Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To see papers related to the one you are viewing…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

When there are articles or videos related to the one you are viewing, you will see a related papers icon next to the title, like this: RelatedPapers32Final3For example:


Click on it and you will see a bibliographic list of papers that are related (including the current one). Related papers may be papers which are commentaries, responses to commentaries, erratum, and videos discussing the paper. Since they are not part of the original source material, they are added by PEP editorial staff, and may not be marked as such in every possible case.


For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Yu, C.K. (2000). J. Allan Hobson and Edward Pace-Schott's Response Commentary by Calvin Kai-ching Yu. Neuropsychoanalysis, 2(2):212-213.

(2000). Neuropsychoanalysis, 2(2):212-213

J. Allan Hobson and Edward Pace-Schott's Response Commentary by Calvin Kai-ching Yu Related Papers

Calvin Kai-ching Yu

Clearing the Ground: Misunderstanding of Freudian Dream Theory

We have always emphasized our own clinical interest in dreams as the transparent syntheses of current concerns, past conflicts, and cognitive-emotional style. We read the current PET evidence as highly supportive of this conceptualization which obviates Freud's complex and dubious assumption of latent vs. manifest content [Hobson and Pace-Schott, 1999, p. 206].

An intelligent conversation about dreams cannot take place without first clarifying Freud's true concepts. There is too much misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of Freudian dream theory in the current dialogue, which has led to unfruitful and often unnecessary dispute. As an enthusiastic reader of Freud, I would like here to illustrate one example: the demarcation between manifest and latent content is not absolute and not always perceivable in Freudian theory as some authorities conceive of it and describe it. On the contrary, the manifest content is not infrequently equivalent to the latent content. Examples of this are common throughout Freud's works, but Freud tended not to study those undisguised dreams simply because there was no need to do so. This does not mean, however, that Freud himself did not give credence to the existence of “transparent dreams.” It is therefore wrong arbitrarily to confine Freud's understanding of dreams to a fixed divergence between manifest and latent content. Whatever the appearance might be, Freud did not in fact claim that all dreams are distorted or disguised.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2019, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.