Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Behaviorism VS Psychoanalysis

16 replies to this topic
Ph3L1z14n0
  • Ph3L1z14n0

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007

#1

Posted 10 May 2010 - 11:57 PM

Who's right ? who's wrong ? what's your opinion ?

General Goose
  • General Goose

    Because Jeb Bush is all in my house with disease.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2009

#2

Posted 11 May 2010 - 12:00 AM

As I have no knowledge of this whatsoever, could you explain what this is about please?

Ph3L1z14n0
  • Ph3L1z14n0

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007

#3

Posted 11 May 2010 - 12:16 AM

^ Gladly, somehow I sensed I had to.

I started this topic because of a class I am seeing, called "Personality Psychology I", in this class we learn about the psychoanalitical (sp) stance and views of the human being and personality, now, I know my stuff about psychology, so I kinda butt-headed a lot with my teacher, who is some sort of a Jacques Lacan follower, we argued on who was right, psychoanalysis, or behaviorism, or another branch like cognitivism.

Since this is a great topic of debate amongst psychologists, I wanted to find what others think, and this forum is pretty damn good for debating.

Psychoanalysis dictates, basically, that a human being's actions are guided by the unconscious component and the conflict it creates with other mental structures, it's founder is Sigmund Freud, you can learn more through this link Psychoanalysis

Behaviorism on the other hand, considers that a human being's actions are product of learning, mostly through classical and operant conditioning, this is a very positivist and rigidly scientific approach, it's founder was John B. Watson, you can learn more through this link Behaviorism

General Goose
  • General Goose

    Because Jeb Bush is all in my house with disease.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2009

#4

Posted 11 May 2010 - 12:20 AM

Hmm. Interesting. I'd heard of psychoanalysis, but thanks for explaining it all. I'll write my opinion tomorrow, 1:20am right now so I better get to bed soon. tounge.gif

What do you think?

Ph3L1z14n0
  • Ph3L1z14n0

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007

#5

Posted 11 May 2010 - 12:36 AM

QUOTE (General Goose @ May 11 2010, 00:20)
What do you think?

It's a complicated issue, but in certain ways, the discussion is similar to "Creationism VS Evolution"

One is a belief, a subjective interpretation.

The other is a theory, an objective interpretation.

I am more on the side of science, something which psychoanalysis isn't, the latter was a clinical interpretation of a lot of pathological patients that Sigmund Freud treated, he created a whole group of ideas about the mind (all based on his own subjective belief) and about human behavior, for some it made complete sense and was found to be incredibly attractive, sadly, there is no proof at all of anything that Freud or his followers say, no proof at all besides their own "common sense", which can be quite tricky.

Behaviorism on the other hand, proves what it says, behaviorists prove their theories through empyrical (sp) contrast, they don't talk a lot about the mind, some are much more radical and say that the mind doesn't exist, others are more humble and say that there are really no means to properly study it just yet, we can only hypothesize (sp) about it.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#6

Posted 12 May 2010 - 10:00 PM

I would not make the claim that either is exclusive to the having a clue on the human condition nor would I claim that the showdown is complete without several other areas and even branches of psychology.

I wouldn't leave Dr. Carl Jung and the continuances of Myers-Briggs work out of the plethora either.

Not to mention branches such as Gestalt therapy, Logos Therapy/Dr. Victor Frankle, Transactional Analysis/Dr. Eric Berne and several others.

To me there is a break in the very question of which is right and which is wrong and the reason for this is best understood by Archetypes in Jung's work then by racket and game transactions in Berne's work.

Any questions?

Tyler
  • Tyler

    Roy Orbison singing to the lonely

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • None
  • Best Poem 2014
    Best Story 2014
    Most Talented Writer 2014
    Newcomer of the Year 2010

#7

Posted 12 May 2010 - 10:04 PM

Behaviorism.

Plain and simple, for me I don't see sub-conscious actions being taking, without any sort of learning, through our whole life.

I mean, it's like saying we're f*cking robots sub-conciously.

Ph3L1z14n0
  • Ph3L1z14n0

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007

#8

Posted 12 May 2010 - 11:52 PM

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ May 12 2010, 22:00)
To me there is a break in the very question of which is right and which is wrong and the reason for this is best understood by Archetypes in Jung's work then by racket and game transactions in Berne's work.

I would probably agree with you if we had any sort of proof about Jung's archetypes biggrin.gif !

That is my point of disagreement, one theory proves what they say (behaviorism), the other one simply asks us to trust their word (psychoanalysis).

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#9

Posted 17 May 2010 - 01:02 AM

QUOTE (Ph3L1z14n0 @ May 12 2010, 18:52)
QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ May 12 2010, 22:00)
To me there is a break in the very question of which is right and which is wrong and the reason for this is best understood by Archetypes in Jung's work then by racket and game transactions in Berne's work.

I would probably agree with you if we had any sort of proof about Jung's archetypes biggrin.gif !

