Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Next Reading on Other Theorists

You guys are doing a great job! I have been receiving numerous compliments about the work you are doing with these postings. Continue the good work!!

Read p. 464 -469. Do these Neo-Freudians make more or less sense than Sigmund Freud? Which of their theories, if any, sound the best?

Please post by October 20.

22 comments:

lovejonas91 said...

Well,
To comment first on what we have talked about in class so far about Neo-Freudians, I think that they so make some sense about Freud specifically. They say that Freud was too obsessed with sex and they were right. Freud centered everythign around sex... it was kind of weird. So far, I do agree with what the Neo-Freudians have said about Freud in class.
I will come back on to finish my blog later...
~Natalie D., Period 1

lovejonas91 said...

Now... I have to comment on the reading from the book. I found it interesting how the neo-Freudians even emerged as a group. They were known as the new-Freudians (page 464).

After doing the reading, I believe that the Neo-Freudians make more sense than Freud because they realize that not everything revolves around sex. The key point of the Neo-Freudians which makes the most sense is that "Freud's belief that behavior was primarily motivated by sexual urges” (page 464). I keep re-hashing this statement because it is really true. Freud started talking about sex and the human parts and how children react to all of that stuff.

I think like any other emerging new group, they follow what others have taught them but they also develop ideas of their own. Like the other groups in history, the Neo-Freudians followed part of what Freud had preached but also changed some of his ideas into what they really believed.

An example, Frederick Crews, mentioned that Freud brought "immense harm through propagation of false etiologies, mistaken diagnoses..." (Page 468). I have to somewhat agree with what Crews said because Freud's ways of thinking were "out there" at times although he tried to understand what was really going on.

Karen Horney also made a good point that there is sexism between men and women with Freud's ideas. Freud thought the penis meant power and without a penis, one was powerless. Horney made another good point that "psychoanalysis would have evolved an entirely different view of women if it were not dominated by the male point of view" (page 469).

So I have to say, that after reading what these Neo-Freudians like Crews and Horney have said about Freud's ideas, they make the most sense. As a result, I would have to say that Neo-Freudians make more sense than Sigmund Freud did.

~Natalie D., period 1

MLRoxYourSox said...

Well, I think the Neo-freudians did make some sense but so did Freud. The Neo-freudian that made the most sense was Karen Horney. I agree with what she said about how disturbances in human relationships are the cause of psychological problems. I'm not sure if I really agree with what she is saying about Womb Envy but it makes a little bit of sense...I guess it just sounds weird.

Alfred Adler is the next one i agree with. I like the inferiority and superiority complexes...it makes a lot of sense to me.

Carl Jung makes the least sense to me out of the Neo-freudians. I'm not quite sure what he means by "feminine" or "masculine" sides...is this in terms of homosexuality or just like little things in a person's personality?
I'm sure we will go over this in class.

Michaela Laliberte

Chris said...

Mr. Yip,

After reading pages 464-469, I believe just as much sense to me, as Sigmund Freud did, which is that I understand what they are saying.

However, I do believe that one of Carl Jung's theories made a little more sense, then Freud. To quote the book, it said, "Jung believed that people are motivated by a more general psyological energy that pushes them to achieve psychological growth, self-realization, and psychic wholeness and harmoney. Jung also believe that personality continues to develop in significant ways throughout the lifespan." (Page 464). He said this because as the book also stated, "Jung rejected Freud 's belief that human behavior is fueled by the instinctual drives of sex and aggression." (Page 464).

I believe this theory makes more sense then Freud's theory about sexual drive, becuase as we said in the soratic seminar on Frued, sex isn't what we think about as young kids, and it's not all we think about day after day. I agree with Jung when he says that personality develops throughtout time using psychological growth, self-realization, etc.

- Chris E. (Period 1)

lovejonas91 said...

MICHAELA,
To respond to what you said in class today, I did not cheat on this blog, because as you can see, yes, I did do the first comment in Computer class at the end of the period, but, I am also the second person. If I cheated, wouldn't I have been after your comment? I think I am sensing some "BLOG ENVY"... I am the first and second comment...HAHAHA
~Natalie

mcclearenf14me said...

ok, the neo freudians;
they took Freuds ideas and ran with them, except for Karen Horney, she fell flat on her face, she is so wrong it her published papers should be labeled comedy, womb theory? really? that is obviously there JUST TO SPITE FREUD. while social relationships are important,they are not THAT important for them to become the core of someone's personality theory. The patterns of behavior for defense against anxiety have no backing, and I can attack it further in class tomorow, after i ask one question of clarification.

