How is the methods different from a statirist and naturalistHow is the satirist different from the naturalist
Let me answer by pointing to two resources and talking a little about how I would go about using the resources to answer the question, if it were mine.
The two links given below lead to sites that discuss these two terms, "satire" and "naturalism." Putting these extended definitions side by side, you may see connections (whether overlaps or contrasts) in the meanings of the two terms.
For example, "satire" is defined in part as follows:
Satiric characters are people worse than ourselves, riddled with vices and follies. And satiric plots show good people passing from good to evil fortune, and evil men passing from bad or indifferent fortune to good; such actions arousing shock or aversion, and failing to satisfy people’s general sympathies with good people and their hopes of encountering poetic justice.
If satire shows people worse than ourselves, naturalism (as seen in the second site's definition) shows people like us at our worst, when we are driven not by altruism but rather by our base instincts. And if satire seeks to mock or criticize and to thwart our expections of a resolution to the storyline, naturalism tends to give a clear resolution and generally delivers exactly what we expect, including key themes such as "survival, determinism, violence, and taboo."
Satire is a general concept and has been around next-to-forever, I imagine. By contrast, naturalism is a fairly clearly defined period or trend (it doesn't really appear until after Charles Darwin's publications on the struggle for survival, for example)