PSY 6501: Psychology of Personality
Week 3 – Discussion 2 – Analyzing Psychoanalysis
Had I the opportunity to discuss this article with Murray, I’d asked him how did he come to such an in-depth and such direct conclusion about individuals attitude towards sex? Why did he came to that determination? Does it come from personal experience? To be honest, I wasn’t comfortable with this assignment because I didn’t want to be viewed in this light. Only a few of my friends know about this side of me. I agree one hundred percent with Murray’s analysis of Psychoanalysis. I especially opened my eyes when I read, that, when it was clear to him that, “this instinct punished and guilt-laden, veiled by shame …is the chief factor in psychogenic illness but has been for centuries the source of unspeakable mental torment, the veritable plague spot of human personality”(p. 158). There were many great points made throughout the article, but this sums up the prospect of what psychologist should do about Psychoanalysis.
According to Murray, “The theory of the unconscious of the alter ego (or shadows itself) explained various phases of behavior, ambivalence, sudden explosions, regressions, conversions”(p. 159) Lecci & Magnavita,, (2013), stated, “Psychoanalysis was not only forwarded as a theory of the mind and a method for treating emotional and psychological disorders, but it was also used as a method of assessment”(sec. 2.6). Freud used this investigative tool he developed to explore various aspects of mental processes, and he believed it to be especially useful for accessing the unconscious. Which made intelligent assessment shined the light on fixed and refractory frames of reference, which settled sentiments and beliefs. It is essential to an understanding of illusions, delusions, morbid anxiety, compulsions, and insanity”(Murray, 1940, p.”159) Another question, how was he so sure that the questions he asked how was he effective in dealing with his patients?
Additionally, he noted that when certain “technical language” is ineffective and also ” illogical.” (p. 161) It was recommended that ” emotive speech” is resistant to certain poisons in ” scientific ” psychology. Knowing ourselves is the key to knowing and understanding the clients we work with is the most important aspect of healing.
Lecci, L.B. & Magnavita, J.J. (2013). Personality Theories: A Scientific Approach. San Diego:
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. ISBN: 9781621781110
Murray, H. A. (1940). What should psychologists do about psychoanalysis?. The Journal Of
Abnormal And Social Psychology, 35(2), 150-175. doi:10.1037/h0060130
Reply Reply to Comment
————————————————————————————————CLASSMATE #-2–D. D.
Psychoanalytic theory, according to Lecci and Magnativa (2013) is “a comprehensive metatheory” that deals with “the structure and operation of the mind, the formation of personality through stages of psychosexual development, the development of psychopathologies, and psychoanalytic methods for treating psychological disorders” (Section 2.2, para. 3). Psychoanalytic theory was founded by Freud (Lecci & Magnativa, 2013).
Murray (1940) wrote an article praising psychoanalytical therapy and used it with his patients and how psychoanalysis has its place in clinical therapy treatments. I agree with some of Murray and Freud used in therapy. The first question that I would ask Murray in response to his article is, “Do you think since Freud came up with his theories in a time and society that did not discuss sex, that his theory would change in the United States during current times when sexuality is openly discussed?” Lecci and Magnativa (2013) detailed that Freud was living in a society and culture where sex was not discussed. You wrote, “Men seem to be as much the product of a society as a society is a product of the men” (p.151). Would that fit why Freud wanted to discuss sex and why he based his theory on sexual instincts that were based on conscious and unconscious levels?
Another question I would ask Murray is:
You wrote “Freud’s theory, I submit, is an utterly analytic instrument which reduces a complex individual to a few primitive ingredients and leaves him so” (Murray, 1940, p. 168). If admitting that an individual is complex, would it be evident then that psychoanalysis alone cannot explain the personality or behavior of an individual with just Freud’s theories?
I think that psychoanalysis has its place in psychology in today’s terms, but I think we need to use parts of Freud’s theories in conjunction with other theories to get a better understanding of how personality develops.
Lecci, L. B., & Magnavita, J. J. (2013). Personality Theories: A Scientific Approach. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
Murray, H. A. (1940). What should psychologists do about psychoanalysis? The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 35(2), 150-175. doi:10.1037/h0060130 [EBSCOhost]
Reply Reply to Comment
Respond to at least two of your classmates’ postings by Day 7.
When responding to your peers, answer the questions they asked from Murray’s perspective, as you feel he would have answered.