I once inspected my internal locust to reach organismic potential. It was 3 years ago in a phenomenal field in west Cork. I gave unconditional positive regard, but it was self actualised.
@@PatsPsychologyMSc to be honest, I didn't fully follow everything but enjoy dipping my toe into the (phenomenal) field and seeing what it's all about. Picking up little things along the way
@@SnippetsCutTheBull that's brilliant, I'm delighted you're enjoying dipping your toes! Psychology shouldn't remain exclusively in the domain of psychologists, so thank you for watching. What's been your favorite thing you've picked up along the way?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc I’m just about to watch the critique video and I’m expecting it to be as enlightening as the last. Have forwarded this to all on the course too. This is a public service that you offer I would say 👍
@@lukeyduke9732 ah brilliant! Thank you so much for sharing! My wish is to reach a point where I can devote more resources to each episode, increasing production value and helping a larger audience, so that really means a lot. I hope you nail your assignment!
@@psychologyis it's certainly one of my more favoured therapeutic approaches also. On Monday I'll have my critique of Roger's personality theory ready for sharing. I'd be really curious to hear your opinion on it! Maybe you'll think I miss the mark, hit the nail on the head... or somewhere in between!
I think that Karl's understanding of Love is different from mine! When I love someone I want what's best for that person and it is not dependent on reciprocity. If it was dependent how could parents love their children? For example, think of an infant who constantly wake parents at night but parents continue to love their infants despite the fact that their night's sleep is being interrupted! Even when those I have greatly loved in my life have upset me, for whatever reason, I've continued to love them without any conditions. Real love is always unconditional in my understanding.
This is an extremely important critique Bernadette, thank you very much for sharing! Your comment speaks to the subjective nature of Rogerian theory. Many of Rogers definitions are personal to him, making falsifiability of his ideas a difficult task to undertake. This roadblock to falsifiability is something that I discuss in my video critique of Rogers theory. This critique will be ready for release tomorrow, and I will share it here in reply to this comment once it's ready. Your observation regarding Rogers understanding of love is extremely astute, and I share your criticism. How do you feel about the other elements of Rogerian theory? Such as conditions of worth, and the organismic potential?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc I would agree that most people don't have congruence between the organismic self and the self concept and that most people who don't receive the love / unconditional positive regard they need don't reach their full potential. I think Karl is very wordy and his ideas could be understood more readily if he wasn't so verbose. Simply put if children don't get unconditional love from their parents they most likely will not develop to their full potential. They will also suffer because the lens through which they view the world will be distorted. If a child feels loved and has his needs met at home he is much more likely to view his environment in a positive fashion and be in a much better position to navigate any difficulties. He will be confident in his own opinions and will be less likely to rely on others evaluations! Without unconditional love the child undoubtedly will experience suffering because his basic needs are not met. As a consequence of his suffering he may of course engage in misbehaviour.
@@bernadettemckeown7291 I think we're on the same page Bernadette, absolutely! I discuss your criticisms and more in my latest video, available now at the link below ruclips.net/video/7f1XeBSOYuY/видео.html I'd love to hear any further comments and ideas you have after watching it. Your comments for this video were extremely helpful!
Thank you so much for commenting and subscribing Carina!! Make sure you check out my follow up critique of Roger's theory ruclips.net/video/7f1XeBSOYuY/видео.html Would love to see what you think of my critique. Do you agree totally with Roger's perspective?
Thanks Skione! If you enjoyed this episode, I have a follow up episode critiquing Rogers theory that I think you'd enjoy. I'd love to see what you think of it! ruclips.net/video/7f1XeBSOYuY/видео.html
@@PatsPsychologyMSc well, I tend to agreed with parents expectations and their behaviour, initially but I think that as you grow a more mature thinking one can realize that thinking is one of the biggest problems.. Believing without doubts our own mind is a terrible enemy. I apologize for any mistake.. As you probably have noticed English is not my first language.
@@jaguarazul interesting Ximena, thank you for sharing! Like you, I think that skepticism is a very healthy habit. I don't think that a healthy skepticism should exclude skepticism of ourselves! And don't worry, your English is very good! Do you have any other ways you try to facilitate your self actualization?
So far the most helpful video I’ve watched. Carl Rodgers for dummies!
What a lovely comment Allybueh, thank you!
I once inspected my internal locust to reach organismic potential. It was 3 years ago in a phenomenal field in west Cork. I gave unconditional positive regard, but it was self actualised.
This comment gave me a great laugh Snippets! Do you find Rogers to be a bit wordy, or do you like his phrases?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc to be honest, I didn't fully follow everything but enjoy dipping my toe into the (phenomenal) field and seeing what it's all about. Picking up little things along the way
@@SnippetsCutTheBull that's brilliant, I'm delighted you're enjoying dipping your toes! Psychology shouldn't remain exclusively in the domain of psychologists, so thank you for watching. What's been your favorite thing you've picked up along the way?
