Entry #10 – A self case study

Entry #9 - The phenomenological perspective

The humanistic approach as a variety of theorists, and many of them applied different labels such as existential or phenomenological to their psychology. In the phenomenological viewpoint, there are two basic assumptions. The first is that behavior must be understood in terms of the subjective experience of the individual. Basically, if you want to understand behavior, you must first understand the person producing the behavior and how they see the world. The second assumption is that behavior is not constrained by either past experiences nor current circumstances. 

Rogers is one of the theorists involved in the phenomenal field. According to him we all live in a world of our own creation formed by our processes of perception. He referred to each individuals perception of reality as his or her phenomenal field. He also said that we have perceptual processes that structure our experiences of the world according to "highly individual realities". In many cases our personal perceptions (subjective reality) are in accordance with the "objective reality" or external world. According to Rogers we each live in our own subjective realities that can only be known completely by ourselves. It is this individual (or phenomenological) perception of reality rather than the objective reality that ultimately determines behavior. 

I think that this is a very interesting view of psychology and how our behavior is determined, and I agree with it to a certain extent. I definitely have a subjective reality that is sometimes quite different from the objective reality. One good example of this is how I see myself in my mind's eye - when I think of myself (physically) in my mind, I look different than I do in real life. It's not very different, but it's little things, and usually things that change on a daily basis - like how my hair is. While this probably does not affect my life much, as I am not particularly concerned about how I look, nor do I view myself in my mind's eye very often, it does show the gap between our personal subjective realities and the objective reality. 

The famous image that I attached to this post depicts someone at odds with the relation between their subjective reality and the external world or objective reality. 

Entry #8 - Rogers conditional and unconditional positive regard

Rogers saw the need for positive regard, in the form of approval and love as universal. He said that we would ideally receive this type of regard on a free and open basis as both children and adults. He believed in unconditional positive regard, which is acceptance and caring extended simply because the person is a human being. Many religions have urged people to accept this attitude but it is a very difficult thing to adopt all of the time and always put into practice. Roger called regard that is given only for meeting certain standards of behaviour conditional positive regard. As children, we are rewarded for doing little things like sharing or cleaning up our rooms and in later life this trend continues- positive regard is given for good preformance at school or work. We also find that our friends will encourage some actions and scorn others (otherwise known as the phenomenon "peer pressure"). The problem with conditional positive regard is that it often leaves the person feeling that it is their self, not their behaviour that is unacceptable. Ideally it should be possible to value a person as a human being without implying that you accept all of their actions (basically regard for the person would be unconditional but regard for their actions would be conditional). In practice however, this does not work out quite so well because both the person giving regard and the person receiving regard find the distinction between the person and the action hard to maintain. When one's actions are criticized, it is hard to not take it as one's general competence and worth as a human. 

I think that Rogers brings up an interesting point in conditional and unconditional positive regard. I can think of times when i have felt conditional positive regard from family and friends. One example that is a fairly prevailing things is that I feel as if I will only get positive regard and love from my parents if I do well in school and get into a good college, and perhaps more importantly, live up to the standards that my sister set for me, even though I know that they will love me no matter what. I know that they have unconditional positive regard to me, even though they have conditional positive regard towards my actions. It is sometimes hard to seperate these two though, and I think this becomes more difficult with people that are not quite as stable in life as your family -- like your friends or someone you are in a relationship with. While your family (hopefully!) will always be there, through the good and the bad, it is harder to take conditional positive regard from people who are not as accountable in the future. 

The picture attached to this post is of Carl Rogers, the theorist attached to unconditional and conditional positive regard. 

Entry #7 - Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow was a humanistic theorist who recognized the complexity of motivation and so sought to describe it in terms of a hierarchy of needs - which is a model of basic human needs, structured in a hierarchical way. The most basic needs are those which are linked to our survival - our physiological needs for food, air, sleep, etc. When these needs go unfulfilled, nothing else matters, but once these needs are fulfilled, other types of needs are experienced. The next level of our needs are our safety needs which relate to both physical and psychological safety. The next level of needs are related to love and belongingness - giving and receiving acceptance and affection. These needs are usually fulfilled by our interactions with family and friends. There are many phenomena that reflect the human need for this level, such as dating clubs and personal ads. The next level up on the hierarchy is esteem needs - this means that the individual feels a need to feel self respect and the sense of being competent at what one does and receiving regard from others. 

