Major+Objections+to+Key+Findings


 * Major Objections to Freud's Personality Theory **

**Sigmund Freud **
Sigmund Freud’s extensive theories have come into constant criticism in the psychology field. This is partly due to his pessimistic attitude towards human nature (Hergenhahn, 2009, p. 536). However, the primary reason of concern is the manner in which Freud handled his research. Much of Freud’s theoretical findings lacked professionalism. Some examples of his erroneous work were his overemphasis on sexuality as a motive for human behavior, biased methods of data collection, and the lack of scientific support when speaking of certain concepts like psychic energy (Hergenhahn, 2009, pp. 544-545).

[[image:freudsmind.gif width="395" height="248" align="right"]]
Two renowned psychologists who were not in agreement with some of Freud’s theories were Alfred Adler and Carl Jung. After closely working together with Freud for some time, both men decided to part ways with Freud to eventually formulate their own theories.

Alfred Adler was especially in conflict with Freud’s personality theory regarding the id, ego and superego of the human mind (Sommers-Flanagan, p. 78). As the founder of Individual Psychology he believed that people as a whole made decisions for which he or she was completely responsible. The concept of a person’s id entity or instinct separately pushing for gratification from inside a person was incompatible with Adler’s basic beliefs about holism (Sommers-Flanagan, p. 78). As Sommers-Flanagan states in the book, //Counseling and Psychotherapy Theories in Context and Practice//, “A central proposition of individual psychology is that humans actively shape themselves and their environments. We are not merely passive recipients of our biological traits or simply reactors to our external environment (2004, p. 78).”

Carl Jung's opposition with Freud came when Freud spoke of the human libido as “sexual energy”, which to Freud was a focal point in a person’s mind. (Hergenhahn, 2009, p. 556). Rather than believing that it was sexually driven, Jung viewed the libido as a life force that can be utilized to an individual’s continuous psychological growth. (Hergenhahn, 2009, p. 556). Instead, libidinal energy can be applied to human behavior when speaking in biological, philosophical, and spiritual terms (Hergenhahn, 2009, p.556). Freud’s pessimism on the human behavior and sexual drive was not too relevant to Jung.

** Objections to the Personality Perspectives **

When it comes to the definition of personality there are many different ways to interpret that definition. Every personality is different and there have been a wide range of theories developed to try to explain what personality is. Like most things in life these theories have limits. Each perspective to personality comes with weaknesses and limitations.

**Psychoanalytic**: This perspective to personality developed by Sigmund Freud has been highly criticized. Some of the reasons for that critique can be related to determinism. Freud stated that human beings do not have free will. Freud believed behavior to be established by inner  drives and the constant clash between the id, ego, and superego (Friedman & Schustack, 2012, p.101). The psychoanalytic perspective to personality can be interpreted as being pessimistic and sexist. There is a clear emphasis on male behavior being correct and female behavior as wrong (Friedman & Schustack, 2012, p. 101). Freud’s theory is also challenging to test due to the unavailability to test quantitatively.

 **Neo-analytic/Ego**: This perspective has an emphasis on the self and identity. Along with the psychoanalytic approach, it is very challenging to test. It can be seen as a mixture of different ideas lumped together. It is negligent of biology and fixed personality (Friedman & Schustack, 2012, p. 140). The concepts of this perspective can be unclear and sometimes too abstract.

**Biological Approach:** With the focus on genetics and heritability this perspective on personality can appear to limit the potential for change in human beings. The  information from the findings of this perspective can be misinterpreted and used for political <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 130%;">gains (Friedman & Schustack, 2012, p. 180). This can be a danger when politicians modify the results of biological studies to their own benefit. This approach also limits free will and doesn’t grasp consciousness (Friedman & Schustack, 2012, p. 180).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 130%;">**Behaviorist:** Like the other perspectives previously listed, there is no free will. This approach to <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 130%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 130%;">personality “dehumanizes”, and compares human potentials to animals. This perspective does not acknowledge any fixed personality characteristics. It doesn’t consider other influences on personality. It looks at humans as just animals to be trained (Friedman & Schustack, 2012, p. 210).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 130%; line-height: 27px;">**Cognitive:** This approach to personality sometimes does not take certain human emotions into account. It also ignores unconscious aspects (Friedman & Schustack, 2012, p. 245). Certain theories used within the cognitive approach reduce complex thought processes into simpler terms. Sometimes this perspective leaves out certain key influences from the environment (Friedman & Schustack, 2012, p. 245).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 130%;">**Trait Approach:** This approach can be biased and extremely focused on results from tests such as questionnaires (Friedman & Schustack, 2012, p. 284). This perspective may undervalue variability from people across different environments. This approach can hastily apply labels and not consider early life experiences. There may be more or fewer then the big five personality dimensions and that has yet to be determined (Friedman & Schustack, 2012, p. 284). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 130%;">

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 130%;">**Interactionist:** This approach to personality may not consider intricate relationships between aspects of the situation and behavior. It may overlook applications of the biological approach and how genes may affect situations. With the focus on how humans act in situations, the situations themselves may be hard to study and define (Friedman & Schustack, 2012, p. 347).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 130%;">**Humanistic:** This approach to personality can be seen as the most positive, however, even the most positive things may contain an ounce of negativity. This approach sometimes cannot be scientifically tested and sometimes not concerned with logic or reason (Friedman & Schustack, 2012, p. 314). This perspective can also be inconclusive and vague (Friedman & Schustack, 2012, p. 314).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Keila Villegas & Cory Gordon