Criticisms of Psychoanalytic Theories
Freud's psychoanalytic theory has been criticized for its scientific shortcomings because it falls short of the standard that good scientific theories explain observations and offer testable hypotheses. The psychoanalytic theory rests on few objective observations, and parts of it offer few testable hypotheses. A good theory makes testable predictions, but for Freud, his own recollections and interpretations patients' free associations, dreams, and slips were evidence enough. The most serious problem that Freud's theory is criticized for is that it offer after-the-fact explanations of any characteristic, yet it fails to predict behaviors and traits. Critics of Freud claim that the theory's structure is built on the swamplands of childhood sexuality, repression, dream analysis, and after-the-fact speculations.
Criticisms of Humanistic Theories
Critics of the humanistic theories have claimed that this theory is too vague and subjective, using Maslow's characteristics of self-actualizing people as an example. They claim this description is not scientific; rather they say that it is a reflection of the theorist's own values and ideals. Because the humanistic theory encourages individualism (trusting and acting on feelings, being true to oneself, and fulfilling oneself among other things, can lead to self-indulgence, selfishness, and an eventual erosion of moral restraints. A final accusation against the humanistic theory is that it is naive, failing to appreciate the reality of the human capacity for evil. Critics say that faced with global climate change, overpopulation, terrorism, and the spread of nuclear weapons, humans may become apathetic from either of two rationalizations: the naive optimisms denying the threat or the dark despair. According to critics, action requires enough realism to fuel concern and enough optimism to provide hope, and humanistic psychology encourages the need hope but not the equally necessary realism about evil.