Lots to like here Pat thank you for your analysis. I'm a master's student pursuing integrative counselling and psychotherapy here are my comments 1. Organismic Valuing - It's possible that Rogers' theory of personality doesn't neatly fit into the scientific realm, and imposing the criterion of falsifiability may not be entirely appropriate. What are your thoughts on introspection and phenomenological realities that are only ascertained after accurate insight? Not all truth is scientific and the scientific method is only one of many ways to explore the nature of reality. 2. UPR and Core Conditions - You attempted to show how ABA contradicts UPR and Core Conditions. How does it do that? 3. Anti-social emotions as stunted self-actualising tendency- The tumour could have been caused by the stunted self-actualising tendency. Does matter give rise to mind? Just general questions to start a dialogue you might never see them or be drawn to respond. Regardless, I agree that the theory isn't integral and that including other theories is crucial to solidifying our understanding of personality.
Hi @wakeupandflow! I appreciate your thoughtful comments and engagement with the video. Let's dive into your questions: 1. Regarding organismic valuing, I think they're might be a fundamental difference of opinion here between us. I think that nothing is beyond the scientific realm, and everything can be tested using scientific methods. Perhaps falsifiability is the wrong scientific tool for the job here, but ultimately I am convinced that Roger's personality theory can be comprehensively assessed using scientific inquiry. Relatedly, I think that introspection and phenomenological realities are within the scientific realm. 2. Concerning UPR, core conditions and ABA, I attempted to highlight the clash between behaviourist approaches (focused more on external behaviors) and humanistic principles (emphasizing internal processes and subjective experience). Do you see any conflict here? 3. You touch on "the hard problem of consciousness" here, beyond the scope of this video (and indeed my expertise!!) I would be curious to hear your own thoughts here. Thank you for your considered questions! Curious to hear your further thoughts.
Well, regarding the Charles Whitman example, perhaps his giving into this violent tendencies was also due to him not getting any support or recognition from others that he was having symptoms of a brain tumor. In this sense, his self-actualizing tendency was blocked. One could imagine an alternate set of events in which Charles Whitman was recognized as being ill by his loved ones, and sent to the hospital for treatment, in which case he would have had no chance to do what he did. Another example is George Gershwin. Gershwin had a massive brain tumor and complained of headaches and symptoms that fell on deaf ears, and remained unrecognized even by those who were closest to him. In this way, Gershwin's self-actualizing tendency was blocked. I enjoyed looking at this video very much. I liked your discussion of how ABA is contrary to unconditional positive regard, but I don't quite get that, either. I can see how ABA involves "conditioning" in the learning sense of the word, but this seems like a totally different concept from "conditional" positive regard in the Rogerian sense. I have not looked at the sources yet that you provide. I will do that, but the above is my first impressions regarding what you talked about.
Thanks Phil for the really thought-provoking comment. For me the crucial point in your framing the Charles Whitman example is "...and sent to the hospital for treatment". I think the biomedical approach here would have been Whitman's saviour, rather than the Humanistic approach in isolation. What do you think? The Gershwin example is a fascinating one, I was unfamiliar with his case. Thank you for sharing! That is a really valuable impression you share Phil. There may be an important distinction between conditioning and conditional positive regard. I have considered them this far as relatively equivalent ideas, but perhaps that's a false equivalency which I hold! What do you reckon?
Working on an applied behavior analysis, a bachelors degree in psychology. Greatly appreciate your video. I hope to continue my education after I graduate. So I am subscribing to your channel, again thanks, you rock!
Wow, what an incredibly kind comment! Thank you so much Samantha. Delighted you've enjoyed your psychological education enough to consider continuing it. What further education programmes have you been looking at?
My initial thought about the brain tumour was that it was a physical manifestation of an emotional or spiritual problem since they are all interconnected, which could make rogers theory somewhat correct. I'm still trying to figure it all out! Great video thanks :)
Very hard to know! It would be fascinating to conduct gene sequencing on Whitman's tissue if it would be possible. Do you think any of our emotional and spiritual worlds are hardcoded into our DNA?
