Archive for ‘Pre-Renaissance (Part I)’

In class we discussed Carl Rogers and his particular way of counseling known as Client Centered Therapy. I like the idea of Rogers concept of client centered therapy because he emphasized the importance of the therapist being genuine about his or her true feelings toward the client. I feel like this is important in order to gain the clients trust and build a relationship with them that is more than just client and therapist. However, it allows you to build a relationship that is still professional and willing to achieve the client goal in the end.
He states that congruence is primary in the relationship where positive regard and empathy come secondary. I also agree with his idea that in order to set up an atmosphere for change you have show acceptance or caring. If the client knows that you accept them for who they are and what they bring to the table they will be more willing to go through change with you. I also agree with his choice for the third characteristic of empathic understanding. This simply means that you show active listening to the individual; this is what everyone wants, simply someone to listen to them. When watching the clip of Rogers and Gloria it is obvious to see that he just sits back and lets her talk or vent to him. However, he does this in a way that in the end leads them to figure out their inner demons or issues on their own with as little guidance or push from him as possible.
When relating this to a Christian aspect I think this could be a useful therapy in a Christian setting. Showing love, care, empathizing and showing concern for others is what a Christian does. One website I found had great information on the Christian role of Person Centered Therapy. It states, “The Christian therapists using person-centric therapy must be cautious of the limitations it presents. Christian therapists must be ready to hold their clients accountable for their actions and behaviors. I agree that client should have a positive self-regard for self and others. My Christian values tell me that God should be the source of that positive self-regard. Christian therapists using person-centered therapy must help their clients view themselves through the eyes of God for a healthy view of themselves and others” (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/513963/personcentered_therapy_a_brief_christian_pg3.html?cat=72).

I really like the idea of client centered therapy.  I like the idea of having a personal relationship with your client and letting them come to their own conclusion.  I think that by doing that the client will truly be better because they came to the conclusion of their problems on their own.  They did all the work themselves.  I do understand that in certain circumstances this type of therapy would not work.  Such as phobias.  I do not think it is possible to overcome a phobia without very direct help, but for other problems I think client centered therapy is a very effective option.

I found Darwin’s argument that human emotions are remnants of animal emotions to be very interesting.  After watching the video of how closely human facial expressions are to those of chimpanzees made this argument that much more fascinating.  There is still such a huge gap between emotions experienced by animals compared to those of humans that makes this theory a bit flimsy to me.  Although human emotions are on a much bigger spectrum, I could see how they may have originated from emotions necessary for survival.                                                                                                                                                                                                                Another thing I found to be intriguing was that human emotions are culturally universal.  Dr. Ekman observed that an isolated culture in Papua New guinea could reliably identify basic emotions in pictures of people from cultures which they were unfamiliar.  Through this universal expression of emotions, Dr. Ekman claims that one could determine if a person were lying.  He uses the faces microexpressions to reveal what a person may be attempting to conceal.  These microexpressions flash at a rate of .066 to .04 of a second and happen involuntary.  In essence, Dr.Ekman believes that the human face is a natural lie detector.  Although I am not sure of the reliability of Dr. Ekman’s methods,  this theory of human evolution has definitely spiked my interest in expression of emotion.

In our text they discuss the concept of “imageless thoughts”. I find this concept to be interesting for several different reasons. Imageless thoughts are those such as searching, doubting confidence and hesitation. The fact that he came up with a concept to explain how exactly judgments were made is fascinating. Once I read this I was immediately drawn to the way he experimented and made his discoveries.

His technique involved giving his subjects problems to solve and then ask them to report on the mental operations they engaged in to solve them. They were also asked to describe the types of thinking involved at different stages of the problem solving process. How could someone come up with the idea that we have “imageless thoughts” from such a simple experiment such as this one.

Does this mean that God could be categorized as possibly a subcategory under an imageless thought in some sense? People are constantly searching and even doubting at some points in their lives whether God exists or not. I had never heard of imageless thoughts before but after reading this it makes sense that they would be imageless, when you are searching for something you do not have an idea of what it may look like, same goes with doubting or hesitating. I cannot think of any other thoughts that do not have an image that go along with them.

http://cmapspublic3.ihmc.us/rid=1074810630828_527067884_3/Oswald%20Kulpe.htm

The above website gives us a little more information on who Kulpe was and some of his other psychological findings.

Ok, I know the song does not really have a lot to do with William James and his view of free will, I just thought it would be a nice intro. The idea of free will has always been interesting to me, especially as a Christian because of the whole choices or the will of God thing that pops up so often. I like how obvious it seems when James says that because you can choose to believe in free will then it is true. I feel like having free will is something that God has blessed us with. I do not think God’s goal in making us was to have us run down the path he set out for us with no decisions involved. We were given a brain and the ability to make decisions, so it is obvious we are supposed to use it for something, right?

