{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028549962434259956, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.611428571428571, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Psychoanalytic Fallacies: Reflections on Martha Heineman Pieper and William Joseph Pieper's Intrapsychic Humanism

In Intrapsychic Humanism, the Piepers offer provocative theories of love, self-esteem, child development, psychopathology, and therapy. The Piepers' theories are critically examined in this article and used to illustrate fallacies common in the psychoanalytic literature. The identified fallacies include, among others, adopting a simplistic "onemotive" theory of human striving, constructing ad hoc developmental hypotheses to support the one-motive theory, interpreting adult transactions in reductionistic infantile terms, applying an inflated concept of mental disorder that classifies virtually everyone as disordered, blaming all psychopathology on early childhood experiences and inadequate parents, reifying opposing desires into warring inner "selves," labeling people who experience pain as "masochistic," confusing biological function with psychological motivation, simply redescribing clinical case material in a new jargon to "confirm" one's theory, and making unsupported claims of therapeutic efficacy. Finally, despite Heineman Pieper's published arguments that there are alternatives to positivist research methodologies, the Piepers' book fails to provide a coherent model of nonpositivist inquiry.