Talk:Freudian slip

Other meaning??

Paraprax as Freuds term of slip-of-speech is certainly correct, but I've also somewhere (borrowed book in the 1980ies) read that the term is also applied to a certain science philosophy attitude that disregards the necessity of using established methods, and only regards verifiability 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 counterparting (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.

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)

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?

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.

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)