[begin transmission]

But 2B, that 'shadow' personality stuff? Isn't it all pseudoscientific nonsense?
Psychoanalysis has been supplanted by behaviorism, which, in turn, has long-since been replaced by modern cognitive science/psychology.

Although there are several psychoanalytic concepts and theories that haven't aged very well at all, that isn't to say that the entire field is without merit. Several of it's tenets have actually proved valid through the century and evolved as science became more sophisticated. The Jungian shadow is one such example of a concept that has withstood both scientific scrutiny and the test of time.

In fact, it's alive and well to this very day and under intense investigation by personality psychologists. Just earlier this month an article was published by the American Psychological Association that explains it in modern terms, with a measure currently in development to quantify it:
http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Frev0000111

Looking back at the past, it's all too easy to focus only on the momentous scientific breakthroughs, thinking that one theory or discipline that rises instantly obsolesces that which precedes it. This isn't true; there's often the migration of central ideas. One could look at the historical example of Phlogiston theory -> caloric theory -> mechanical theory of heat in the context of thermodynamics to see that it certainly isn't the case. Scientists in all three theories knew that the phenomenon of heat involved the transfer and exchange of something, and that notion continued through each transition. Advancement is generated by working off of existing frameworks, imperfect as they might be, but being intellectually honest enough to entertain the possibility that existing theories aren't quite up to scratch, should contradictory data present itself through experimentation.

It speaks to the hubris of the modern hyper-rational mind, I think. To look at all that we've accomplished, reveling in the fruits of our sciences while simultaneously taking them for granted. We read about the theses of yesteryear and scoff at how primitive they are in comparison to our current understanding, failing to acknowledge that they are key, intermediate steps in a much grander, iterative process.

[end transmission]