Although psychoanalysis has some fans and somebody would argued that it is useful in certain ways. It really is no longer a preferred treatment for psychological problems and more generally, very few of the specific Freudian claims about toilet training for instance have proven correct. This is why departments in universities and research laboratories, Freudian ideas are just not talked about that much. Somebody will come to see me at Yale and they'd say, "What kind of courses on Freud do you offer?", and I'll tell them the truth, which is we don't offer any. In a university, Freud is discussed more in an English department than a Psychology department. His ideas, his specific claims are just not thought to be either scientific enough or true enough to admit of careful study and focus. For a psychology student taking the psychology major at Yale, this is probably all Freud they're ever going to hear. So, Freudian theory isn't taken that seriously within contemporary psychological research. Why do we spend so much time talking a little? One of a few reasons. First, Freud has had an extraordinary influence. He's had an extraordinary influence on psychology particularly clinical psychology, and when we turn to talk in the next lecture about Skinner and behaviorism, we can best understand that research tradition as a reaction at least in part to Freud. More than that, Freud has had a tremendous influence about how all of us psychologists and non-psychologists think about the mind. A second reason is that although most of Freudian ideas are not taken seriously, Freud had a lot to say. I think Freud was a brilliant, and important, and very perceptive scholar, and even if we reject most of his ideas, it may well be that a few of them have staying power. For instance, Freud's ideas about dreams have a Go Bag, scholars will disagree quite a bit over the extent to which dreams mean things, but many scientists believe that the idea that dreams captures, I'm sorry hidden meaning. Again, an old idea but something that Freud made a lot of, has quite a bit of merit. Other neuroscientists try to relate Freud's constructs of the id, the ego, and the super-ego to specific parts of the brain. I don't think you can go wrong. Reading Freud with an idea towards cynically, and carefully, and analytically asking, "Okay. A lot of this is bogus." But some of it might be valuable and we should look carefully to see what parts of it we want to keep. Most of all, the grand idea of Freud, the idea of a dynamic unconscious is intact. In fact, in the lectures that follow, we will discuss all sorts of aspects of the mind; language, and prejudice, and development, and emotions. It's going to be a continuing theme how much of what we're talking about, how much that's really of interest lies inaccessible to the conscious mind but actually beneath the surface.