Maslow believes that the more basic the need the more powerfully it is experienced and the more difficult it is to suppress or ignore. For this reason, the most basic needs are universally experienced, where as the higher needs are less commonly experienced. Maslow did believe, however, that the hierarchy is not completely rigid - this qualifies many special situations such as parental sacrifice. The highest level of the hierarchy of needs is self actualization, but Maslow believes that most people will rarely experience a strong need for self actualization because the lower needs are rarely ever completely satisfied.  A self actualized person, according to Maslow, has most or all of these characteristics: accurate perception of reality, enjoyment of new experiences, tendency to have peak experiences, clear moral standards, sense of humour, feeling of kinship with all people, close friendships, democratic character accepting others, need for privacy, independence from culture and environment,  creativity, spontaneity, problem centred rather than self centred, acceptance of human nature and resistance to conformity.  

Maslow's hierarchy of needs are very interesting theory as to our needs and how and in what order they need to be fulfilled. I think that both my physiological and safety needs are completely fulfilled -- I am not going hungary or being deprived of water (although sometimes I could use a little more sleep!) and I always feel safe, both physically and physiologically. An example of someone whose physiological needs are not being met is someone who is experiencing malnutrition from hunger. A friend of mine was anorexic last year, and she is currently recovering, but at the time she was not having her physiological needs met. I also have another friend that is not having his safety needs met - he has an extreme phobia of falling down the stairs to his death, and this causes him a lot of anxiety, which stops his safety needs from being met. I think that while my love and belonging needs are being met fairly well, I don't think that anyone's can ever be fully met because there is always some degree of uncertainty, especially concerning the future fulfillment of that need, when there are other people involved. But for the most part I think this level is being fulfilled for me - I have a loving family and great friends and am in a relationship, and even if these things are not constant everyday - I live far away from my family and many of my friends - this needs is primarily filled. The next level of need fulfillment is esteem - I think that this level is generally well fulfilled in my case, although because I have not have a very stable living situation in the recent past, and I have changed in personality significantly in recent years, this is a much more fluctuating one, and I have had higher or lower self esteem depending on my friendship/family situation. Currently I have medium level self esteem - while I believe and have faith in myself, my self esteem is definitely not as high as it could be - I am more easily swayed by other people's opinions than I would like and I am more sensitive towards and dependent on other people than I would like. 

While I think I have some of the qualities of a self actualized person, I think that in realizing that goal I still have a long way to go. 

The attached picture is pyramid displaying the hierarchy of needs. 

Entry #6 - Horney's Basic Evils

Karen Horney was one of the first female analysts and was extremely critical of the male centered ideas in Freud's theories. She was particularly focused on Freud's notion of penis envy or the idea that women feel inferior to men. She in fact argued that women and physiologically superior. Despite of these differences she agreed with Freud and Adler that early childhood is extremely important in shaping personality. She came up with some of her own theories, too - one of them being about the "basic evils".

Her theory says that unconscious conflict is between hostility towards unloving parents and anxious helplessness. The "basic evils" that parents can commit to create this unconscious conflict are: domination, isolation, overprotection, hostility, indifference, inconsistent behaviour, disparagement, parental discord, lack of respect and guidance and lack of encouragement and warmth. Horney also came up with ways that people cope with basic evil as part of her theory. The first is moving towards others, or "compliance". People who cope in this manner feel a need for affection and approval, want their partner to take control and restrict their life to narrow boundaries. They might think for reasoning their actions "If you love me, you will not hurt me." The second way of coping is moving against others, or "aggression". People using this type of coping mechanism feel a need for power, omnipotence and perfection. They sometimes exploit others and search for social recognition and prestige, personal admiration and personal achievement. They might think for reasoning their actions "If I have power, no one can hurt me." The third type of coping is moving away from others or "detachment". People who use this coping device feel a need to restrict their life to narrow boundaries, and want to be self sufficient, strive for perfection and unassailability. They might think for reasoning their actions "If I withdraw, nothing can hurt me."

