The Humanistic and Existential perspective on the Human nature

There are many psychosocial than biological interpretations of abnormal behavior. This reflects a wide range of opinions on how best to understand humans as people with motives, desires, perceptions, thoughts, among others as opposed to just them being biological organisms.

In this article we consider two perspectives, the Humanistic and the existential.

The Humanistic perspective

This perspective views human nature as basically “good’. It pays less attention to unconscious processes and past causes, while emphasizing the present conscious processes. It places strong emphasis on people’s inherent capacity for responsible self-direction.

In using the concept of self as a unifying theme, humanistic psychologists emphasize the importance of individuality. Carl Rogers ( 1902-1987) a humanist, developed the most systematic formulation of the self -concept, based largely on his pioneering research into the nature of the psychotherapeutic process. His propositions can be summarized as follows:

a) Each individual exists in a private world of experience of which the I, me, or myself is the center.

b) The most basic striving of an individual is toward the maintenance, enhancement, and actualization of the self, and his or her inner tendencies are towards health, ad wholeness under normal conditions.

c) A perceived threat of the self is followed by a defense, including a tightening of perception and behavior and the introduction of self-defense mechanisms.

Read more: http://socyberty.com/philosophy/the-humanistic-perspective-and-existential-perspective-on-the-human-nature/#ixzz1KeHjKO4S

Misconceptions and stereotypes on the role of nature,nurture and psychopathology

People have many misconceptions on studies that determine behavior, traits and psychopathology in relations to genetic influences. In this article some of those misconceptions are examined and dispelled.

1) Strong genetic effects mean that environmental influences must be unimportant

The fact of the matter is that even if we are discussing a trait or disorder that has strong genetic influence, environmental factors can have major impact on the level of the trait. For example, height is strongly genetically determined, yet nutritional factors have a very large effect on the actual height a person attains. Between 1900 and 1960, the average height of boys reared in London increased by 10 cm due to improved diets (Tizard, 1975).

2) Genes provide a limit to potential

The reality of the matter is that one’s potential can change if one’s environment changes. An example is that of children born to socially disadvantaged parents and adopted by socially privileged families. Studies show that such children have a men IQ of about 12 points higher than those reared in the socially disadvantaged environment ( Capron & Duyme, 1989; Plomin et al., 2001).

3) Genetic studies are of no value for studying environmental influences

Actually the opposite is true. Genetic research strategies provide critical tests of environmental influences on personality and psychopathology. For example monozygotic twins have identical genes, concordance rates of less than 100 percent illustrates the importance of environmental influences , particularly when the environment is not shared, (Bouchard & Loehin, 2001; Jang, 2005).

Read more: http://healthmad.com/mental-health/misconception-and-stereotypes-on-the-role-of-nature-nurture-and-psychopathology/#ixzz1KeGJ78JQ