One of the great problems in tracing a line of thought through history is that no one is aware of the future and what will hold as right and wrong in it. This seems like a simple statement, but in science and the study human nature especially, it means that no historical philosopher or psychologist is without a bulk of knowledge attached to their few seeds of truth that is either no longer, or perhaps never was based in reality. Or was a product of that periods environment and social constructs. So that when discoveries are made, they are often ignored or forgotten until society becomes interested or ready for them. And for us in hindsight, what seems revolutionary may really be--but it also may have had no great impact on the science or influence on psychology; it was simply revolutionary in thought because it was in common with that later school of thought, but did not influence it. Despite these shortcomings, the history of clinical psychology and observation is a topic worth pursuing because it represents one of the most practical applications of psychology,  and with the reader aware of these pitfalls, can provide great insight into why we think the way we do, and  the often historically cyclical that way of thinking, as humans remain human.