I think that this is a very interesting theory, but I don't believe that it covers as much as it is meant to. Horney originally intended it to explain all of our unconscious conflict - using the basic evils as the reason for the conflict and the ways of coping as how we react and how it reflects in our personality and being. But I don't think that just how our parents treat us badly can account for this much of our personality and inner conflict. For example, I had a very good childhood - I love my parents dearly and they have always been very good to me - I can't think of any of the basic evils as applying to our relationship. They were not indifferent, they did not reject me, they never showed hostility or preference for my sister. They did not unfairly punish me, or ridicule, humiliate or lie to me. While I am sure that at some specific times in my childhood they did some of these things, I believe that we are all human and make mistakes. The important thing is that none of them were important or prominent in my childhood or occur regularly today. 

As far as my personal experience with these coping mechanisms that she suggested, when I read about them I automatically thought of people I know who show these signs or mannerisms, and I also reflected upon which ones of these I see in myself. To begin with, I have a friend back home in the states who comes under the "compliance" coping device - she is always looking for approval from her friends, and teachers and is extremely affectionate and expects the same back when she is in a relationship, and when she is not in a relationship is always looking for someone who will show unconditional love and caring towards her. She does not like to push boundaries or do things that are outside of her comfort zone. I see some of these qualities in myself, but upon reflecting on these three coping mechanisms, I realized that I use all of them, changing which on on what situation I am in. For example, I have a need for affection and approval from friends, family and when I am in a relationship, but I often combine this coping mechanism with "aggression" in that I unconsciously feel better about being "vunerable" in a relationship if I have personal accomplishments that are independent of other people. I also unconsciously use detachment in some situations in that I dislike being dependent on others and like to be completely self sufficient. 

Entry #5 - Alfred Adler

Alfred Adler was another psychodynamic theorist who studied inferiority, superiority, associated complexes and compensation. His views were mainly shaped by his interest in organic dysfunctions and Darwinism theory. His notion of inferiority is that all children experience a sense of inferiority because of their size and dependence on others. He said that this inferiority will lead to attempts at overcoming the perceived weakness, or otherwise compensating. He believed that this process is motivated by the generalized drive known as "striving for superiority". As opposed to Freud's emphasis on sexual and aggressive drives, Adler saw motivation as the desire for mastery over oneself and a striving for power. He saw striving for superiority as a lifelong process that is guided by conscious goals and values rather than but forces of the unconscious. For Adler, the most important influence on the development of personality is the experience of childhood inferiority. 

Some individuals have such a strong experience that they develop a lifelong sense of inferiority, otherwise known as an inferiority complex. An inferiority complex is an intense feeling of insecurity based on the failure to resolve the feelings evoked by childhood experiences of helplessness. Others develop a superiority complex which is essentially a response to feelings of inferiority and the person deals with it by attempting to mask it by adopting an attitude of exaggerated self importance. Early experiences such as having a major illness, being spoiled or being neglected can have a major impact on how the child views their own capacities which in turn affects the child's social interactions. 

I think that Adler's concept of inferiority and superiority complexes is very interesting, and valid but only to a certain extent. Unlike Adler, I do not believe that childhood experiences of inferiority have THAT big of an impact on our personalities later in life, although I agree that early experiences do help shape our view of ourself and in turn how we react to the world. On a more personal level, I do not believe that I developed a inferiority or superiority complex due to my childhood experiences. I do remember feeling more helpless when I was younger, and hence inferior. I think this feeling was especially great in my case because my older sister always had more freedom and could do more on her own than I could, so not only did I feel inferior to adults, but I felt inferior to my closest peer, my sister. I don't think this caused me to develop a complex, however, because I don't feel like I am over compensating or under compensating for this feeling of inferiority in my childhood. I have no particular reason (such as being overly pampered, neglected or having a major disease) to have some sort of distorted view of my capacities and capabilities. 

The attached picture is a comic strip depicting a comical action of someone with a inferiority complex. 