Since reading chapter ten for class a few weeks ago, Spencer’s ideas towards the poor have bugged me. Spencer was a firm believer in survival of the fittest and “created” Social Darwinism. Spencer believed that those not able to fend for themselves, because of social class, should not be helped. He believed in laissez-faire policy which would leave these people on their own with no help the government. Our book quotes Spencer’s opinion on the policy as follows, “If [individuals] are sufficiently complete to live, they do live…If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best that they should die”. Granted this is an extreme view but it makes me really think if its completely wrong. On one hand I can see how this would be beneficial to society. By the government not taking care of some of these people, i.e. drug addicts, taxes many not be as high or those tax dollars would be going to something more beneficial like education instead of supporting these people’s drug habits. However on the other hand some people honestly need it and their situation may not be entirely their fault. Due to the way things have changed in the past few years it has been hard on many people to provide for themselves and their families, I don’t believe that those people should be punished for that. I personally believe that our government is suppose to help us to a certain extent but we should not completely rely on our government to hand us everything.

As we have talked about religion in this unit I have been really intrigued by the different approaches that psychology has towards religion. I am really interested in how personality influences religion on a personal level, and if personality does have a significant impact on religion, what implications does that have on how we approach religion and our religious community? Thinking about how individual differences and a person’s own psychological make-up might influence their beliefs has forced me to be more accepting in the thoughts and beliefs of others. If one faith group does not reflect the values and needs of all people does it mean that they are misguided in their faith, or that they are designed to believe differently?

William James was quick to point out the fact that most of life is habitual, going so far as to say that “we are mere bundles of habits”. Regardless of if you choose to admit it or not, James was definitely on to something. For most people, daily life is a force of habit; schedules, routines, relationships, and traditions all echo habit. Not to mention the fact that most all of us have our own personal habits we have acquired along the way, both good and bad. As an enormously influential thinker, James found great interest in how the role of habit might be put to work to greater uses in ways that could improve our lives and better our general condition. Even though breaking those habits that are destructive and building habits that are more beneficial is difficult, James was quick to point out that instinctive behavior is not “blind and invariable”. Instead he believed that these behaviors could be self-developed as well as modified. This is good news if you’re anything like me. We all have those vices in our life that we wish we could rid ourselves of, as well as the ones like eating healthier and exercising more that we wish we could stick to. Luckily James was kind enough to provide tips relevant to those of us resistant to change. James suggests placing yourself in circumstances that encourage good habits and discourage bad ones while not allowing yourself to act contrary to a new habit you are trying to develop. Furthermore, he urged us not to slowly attempt to develop a good habit or eliminate a bad one but instead to engage in the positive behavior entirely to begin with and to completely abstain from the bad ones. James explained that it is not the intention behind wanting to engage in good habits and avoid bad ones that is important but the act of actually doing so by forcing yourself to act in ways that are beneficial to you, even if doing so at first is distasteful and requires considerable effort. Well, all of that sounds great in theory, but let’s be real: it’s much easier said than done. Life can become a force of habit, and change is always tough. However, when it comes down to it, William James was right. It’s never too late to get started. Act in ways that are compatible with the type of person you would like to become and quit looking for things to get any easier. “Every good that is worth possessing” counseled William James, “must be paid for in strokes of daily effort.”

I was raised in an extremely conservative Church of Christ where they believed that Creationism was the only theory and that Evolution was the devil, so I was raised to think that it was either one or the other. But now that I’ve been exposed a little more to the concept of evolution, I’ve finally been able to come to the conclusion that evolution and creation can both go hand in hand and that maybe it’s okay for us to have evolved from less capable human beings to the efficient humans we are today. My struggle now is the concept of evolution on human free will. I mean, if all we are is a bunch of genes and the most fit genes passed on, then do we really have a say in the matter or when we pick a spouse are we really just instinctively choosing the most fit genetic being? I’m not saying that I buy into that notion completely, but as far as psychology goes, when a person becomes mentally unstable, I would like to think that my work as a therapist isn’t based on furthering my species, but that I’m doing it because I actually care. Some of the studies and research I’ve encountered claims that anything we could possibly do, from buying a car to adopting a child, is simply a way of filling some subconscious need to be more appealing genetically, and it’s devastating to me to think that even counseling someone or giving advice could be construed as some genetic advancement instead of simply an act of altruism. Darwin’s concepts of evolution and genetics are absolutely fascinating and have been proven to an extent scientifically, but I refuse to believe that psychology itself is simply genetics and animalistic urges to better the species.

I think it is really interesting how much Darwin’s theory has influenced in psychology today.  Studying behavior is very prominent in our society today and that was directly influenced by Darwin.  He showed that studying behavior is just as important as studying the mind.  I also think that it is interesting that he greatly influenced a more “American” psychology.  His theory shows the importance of individual differences which is very prominent in American psychology.  We are a very individualistic society and I wonder if a lot of that mentality came from Darwin’s emphasis on individual differences.  As far as what I believe concerning his thoery, I believe that evolution occurs.  It would be silly to say that evolution does not happen.  However, the idea that I came from an ape is a little silly as well.  I do not like the idea that evolution has no purpose and that it just happens for no reason.  I think that if everyone believed that then a lot more people would be depressed in our world.