Really good video Pat ! As Socrates Quote: “The perfect human being is all human beings put together, it is a collective, it is all of us together that make perfection.” One the reasons that made me choose my course was is integrative structure, Psychotherapy Hypnotherapy and conselling with a massive contribution from Carl Rogers but also integrates other individual theories like Freudian and many more. I always struggle at school because I always saw that separation in place and for me wasn't natural. We also got the same problem at various subjects in our life take religion for example, there are lots of them with different theory's but in their core when you really dig into them you realised that they all talking of the same god or conciesceness. One good theory is the Samadhi that describes every individual watching different parts of an elephant and stating that the truth was just the side that you were at. We can all analyse reality differently and as you mentioned the truth evolution will occur when all individuals and theories integrate and creates an ability to see the worl in a different way.
Fascinating and insightful comment, thank you so much for sharing! Also, the Samadhi philosophy sounds really interesting. I must check it out! May I ask where you are completing your studies?
You will love it I'm sure. I'm on a pathway to a masters with the National college of Hypnosis & Psychotherapy at London and I'm really enjoying it very deep and like I mentioned I love the integrated learning structure.
The analogy of an elephant and all looking at the object from different angles is a pretty poor one when it comes to religions. Firstly, not all religions have a God, like Buddhism not aiming to ever be with a god. Hinduism has hundreds of gods. Those are very very large differences. Of the three main theistic religions, two, Islam and Judaism are working their way to being good enough to be accepted by God... It's all about what the person does to be good enough to be accepted by God, thru good works and keeping laws. Christianity has a God that becomes a human being in the person of Jesus and he comes down to them because it is is said they can never work their way to God, so he sacrifices himself to pay for people's sins. These are completely incompatible logically. None could be correct or one could be correct, but they can't all be correct. It's certainly not looking at the same thing from different angles. It's a different belief systems altogether.
Hi Pat, thanks for the video, wanted to share my thoughts. I think the brain tumour is an odd example personally, because that is beyond the scope of any therapeutic approach. It would be like criticising a hairdryer for not being able to extinguish a fire, you know? It’s not designed for that. So it feels disingenuous to say PCT can’t literally shrink tumours I do get that PCT is criticised for not being appropriate for more severe mental health disorders, and that’s valid, but you could likely find a number of conditions or scenarios which other forms of therapy are similarly inequipped to handle. For instance, I know a CBT practitioner who became disillusioned with the approach when he realised how ineffective it is for treating grief and bereavement, which PCT could be more suitable for The conditions of worth argument regarding autistic children is also a bit iffy. My interpretation of conditions of worth is that children are told they are loved, clever, talented etc always, rather than only when they have performed a desirable behaviour like came first in a talent show. This way they learn their caregivers love is unconditional So I’m confused at what you mean when you say this is bad for autistic children. I suppose direct communication, “yes this is good”, “no that is bad” can be helpful, but there are also autistic adults who are traumatised from having to repress their natural tendencies due to it being shamed out of them as children. They mask intensely as a result and this has very negative outcomes for mental health. In this sense, being told they are loved and accepted unconditionally would have a positive effect. Perhaps it depends on the level of support needs of the child? I would also say the organismic self example regarding childhood food choices only means that the concept of an organismic self does not apply to children. This is a limitation for sure, but imo is far from suggesting that the organismic self does not exist in adulthood Those are my two cents. I hope my tone isn’t seen as attacking, I mean this in the spirit of a friendly and respectful debate (which you seem very open to!) Thank you for the video :)
