Famed psychologist, Sigmund Freud, is perhaps one of the most iconic and influential figures in the sphere of faulty scientific reasoning to date. Though his theories and ideas remain to be integral parts of psychological culture, a large number of them have been wildly disproven by modern scientists, who cite Freud’s misuse of evidence (more specifically, case studies) as a contributing factor to the erroneousness of his claims. Case study, Freud’s preferred method of investigation, extensively examines a single group, person, etc. As a result of this, one cannot use a case study as a dependable source of information, nor can one generalize a case study to a broader population, despite Freud’s multiple attempts to do just that, in a variety of studies dealing with mentally-ill patients. It is outdated and unreliable; a source of evidence that is of little to no scientific value, yet, one that still endures to be staple among discredited scientists and groundless researchers alike. Malcolm Gladwell, author of Outliers, also uses case study in effort to support his counterintuitive claims about success, and, like Freud, his arguments are easily …show more content…
Employing the research method from the very beginning, Gladwell asserts that “those born in the last quarter of the year might as well give up” on athletics, based on a pattern he observed in certain Canadian hockey teams, most players being born in the beginning of the year (Gladwell 32). Though seemingly sound, his argument needs to be supported by more data, including figures from other sports, such as baseball, football, etc., as the data he puts forth, is only applicable to hockey. As it is not wholly representative of all athletes, this means his conclusion that athletes born in the beginning of the year are inherently better than their younger counterparts, is not necessarily