Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Reading, p 469-473

Now that you have a pretty good understanding of the psychoanalytic approach to personality and have read about the humanistic perspective, briefly explain which would give a better understanding of human personality. Give specific details to support your conclusion.

Post by November 3.

15 comments:

lovejonas91 said...

After reading about the humanistic perspective, I believe that the Psychoanalytic Approach to personality gives a better understanding of human personality.

While The Psychoanalytic Perspective on Personality "stresses the importance of the unconscious, sexual instincts, and early childhood experience" (page 454), the Humanistic Perspective "emphasizes free will, self- awareness, and psychological growth" (page 469).

I think that the Psychoanalytic Perspective makes more sense because a great deal of what it is trying to teach is true and can be seen in every day life.

Under the Psychoanalytic Perspective comes Freud’s Dynamic Theory of Personality. I think that this makes a great deal of sense because it goes into detail about humans and their feelings and instincts and it all ties together to give a better understanding of human personality.

Also, the Ego Defense Mechanisms, I can relate to those quite often. I see people practicing/following these mechanisms daily which makes me come to a conclusion that the Psychoanalytic approach to personality gives a better understanding of human personality.

I don’t really like the Humanistic Perspective because it doesn’t go into as much detail as the Psychoanalytic perspective does. I mean, Maslow’s characteristics of self-actualized people do make sense, but that is about all that clearly makes a point with the Humanistic Perspective. The Humanistic Perspective pretty much revolves around three central ideas: free will, self-awareness, and psychological growth and doesn’t go into much detail about them.

On the other hand, the Psychoanalytic perspective may centrally focus on the importance of the unconscious, sexual instincts, and early childhood experience, however, it branches out into many other things to describe human personalities, such as the dynamic theory of personality, the ego defense mechanisms, and the psychosexual stages which make it easier to understand the personalities of humans.

GO PSYCHOANALYTIC PERSPECTIVE!

~Natalie, period 1

Taozoo4u said...

First

(real comment will come soon)

lovejonas91 said...

^^ What is this supposed to mean?
~Natalie

Katherine said...

Personally, I agree with Erik Erikson's psychosocial stages of development the most. When analyzing Freud and his theories, I can understand and agree with many of his stages. However, I still think he placed too much of an emphasis on sex; it plays a huge role in our lives, but not as huge, in my opinion, as he believed. I do also believe in Carl Jung's theories on the unconscious: it plays a very large role in self-discovery. Alfred Adler dealt a lot with inferiority complex's. I agree that they do exist, much like womb envy, but their importance and purpose don't really cut it for me.

However, it is Erik Erikson's stages that I believe are most accurate. While reviewing our sheet, I can completely see where this man is coming from. All these stages, personally, have been dead on and I know from experience that this looks pretty accurate. With every stage comes a different purpose; it's about pleasing yourself, but not like Freud said. It's really about the road to self-discovery, which I feel is the most important. As a young adult, I'm learning how to trust myself and in doing so I put all my reliance on my peers. Jung was very right in his beliefs, but you also need to focus on the here and now like Erikson did. It's not just about the subconscious. I can't really think of much else to say about it, it's just that when I think about myself, I think of these stages being most accurate.

Katherine Gannon

MLRoxYourSox said...

Well,

I would definitely say the psychoanalytic approach gives a better understanding of the human personality. I don't really like the humanistic perspective too much, however there is one thing I do agree with: "The problem with conditional positive regard is that it causes the child to learn to deny or distort her genuine feelings" (p. 472). I can actually relate to that. When I get in trouble for something I know I didn't do, I usually just accept the blame and I don't even bother to explain myself because I know its a waste of time and if I'm upset about it, I don't show it because it does nothing for me. It wouldn't help me get out of the situation at all. Therefore, I think this theory makes a lot of sense.

I agree most with Freud because although he is a bit strange, he does make a lot of sense. I liked his psychosexual stages of development and the ego defense mechanisms. The ego defense mechanisms helped me to understand why people act the way the do sometimes and the psychosexual stages of development explained in detail our stages of development, and I do agree with Freud that we are born with that instinct to reproduce; it just makes the most sense.

In conclusion Freud does the best job in helping us understand the human personality.

Michaela Laliberte

Marissa Mardo said...

Following reading about the humanistic perspective on personality, i feel that the psychoanalytic perspective provides a better understanding and clarification of the human personality.

The psychoanalytic perspective makes more sense because it deals with the psychosexual stages of development and ego defense mechanisms, which are viewed or take place on a consistent basis. I strongly agree with the psychoanalytic perspective because a great deal of what it teaches is demonstrated in our day to day life. These situations which demonstrate the psychoanalytic perspective are perfect examples that this perspective is very accurate and true.

"Humanistic psychology is a view of personality that emphasizes human potential and such uniquely human characteristics as self-awareness and free will" (pg 469). Although this does make some sense, it doesnt make as much sense as the psychoanalytic persepective. I also dont think that it is very accurate that the humanistic theories are diificult to test scientifically, and that they are mainly based on observations rather than research. Overall, so far i believe that the psychoanalytic perspective makes more sense until i learn more about the humanistic perspective or are convinced otherwise. That is all!