Hi there! Thank you so much for taking the time to share your thoughtful insights. It's great to hear your perspective on the points discussed in the video. You mentioned the analogy with brain tumours, and I understand your point that different therapeutic approaches have their specialties. However, my criticism of PCT centres on how much of the theory relies on semantics and subjectivity. The criticism here isn't intended to be specifically about PCT's ability to treat tumours, but rather about how the theory's terminology and concepts can sometimes be vague and open to interpretation - which I guess is how I ended up talking about something as abstract as a brain tumour. For instance, the notion of "organismic self" can be seen as quite abstract and subjective. It's not always easy to pin down precisely what it means or how it manifests in practical therapy - hence the example of children’s food choices. This level of subjectivity can be a challenge when trying to apply PCT consistently in different therapeutic contexts. Regarding conditions of worth, some consider PCT's emphasis on unconditional positive regard as an oversimplification of complex psychological dynamics, and I think this is an important argument. While it may be beneficial in some cases, it may not always provide the most effective guidance for all individuals, especially those with diverse needs and backgrounds - which you allude to nicely. I feel that while PCT has its merits and is a valuable approach for many, its reliance on a practitioner’s perspective leads to limitations and challenges in its application. Disclaimer: I’m currently a trainee psychotherapist in the humanistic modality so I certainly see its strong points! Although, I find it crucial to maintain a critical eye and consider various perspectives when evaluating its effectiveness - an approach I wish to bring to my own therapeutic practice. What do you reckon? Lastly, your tone is respectful and constructive, and I sincerely appreciate your engagement. It's through conversations like these that we can gain a deeper understanding of these concepts. So thank you again for sharing your two cents! 😊
Hi Pat, i just wanted to point out something to you that might be of value. I'm a Medical Research Masters student and my undergrad was in biomedical science so i don't come from a psychological basis but i am engrossed in the psychoanalysists, phenomenologists and existentialists and a spend a lot of time trying to understand them. I just wanted to point out a part of the critique on organismic valuing. It appears the critique you cited like the children example predominantly assume the conscious aspect our existence ie frontal cortex based thinking makes up a larger part of the organism than it does. Coming from a molecular biological aspect, our bodies on a cellular level would fall into the idea of organismic valuing in the sense of striving for progression in the face of entropic degradation and environmental degradation. E.g you can't CBT your way out of inflammation, or DNA repair. I point out this because i feel like the conscious aspect of the self gets conflated. The human organism is much more than just that part of the brain, and in my experience, the conscious aspect of ourself is the thing that gets in the way of organismic valuing. I'd love to hear what you think of this as i by no means know it all but i'm interested in learning Thanks
Hi Gus! Thank you so much for your very thoughtful comment! Fair play to you for dipping in to theory outside of your immediate domain. Ultimately, I think it will make you better at your specific area of expertise. Interdisciplinary insight is brilliant to have! For instance, I'd like to think my interest in theoretical physics helps me with understanding psychology and neuroscience. Firstly, I would offer a gentle push-back against the idea that the conscious aspect of our experience is located in our frontal cortex. Our frontal cortex is certainly a distinguishing element of what makes humans human. However it is not necessarily the locus of consciousness - something that remains a mystery. Additionally, in the infant food preference example I provide, you could argue that these preferences are likely unconscious. I really like your framing of organismic valuing from the perspective of order, and it signposts to an important critique of Rogerian organismic valuing. There is no one specific definition of the concept. One may be defined in the future, and I would not be surprised if it involves entropy as you so eloquently described. However in Rogers' texts that specificity is unfortunately lacking. A really interesting element of human biology that speaks to your point about the human organism being much more that the brain alone is the enteric nervous system, typically overlooked in both fields of psychology and neuroscience. John Cryan and Ted Dinan from University College Cork are doing some really interesting research in this field, examining the brain-gut-microbe axis. I'll be making a video regarding there work in the future so be sure to subscribe if you'd like to see it. Additionally, I made a video last year discussing the distinction between cognition and consciousness which you might find interesting. ruclips.net/video/_hCxuY5sMG0/видео.html What do you think of consciousness? Do you think it plays an important role in medicine?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc Your push back on consciousness is completely justified ! I'm well aware of the enigma of the consciousness and i should've articulated it better but i guess i was more on the point of that cognitive aspect of decision making that consciousness is apart of. I think consciousness is people best friend and enemy and it makes like interesting for sure. I also don't think it matters whether i believe it plays an important role in medicine as it does whether i like it or not Keep up the good content, happy to subscribe !
