首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >On Dreams and Motivation: Comparison of Freud’s and Hobson’s Views
【2h】

On Dreams and Motivation: Comparison of Freud’s and Hobson’s Views

机译:关于梦想和动机:弗洛伊德和霍布森的观点比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The merits of Freudian dream theory continue to be debated and both supporters and critics appeal to empirical evidence to support their respective positions. What receives much less attention is the theoretical coherency of either Freudian dream theory or alternative perspectives. This paper examines Freudian dream theory and J. Allan Hobson’s alternative position by addressing the role of motivation in dreams. This paper first discusses motivation in Freudian theory and its relation to dreams and disguise-censorship. The role of motivation in Hobson’s theory is then considered. Hobson’s claim that dream plot and content selection is random and based on design error and functional imbalance is then discussed in relation to the protoconsciousness theory proposal that dreams serve an adaptive function. While there are apparent inconsistencies in Hobson’s position, his appeal to emotions and instincts provides a preliminary platform for understanding the role of motivation in dreams that is consonant with the Freudian position.
机译:弗洛伊德梦论的优点一直在争论中,支持者和批评者都呼吁经验证据支持他们各自的立场。很少受到关注的是弗洛伊德梦论或替代观点的理论连贯性。本文通过探讨动机在梦中的作用,考察了弗洛伊德的梦论和J.艾伦·霍布森的替代立场。本文首先讨论了弗洛伊德理论中的动机及其与梦和伪装审查制度的关系。然后考虑了动机在霍布森理论中的作用。霍布森声称梦境情节和内容选择是随机的,并基于设计错误和功能失衡进行了讨论,并与关于梦起适应功能的原意识理论建议进行了讨论。尽管霍布森的立场存在明显的矛盾之处,但他对情感和本能的诉求为了解动机在梦中与弗洛伊德立场相符的作用提供了一个初步的平台。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号