This helped a great deal thank you. The new concepts could do better with examples though for better understanding.
Thanks for your feedback Tlangelani!
Thank you dude, I was totally lost on this assignment until watching this video. keep up the good work!
You're very welcome, thanks for your comment! I love helping people through my channel. Did you find this video or the Rogerian critique more helpful?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc I’m just about to watch the critique video and I’m expecting it to be as enlightening as the last. Have forwarded this to all on the course too. This is a public service that you offer I would say 👍
@@lukeyduke9732 ah brilliant! Thank you so much for sharing! My wish is to reach a point where I can devote more resources to each episode, increasing production value and helping a larger audience, so that really means a lot. I hope you nail your assignment!
This is very well explained and engaging, thank you
Thank you so much for the kind comment! Be sure to also check out my critique of Roger's theory
ruclips.net/video/7f1XeBSOYuY/видео.html
Thank you for such an interesting and thought provoking video!
Thanks a million guys! What opinion have you on Rogers?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc you’re welcome! I think so highly of Rogers. His person centered therapy is beautiful and effective.
@@psychologyis it's certainly one of my more favoured therapeutic approaches also. On Monday I'll have my critique of Roger's personality theory ready for sharing. I'd be really curious to hear your opinion on it! Maybe you'll think I miss the mark, hit the nail on the head... or somewhere in between!
I think that Karl's understanding of Love is different from mine! When I love someone I want what's best for that person and it is not dependent on reciprocity. If it was dependent how could parents love their children? For example, think of an infant who constantly wake parents at night but parents continue to love their infants despite the fact that their night's sleep is being interrupted! Even when those I have greatly loved in my life have upset me, for whatever reason, I've continued to love them without any conditions. Real love is always unconditional in my understanding.
This is an extremely important critique Bernadette, thank you very much for sharing!
Your comment speaks to the subjective nature of Rogerian theory. Many of Rogers definitions are personal to him, making falsifiability of his ideas a difficult task to undertake. This roadblock to falsifiability is something that I discuss in my video critique of Rogers theory. This critique will be ready for release tomorrow, and I will share it here in reply to this comment once it's ready.
Your observation regarding Rogers understanding of love is extremely astute, and I share your criticism.
How do you feel about the other elements of Rogerian theory? Such as conditions of worth, and the organismic potential?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc I would agree that most people don't have congruence between the organismic self and the self concept and that most people who don't receive the love / unconditional positive regard they need don't reach their full potential. I think Karl is very wordy and his ideas could be understood more readily if he wasn't so verbose. Simply put if children don't get unconditional love from their parents they most likely will not develop to their full potential. They will also suffer because the lens through which they view the world will be distorted. If a child feels loved and has his needs met at home he is much more likely to view his environment in a positive fashion and be in a much better position to navigate any difficulties. He will be confident in his own opinions and will be less likely to rely on others evaluations! Without unconditional love the child undoubtedly will experience suffering because his basic needs are not met. As a consequence of his suffering he may of course engage in misbehaviour.
@@bernadettemckeown7291 I think we're on the same page Bernadette, absolutely!
I discuss your criticisms and more in my latest video, available now at the link below
ruclips.net/video/7f1XeBSOYuY/видео.html
I'd love to hear any further comments and ideas you have after watching it. Your comments for this video were extremely helpful!
I really liked this, thank u
Thank you so much for commenting and subscribing Carina!! Make sure you check out my follow up critique of Roger's theory
ruclips.net/video/7f1XeBSOYuY/видео.html
Would love to see what you think of my critique. Do you agree totally with Roger's perspective?
excellent stuff. thanks for sharing.
Thanks Skione! If you enjoyed this episode, I have a follow up episode critiquing Rogers theory that I think you'd enjoy. I'd love to see what you think of it!
ruclips.net/video/7f1XeBSOYuY/видео.html
I am so excited to have found your channel. Great content!
Thank you so much Smash! Great to have you watching! I'd love to know how you found me?
Thanks!! 👌👏👏👏
Thank you for commenting Ximena! What is your favourite part of Rogerian theory?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc self actualization and its blocking.. Definitely
@@jaguarazul interesting. From your experience, what are the biggest blockers to self actualization?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc well, I tend to agreed with parents expectations and their behaviour, initially but I think that as you grow a more mature thinking one can realize that thinking is one of the biggest problems.. Believing without doubts our own mind is a terrible enemy.
I apologize for any mistake.. As you probably have noticed English is not my first language.
@@jaguarazul interesting Ximena, thank you for sharing! Like you, I think that skepticism is a very healthy habit. I don't think that a healthy skepticism should exclude skepticism of ourselves!
And don't worry, your English is very good!
Do you have any other ways you try to facilitate your self actualization?