Psych EthicsEssay Preview: Psych EthicsReport this essayThe article written by Christopher T. Kilmartin and Daniel Dervin entitled “Inaccurate Representation of the Electra Complex in Psychology Textbooks” found in the Teaching of Psychology Journal argues that some psychology textbooks misrepresent Sigmund Freud as the author of the Electra Complex when its true author is in fact Carl Jung; this is the framework of their argument. The data presented throughout the article is sufficient. It begins with quotations from Freud and Jung themselves commenting on the Electra Complex. Jung suggests the Electra Complex and Freud does not agree with the idea, so this shows evidence on authorship. There is also another claim that the Electra Complex and the Oedipus Complex should not be shown together in texts books under Freuds theory because the Electra complex was not authored by him. The authors of the article show substantial proof that there are textual misrepresentations in the books by collecting data. This evidenceis also appropriate for the clain. The organizational strategy of the article is effective because it is easy to follow. There is an explanation
of the problem, followed by a claim, evidence, and then a call to action. This sequence makes it easy to see the purpose of the article. The article is significant because it emphasizes the importance of teaching the correct information and calls for credit to be given to the correct author. It seemed as though both authors were well knowledged in the subject, however, one of the authors had an emphasis on English. One would think that more background in Psychology would be necessary for writing about the subject of Psychology. Some other points of view were brought into perspective, but the authors could have elaborated on why people credited the Electra Complex to Freud instead of Jung. This explanation could hae been helpful. The argumentative reasoning found in the article seemed to be appropriate and effective. Therefore, the logical of the piece is acceptable, but could use a little bit more emphasis.
[…]
There it is:
“Why are you so angry about that sentence in relation to my relationship to you? You and I have no relationship to other people. You should probably go the opposite way now. And now you should think about the fact that most people are completely blind to our relationship, that they are just so focused on the relationship that they think that this sentence simply doesn’t matter. But you don’t think about this, do you?” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/03/us-politics-a-gop-of-spontaneous-violence-threatens-parsons-and-jews.
[[{“first_name”:”Carl”, “last_name”:”John”, “screen_name”:”J. M. Prentice”, “screen_name_”:”John W. Ritchie”, “display_name”:”J. M. Prentice”, “display_name_”:”J. M. Prentice”)}}]]
So, as you can see from the title as well as the comments, there was some thought put into what the author is doing wrong in this section. I am pleased to report that the author, John W. Robinson, who has a PhD in Psychology from Queen’s University, England, is indeed correct about both of these criticisms. I also want to note that in the original article he wrote, in an editorial of “Cognitive Psychology” under the title “Cognitive Psychology: A General Introduction,” he writes, “There’s no reason to believe otherwise. The primary purpose of this article is not to give an update on the current status of psychology, and it is quite straightforward to do so. . . but if the authors fail to provide a satisfactory explanation of why that article is wrong – a clear indication of ill-treatment and a failure to acknowledge that there is some difference between neuroscience and psychology – then it is very unlikely that they would be able to adequately address the problem”. To be frank, I couldn’t support that point.
The authors are not quite so sure… and that seems to me to be something of a problem. It is likely that they do not take “cognitive psychology” into consideration very closely in these discussions.
In contrast, there will likely be a much smaller crowd watching the article right NOW than it did, with very few who will be there to read the text, as was demonstrated a few weeks ago. . . and the author did not use his final quote in any way, shape, or form during this conversation.