Adrienne Lackey's Archive

In our class discussion today we covered the three main qualities that Carl Rogers’ proposed were necessary for reversing neuroses/maladjustment. According to his client centered therapy approach, Rogers believed that geniuty, unconditional positive regard, and congruence were most imporant in illiciting a change from a patient. As Dr. McAnulty stated, when you are trying to get someone to open up to you, you have to be genuine. If they have any reason to think you have a hidden agenda or ulterior motives, they won’t take the risk of making themsleves vulnerable. If you want people to be straight with you, you have to be straight with them first. In order to create an opportunity for openness, you have to first create an environment in which people are comfortable. And a key to doing that lies in being genuine. Show an interest in the person rather than in “curing their issues.” The next key factor for growth is unconditional positive regard. If a patient, (or even a friend or family member) knows that you are going to be there for them no matter what happens, they will be more open to receiving help from you. You have to let that individual know that even though you support them, that does not mean you support their lifestyle or behavior choices. People are much more inlclined to be themselves around you when they know you are not going anywhere. The last key factor Rogers’ discussed was congrruence. This kind of ties into the first point of being genuine, but the difference is that it entails showing empathy as well. Who you are, what you think, and how you behave must be in line with what you believe in order for you to  be truly congruent. Congruence enables the patient to open up because it creates an inviting environment. The more “real” the patient thinks you are, the more likely they are to be “real” with you. As far as empathy goes, I think everyone should work on having empathy towards their fellow human beings. And I think Rogers was a genius for realizing this. If you take the time to try and understand where someone else is coming from, it will open your eyes to a whole new view on life. Empathy and genuity are key when trying to get someone to open up. Its all about comfort. If you want people to talk, you have to create comfort. In a quote that I think perfectly sums up our discussion,Frank Warren states, “Every single person has at least one secret that would break your heart. If we could just remember this, I think there would be a lot more compassion and tolerance in the world.”

Ever since our class discussion, the idea of religion as a pre determined concept has been rolling around in my brain. The thought fits in the with the biblical description of Israel as Gods’ chosen people, but I think you also have to keep in mind that much of that discussion took place in the old testament.  And while the the old testament still holds authority, when Jesus came he changed a lot of the age old standards.  In Matthew, Jesus says “The only way to the Father is through me, and whosoever accepts me, will also be accepted into the kingdom.”  With this being said, we have to keep in mind that Christianity has been transformed from a race to a deliberate decision.  People no longer have to be a part of “Israel, the chosen race” to be a Christian.  All they have to do is accept Christ into their heart, and follow His teachings to the best of their ability.  It is not about who you are or where you come from, but more about how you live your live, and most importantly, how you treat the people you come into contact with.  It irks me to death when people come in saying, “oh you have to do this, and do that. or dont do this, its not what good kids do”, and completely ignore the relational side of it. I believe it is all about how you treat people.  And yes, a part of it is about your actions lining up with your words, but I think it is MORE about the relationships you had with people , and how many lives you made a difference in.  And while the Bible says that there is a book called the book of life, and if your name is written in it, then you are going to heaven, and while that is traditionally considered a pre-determined concept, I believe that the book is always changing. Addtions are always being made.  No one can make you, or keep you from accepting Christ into your life.  Thus Christianity has evolved from a pre-determined concept, to a completely personal decision.

In the class discussion on Empiricism, Dr. McAnulty made the following statement, “It is the environment you subject people to that determines who they become.”   I have heard this statement said many times, in different forms, but this time in particular struck me.  You can have two people, same race, same age, same gender, same town, who even go to the same school and have similar likes and dislikes, but can grow up to be completely different people because of the families and environments they were raised in.  If a child is raised in an optimistic, curious household, it is very likely that he will grow up to be an optimistic, curious adult; and the same goes for if the child was raised in a negative household.  Empiricism is classically defined as the emergence of an experimental attitude.  Many changes were taking place politically and socially during the time that empiricism was really taking hold of the world.  The American government was still under construction and even though people did not know what they wanted, they knew what they did NOT want.  The constitution was an experiment, and can be identified by one of the best known empirical statements, “all men are created equal.”  I cannot help but wonder in awe at the fact that while most of the people who were the early leaders of this country were very well educated and from good families, they still had no idea what they were doing in building the political foundation of this country.  They were just experimenting with a new way of government and the way they chose to do things, just so happened to be the best way.   How is it that these people, who seemingly knew nothing about running a country, were able to sit there and devise an ingenious plan to go by?  I think part of it has to do with the families they were raised in.  Most of these men came from parents who were well educated and probably very deep thinkers as well.  They probably encouraged their children to think about abstract things, and find new and innovative ways to do things.  They probably taught them a love for education along with a deep sense of right and wrong.  With such a rich environment to grow up in, these kids grew into the people that would lead this country into freedom.  I would like to go back in time to when Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Hancock were growing up and just observe the environment they were raised in.  What shaped them into the minds they became?  What events turned them to take the positions they did on certain topics?  I would like a day in the home of any one of these great minds to observe and to take note of what made them the great thinkers they became.

I have always been very intrigued by the fact that Aristotle has so many divisions in his theories and concepts of why things are the way they are.  For example, he stated that everything comes from one of four possible causes.  The first is Material Cause, which is the kind of matter of which an object is made.  The second is formal cause, which is the form, or pattern, of an object.  The third is efficient cause, which is the force that transforms the matter into a certain form.  And the last is Final cause, which is the purpose for which an object is made.  All of these causes have underlying strings that can be attached to a religion or belief in a higher power.  The Efficient cause and the Final cause both can be seen from a Christian perspective because both can be seen as coming from God.  But when Aristotle was defining purpose, he did not mean intentions for that object or being he meant the function of that object or being.  Although he did not have a direct religious tie to this theory there was still room for one.  I feel like many of Aristotle’s theories are like this.  So many of his concepts are so easily explained by the Christianity of today, but at the time he knew nothing of it, YET he still left room for ones own interpretation.  He also had a theory that there were three types of souls, a vegetation (or nutritive) soul which is possessed mainly by plants.  The second is a sensitive soul, which is mainly possessed by animals.  The third is a rational soul which is possessed mainly by humans.  I can see how people of the time would take to this idea of the divisions of souls but from a Christian perspective we know that all things living and nonliving come from God and they are simply possessed by the souls that God himself gave them.  There is no division, much less a reason to why things and beings are the way they are.  I may be close minded when I say this, but I simply do not see how people can look at these theories, learn them and understand them, and still say there is no God. Things did not simply spring into being. They were made, carefully crafted, by a a higher power that loves everything he breathes life into.