That is my point of disagreement, one theory proves what they say (behaviorism), the other one simply asks us to trust their word (psychoanalysis).

Myers Briggs picked up where he left off and the proof is in the testing which is demonstrated rather easily and very effective for everything from demonstrating the sixteen basic differing methods of processing information to demonstrating how the mess and conflict with one another, by this assertion we are left with more than simple divisions of "types of illness" and "sets of comparative effectiveness of upbringing" which both cognitive and behavioral psychology draw their breath from.

In short, there is an escape from logical process if we accept that healthy and unhealthy minds, each unhealthy to its proper category, is all that there is to psychology.

We have a demonstrative assertion with Jung's work and it has been for many years and even decades now.

The advantage with Transactional Analysis coupled with Jung/Myers-Briggs is one of complete wonder by comparison and its effectiveness and treatment is expotentially better than the current majority of psychoanalysis.

There is plenty of room for all, IMO, yet the difference is important to distinguish or else we start into choosing one branch being "on its own" without the benefit of the other to back it up and get to the core of comprehension about the human mind.

Choosing one branch as superior and to state that the other has nothing by comparison to offer is complete nonsense, even if it is to demonstrate the mistakes one can make in regards to the psychology and mind of another.....it still contributes that much.

Ph3L1z14n0
  • Ph3L1z14n0

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007

#10

Posted 17 May 2010 - 01:30 AM

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy)
Myers Briggs picked up where he left off and the proof is in the testing which is demonstrated rather easily and very effective for everything from demonstrating the sixteen basic differing methods of processing information to demonstrating how the mess and conflict with one another, by this assertion we are left with more than simple divisions of "types of illness" and "sets of comparative effectiveness of upbringing" which both cognitive and behavioral psychology draw their breath from.


I can't really take your word for it tounge.gif , even if I did, then what kind of "proof" is this ?

As for the rest of your post, RELAX, you are spreading at the speed of light lol.gif

Canofceleri
  • Canofceleri

    OG

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2001

#11

Posted 17 May 2010 - 03:02 PM

QUOTE (Ph3L1z14n0 @ May 16 2010, 21:30)
QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy)
Myers Briggs picked up where he left off and the proof is in the testing which is demonstrated rather easily and very effective for everything from demonstrating the sixteen basic differing methods of processing information to demonstrating how the mess and conflict with one another, by this assertion we are left with more than simple divisions of "types of illness" and "sets of comparative effectiveness of upbringing" which both cognitive and behavioral psychology draw their breath from.


I can't really take your word for it tounge.gif , even if I did, then what kind of "proof" is this ?

As for the rest of your post, RELAX, you are spreading at the speed of light lol.gif

Can't keep up with him?

Rather than it conjure up the ridiculous Evolution vs. Creationism debate, it makes me think more of the phrase Nature vs. Nurture, which is to say I don't think there's much of a fight. It's usually the complex relationship both have with each other than produces the results.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#12

Posted 17 May 2010 - 05:46 PM Edited by HolyGrenadeFrenzy, 17 May 2010 - 06:12 PM.

QUOTE (Candarelli @ May 17 2010, 10:02)
QUOTE (Ph3L1z14n0 @ May 16 2010, 21:30)
QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy)
Myers Briggs picked up where he left off and the proof is in the testing which is demonstrated rather easily and very effective for everything from demonstrating the sixteen basic differing methods of processing information to demonstrating how the mess and conflict with one another, by this assertion we are left with more than simple divisions of "types of illness" and "sets of comparative effectiveness of upbringing" which both cognitive and behavioral psychology draw their breath from.


I can't really take your word for it tounge.gif , even if I did, then what kind of "proof" is this ?

As for the rest of your post, RELAX, you are spreading at the speed of light lol.gif

Can't keep up with him?

Rather than it conjure up the ridiculous Evolution vs. Creationism debate, it makes me think more of the phrase Nature vs. Nurture, which is to say I don't think there's much of a fight. It's usually the complex relationship both have with each other than produces the results.

Yes Canderelli, on all counts and it is largely ironic because if you continue along my line of reasoning you eventually find an answer that is rather full into his inquiry on the topic and beyond his line of questioning as well.

Behaviorism works hand in hand very well with Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and provides a healthy antecedent for everything from diagnosis to a position for a norm proposition, and nothing works so well with The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (I)&(II), nor is it any "more provable" than the other and in fact is quite less on the proof. Thus said, we look at the other things I have mentioned and find that with Transactional Analysis to back the process I suggest up further then we are continually growing with our ability to search deeper and gain perspective and answers from the criterion and remain open ended on what situation we can address.

The other approach with the DSM-IV can not do as well in this area, although I do still insist that because of its current dominance within the field at use between client and doctor that we remain aware and intent on staying on board with cataloging diagnosis in this manner until something better fills this particular area out.

-------------------

The trouble with the OP here is that he is quick to jump to conclusions about others and their intentions.

