{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014553014553014554, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.6875, '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}}
[Objectivity and subjectivity of knowledge in nomological social sciences].

In this article the question is discussed in how far the processes of understanding in the nomological social sciences an "objectivication", which is demanded of psychoanalysts, can be used for psychoanalytically gained insights to human behavior. For one it is shown that it is impossible in principle to verify or falsify hypotheses within the nomologically oriented methodological self understanding. Furthermore the logical, empirical scientific process obligated to proving hypotheses is pursued in the perspective of a psychoanalytic social psychology and the thesis is developed that these insights, which are gained in nomological research projects are also always products of neurotic-blind interaction, so that nothing can be said of the value of knowledge gained in these research findings as long as the scientists do not clarify their research practice psychoanalytically.