whats ur opinion?

Question

most significant contribution to the field of psychology- Imagine you are Galileo Galilei, and explain why you are the best choice

Answer 1

Galileo didn't really contribute to the field of psychology with the exception of changing the sociological thought process of ego-centricity. That is, he was the first to openly dispute the idea that the earth revolves around the sun.

Answer 2

To me, Freud exposing the public to the "Unconscious" was a big contribution. Sure most of his studies were based on case studies rather than a wide range of data. But since the unconscious has been brought out to our conscious minds, we now accept that a lot of psychological disorders and many behaviors are caused by the unconscious mind.

Answer 3

The field of psycholgy was explored centuries before Freud by philosophers like Socrate.

I would say that Socrate has brought the most important thing to psychology : maieutics or how to give birth to the human spirit.
:)

Answer 4

People often ask me for personal advice and psychological help. Normally I politely refuse as I am not getting paid for my services, but sometimes I take pity on the world's unfortunates and delve into their subconscious to solve their problems. I am very open-minded: I use a combination of traditional psychoanalysis, acupuncture, hypnosis and a wet flannel.

Technically, I am not a fully-trained psychoanalyst, but many of my friends live near The Hamptons and it was inevitable that I would pick up a few tricks.

In my years as an amateur brain doctor I have faced many problems, from unresolved childhood traumas to bedwetters and serial shoehorners. I listen. I do not judge. (except the real weirdos - them I judge). Other people's problems are always easy to solve. I'm afraid it's the old case of 'physician - heal thyself' that is the real problem. But enough about me.
I was recently asking by the Council of Neurosis to give a little speech about my experience as a psychological treasure hunter.
This is a short excerpt:

There are lots of different schools of psychoanalysis, and although to the untrained eye they can look similar, to the expert they are as different as two quite different tennis players - perhaps Mark Phillipousis and Michael Chang. These schools of psychoanalysis are not like the schools that you and I went to as children: they do not have cafeterias or playgrounds. Nor are they like schools of fish - for they rarely swim together. These schools are all very distinctive and psychoanalysts spend much of their time pooh-poohing the rival schools. I remember a Jungian psychoanalyst who was mistaken for a Kleinian at a Kentish Town dinner party; he flew into a irrational rage and was only calmed by the fact that he choked on an olive and passed out.
The most famous school of psychoanalysis is the Freudian school. Sigmund Freud invented the wheel, the steam engine and the subconscious. Nowadays everyone sneers at his theories about sex and women but I doubt Freud himself is bothered, as he is dead.

A typical conversation with a Freudian psychoanalyst might go something like this:

Patient: I had a dream last night that I was running a marathon, but my shoelaces were untied....the nearer I got to the finishing line, the more anxious I got that I would fall.

Analyst: Interesting. The marathon is your mother. The shoes are your father. You are gay.

Patient: Oh.

Another school of psychoanalysis is the Kleinian school. They were named after Melanie Klein, the wealthy daughter of underwear magnate Calvin Klein. Kleinians are very strict and will often sulk if the patient is late, and will force them to lie underneath the couch, rather than on top of it. Klein was a disciple of Freud but disagreed with him on many key issues. Klein placed the development of the superego in infancy, whereas Freud placed it in a Swiss bank.

A conversation with a Kleinian psychoanalyst might go something like this:

Patient: Good afternoon. I had a dream last night that I was a tiny bird.

Analyst: Never mind that. I had a dream last night that you were gay. Ergo, you are gay.

Patient: Oh. Ok.

Jungian analysts form another of the major schools. Carl Gustav Jung believed in the collective unconscious, which means that not only are we haunted by our own subconscious desires, but also by the subconscious of the whole of humanity. This is one reason why Jungian analysts are so expensive - they will often claim to have treated not only your own issues, but the issues of your father and grandfather, and expect to be paid accordingly.

An example of a typical conversation with a Jungian psychoanalyst:

Patient: I had a terrible dream that my teeth were falling out and that my hair turned white.

Analyst: That's all very well, but that doesn't even feature in the Top Ten list of popular dreams. The big dream at the moment is about bombs exploding in the centre of New York.

Patient: OK. What does that mean?

Analyst: I'm afraid you're gay.

Patient: Rats.

Those are 3 main schools. Of course there are plenty of other schools, based on the writing of Winnicott, RD Laing, Bowlby and many more. But those schools are just there to make up the numbers and give the illusion of diversity. Ignore them.

