A lot of my assigned readings are really old and hard to understand. Is there a way I can understand them better without having to reread them a bunch of times?
Philosophers can be hard to understand that's no secret. If there is any information about what the paper may be about in the title, take advantage of that. As you read, try to make note of the main point of each paragraph and then just go through those notes at the end to piece together the whole argument. I would also suggest making notes that differentiate between what the author is saying they believe, and what they are saying other people believe. Philosophy is all about making an argument so authors often bring up other people's contradicting thoughts to make their point, which you can easily confuse with what point they are actually arguing.
Did Freud believe that humans are born innately good, innately evil, or a blank slate?
Given Freud's developmental theories, I think it's safe to say that he believes humans are innately evil. He talks about infants being greedy and needing constant satisfaction in the oral stage of development. He also says that it is the job of the parents to discipline the child during the anal phase so that they don't grow up to be out of control, thus implying that without intervention the child would grow up bad.
If you are trying to see if there are differences between levels of an independent variable can you just do multiple t-tests so you don't have to go through the whole process of an ANOVA?
In theory, you could do multiple t-tests, but an ANOVA will always be the better option. When you do multiple t-tests you increase your probability of a type I error because you have a 5% chance of being wrong on every one of your t-tests. So if you are doing 5 t-tests that increased chance really starts to add up. Doing multiple t-tests is also tedious and time consuming when you're working with 10+ levels of an independent variable.