how would the grand founders of psychology explain attraction between a man and a woman?
Hi Everyone,
For personal enrichment purposes, I am interested in knowing how the founders of psychology would explain human attraction. I am fairly confident that Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, etc. had some theories regarding the processes by which attraction takes place between a man and a woman.
Any shared insights to this question will be greatly appreciated. I will look forward to reviiewing any input.
Thank you.
George
For personal enrichment purposes, I am interested in knowing how the founders of psychology would explain human attraction. I am fairly confident that Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, etc. had some theories regarding the processes by which attraction takes place between a man and a woman.
Any shared insights to this question will be greatly appreciated. I will look forward to reviiewing any input.
Thank you.
George
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
As such, it seems logical to say that much of the early theories were most likely influenced by the times.
I'd be interested in any good argument that anyone could put forth to the contrary.
I'm not the best to discuss this item. My background is from college some 40 years ago, then sidetracked entirely, partly due to the desire to have a job to earn a living. Since then, it's been pure spare time reading, with little time to spare for that 'hobby'. That's why I try to stick with comments that tend to opinion and personal experience in this area.
I have my opinions about the work of various figures, such as Hans Eysenck, and about what seem to be natural results, such as behavior and cognitive therapies, NLP, etc.; but I'd rather see what others have to say first.
I also have my thoughts about sexual attraction and how it could have arisen even from the first sexual organisms half a billion or so years ago. But anyone can have thoughts on that without evidence.
Here's hoping someone else can add something useful.
Tom
I'd be interested in any good argument that anyone could put forth to the contrary.
I'm not the best to discuss this item. My background is from college some 40 years ago, then sidetracked entirely, partly due to the desire to have a job to earn a living. Since then, it's been pure spare time reading, with little time to spare for that 'hobby'. That's why I try to stick with comments that tend to opinion and personal experience in this area.
I have my opinions about the work of various figures, such as Hans Eysenck, and about what seem to be natural results, such as behavior and cognitive therapies, NLP, etc.; but I'd rather see what others have to say first.
I also have my thoughts about sexual attraction and how it could have arisen even from the first sexual organisms half a billion or so years ago. But anyone can have thoughts on that without evidence.
Here's hoping someone else can add something useful.
Tom
ASKER
Hi Tom,
I am inclined to agree with you regarding your point that today's field of psychology is likely to be independent of many of the earlier schools of thought regarding personality and behavior. But, like you said, I believe this ultimately boils down to an opinion at best.
While this post is closed, if someone should review the information given; like to add, clarify, or correct anything, please feel free too. In the meantime, I am satisfied enough with the response given by Tom.
Thank you
George
I am inclined to agree with you regarding your point that today's field of psychology is likely to be independent of many of the earlier schools of thought regarding personality and behavior. But, like you said, I believe this ultimately boils down to an opinion at best.
While this post is closed, if someone should review the information given; like to add, clarify, or correct anything, please feel free too. In the meantime, I am satisfied enough with the response given by Tom.
Thank you
George
ASKER
Thank you so much for your shared input. In fact, I find the points revealed very interesting. Just so I understand correctly, are you saying that "modern" day theories of personality and behavior are used these days in attempts to understand human interaction as oppposed to the more older or "traditional" approaches? Approaches to counseling I am somewhat familiar with include psychoanalysis, rational emotive therapy, and so forth. Also, is it fair to say the early founders of psychology would like to be out of touch as well because of the differences in the time frames or eras? In other words, the attitudes, beliefs, and opinions of relationships are much different now as compared to the late 1800's and early 1900"s. As such, it seems logical to say that much of the early theories were most likely influenced by the times.
Just a few thoughts which come to my mind which I welcome you to comment on if you would. And, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and insights with me regarding this post.
George