Answer 5

Freud, definately. Irregardless of his lifestyle or the validity of his more controversial theories, the basic principals of
a. an unconscious mind
b. that things which happen to you while you're little continue to affect you all throughout your life
were absolutely unheard of before he came along, and have been proven true over and over again. To come up with such revolutionary, controversial ideas and still be right takes merits my vote.

Answer 6

Scarecrow

Answer 7

if i was galileo galilei i am proud because i was the first scientist to use the telescope....ahhh the telescope

Answer 8

Hard Question.....Lets Call Oprah and do the poll..

Answer 9

To the Most Serene Grand Duchess Mother:

Some years ago, as Your Serene Highness well knows, I discovered in the heavens many things that had not been seen before our own age. The novelty of these things, as well as some consequences which followed from them in contradiction to the physical notions commonly held among academic philosophers, stirred up against me no small number of professors-as if I had placed these things in the sky with my own hands in order to upset nature and overturn the sciences. They seemed to forget that the increase of known truths stimulates the investigation, establishment, and growth of the arts; not their diminution or destruction.

Showing a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth they sought to deny and disprove the new things which, if they had cared to look for themselves, their own senses would have demonstrated to them. To this end they hurled various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly, and which were ill-suited to their purposes.

These men would perhaps not have fallen into such error had they but paid attention to a most useful doctrine of St. Augustine's, relative to our making positive statements about things which are obscure and hard to understand by means of reason alone. Speaking of a certain physical conclusion about the heavenly bodies, he wrote: "Now keeping always our respect for moderation in grave piety, we ought not to believe anything inadvisedly on a dubious point, lest in favor to our error we conceive a prejudice against something that truth hereafter may reveal to be not contrary in any way to the sacred books of either the Old or the New Testament."

Well, the passage of time has revealed to everyone the truths that I previously set forth; and, together with the truth of the facts, there has come to light the great difference in attitude between those who simply and dispassionately refused to admit the discoveries to be true, and those who combined with their incredulity some reckless passion of their own. Men who were well grounded in astronomical and physical science were persuaded as soon as they received my first message. There were others who denied them or remained in doubt only because of their novel and unexpected character, and because they had not yet had the opportunity to see for themselves. These men have by degrees come to be satisfied. But some, besides allegiance to their original error, possess I know not what fanciful interest in remaining hostile not so much toward the things in question as toward their discoverer. No longer being able to deny them, these men now take refuge in obstinate silence, but being more than ever exasperated by that which has pacified and quieted other men, they divert their thoughts to other fancies and seek new ways to damage me.

.... To this end they make a shield of their hypocritical zeal for religion. They go about invoking the Bible, which they would have minister to their deceitful purposes. Contrary to the sense of the Bible and the intention of the holy Fathers, if I am not mistaken, they would extend such authorities until even m purely physical matters - where faith is not involved - they would have us altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage, though under the surface meaning of its words this passage may contain a different sense.

.... I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages but from sense?experiences and necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God's commands. It is necessary for the Bible, in order to be accommodated to the understanding of every man, to speak many things which appear to differ from the absolute truth so far as the bare meaning of the words is concerned. But Nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men. For that reason it appears that nothing physical which sense?experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible....

If in order to banish the opinion in question from the world it were sufficient to stop the mouth of a single man -- as perhaps those men persuade themselves who, measuring the minds of others by their own, think it impossible that this doctrine should be able to continue to find adherents-then that would be very easily done. But things stand otherwise. To carry out such a decision it would be necessary not only to prohibit the book of Copernicus and the writings of other authors who follow the same opinion, but to ban the whole science of astronomy. Furthermore, it would be necessary to forbid men to look at the heavens, in order that they might not see Mars and Venus sometimes quite near the earth and sometimes very distant, the variation being so great that Venus is forty times and Mars sixty times as large at one time as at another. And it would be necessary to prevent Venus being seen round at one time and forked at another, with very thin horns; as well as many other sensory observations which can never be reconciled with the Ptolemaic system in any way, but are very strong arguments for the Copernican. And to ban Copernicus now that his doctrine is daily reinforced by many new observations and by the learned applying themselves to the reading of his book, after this opinion has been allowed and tolerated for these many years during which it was less followed and less confirmed, would seem in my judgment to be a contravention of truth, and an attempt to hide and suppress her the more as she revealed herself the more clearly and plainly. Not to abolish and censure his whole book, but only to condemn as erroneous this particular proposition, would (if I am not mistaken) be a still greater detriment to the minds of men, since it would afford them occasion to see a proposition proved that it was heresy to believe. And to prohibit the whole science would be to censure a hundred passages of holy Scripture which teach us that the glory and greatness of Almighty God are marvelously discerned in all his works and divinely read in the open book of heaven....