@@Angusrobertss Consciousness and decision making are two fascinating topics! Especially when it comes to health related behaviours. I'd highly recommend the work of Rothman and Salovey if you haven't already come across them, especially given your studies. They do very important work investigating how framing interacts with decisions concerning health related behaviours. That's a very interesting point. Reality is how it is, regardless of how we think about it! Thanks a million Gus. Engaging with people like yourself inspires me to keep at it! Hope to chat with you again!
@@PatsPsychologyMSc Likewise! i'll put Rothman & Salovey on my reading list, to go with the thousand other fascinating people i need to read :D Keep up the content
@@PatsPsychologyMSc the kindness in the eyes, the gentleness that comes up naturally, the polite approach combined with evidence, and the lovely 'r' cannot belong to anyone else but an Irish soul! I am a foreign student from Bulgaria and have done my BSc in Scotland and MA in England and have been luckily blessed enough to meet the Irish culture as well along my way and could say that I love all my Irish friends! Been a pleasure to watch your content! Keep up the good work!
@Aleksandra Tsenkova wow, what a generous comment that is! Thanks you so much. You've brightened my morning, and made my day! I am delighted that your encounters with my fellow countrypeople have been so lovely. I look forward to visiting Bulgaria some day. If I meet anybody half as kind as you it will be a worthwhile trip! You've inspired me to get back to making some more content, so thank you again! Is there any particular topic / research paper that you'd like me to me to make an episode on? It'd be my pleasure!
Hey Pat! Fantastic videos. In order for Roger's personality theory to have credit - what underlying assumptions do you feel it makes about personality/the human condition?
Hi Rie! Thank you so much for your kind words and your viewership. They're both extremely inspiring! Two assumptions of Rogerian theory spring to mind. Firstly, with regard to conditions of worth and unconditional positive regard, there appears to be an assumption of a sort of environmental determinism. Ironically, this environmental determinism seems like quite a behaviourist assumption. Secondly, regarding the organismic potential, there seems to be a sort of vitalistic / spiritualistic assumption. The seeming intangibility of the organismic potential leads me to infer this assumption. Neither assumption is necessarily explicit in Roger's writings. They are inferences that I have made from reading his work - and I could be wrong! If you haven't seen my first video on Rogers Personality theory, I'd highly recommend it. It will help inform the answer to your question greatly. ruclips.net/video/u0cmpwoNBfk/видео.html What assumptions do you feel Rogers makes? I'd love to see what you think!
Hi Snippets! Rogerian theory has contributed so much to the field of psychology. I suppose, like most things, it's not without its flaws. Personally, I love the theory, but think it's not the be-all-and-end-all. What do you feel personally?
@@wesleyberry2730 Brilliant Wesley! I'm delighted that you are human, and that you found the critique of Rogers' theory helpful! As for me having a handsome face, I don't know if that will pass peer review
My girlfriend is doing a Masters in Applied Behavioural Analysis, and it's a Mickey Mouse subject. Complete nonsense. Might as well give out the diplomas on the back of a cereal box.
Hi Caoimhin! Thank you for your comment, it gave me a great laugh! Applied Behavioural Analysis (or ABA) is a very important, and often controversial approach in Psychology. ABA's pragmatism is undeniable (Virues-Ortega, 2010). However some people criticise its application for forcing people to behave in socially constructed "normal" ways (Solomon, 2016). By reinforcing behaviours that society deems "normal", ABA's detractors argue that people's individuality is affected. Proponents of the approach point to how it helps numerous people function more effectively in society. I hope your girlfriend enjoys her studies, and that the cereal she gets free with her diploma is both healthy and delicious! Have either of you a topic which you would like me to make a future video on? References: Somolon, A (2016) nymag.com/news/features/47225/index4.html Virués-Ortega, J. (2010). doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01...
"Unconditional" Positive Regard. Lots of valid and interesting points there Pat. Thank you.
Lots to like here Pat thank you for your analysis. I'm a master's student pursuing integrative counselling and psychotherapy here are my comments
1. Organismic Valuing - It's possible that Rogers' theory of personality doesn't neatly fit into the scientific realm, and imposing the criterion of falsifiability may not be entirely appropriate. What are your thoughts on introspection and phenomenological realities that are only ascertained after accurate insight? Not all truth is scientific and the scientific method is only one of many ways to explore the nature of reality.
