1. Objective psychology and psychoanalysis have many points in common. Wulff compares these studies on page two hundred and fifty-eight by stating that "both reject spontaneous introspection as a means of collecting fundamental data." In other words, neither in psychoanalysis nor in objective psychology can a person take a self-made observation about himself and consider it as fundamental data. Another similarity would be “that human conduct is the result of complexly determined chance events that escape conscious 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 could be stress or feeling anxious. Objective psychoanalysts and psychologists “are [seen] as conscious products of a positivist and materialist worldview [devoted] to saving humanity from its deeply rotten illusions and self-destructive ignorance” (258). This point is particularly related to the idea that both studies believe they are saving people and society from what is not real. An example would be if a person believed in God. Because you cannot feel, touch, smell or see God, he would scientifically be considered unreal. Wulff points out that both “issued radical challenges to religious faith” (258). However, both sciences share the view of empirical science, meaning 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 striking difference would be that of subjectivity. The best way to explain subjectivity was written......in the middle of an article......in 1950, that "whatever the origins of a religious expression, its meaning or its meaning in the present must be considered independently, allowing for the possibility of fundamental change” (317). An example of this is “Freud’s method.” . . According to him, contrary to appearances, religion has experienced no real historical development” (317). Although Freud was wrong about some aspects of religion, he taught scientists many things. Wulff states on page three hundred and eighteen that “among the lessons we learned from Freud is the idea that nothing is ever as simple as it seems at first glance. . . psychological phenomena repeatedly prove to be indefinitely complex. . . at different levels. »3. Melanie Klein was a psychoanalyst who emphasized "to an unprecedented degree [on] the earliest modes of infantile sexuality and the principle of the death drive ».” (328).