold as being off-topic, by saying it is Pseudoscience, Instead, I propose to close them as being duplicates on a properly formulated community-based wiki answer stating that Freudian psychology is considered pseudocience.

For example this question will likely end up closed based on our new close-vote reason, but instead it would be much more constructive to close it as being a duplicate of a Freud = Pseudoscience answer, imo.

To this end, I have generated a question-and-answer on Freud being pseudoscience. I would like to reach a consensus here on this and I would like the answer to become a community answer. The answer could then be edited at will by active community members.

This post is much related and if people think that question can serve a similar purpose I'm totally fine too. However, in my opinion a more explicit and community-based wiki answer would be more helpful for its purpose.

This related post addressed the issue as well.

  • This was also discussed as part of our last big community discussion in chat: cogsci.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2251/21
    – Steven Jeuris Mod
    Commented Sep 12, 2017 at 7:44
  • @StevenJeuris so you reckon the community post is OK? As well as the idea to close questions being a dupe, instead of being off topic?
    – AliceD Mod
    Commented Sep 12, 2017 at 8:04
  • 2
    To a certain degree, but not necessarily as a catch-all solution. "There seems to be consensus to just answer the questions with current scientific theories, to confirm or dismiss Freudian theories (and theories with a similar reputation)." Rather than dismissing a question by pointing out the theory upon which it is based is now considered pseudoscience, one could alternatively also post an actual answer in light of a different theory (if that applies of course).
    – Steven Jeuris Mod
    Commented Sep 12, 2017 at 15:29
  • 2
    @StevenJeuris, agreed but multiple questions have been closed on the topic as being off topic. I find that a bit disturbing. We should be welcoming to new questions and Freud should be on topic imo. Duping them rather than telling the community the question doesn't belong here is better imo. Even as a catch all solution.
    – AliceD Mod
    Commented Sep 13, 2017 at 6:42
  • 1
    Saying that "we all agree that Freudian theories don't fit this site's scope" is totally incorrect. I don't agree for the reasons I stated in the related post you included. This proposal would be the start of a slippery slope. If you stop discussion of Freud, what happens to Carl Rogers et al.? As stated, the whole of Psychology is considered pseudoscientific, but the heading of this stack has Psychology in the title. If we are going down that road, should we not split the stack in 2? Commented Jan 17, 2018 at 11:05


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .