Welcome to Gaia! ::

AliKat1988's avatar

Mewling Consumer

15,450 Points
  • Alchemy Level 3 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Hive Mind 200
CH1YO
AllisaNero
CH1YO
AllisaNero
I'm not a Freud basher or anything but he really isn't the best. His theories are outdated, untestable, ethnocentric, androcentric and based on very little evidence he was able to gather himself.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?


Someone who is able to objectively study violence in human beings. Freud wasn't able to do this so there has to be some huge question markers over the validity of his work.
Elizabeth Englander's book, 'Understanding Violence' tackles the question head on and Loucks book, 'Why we kill', looks at cross-cultural issues and addresses different views on violence across a number of disciplines.
It's recent, objective material. Far more valid than Freud.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?
I do not think that there is a best in psychological theory. Most theories have plenty of limitations despite merits and they consider different aspects of existence. I do admit to having some favorites, but I do not regard any of them as best. I suppose it is worth mentioning that we need to be clear what 'best' means. I am thinking of it in terms of how theories perform on a range of factors and Freud does miserably on several of them including testability, range of participants studied (only abnormal Europeans), and factors of development focused on (for example the a**l stage is poorly supported).
AliKat1988
CH1YO
AllisaNero
CH1YO
AllisaNero
I'm not a Freud basher or anything but he really isn't the best. His theories are outdated, untestable, ethnocentric, androcentric and based on very little evidence he was able to gather himself.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?


Someone who is able to objectively study violence in human beings. Freud wasn't able to do this so there has to be some huge question markers over the validity of his work.
Elizabeth Englander's book, 'Understanding Violence' tackles the question head on and Loucks book, 'Why we kill', looks at cross-cultural issues and addresses different views on violence across a number of disciplines.
It's recent, objective material. Far more valid than Freud.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?
I do not think that there is a best in psychological theory. Most theories have plenty of limitations despite merits and they consider different aspects of existence. I do admit to having some favorites, but I do not regard any of them as best. I suppose it is worth mentioning that we need to be clear what 'best' means. I am thinking of it in terms of how theories perform on a range of factors and Freud does miserably on several of them including testability, range of participants studied (only abnormal Europeans), and factors of development focused on (for example the a**l stage is poorly supported).


Yep Freud has some drawbacks, he's still the best though.
Cat of Ice
I was asked to write a paper on this, and was wondering what you guys think. Don't worry, you are not doing my homework by replying. So are people born violent, or is it something we learn as we grow?


I am always fascinated by this discussion. This gets into philosophical thinkers such as Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and Shang Yang. Locke believed that humans are born a "blank slate," and their environment shapes who they become as individuals. He believed that humans are naturally social, and know right and wrong. Therefore, Locke theorized that humans are not born violent.

Hobbes, however, held a much more depressing idea of human morality. He believed that humans are not naturally social; they became social through necessity to remain well populated and this social interaction is forced upon by the hand of the state, and believed that human property is simply decided by the will of the state, and therefore violence is an inevitability of life; therefore, Hobbes theorized that humans are almost destined in a way to be violent creatures, and therefore it can be thought that Hobbes believed that humans were naturally violent.

Rousseau seemed to share a common belief with Locke, while sharing a common factor with Hobbes. While he theorized that humans are naturally good and are effect by society, he also believed that the state was the primary (if not only) cause of evil activities within mankind, thus sharing a common factor of evil with Hobbes. The general idea of Rousseau is that society forces man to be violent by morphing their moral philosophy from birth towards one of violence, such as encouraging fighting in wars for their monarchs. Therefore, it is safe to say that Rousseau theorized that humans are not naturally violent.

Shang Yang was a statesman of the Qin Dynasty of China. He founded a belief system known as Legalism. This idea, in as simply a way as can be put, states that humans are naturally evil and vile creatures, and, as such, must have strict and horrible laws and punishments put on their actions for them to be good. As such, Yang theorized that humans are naturally violent creatures, and, ironically enough, suggested violent punishments again them as a result, perhaps in a philosophical "eye for an eye" mentality.

Personally, I yield more towards Locke's theory on human nature. I therefore say that I believe that humans are naturally good, and know objective rights and wrongs when they are born, such as that is it wrong to be violent. However, this does not mean that all rights and wrongs are objective. While some things are objectively wrong in the eyes of society - like rape, murder, and ***** - some things are subjective - like my idea that killing in general, despite in self defense or not, is wrong, and that drug use of any form or anything else that can be life-threating should be permissible because it is your own body.

______________________________________________________________________________________________


That's my writing for the year. sweatdrop
CH1YO
AliKat1988
CH1YO
AllisaNero
CH1YO
AllisaNero
I'm not a Freud basher or anything but he really isn't the best. His theories are outdated, untestable, ethnocentric, androcentric and based on very little evidence he was able to gather himself.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?