2. UPR and Core Conditions - You attempted to show how ABA contradicts UPR and Core Conditions. How does it do that?
3. Anti-social emotions as stunted self-actualising tendency- The tumour could have been caused by the stunted self-actualising tendency. Does matter give rise to mind?
Just general questions to start a dialogue you might never see them or be drawn to respond. Regardless, I agree that the theory isn't integral and that including other theories is crucial to solidifying our understanding of personality.
Hi @wakeupandflow! I appreciate your thoughtful comments and engagement with the video. Let's dive into your questions:
1. Regarding organismic valuing, I think they're might be a fundamental difference of opinion here between us. I think that nothing is beyond the scientific realm, and everything can be tested using scientific methods. Perhaps falsifiability is the wrong scientific tool for the job here, but ultimately I am convinced that Roger's personality theory can be comprehensively assessed using scientific inquiry. Relatedly, I think that introspection and phenomenological realities are within the scientific realm.
2. Concerning UPR, core conditions and ABA, I attempted to highlight the clash between behaviourist approaches (focused more on external behaviors) and humanistic principles (emphasizing internal processes and subjective experience). Do you see any conflict here?
3. You touch on "the hard problem of consciousness" here, beyond the scope of this video (and indeed my expertise!!) I would be curious to hear your own thoughts here.
Thank you for your considered questions! Curious to hear your further thoughts.
Well, regarding the Charles Whitman example, perhaps his giving into this violent tendencies was also due to him not getting any support or recognition from others that he was having symptoms of a brain tumor. In this sense, his self-actualizing tendency was blocked. One could imagine an alternate set of events in which Charles Whitman was recognized as being ill by his loved ones, and sent to the hospital for treatment, in which case he would have had no chance to do what he did. Another example is George Gershwin. Gershwin had a massive brain tumor and complained of headaches and symptoms that fell on deaf ears, and remained unrecognized even by those who were closest to him. In this way, Gershwin's self-actualizing tendency was blocked. I enjoyed looking at this video very much. I liked your discussion of how ABA is contrary to unconditional positive regard, but I don't quite get that, either. I can see how ABA involves "conditioning" in the learning sense of the word, but this seems like a totally different concept from "conditional" positive regard in the Rogerian sense. I have not looked at the sources yet that you provide. I will do that, but the above is my first impressions regarding what you talked about.
Thanks Phil for the really thought-provoking comment. For me the crucial point in your framing the Charles Whitman example is "...and sent to the hospital for treatment". I think the biomedical approach here would have been Whitman's saviour, rather than the Humanistic approach in isolation. What do you think?
The Gershwin example is a fascinating one, I was unfamiliar with his case. Thank you for sharing!
That is a really valuable impression you share Phil. There may be an important distinction between conditioning and conditional positive regard. I have considered them this far as relatively equivalent ideas, but perhaps that's a false equivalency which I hold! What do you reckon?
Working on an applied behavior analysis, a bachelors degree in psychology. Greatly appreciate your video. I hope to continue my education after I graduate. So I am subscribing to your channel, again thanks, you rock!
Wow, what an incredibly kind comment! Thank you so much Samantha.
Delighted you've enjoyed your psychological education enough to consider continuing it. What further education programmes have you been looking at?
My initial thought about the brain tumour was that it was a physical manifestation of an emotional or spiritual problem since they are all interconnected, which could make rogers theory somewhat correct. I'm still trying to figure it all out! Great video thanks :)
Very hard to know! It would be fascinating to conduct gene sequencing on Whitman's tissue if it would be possible. Do you think any of our emotional and spiritual worlds are hardcoded into our DNA?
Really good video Pat ! As Socrates Quote: “The perfect human being is all human beings put together, it is a collective, it is all of us together that make perfection.”