Moving on, Adler and Jung definitly expanded Freud's world, but they may have pushed the envelope too far, Jung's collective unconcious is a little "out there" however, Adler didn't seem to say anything too wierd, all of his inferences and theories seem to check out.

-Mike D'Amore

ps:
on page 465, I noticed that in the Wizard of Oz picture, the scarecrow looks alot like john McCain, I found htis highly amusing, and i thought i should share this with all of you

Matt L said...

After reading the assignment, I do not feel that the neofreudians theory makes sense. I feel this way because Freudian psychology did not make very much sense with me, so any followers of his beliefs do not appeal to me.

Although I do agree with the statement made by Karen Horney that Freud was at many times very sexist and looked down upon women. This shows that neofreudians have atleast added their own feelings into the theory they follow.

mishy91 said...

I have to agree with Natalie that the Neo-Freudians make more sense to me. The big problem that I had with Freud is his huge emphasis on sex. Yeah its a big part of our who we are, but its not everything. The one idea that sounds really interesting to me is the idea of everyone having all the memories of every human that ever lived. I don't really agree with the great flood theory because since ancient cultures that speak about a flood lived in the same area and because stories could have been passed throughout the ancient world by people who experienced it. But what I do find interesting is how every culture prays to a higher power. It would definitely support Neo-Freudian's ideas of the human mind being universal. Reading the pages from the book made me more interested in finding out what else they theorized.

-Michelle :)

horseshoe804 said...

I completly agree with what Karen Horney had to say. She also disagreed to the fact that all women are envious of males. What women are envious of, are how males have life eaiser, and have more respect, more power.
I agree with what Carl Jung had to say as well. Carl said that all human behavior is done because of sex and agression drives. I do not fully believe this statement is true. I can go through an entire day, without being mad at someone, and having that be on my mind all day, or have sex on my mind all day. I'm a happy person, not a mad, perverted one.
~nunes

Marissa Mardo said...

After reading, I believe that like Freud, the Neo- Freudians beliefs also make sense. Instead of Frued's belief that "human behavior is fueled by the instinctual drives of sex and aggression", I agree with Carl Jung's belief that peoples behavior is based on "psychological growth, self-realization, and psychic wholeness and harmony."

I also agree with Karen Horney because she believed that peoples psychological problems were a result of their jobs and economic issues. Instead, Freud believed it was due to sexual conflicts. Like Horney, i also disagree with Frued's belief that woman suffer from penis envy and men suffer from womb envy. It is not the body part that women are jealous of, but "their superior status in society." In today's world, i do not think men are jealous of the power of giving birth. But in the past, men were jealous of this, but do they expect to be granted all of the power? It is fair that men and women each possess something powerful.

I agree with both Freud and the neo-freudians. At first i didnt agree with Freud because everything he believed in was related to sex. But since both Freud and the neo-freudians have valid evidence to support their beliefs, i now see where they got their ideas and i can agree with both sides.
Marissa Mardo

Wynne said...

Out of the three neo-freudians presented – Carl Jung, Karen Horney, and Alfred Adler – I’ve found Jung’s theories to be the most interesting as well as the most original, inventive, and most difficult to accept. While the summed up works of Horney and Adler are understandable, Jung’s odd and mythical ideas took a lot less time to catch my eye. Thus, I think I paid more attention to his paragraphs as a whole and took in more of the general aspects of his theories.
The whole idea on memories and instincts being handed down through the generations in some unseen genetic mind-warp psychiatric thing is kind of fun to put your mind around. And – while I find myself taking this for a good piece of creative fiction – is not as hard to understand at it first may seem.
If you put human kind on a grand scale – let’s say 500 years – it’s easy to notice a growth of instincts and ideas, an evolution if you will. Theories and curiosities that once were have evolved into newer and greater conquests, yet, still maintain the same basic notions that similar exploits had hundreds of years ago. Take human exploration for example and its growth. First it was men such as Magellan and Columbus; explorers of the seas and new lands. Then, pioneers such as Louis and Clark; the explorers of the American west. Kennedy promises a man on the moon then all of a sudden we have Armstrong and Aldrin. And now in 2008 there are land rovers on Mars. I may be getting off topic a bit, but all these move around a single human notion – curiosity; that and many other instincts and ideas adapting along with each passing generation. So, Jung may have something.
TED WYNNE

Wynne said...

