Psychoanalytic and Dream Theory, Free Association, and Transference

Psychoanalytic Theory
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Full Name
Professor Full Name
Due Date
Psychoanalytic Theory
Introduction
Theories form an essential part of the acquisition and development of knowledge. Typically, there are four stages involved in developing a theory CITATION Ito19 \l 1033 (Ito, Gimenez, & Junior, 2019). These include a careful investigation and research, collection of research results related to the problems, and then analysis of outcomes based on existing theories. Then, the researchers formed a hypothesis about the problem at this stage. It is the key to putting forward new ideas and methods. Thirdly, the researchers mainly design and arrange experiments and observations to test whether the new conclusions deduced from the new hypothesis are correct. Lastly, the researchers conclude their hypothesis and ensure the experimental results are repeatable. However, the development of the Psychoanalytic theory did not follow this rigorous scientific process. Furthermore, Freud relied primarily on anecdotal evidence, through several case studies, to support its validity, leading to the wide criticism the theory has received among scholars. Therefore, the current paper aims to establish the limitations of Freud's approach to theory development based on the dream theory, free association, and transference (the three critical aspects of Psychoanalytic theory).
Limitations of Feud’s Approach to the Development of Psychoanalytic Theory
Freud’s psychoanalytic theory has been subject to debates based on various claims on how he arrived at his conclusions. Freud's psychoanalytic dream theory was primarily based purely on anecdotal evidence, and there was no scientific experimentation, except for case studies, to support the evidence. The anecdotal aspect of Freud’s theory implies that much of the evidence used in evaluating the study is unrepresentative (Solms, 2018). Freud mostly observed himself, his patients, and a child to draw his conclusions. That betrays the fundamentals of generalization that scientific studies require to reach the set thresholds for validity and reliability. These include systematics approaches or methodologies that can be replicated to produce similar or related outcomes.
The weakness of anecdotal evidence has been judged on multiple grounds. Health outcomes bear no predictability to any individual, which means observations from one subject are not necessarily feasible in a different subject. The impacts of a health factor on an individual cannot be expressed as a certainty but only as a probability. Hence, an intervention in healthcare can only be judged based on how it alters the probability of survival. Additionally, the impacts of various interventions can be subtle and small. Interventions that enhance chances of wellness by approximately 10%, for instance, can be challenging to measure and deliver specific outcomes (Solms, 2018). Ultimately, interventions need re-testing, which can be impossible in anecdotal conclusions. If one has a migraine, he/she stands a chance of completing the test of intervention just once, as it can be challenging to deliver reliable findings with probable varying sample frames in the subsequ...