Someone who is able to objectively study violence in human beings. Freud wasn't able to do this so there has to be some huge question markers over the validity of his work.
Elizabeth Englander's book, 'Understanding Violence' tackles the question head on and Loucks book, 'Why we kill', looks at cross-cultural issues and addresses different views on violence across a number of disciplines.
It's recent, objective material. Far more valid than Freud.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?
I do not think that there is a best in psychological theory. Most theories have plenty of limitations despite merits and they consider different aspects of existence. I do admit to having some favorites, but I do not regard any of them as best. I suppose it is worth mentioning that we need to be clear what 'best' means. I am thinking of it in terms of how theories perform on a range of factors and Freud does miserably on several of them including testability, range of participants studied (only abnormal Europeans), and factors of development focused on (for example the a**l stage is poorly supported).


Yep Freud has some drawbacks, he's still the best though.


Screw psychoanalysis! Humanism for the win! Carl Rogers is the best! ninja
Jubilant Sunrise
CH1YO
AliKat1988
CH1YO
AllisaNero


Someone who is able to objectively study violence in human beings. Freud wasn't able to do this so there has to be some huge question markers over the validity of his work.
Elizabeth Englander's book, 'Understanding Violence' tackles the question head on and Loucks book, 'Why we kill', looks at cross-cultural issues and addresses different views on violence across a number of disciplines.
It's recent, objective material. Far more valid than Freud.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?
I do not think that there is a best in psychological theory. Most theories have plenty of limitations despite merits and they consider different aspects of existence. I do admit to having some favorites, but I do not regard any of them as best. I suppose it is worth mentioning that we need to be clear what 'best' means. I am thinking of it in terms of how theories perform on a range of factors and Freud does miserably on several of them including testability, range of participants studied (only abnormal Europeans), and factors of development focused on (for example the a**l stage is poorly supported).


Yep Freud has some drawbacks, he's still the best though.


Screw psychoanalysis! Humanism for the win! Carl Rogers is the best! ninja


That's the spirit. Adler is better than Rogers though.
CH1YO
Jubilant Sunrise
CH1YO
AliKat1988
CH1YO
AllisaNero


Someone who is able to objectively study violence in human beings. Freud wasn't able to do this so there has to be some huge question markers over the validity of his work.
Elizabeth Englander's book, 'Understanding Violence' tackles the question head on and Loucks book, 'Why we kill', looks at cross-cultural issues and addresses different views on violence across a number of disciplines.
It's recent, objective material. Far more valid than Freud.


So? Who, if not Freud, is the best?
I do not think that there is a best in psychological theory. Most theories have plenty of limitations despite merits and they consider different aspects of existence. I do admit to having some favorites, but I do not regard any of them as best. I suppose it is worth mentioning that we need to be clear what 'best' means. I am thinking of it in terms of how theories perform on a range of factors and Freud does miserably on several of them including testability, range of participants studied (only abnormal Europeans), and factors of development focused on (for example the a**l stage is poorly supported).


Yep Freud has some drawbacks, he's still the best though.


Screw psychoanalysis! Humanism for the win! Carl Rogers is the best! ninja


That's the spirit. Adler is better than Rogers though.

Alder, huh? I'll look him up. Thanks.
Jubilant Sunrise
CH1YO
Jubilant Sunrise
CH1YO
AliKat1988
I do not think that there is a best in psychological theory. Most theories have plenty of limitations despite merits and they consider different aspects of existence. I do admit to having some favorites, but I do not regard any of them as best. I suppose it is worth mentioning that we need to be clear what 'best' means. I am thinking of it in terms of how theories perform on a range of factors and Freud does miserably on several of them including testability, range of participants studied (only abnormal Europeans), and factors of development focused on (for example the a**l stage is poorly supported).


Yep Freud has some drawbacks, he's still the best though.


Screw psychoanalysis! Humanism for the win! Carl Rogers is the best! ninja


That's the spirit. Adler is better than Rogers though.

Alder, huh? I'll look him up. Thanks.


He's strangely unfashionable, a victim of circumstance I think.
ScintillantSin's avatar

Dapper Lunatic

7,300 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Guildmember 100
  • Somebody Likes You 100
Defiantly not. People will have experiences that mold them into who they are.
Yes, we're all born violent. It's in our nature, but their's also something we're born with called self-control.

If you're not born with one of those two things, your brain needs to get looked at.

Of course, I'm not a doctor, so I'm most likely wrong.
Sermanther's avatar

Dapper Gawker

We were born to survive. Violence may result from it, or it may not. Really depends on your living situation.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games