1. Objective psychology and psychoanalysis have much in common. Wulff compares these studies on page two hundred and fifty-eight by stating that “both reject unaided introspection as a means of gathering basic data.” In other words, neither in psychoanalysis nor in objective psychology can a person take an observation made by himself about himself and consider it as fundamental data. Another similarity would be “that human conduct is the result of complexly determined random events that lie outside of awareness” (258). In this particular case, both types of science believe that the way we act is the result of more than one event that may have occurred outside of our knowledge. An example would be stress or anxiety. Both psychoanalysts and objective psychologists “are [considered] the self-conscious products of a positivistic and materialistic worldview [who are] dedicated to saving humanity from its deeply corrupt delusions and self-destructive ignorance” (258). This point in particular relates to the idea that both studios believe they are saving people and society from what is not real. One point in the case would be if a person was a person who believes in God. Since you cannot hear, touch, smell or see God, from a scientific point of view it would be considered unreal. Wulff points out that both “posed radical challenges to religious faith” (258). However, both sciences share the vision of empirical science, which means that they both agree that studies should be based on sensory experiences. Although psychoanalysis and objective psychology have many similarities, they also have some differences. The most obvious difference would be that of subjectivity. The best way to explain subjectivity was written... mid-article... in 1950 that "whatever the origin of a religious expression, its meaning or meaning in the present must be viewed independently, allowing for the possibility of a fundamental change” (317). Although Freud was wrong about some aspects of religion, he taught many things to scientists. Wulff states on page three hundred and eighteen that “among the lessons we have learned from Freud is the intuition that nothing is ever as simple as it appears at first sight. . on a variety of different levels.”3. Melanie Klein was a psychoanalyst who emphasized “an unprecedented level of [the] early modalities of infantile sexuality and the death drive principle.”.” (328).