I have never believed that the world needs a St. George to conquer thedragon of Freudian error. I believe that ordinary rational men who arenot captured by professional status images can see the artificiality andlack of genuine love for humanity that characterizes his theories. Oncethis insight has become established in men's minds, what use can it be tofollow Freud into all the byways and sidetracks with which he sought tocover up his own sense of being on shaky ground？ How many times doesan individual have to prove that one and one are two？ Freud obviously had some kind of high impact influence on thepsychological thinking of his time. I wish to identify the nature of thatinfluence without getting lost in the kind of polemics which becomesinvective, a fate which has overcome many of his critics. It is necessaryfor the critic to be firmly oriented toward the search for truth abouthuman nature in his own life if his analysis of Freudian error is to be acontribution to the building of a science of human nature. This monograph is not primarily adversarial in structure. Truth willstand on its own feet, just as error will die of its own weight. Although Irepeatedly point out that Freud made significant and undermining errors,I am doing this to emphasize that every thinker in the human field neednot be lost in the same way. I am primarily interested in creating a bridgefor the communication of my own insights. Polemic writing alwaysmakes for easier comprehension, and no one has ever accused me in thepast of presenting psychological material in a fashion that makes it goodvacation reading.

　　……