One the reasons that made me choose my course was is integrative structure, Psychotherapy Hypnotherapy and conselling with a massive contribution from Carl Rogers but also integrates other individual theories like Freudian and many more. I always struggle at school because I always saw that separation in place and for me wasn't natural. We also got the same problem at various subjects in our life take religion for example, there are lots of them with different theory's but in their core when you really dig into them you realised that they all talking of the same god or conciesceness. One good theory is the Samadhi that describes every individual watching different parts of an elephant and stating that the truth was just the side that you were at. We can all analyse reality differently and as you mentioned the truth evolution will occur when all individuals and theories integrate and creates an ability to see the worl in a different way.
Fascinating and insightful comment, thank you so much for sharing! Also, the Samadhi philosophy sounds really interesting. I must check it out!
May I ask where you are completing your studies?
You will love it I'm sure. I'm on a pathway to a masters with the National college of Hypnosis & Psychotherapy at London and I'm really enjoying it very deep and like I mentioned I love the integrated learning structure.
@@gilfernandesholistic love the unified approach. Best of luck with your studies and thank you for introducing me to Samadhi!
The analogy of an elephant and all looking at the object from different angles is a pretty poor one when it comes to religions. Firstly, not all religions have a God, like Buddhism not aiming to ever be with a god. Hinduism has hundreds of gods. Those are very very large differences. Of the three main theistic religions, two, Islam and Judaism are working their way to being good enough to be accepted by God... It's all about what the person does to be good enough to be accepted by God, thru good works and keeping laws. Christianity has a God that becomes a human being in the person of Jesus and he comes down to them because it is is said they can never work their way to God, so he sacrifices himself to pay for people's sins. These are completely incompatible logically. None could be correct or one could be correct, but they can't all be correct. It's certainly not looking at the same thing from different angles. It's a different belief systems altogether.
Another great video :)
Thanks man!
Hi Pat, thanks for the video, wanted to share my thoughts.
I think the brain tumour is an odd example personally, because that is beyond the scope of any therapeutic approach. It would be like criticising a hairdryer for not being able to extinguish a fire, you know? It’s not designed for that. So it feels disingenuous to say PCT can’t literally shrink tumours
I do get that PCT is criticised for not being appropriate for more severe mental health disorders, and that’s valid, but you could likely find a number of conditions or scenarios which other forms of therapy are similarly inequipped to handle. For instance, I know a CBT practitioner who became disillusioned with the approach when he realised how ineffective it is for treating grief and bereavement, which PCT could be more suitable for
The conditions of worth argument regarding autistic children is also a bit iffy. My interpretation of conditions of worth is that children are told they are loved, clever, talented etc always, rather than only when they have performed a desirable behaviour like came first in a talent show. This way they learn their caregivers love is unconditional
So I’m confused at what you mean when you say this is bad for autistic children. I suppose direct communication, “yes this is good”, “no that is bad” can be helpful, but there are also autistic adults who are traumatised from having to repress their natural tendencies due to it being shamed out of them as children. They mask intensely as a result and this has very negative outcomes for mental health. In this sense, being told they are loved and accepted unconditionally would have a positive effect. Perhaps it depends on the level of support needs of the child?
I would also say the organismic self example regarding childhood food choices only means that the concept of an organismic self does not apply to children. This is a limitation for sure, but imo is far from suggesting that the organismic self does not exist in adulthood
Those are my two cents. I hope my tone isn’t seen as attacking, I mean this in the spirit of a friendly and respectful debate (which you seem very open to!) Thank you for the video :)
Hi there! Thank you so much for taking the time to share your thoughtful insights. It's great to hear your perspective on the points discussed in the video.
You mentioned the analogy with brain tumours, and I understand your point that different therapeutic approaches have their specialties. However, my criticism of PCT centres on how much of the theory relies on semantics and subjectivity. The criticism here isn't intended to be specifically about PCT's ability to treat tumours, but rather about how the theory's terminology and concepts can sometimes be vague and open to interpretation - which I guess is how I ended up talking about something as abstract as a brain tumour.
For instance, the notion of "organismic self" can be seen as quite abstract and subjective. It's not always easy to pin down precisely what it means or how it manifests in practical therapy - hence the example of children’s food choices. This level of subjectivity can be a challenge when trying to apply PCT consistently in different therapeutic contexts.