NOT ONCE did I ever insist anyone take my word for anything, here. I gave my opinion and suggested other manners of touching on other areas of the field of psychology to find his answers. To this he rebutted that I was not giving him what he needed and he wouldn't accept what I offered. In truth what he told us all was something else entirely than his approach offered and his comments seemed to poignantly stand for him diametrically opposed to what he attempted to propose.

What he has demonstrated to me is that, because I went beyond his understanding and terms in regards to the field of psychology, what I have said is not fully relevant or irrelevant completely. There is only one reason for this.

He is refusing to do the work I suggest and that others have required at this point and instead wants someone else to do the work for him to his criterion and satisfaction.

You see, sometimes when you ask such questions you find more questions and more work to research to get an intelligible answer worth writing home about, so to speak

>>

My manner of doing that is to suggest other works that will steer him towards the answer himself and then to find that things are far more connected than he reasoned previously with the human mind and our understanding of it. I do this because becoming comprehensive is a personalized process and if you give up an answer without someone getting their machinery to fire properly then they get less than too little out of it and instead remaining a tax on the system instead of a contribution. If you give a man a fish instead of teaching him to fish that is.

<<

And.....he is approaching critical mass with a bitch of an event horizon.

@Ph3L1z14n0= I suggest you take on the speed of light bucko!

If someone requires further breakdown then ask and don't assume anything lest you miss out on something important. If you take from this discussion then I suggest you site it lest a clinch catch you and ruin your grade or reputation.

Canofceleri
  • Canofceleri

    OG

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2001

#13

Posted 17 May 2010 - 07:54 PM

The problem with the OP is that he was hot off a class of Intro to Psych 101 and he thinks he's smart know. lol. I honestly wouldn't waste your time trying to explain yourself, HGF--aside from a couple interesting people, most on here don't know sh*t.

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#14

Posted 18 May 2010 - 05:41 AM

QUOTE (Candarelli @ May 17 2010, 14:54)
The problem with the OP is that he was hot off a class of Intro to Psych 101 and he thinks he's smart know. lol. I honestly wouldn't waste your time trying to explain yourself, HGF--aside from a couple interesting people, most on here don't know sh*t.

That much is clear.

I just like feeding the new fish high dollar food.

Ph3L1z14n0
  • Ph3L1z14n0

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007

#15

Posted 18 May 2010 - 01:14 PM Edited by Ph3L1z14n0, 18 May 2010 - 01:17 PM.

QUOTE (Candarelli)
The problem with the OP is that he was hot off a class of Intro to Psych 101 and he thinks he's smart know. lol. I honestly wouldn't waste your time trying to explain yourself, HGF--aside from a couple interesting people, most on here don't know sh*t.


What's the matter with you ? I am trying to start a basic philosophycal (sp) debate which is very common in psychology, and that is special to me because I went from an alma mater, who's teachers were radical behaviorists, to a more pluralistic one, I eventually started discussing with my teacher since he was more fond of the dynamic approach and that's how this topic came to be.

If I told HolyGrenadeFrenzy to slow down, it wasn't because I was insulting him or making remarks about his comments, nor because I wasn't understanding him, it was because I thought he was talking about something else that deviated from the debate I wanted.

I wanted this debate to be more of a debate on which theory is more valid if we take into consideration the philosophy behind science, if we consider the struggle between Positivism & Constructivism, that's it.

So really Candarelli, If you got a chip on your shoulder, if my comments annoy you, then really, don't bother to post, it's as simple as that.

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy)
The trouble with the OP here is that he is quick to jump to conclusions about others and their intentions.


That doesn't mean that I thought that what you said was invalid at all, I simply expected a more theoretical argument.

QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy)
NOT ONCE did I ever insist anyone take my word for anything, here. I gave my opinion and suggested other manners of touching on other areas of the field of psychology to find his answers.


Be cool man, I don't think I slapped you in the face when you made your post, did I ? wow.gif

Really, I apologize for any misinterpretation that came from my second post, I "rebutted" (if there's any word tot that) what you said because I thought you were leading the debate into a more clinical and practical discussion, when the purposes of this debate where better placed, in my opinion, at the theory, perhaps I should've clarified that in the opening post ?

HolyGrenadeFrenzy
  • HolyGrenadeFrenzy

    drrnage E ih unarEy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006

#16

Posted 18 May 2010 - 02:24 PM

Got it!

Well done on your reiteration.

I'll be back after bit to assist in this manner that you are desiring....

The rhetorical approach to this particular showdown?

Or do you LIKE surprises?


Tom Toole
  • Tom Toole

    getting better all the time

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2005

#17

Posted 22 May 2010 - 12:24 PM

I wanna play too...

And talk about behaviorism and...

psychoanalisis. and psychiatry. and objective and subjective sciences that are both scientific and that really neither are truly scientific because both are contaminated by the fact that we - the subject looking at the object - is... ummm... I guess I want K2 help with this cause I forgot the word. - Relative maybe? I don't think that's exactly it.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users