Psychoanalysis

...

Contribution

In order to evaluate the contributions of psychoanalysis in today’s society. We have to consider some qualities which make personality or the behavior being credible and great. Even today as the progress of 21 century psychoanalysis remains the only valid option for those patients suffering from the mental illness. Its popularity and acceptance grew rapidly through conference and organization workshop and numerous institutions. The theories of psychoanalysis encourage innovation and invention during the age revolution. It provided a platform to for critical decision-making and influenced rational thinking (Talvitie, 2012).

Another contribution of psychoanalysis is that fact that it served as a catalyst among many professionals. It prompts them to navigate the connections that make up the development of the human neural system. Many today professionals use it as reference in drawing behavioral changes in a human being. Psychoanalysis enlightened health professionals on an aspect related to the human brain. In comparison to direct psychoanalysis result consider routine commonplace (Kandel, 2014).

The greatest of the contribution of psychoanalysis is that was seen as the most comprehensive theory. The scientists term it as the theory intended to explain therapeutically concepts and the psychological concepts. The theories are used to explain the human development and all parties of mental function. Furthermore many professionals consider the psychoanalysis theory used even to explain outside concepts of the psychoanalysis limit (Talvitie, 2012). For an instant, it is used in religion “in Shakespeare’s character acting as a Hamlet, he contested the nature of companies the involved leaders to be defined using the principles of psychoanalysis”. More so, many individuals contented the theory pointing in a general direction where human being will be able to solve brain romper.

Criticisms

In the current world, every coin is sampled and analyzed in two ways. It emerged that the psychoanalysis theories done by Freud were criticized by the scientific enterprise. The scientist did not recognize the psychoanalysis as a science many of the critics disagreed with the scientific principles (Kandel, 2014). Popper, a far psychoanalysis widely known as Grunbaum critic insisted that psychoanalysis cannot for so ever regarded as science since it is not pseudological. He further revealed that psychoanalysis so called predictions, were not real predictions of obvious but a hidden psychological state. These emerged to be the reason they are most attestable (Kandel, 2014). Popper believes that only when individuals are not erratic; is it practicable to tentatively determine if the prospective patients are currently neurotic (De Board, 2014),

Furthermore (Georgeakopoulos, 2013), asserts that psychoanalysis has always upheld that each person is neurotic in same extent since everyone has ever suffered from trauma at one point in life. In relation to science; other critics claim that psychoanalysis cannot be approved as a science due to its shortage of predictions. Other critics claim psychoanalysis is a state that certain children experiences such as abuse which results in neurosis. According to (De Board, 2014), one should be able to predict the outcome given the symptoms of the current state. For an instant, if a child is in a psychoneurotic state he or she should be able to recount the childhood experience. However, neither of such predictions can be made with any accuracy.

Additionally, critics maintain that psychoanalysis is not a science since it does not have interactive rule regulation. Furthermore, there is no clear inter-subjective shared reasoning between the theories lines. Different psychoanalysis will observe same occurrence and interpret it differently in a way contradicting to that of his counterpart. (De Board, 2014), concluded that if the professional analyst cannot concur a certain interpretation then the rules governing psychoanalytic explanation are unreliable.

In conclusion, Freud theory that explains about the development of an individual somehow is logical. I, however, disagree with some of his explanations as people are different in a way that others develop faster than the others. Some of these theories are biased even after they have been researched and studied for many years by specialists. I disagree that mental problems come with issues from sex. Mental states arise from the development of an individual's mind. The psychoanalytic theory is somehow biased in its explanation. I personally believe that human behaviors can never be predicted, and no one will know how people act in certain situations.

References

Kris, A. O. (2013). Unlearning and learning psychoanalysis. American Imago, 70(3), 341-355.

Gelso, C. J. (2011). The real relationship in psychotherapy: The hidden foundation of change. American Psychological Association.

Kandel, E. R. (2014). Biology and the future of psychoanalysis: a new intellectual framework for psychiatry revisited.

De Board, R. (2014). The Psychoanalysis of Organizations Classic Edition: A Psychoanalytic Approach to Behaviour in Groups and Organizations. Routledge.

Talvitie, V. (2012). The Foundations of Psychoanalytic Theories: Project for a Scientific Enough Psychoanalysis. Karnac Books.

Georgeakopoulos, I. (2013). Psychodynamic-cognitive therapy: Working from the framework of a multimodal matrix of contributors to personality development and behavior. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(4), 359.