Regarding conditions of worth, some consider PCT's emphasis on unconditional positive regard as an oversimplification of complex psychological dynamics, and I think this is an important argument. While it may be beneficial in some cases, it may not always provide the most effective guidance for all individuals, especially those with diverse needs and backgrounds - which you allude to nicely.
I feel that while PCT has its merits and is a valuable approach for many, its reliance on a practitioner’s perspective leads to limitations and challenges in its application. Disclaimer: I’m currently a trainee psychotherapist in the humanistic modality so I certainly see its strong points! Although, I find it crucial to maintain a critical eye and consider various perspectives when evaluating its effectiveness - an approach I wish to bring to my own therapeutic practice. What do you reckon?
Lastly, your tone is respectful and constructive, and I sincerely appreciate your engagement. It's through conversations like these that we can gain a deeper understanding of these concepts. So thank you again for sharing your two cents! 😊
Hi Pat, i just wanted to point out something to you that might be of value.
I'm a Medical Research Masters student and my undergrad was in biomedical science so i don't come from a psychological basis but i am engrossed in the psychoanalysists, phenomenologists and existentialists and a spend a lot of time trying to understand them.
I just wanted to point out a part of the critique on organismic valuing. It appears the critique you cited like the children example predominantly assume the conscious aspect our existence ie frontal cortex based thinking makes up a larger part of the organism than it does. Coming from a molecular biological aspect, our bodies on a cellular level would fall into the idea of organismic valuing in the sense of striving for progression in the face of entropic degradation and environmental degradation. E.g you can't CBT your way out of inflammation, or DNA repair.
I point out this because i feel like the conscious aspect of the self gets conflated. The human organism is much more than just that part of the brain, and in my experience, the conscious aspect of ourself is the thing that gets in the way of organismic valuing.
I'd love to hear what you think of this as i by no means know it all but i'm interested in learning
Thanks
Hi Gus! Thank you so much for your very thoughtful comment!
Fair play to you for dipping in to theory outside of your immediate domain. Ultimately, I think it will make you better at your specific area of expertise. Interdisciplinary insight is brilliant to have! For instance, I'd like to think my interest in theoretical physics helps me with understanding psychology and neuroscience.
Firstly, I would offer a gentle push-back against the idea that the conscious aspect of our experience is located in our frontal cortex. Our frontal cortex is certainly a distinguishing element of what makes humans human. However it is not necessarily the locus of consciousness - something that remains a mystery.
Additionally, in the infant food preference example I provide, you could argue that these preferences are likely unconscious.
I really like your framing of organismic valuing from the perspective of order, and it signposts to an important critique of Rogerian organismic valuing. There is no one specific definition of the concept. One may be defined in the future, and I would not be surprised if it involves entropy as you so eloquently described. However in Rogers' texts that specificity is unfortunately lacking.
A really interesting element of human biology that speaks to your point about the human organism being much more that the brain alone is the enteric nervous system, typically overlooked in both fields of psychology and neuroscience. John Cryan and Ted Dinan from University College Cork are doing some really interesting research in this field, examining the brain-gut-microbe axis. I'll be making a video regarding there work in the future so be sure to subscribe if you'd like to see it.
Additionally, I made a video last year discussing the distinction between cognition and consciousness which you might find interesting. ruclips.net/video/_hCxuY5sMG0/видео.html
What do you think of consciousness? Do you think it plays an important role in medicine?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc Your push back on consciousness is completely justified ! I'm well aware of the enigma of the consciousness and i should've articulated it better but i guess i was more on the point of that cognitive aspect of decision making that consciousness is apart of.
I think consciousness is people best friend and enemy and it makes like interesting for sure. I also don't think it matters whether i believe it plays an important role in medicine as it does whether i like it or not
Keep up the good content, happy to subscribe !
@@Angusrobertss Consciousness and decision making are two fascinating topics! Especially when it comes to health related behaviours. I'd highly recommend the work of Rothman and Salovey if you haven't already come across them, especially given your studies. They do very important work investigating how framing interacts with decisions concerning health related behaviours.
That's a very interesting point. Reality is how it is, regardless of how we think about it!
