Candice Watson's Archive

I readily agree with Roger’s three qualities of an ideal therapeutic relationship. I feel that perhaps these are not the sole cures to a client’s issues, but I completely understand how it would be quite necessary for their presence in therapy for improvements to occur. If the therapist’s office is no different than the world outside of it that the client has previously been exposed to, why should any action or internal quality change? The therapist must work to provide an atmosphere that is remarkably different than almost any other atmosphere the client is used to. If a client cannot face flaws, needs for change, or even areas of progress because a therapist has created an atmosphere of judgment, fear, or disapproval, both parties are wasting their time. To me, the whole reason that people go to therapy is to get objective advice from a professional that will keep confidentiality, respect, acceptance, and understanding to the utmost degree. Unconditional positive regard, empathy, and congruence simply further the chances of this trustworthy environment in which a client may discover growth.

I have some pretty big issues with Darwin’s theory that human emotions are remnants of animal emotions that had once been necessary for survival. I have no idea how to prove any of my concerns, but I also feel that Darwin could never really fully prove his theory either, so here goes it.

First off, I would like to say that I love emotions and the fact that they exist. Because of this, in one sense, I am very glad Darwin theorized on emotions at all. He caused many others to continue the study on human emotions and that I am grateful for. However, I feel so strongly about emotions that I cannot accept that they are merely around because we needed them for survival. Second, I would like to say that the two main arguments I want to share come from a Christian perspective…so I apologize if that makes them irrelevant to some psychologists…or you… but it’s all I have.

My first argument is that God feels emotions. In the Bible he expresses jealousy, anger, love, joy, sorrow, etc. However, God does not need survival instincts to survive. He will never know an end for he is not bound by time. If God is the Almighty that no power could ever match, why would he need emotions for survival? And if humans are made in God’s image, are our emotions given to us purely for survival?

My second argument is more about purpose. Darwin argues emotions evolved from survival instincts. This would mean that the purpose for emotions was mostly selfish; something created for the self to protect the self. However, God and his love operates in exact opposition to this. His love is a love of selflessness, and his emotions follow suit. I do believe that God gave us emotions (as in Ecclesiastes we are told there is a a time for everything and many emotions are listed), but I cannot fathom that God would give us such emotions if only to be used in a selfish way. I believe that emotions are a gift from him that teach us to be selfless. With that selfless emotion we can sacrifice and risk which is the exact opposite of looking out for the self first to ensure survival. God’s love is sacrificial and risk taking. Emotions created to solely ensure survival does not speak a word of sacrifice or risk and I don’t buy it.

My last point is really not an argument but just something I would like to say. In the video we watched in class about Darwin’s theory on emotions, they said that humans show their teeth when they are scared. Well, I just simply wanted to point out that they only showed scared humans..on a roller coaster. Maybe that’s because humans don’t actually make those faces when their scared if they’re not exposed to great heights and winds.

When I first read about Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s life, I wondered how this man could have contributed anything relevant to the field of psychology. He was a womanizer who had a past of deception and even some crime. He seemed very unstable and I honestly felt sorry for him. But after reading about his theory on education, I started to understand why he is a contributor to psychology.

His belief about education was that “education should take advantage of natural impulses rather than distort them.” It makes sense that a man who had to follow such raw impulses just to survive and eat would consider such a thing. His work Emile provides an example of what it might look like if a tutor responded to a child’s abilities and interests rather than follow a highly structured pattern of education.

This is a very interesting concept to me especially since I have known countless fellow students who struggle to learn information by standardized methods because their learning styles or test anxieties create such boundaries. This idea that Rousseau presented may not be a perfect or even tangible approach to teaching, but it is certainly an idea worth considering. I know his thought inspired more research along the way such as the Montessouri method. His theory on education is definitely relevant to the field of psychology and I am grateful for the attention he gave to education. I am especially grateful for his quote: “…watch your scholar well before you say a word to him…The wise physician does not hastily give prescriptions at first sight, but he studies the constitution of the sick man before he prescribes anything; the treatment is begun later, but the patient is cured, while the hasty doctor kills him.”

In class we discussed the Greek and Christian view of the role of reason. Plato depended entirely on reason. He believed that reason was the only way to find truth. Christians, however, are free from the chains of reason and can rise above the necessity of it. The Holy Spirit living inside the body, the resurrection of Christ, our very God invisible to the human eye…none of these concepts are rational or reasonable, but by faith we may believe these and more.

The beauty of faith and reason is that though faith can stand alone without reason, faith can also USE reason for its benefit. Until several years ago, one word I never thought to use to describe God is “smart”. But of course, it hit me, he is the smartest, most reasonable being there is. Everything he does is full of purpose and reason. So though he can rise above science and psychology and reason, he also created them so why not use them to his advantage?

One of the best examples I think of when it comes to this idea is the 10 plagues of Egypt. One day I sat down to watch the History Channel, and an episode came on using science to explain the 10 plagues. At first this infuriated me. I thought, “Great! People out to prove that God wasn’t behind the 10 plagues!” But the more I watched, the more I noticed that the creators of the show actually DID believe God was behind the 10 plagues. They simply believed that they had stumbled across some scientific ways in which God might have brought the plagues upon Egypt. They proposed an idea of how God might have USED science-reasonable and rational facts and events- to create miraculous events and to miraculously change Pharaoh’s heart.

I’ve provided a link to the film on Amazon.com…it’s only $17.99 if you’re really interested. Otherwise you can just read the reviews and it explains a little more about it.

Exodus Decoded