Oh, and yes they make more sense than freud.

McCall Theriault said...

I think that the whole concept is weird! These, "New- Freudians". However I agree with Natalie on the topic that they made more sense of the topic about the fact that not everything revolves around sex. I think that Freud was had put too much emphasis on the fact of sex and that when doing so made people think that they were developing or had to develop a certain way!

And as for who i agree with I think i am going to have to go with Horney,she really put it perspective about the whole topic and situation!

McCall Theriault said...

the time on this is way wrong!

Ben Pickering said...

I believe that the Neo-Freudians make more sense then Freud. Not to down Freuds ideas in any way, but the way science work is over time theory's tend to improve more and more over time. Freud laid down the boundaries and set up the guidelines and these other people improved on his ideas. So obviously the people after Freud would be making more sense then him. I would probably have to agree most with Jung, due to i feel he really expanded and followed the same beliefs as Freud did. Also Karen Horney makes valid points about females and it was interesting to see a womans perspective on this whole issue. Therefore, neo-Freudians would make more sense then Freud because they had ideas to expand and improve on.

Sincerely, Ben Pickering

Katherine said...

In my opinion, Neo-Freudians make more sense that Sigmund Freud, so far. Freud focused a great deal on sex, in all its aspects. He made everything revolve around it, and I find that to be excessive. His theories founded the basis of certain psychological thinking, but they were too extreme and didn't allow much room for adjustment.

Like Ben just said, as time goes on new theories and ideas develop, and it's natural for new ways of thinking to come about. Such thinking includes the Neo-Freudian ideas of the greater importance of the unconscious, something I strongly support. As I did my exhibition on dreams and their importance, I already have a firm foundation in my beliefs that the unconscious plays an important role in the development of the self. These ideas therefore make more sense to me.

In particular, Carl Jung is a man I spent a great deal of time researching; although I've forgotten most of it, I remember that I liked what he had to say. His idea of archetypes and being able to learn more about yourself through your unconscious, among other things, is a revolutionary idea that I think should be focused on more.

Katherine said...

^ Katherine Gannon

Taozoo4u said...

I believe that the Neo-freudians made some sense but so did Freud, the only neo fruedian i cant agree with is Karen Horney, it seemed as if she was only making her theories to shun and become a female freud. her "womb theory" was just a play on freuds "penis envy" i highly disagree with everything that Mrs. Horney had to say.

amaralsoccer2 said...

~Micahel Amaral

After reading about the other Theoristsi believe that in some ways they both are right and they both make sense. the neo-freudians seem to have the same basic theories as freud , but are less sex based and do not revolve as much around sex. the different theories from different sides fit different people differently and who you are as a person can make a certain theory make sense.

laurynp said...

I believe that they make somewhat more sense than Freud. They are not as extreme as him. But they do have some good points, like Carl Jung and his collective unconscious. It was basically the same as Freud's, which was not as bizarre as the Freud's theories on sex which was a bit over the top.

On page 468 it is talking about how Freud's research was not so valid. he has a small croud of people that he experimented on. He also did not take notes so therefore he could have been lying. Also on the same page the id and superego were not testified. They were not totally proven. That is why neo-freudians are more reasonable.

Leslie said...

Well, The Neo-Freudian that I found interesting was Alfred Adler. He was the first one that brought optimism to his theory. Unlike the other theorists many of them were in a way negative. The other idea I found interesting was Karen Horney's Womb envy. I liked the woman's take on the "penis envy." I feel that Freud used the wrong words for his theory, like Penis envy. It's not even about being jealous about the penis per se, but it's about the power that man have. I feel like he should've used a different word or phrase for that theory. I think I'm a little of topic here.

Roberto said...

The Neo-Freudian ideas toward the structure of the personality really just seemed liked Freud's ideas reworded. For example, when I look at Karen Horney's three patterns of behavior closely resembles Freud's idea of the Id, Ego, and Super Ego and the conflicts that lead to Ego Defense Mechanisms. When I read about Alfred Adler I couldn't help but think of Freud's saying that we eventually want to take one of our parent's place (Phallic Stage?). Now the parent is the "superior" and eventually we want to take their place so then we become superior. Adler states that we are all inferior and strive for superiority, I can't help but see a connection.