Psychoanalytic debates, rivalry between psychoanalytic schools?
What could cause the public's preference for one over another?
I myself have my own preferences, people belonging to psychoanalytic associations whom I respect and even find better professionally than others, who give me the feeling that they know what they're talking about, unlike others.
What do our preferences on this matter say about us?
What unconscious material do we project on these people, on certain psychoanalytic approaches?
What causes the competition and rivalry in this domain? Why is cooperation rather rarely available (only among those who share the same view)?
Apparently the art of argumentation and debating is often present in this field.
Answer:
What I think you are describing is not unique to just the psychoanalytic debate. Psychoanalytic theory, and other theories are an attempt to explain something. Analysis is part of the process of developing these explanations, but an analysis must necessarily have an approach or strategy which can color the the result. An excellent book on the topic is one called "Decision Traps" that is available on amazon.com very cheap. If you read that book, you will find a long discussion about how analysis must have a "frame" which is like a window in a house. The author believes that where that window is placed determines the "view" that you will see. So, unless you live in a glass house, you will always have a restricted view. Therefore, people often argue about what things they see from different views.
Psychoanalytic theories have one common perspective... Sigmund Freud's construct or model of infant and childhood development. In my own studies, I have found it to be remarkably interesting, although based mainly on observation and intuition. I do believe that studying his theories and many of the neofreudian models help me understand human behavior better. However, I don't rely on any of them exclusively.
Perception, neurology, computerized artificial intelligence, genomics and nano-scale scale science are in a state of convergence. More is being learned now in basic science then was ever imaginable. Observations that Freud and others made can be explained better today and it will be even more so in the future. I wouldn't recommend that you try to choose any psychological schools of thought exclusively. Try to go beyond studying human behavior from the outside (what scientists call the complex systems approach). The new sciences begin from the atomic, particle behavior, and build up to the complex and the understanding is profoundly more precise.
Study the neurosciences, biophysiology, genomics, and intigrate it to what you are learning now, and I believe you will be much much happier and well-equipped for the future.
Good luck!
when each school can drop their crap and notice both schools su-ck because they havent fixed any person. both are debating which wrong technique will work and as far as i know both hasnt worked. two wrongs doesnt make a right. maybe it would be a good thing to learn the techniques of another and find out tools that can work rather than debating whether which techniques doesnt work that would work because the client hasnt even been tried with the technique on yet. the client should be the judge of this, not the analyzers of different schools because the client is the one thats going to change if their techniques ever worked. its like going to a store, you see something ugly you dont buy it. now if the company is analyzing and debating whether why you didnt like it among themselves, that would be total ludicrisness and a waste of time because you arent there to give them your feedback. this is an stupid infinite loop. those who argue without the client have their heads in the wrong hole.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: