Essay on The New Psychology and The New Psychologist

1874 Words 8 Pages
In this lecture we will be discussing the new psychology and the new psychologist. You will learn the meanings of personalistic and naturalistic theories and their relation to zeitgeist. During this topic you may find that personally you fall in to one of these categories of belief. As humans ones finds themselves acting in certain ways or adopting different theories over another and do not understand why. These theories will help to bring into perspective decision making and thinking processes. We will also explore how recent developments in the nineteenth century caused this era to be termed as the new psychology. Psychology has a long history and one may wonder how it is recently considered the new psychology and the new …show more content…
Another great person in history is Karl Abraham. Abraham is continuously recognized for the founding of the Berlin Society of Psychoanalysis and a forge of German psychoanalysis (New World Encyclopedia, 2008). Abraham used a different approach than psychoanalysis to research psychosis. Abraham’s research from the psychoanalytical perspective enabled him discover the different relations between the ego functions and libido. This aided in the progression of schizophrenia research by applying Abrahams theories on libido development. Vesalius and Abraham are good examples of the personalistic viewpoint. These two men used their talents to influence society and contribute in the development history. The naturalistic viewpoint differs in opinion when attributing praise to individuals for the advancement of history. Schultz and Schultz defines naturalistic theory as being the times that the work of individual studies and lives in will decide whether the new idea’s or theories established will be accepted (Schultz & Schultz, 2012, p. 18). That is the culture of society at the time has impact on what will be and what won’t. Zeitgeist works along with the naturalistic viewpoint stating that the spirit of times is the compelling force that allows changes in history to take place (McCauley, 2008, p. 10). Therefore, from this viewpoint it is not the person who makes the time, but the time that makes the person. If we apply the successfulness of Vesalius and
Open Document