Thanks a million Gus. Engaging with people like yourself inspires me to keep at it! Hope to chat with you again!
@@PatsPsychologyMSc Likewise! i'll put Rothman & Salovey on my reading list, to go with the thousand other fascinating people i need to read :D Keep up the content
@@Angusrobertss you're like myself, a lot to read, not enough time to read it! Thanks a million Gus, great to have your viewership!
Great content! God bless Ireland!
Thank you Aleksandra! Your comment gave me a great laugh! How did you know I'm Irish??!!
@@PatsPsychologyMSc the kindness in the eyes, the gentleness that comes up naturally, the polite approach combined with evidence, and the lovely 'r' cannot belong to anyone else but an Irish soul! I am a foreign student from Bulgaria and have done my BSc in Scotland and MA in England and have been luckily blessed enough to meet the Irish culture as well along my way and could say that I love all my Irish friends! Been a pleasure to watch your content! Keep up the good work!
@Aleksandra Tsenkova wow, what a generous comment that is! Thanks you so much. You've brightened my morning, and made my day! I am delighted that your encounters with my fellow countrypeople have been so lovely. I look forward to visiting Bulgaria some day. If I meet anybody half as kind as you it will be a worthwhile trip! You've inspired me to get back to making some more content, so thank you again! Is there any particular topic / research paper that you'd like me to me to make an episode on? It'd be my pleasure!
Hey Pat! Fantastic videos. In order for Roger's personality theory to have credit - what underlying assumptions do you feel it makes about personality/the human condition?
Hi Rie! Thank you so much for your kind words and your viewership. They're both extremely inspiring!
Two assumptions of Rogerian theory spring to mind. Firstly, with regard to conditions of worth and unconditional positive regard, there appears to be an assumption of a sort of environmental determinism. Ironically, this environmental determinism seems like quite a behaviourist assumption.
Secondly, regarding the organismic potential, there seems to be a sort of vitalistic / spiritualistic assumption. The seeming intangibility of the organismic potential leads me to infer this assumption.
Neither assumption is necessarily explicit in Roger's writings. They are inferences that I have made from reading his work - and I could be wrong!
If you haven't seen my first video on Rogers Personality theory, I'd highly recommend it. It will help inform the answer to your question greatly.
ruclips.net/video/u0cmpwoNBfk/видео.html
What assumptions do you feel Rogers makes? I'd love to see what you think!
Do you personally have a problem with Karl Rodger's theory?
Hi Snippets! Rogerian theory has contributed so much to the field of psychology. I suppose, like most things, it's not without its flaws. Personally, I love the theory, but think it's not the be-all-and-end-all. What do you feel personally?
Thank you for making a helpful video while having a handsome face.
Only a bot would be this flattering, surely....
@@PatsPsychologyMSc One would think so but after some brief existential introspection I have decided that I am quite human.
@@wesleyberry2730 Brilliant Wesley! I'm delighted that you are human, and that you found the critique of Rogers' theory helpful! As for me having a handsome face, I don't know if that will pass peer review
And yet I wonder... Have I failed the Turing test? 2022 internet confuses me!
My girlfriend is doing a Masters in Applied Behavioural Analysis, and it's a Mickey Mouse subject. Complete nonsense. Might as well give out the diplomas on the back of a cereal box.
Hi Caoimhin! Thank you for your comment, it gave me a great laugh!
Applied Behavioural Analysis (or ABA) is a very important, and often controversial approach in Psychology. ABA's pragmatism is undeniable (Virues-Ortega, 2010). However some people criticise its application for forcing people to behave in socially constructed "normal" ways (Solomon, 2016). By reinforcing behaviours that society deems "normal", ABA's detractors argue that people's individuality is affected. Proponents of the approach point to how it helps numerous people function more effectively in society.
I hope your girlfriend enjoys her studies, and that the cereal she gets free with her diploma is both healthy and delicious! Have either of you a topic which you would like me to make a future video on?
References:
Somolon, A (2016) nymag.com/news/features/47225/index4.html
Virués-Ortega, J. (2010). doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01...