Objective Psychology and Psychoanalysis

Objective Psychology and Psychoanalysis
1. Objective psychology and psychoanalysis have much in common. Wulff compares these studies on page two hundred and fifty eight by stating ?both reject unaided introspection as a means of gathering fundamental data.? In other words, in neither psychoanalysis nor objective psychology, can a person take an observation made from themselves about themselves and consider it fundamental data. Another similarity would be ?that human conduct is the outcome of complexly determined casual events that lie outside awareness?
In this particular case, both types of science believe that the way we act is an outcome of more than one event that may have occurred outside of our knowing. An example could be being stressed out or feeling anxiety. Both psychoanalysts and objective psychologists ?are [considered] the self-conscious products of a positivistic and materialistic world-view [that are] dedicated to saving humankind from its deep-rotted delusions and self-defeating ignorance? (258). This point in particular relates to the idea that both studies believe they are saving people and society from what is not real. A point in case would be if a person were a person believed in God. Because you cannot feel, touch, smell, or see God, he would be considered unreal scientifically. Wulff points out that both ?have issued radical challenges to religious faith? (258). However, both sciences share the view of empirical science meaning the both agree that the studies should be based on sensory experiences.
Although psychoanalysis and objective psychology have many similarities they also have a few dissimilarities. The difference that is most observant would be the one of subjectivity. The best way to explain the subjectivity was written by the author of our text as ?objective [psychologists] limit themselves to observable behavior equally accessible to other scientists? (258). On the other side you have the psychoanalysts who ?draw their evidence from the private inner world of the individual psyche? (258). Where objective psychologists use observations that are accessible to all sciences and observers the psychoanalyst draw all of their conclusion on facts that come from studies of the individual?s brain. This makes the psychoanalysts ?become participant-observers in the lives of their suffering patients? (258). That is, they use longer studies that, at times, become personal and intimate. The objective psychologists use ?terse and quantified responses of randomly selected subjects? (258). These studies are shorter and not personal because the patients or subjects are picked randomly and completely unrelated.
2. In Sigmund Freud?s studies, he studied religion and how it reflected on people during different stages of his life. The stages he comes to discover were those of the oral stage, anal stage, phallic stage, and the genital stage. All of these stages are related to how a child reacts to mothers and fathers and how the Oedipus complex plays a role from infancy through adulthood. The way Freud believed these stages started and progressed are involved with his two theories of psychology. One is the ontogenetic theory, which is most enhanced by Freud, and the phylogenetic theory which is the theory by Freud that is the most criticized.
The ontogenetic theory is a theory designed to explain one part of psychology. According to page three hundred and nine, ontogenetic theory is the ?bearing on the rise of individual piety.? The place the individual virtues can be found is the experiences we gain as infants. These experiences are those of ?helplessness and the longing for protection by the omnipotent father? (309). One of many psychologists that studied whether or not we long for protection from a father figure was Kimball Young. In 1926, Young reported ?of the 2922 Protestant hymns that he classified, the largest portion-33 percent-were on the theme of infantile return to a powerful and loving protector who shields humankind from all harm? (309). In most religions this is considered the ?father? or ?mother.? This goes a long with Freud?s God-as-infantile-father proposition. The God-as-father-proposition is basically just where Freud had taken correlations from God and measured them against the mother and father figures. The correlation between God and the mother were higher on average than those of God and the father. Spiro and D?Andrade, psychologists from 1958, performed a study on Freud?s mode of relating to divine beings. What Spiro and D?Andrade found was ?high initial satisfaction of dependency needs . . . related to the use of compulsive rituals? (310). The correlation of the infant was high with those of crying and other reactions that would be typical of a young child. Another correlation found by Spiro and D?Andrade was ?high expectation of having to solicit parental concern correlated significantly with . . . nurturance? (310). In other words, as a child grew older, the relation of having to have parental concern was highly related to how much they were nurtured. No scientific study can actually give results on Freud?s claim of whether or not God is ?nothing but an exalted father? because you cannot test something that does not exist in the physical world (311).
The second part of psychology that Freud speaks about is the phylogenetic theory. This theory is ?the origin of religion in the human race? (309). Phylogenetic theory is the part of psychology that has received the most criticism over the years. Many of Freud?s critics hold the argument that Freud ?has seriously neglected both the diversity of religion?s forms and the complexity of its character? (317). According to the critics, Freud did not recognize or ignored the childhood tendencies to ask questions such as what, why, how, when. Gordon Allport, a critic of Freud?s religious theories, argued in 1950 that ?whatever the origins of a religious expression may be, its significance or meaning in the present must be viewed independently allowing for possibility of fundamental change? (317). One example of this is ?Freud?s . . . view that, contrary to appearances, religion has undergone no real historical development? (317). Although Freud was wrong on a few aspects of religion he taught scientists many things. Wulff states on page three hundred eighteen that ?among the lessons we have learned from Freud is the insight that nothing is ever as simple as it first appears . . . psychological phenomena prove again and again to be indefinitely complex . . . on a variety of different levels.?
3. Melanie Klein was a psychoanalyst who emphasized an ?unprecedented degree [to] the early modes of infantile sexuality and the principle of the death impulse

Objective Psychology and Psychoanalysis 8.7 of 10 on the basis of 3796 Review.