psychoanalytical and humanistic theories of personality

[jwong3328]

i only know briefly about these two theories. i have been asked to compare and contrast the two theories and so far i have only come up with very little.

 

* Both theories have many and valid criticism.

* Psychoanalysis suggest that we have no control over our behaviour and is determined by the unconcious. Humanistic theory, on the other hand, gives humans psychological freedom.

* Psychoanalytic theory says most of our motivations based on sex. Humanistic says we are motivated to grow and mature as people.

 

Are there any other similarities and/or differences that you guys know and want to share? thanks in advance.

[jwong3328]

rightio, ive done my research and written the essay. When i get it back, ill post it up if anyone's interested.

[michael]

rightio, ive done my research and written the essay. When i get it back, ill post it up if anyone's interested.

Yes please

What did you get (You don't have to answer that question)

[livanis]

I think that the similarity between the two is that there is no evidence to support them as valid predictors of human bheavior and functioning.

[PhDP]

I think that the similarity between the two is that there is no evidence to support them as valid predictors of human bheavior and functioning.

 

Yep

 

It's somehow surprising that they are still considered "good enough" to be taught at the university level.

[psiji]

Yep

 

It's somehow surprising that they are still considered "good enough" to be taught at the university level.

 

Interestingly, psychoanalysis is still taught to many Med students in residency for psychiatry training. Seems a bit counterproductive to teach out dated methods of psychotherapy when much better options exist (i.e. cognitive-behavioral therapies, which I'm sure are taught as well).

[Glider]

Yep

 

It's somehow surprising that they are still considered "good enough" to be taught at the university level.

I think they are taught in the context of 'if we want to know where we're going, we need to know where we've come from', rather than a 'listen up guys, this is how things actually are' kind of thing. The history of Psychology is an integral part of teaching modern Psychology.

 

The problem is that so many students (as with most other lay people) have no real idea what Psychology is about and enrol thinking they're going to spend three years in dingy coffee shops arguing about Jung and Freud. These students seem unablt to tell the difference between the history and the modern approach and also have the greatest problem with the science components.

 

This year in the UK, under a government directive, schools have begun to teach A level Psychology as a science. I'm hoping this results in the enrolment of students with a more realistic idea of Psychology.