Marissa Mardo

horseshoe804 said...

This reading made sense because if a child gets blamed or into some sort of trouble, the child will get used to the punishment, or get used to disappointing his parents or other people. Therefore, showing no feelings towards the punishment. So would this mean that he didn't receive any positive regard while getting punished?
I do understand the theory, but I don't believe that Carl Rogers is the best person to explain humanistic feelings and emotions. For me, Erik Erickson is the best person to explain these feelings. I agree with Erik Erickson's idea's much more, for me, they make much more sense.

~nunes

Wynne said...

Out of all the theories discussed in class and in the book, I’d have to say Erikson had the greatest understanding of the psychological development of human beings, though the concepts originating from Carl Rogers also have a very insightful effect on the subject.
Human beings, if one looks at the whole perspective of life, strive to find out more about themselves. They strive to make their lives better through understanding and accomplishment. It’s the main drive; the fuel that makes us go; the motive, which gets us out of bed in the morning and throws us out the door, into the unknown of a hopefully successful future. Our goal in life – when looking at it in terms of the brain and psychology – is to find that self-actualization.

Carl had the main goal down. He understood that and the methods and contradictions which stood in and out of the way. Yet, we can reach this at anytime. Theoretically, I could do all these different life changing things tomorrow, or the next day, and next year I’ll know who I am. Erikson doesn’t focus on that. He takes all of life – from birth to the edge of death – and breaks it down into various stages of development. Then, he splits these stages in half and labels one half “childhood” and the other “adult”. Each stage has its own problems, its own goals, its own needs, and its own methods of accomplishment. He doesn’t focus on the big picture, yet he gets it right. He delves into the problems of age – needing to accomplish something when young, a need to return to the past when middle-aged, and a need to question life when life itself is almost up.

Basic line: Rogers gave the whole perspective, where needs, goals, and accomplishments can be met at any given time, while Erikson got more specific, breaking down the life into stages and gave ages to the different levels of need and gains.

Wynne said...

Freud is making less and less sense. I always forget to mention him. I can see why not many people practice his ideas today.

amaralsoccer2 said...

I agree with the humanistic aspect of personality. It gives the person more of a chance to be who they want to be and act the why they want to act. i like how it dosent say that ur surroundings is wat determines ur life. I think that each person is responsible for their outcomes. there surroundings do effect them in some ways but i believe that they can determine there own outcome in life and be the best they can be or want to me. but i do believe that some people need proctoring.

Chris said...

After reading the book, I believe that the Humanistic Perspective on Personality is better in understand human personality. I believe this because a person should be who they want to be and not depend on their experiences in life or what kind of lifestyle they live in.

-Chris E. (Period 1)

Ben Pickering said...

Howdy Yall,
I would have to agree most with the psychoanalytic approach most and some of the ideas of Freud. I feel that most of his ideas were solid, especially the defense mechanism theories. Frued really concentrates on the subconcious, which i do believe exists, maybe not as strong as he did. However Freud did lay a good basis for future psychologists.
One such example was a brother by the name of Erik Erikson. Erikison makes alot of sense and I would have to agree with him the most. He does a good job of breaking down each age group into exactly what happens. Thus far, Erikson represents the best theories.

Yours Truly,
Benjamin Miguel

mishy91 said...

Alright, I think that both Freud and Erikson are right, or I should say I think that its a little both. I agree that Freud is right on the concept of the unconscious being extremely important and also the early childhood experiences. What I don't agree on is this huge emphasis on sex! I mean when I was 4 yrs old, I didn't even know what sex was, let alone actually doing it. I have to say that I'm definitely have more of a Humanistic Perspective. Though Freud has some strong points, he gives this feeling of people having no choice, just because its part of their subconscious. We as people have always had free will, and anyone that says that they don't have a choice, are just giving excuses, because there is always a choice to do good, bad , or be stuck in the gray area in between.
My two cents
I'm done. -Michelle :)

Roberto said...

I personally think that Psychoanalysis gives a better look into the the human personality than Humanistic Psychology. This holds true for everyone except for Erik Erikson. I'm actually a pretty big advocate of Freud's theory of personality due to the fact that when you really look into it then it all makes sense. However when you look into Erikson's Psychosocial Stages of Development they explain a person's thought processes alot more thoroughly and in my opinion correctly than Freud's Psychosexual Stages.

mcclearenf14me said...

I agree with Roberto, Freud analyzes the why and puts fort reasons to why people act in a certain way, it seems that the humanistic approach just says "because they felt like it" when someone asks why people act in a certain manner it like they made it up in five minutes and just to counter Psychoanalysis. it seems poorly constructed.

on he free will thing; people have free will to choose to do certain things, but they can't just pick who they are or what their personality is like, you're shaped by your surroundings if you look into the life story of a cetrtain person then look at their personality to date you can see why they are the way they are. you can't just choose to be a super hard working nice person who does communtiy service for 15 hours after school each day, then the next day be a complete jerk who haes everybody.
It just doesn't work that way.


-Mike D'Amore