Braulio Pimentel913513970PSY 451Theories of personalities1) I have chosen to summarize the erotic analysis of John Haule and the form of Eros. I believe the main point of the paper was about transfer and the code of ethics it underpins. The article did not necessarily change my views on the theories we looked at. Basically, I took the article for what it was. The article tells how Dr. Mathews becomes involved in a sexual relationship, in which he tries to understand what exactly his patient means to him. He does not know what his patient means to him because she is not his friend, his daughter, or his wife (p. 35). He explained that when he first saw her, he was really attracted to her and that she caused chaos. This is an example of Freud's first drive, called libido (lecture). Libido or Eros is our first drive, which is our sexual desire. Reading this article unsettled me a little in a very unexpected way. In fact, I found the article a bit difficult to follow at times. At first it was smooth and understanding, but then I found myself not knowing what case they were talking about or referring to. My overall impressions of the content of the article were positive. I liked how they talked about the different types of personalities that exist. And I also liked how it tackled the case of this psychologist trying to deny his weak spot for allowing emotional influence to develop on his patient. The topic has actually generated a lot of interest, because I would like to know how and what psychologists do in a time where Eros intervenes. Furthermore, our sexual desire is not just the desire to have sex, Pimentel 2 but to procreate. Procreation is actually a big...... middle of paper ...... m comes maturity - 65 years until death. Freud spoke of wisdom and understanding the stages. Erickson's Ego Integrity vs. Despair and Disgust discussed the characteristics of ego integrity/relativity of life (lecture). And ends with despair, regret, mortality and fear. As for which theorist makes the most sense to me... I'd go with Freud. Although Erikson has some more than exceptional views, I feel like Freud makes more sense to me because of the relevance of all the sexual connotations he lists. I feel like I identify more with the sexual references than Erikson's insight. Additionally, I can see how the sexual aspects of Freud's theory are taboo, but I feel like that is precisely why his theory may make more sense to me than Erikson's . Erikson's theory tends to go a little too far in the steps to make sense of information at first glance..