Entry #4 - Erikson's Psychosocial Stages

Erik Erikson created his own theory of development which greatly differed from Freud's in a variety of ways. In Erikson's theory, the main drives are social ones, not sexual or aggressive ones and he believes that these are biologically based. Erikson believes that to progress through the stages, one must develop, or resolve a series of problems or conflicts which concern the individuals sense of self and relationships with other people. Also, Erikson's theory has eight stages, half of which focus on the years after puberty, although in this reflective journal I will only talk about the stages up till and including adolescence. In Erikson's opinion, personality continues to change in adulthood. 

The first of Erikson's stages occurs from the time someone is born till they are about a year and a half old. This stage is trust vs. mistrust, and involves developing trust in others as well as in oneself. This is very important for infants, as they show by their attachment to their parent's, typically their mother. I think that I learned to trust people as well as myself fairly strongly during this stage. When I was very young I was always cared for, either by my mother, father or a babysitter or other family member. Because I have a sister who is two years older than me, my mother was focused on taking care of us for the first year or so of my life, before she started to focus on work again. Also, both my parents are very trustworthy and dedicated people, so I assume that they fulfilled my need for connecting and developing trust with them. Now, I tend to be a fairly trusting person, which sometimes does not work to my benefit, but once someone proves that I should not trust them, it is very hard for me to trust that person again. I also trust myself to make good decisions and to lead my life properly, and I believe that everyone should trust themselves more than they trust other people, because they are the only ones who can ultimately control themselves. 

The second stage is from when we are around a year and a half old until we are about three years old. It is autonomy vs. shame, or learning self control. This is very commonly seen in society today -- if you spend any prolonged period of time with a toddler of this age, they are sure to break boundaries and be scolded by their parents. In most societies, this is how children learn what is allowed or is socially acceptable and what is not. While my parents have always been extremely accepting and kind with me, I am sure that there are many incidents during this stage when I was reprimanded, and it probably helped me form my idea of society and they way to act within it. 

The third stage occurs from when we are about 3 years old until we are five. It is initiative vs. guilt, and is about learning to plan and initiate new actions. We often see this in older toddlers and small children - they are just learning about the world, and they want to take initiative to explore it. They are just learning not only about the world, but also about the practicalities of life, as much as they try to avoid it. I have always been one to plan ahead to a certain extent, and I remember my parents tell me that as soon as I could walk, I did not want to be told what to do. While I am not a particularly demanding person now, they said that they used to call me "Talia the dictator" because I always took such initiative to what I wanted to do. I am very independent now and I don't like to have to rely on people for things, I am not quite as set on taking the initiative as I was during this stage. While I rarely feel shame for anything I've done, I often feel guilty, more than the average person, for little things like forgetting to call a friend back or snapping at someone when I am in a bad mood, and that could possibly be traced back to this stage. 

The fourth stage is from when we are five until we are twelve years old, and is about industry vs. inferiority. During this stage people are usually absorbed in activities like school or sports and are developing a sense of competence. During this stage I remember experiencing a real change in my level of independence and not only could I do more than before, but people trusted me to do more than I had before. I was given both more responsibility and more freedom, and I became focused on school and other activities. I have always been a very good student, and I think that probably started at this stage. I remember that while I was not quite as focused on the big picture at this time, or knowledgeable about problems around the world, I was very focused on my achievements within my own little sphere. I also remember that my main focus during this time was achievement and competence and not trying to figure out my person as a whole. 

The fifth stage, and the last one that I will reflect on, as I am still experiencing it, occurs from when we hit puberty until we are about twenty years old. It involves identity vs. role confusion and is focused on forming a clear sense of self identity. In this stage an individual seeks to create a clear sense of who they are, but failing to do so can create role confusion. Because of the self doubt and difficulties in relationships with others that sometimes occur, role confusion can trigger an identity crisis. This is a difficult stage to reflect on, because it is still going on, but I think that it is a very accurate way of describing the recent years of my life, and I think it holds true for the majority of teenagers. When reflecting on recent years, I realize how drastically I have changed - while my general personality and character traits have stayed constant, my general being and sense of self has changed. Even since coming to India at the beginning of the year my sense of identity has changed. Shifting family situations, friend groups, personal priorities and personal experiences have all contributed to my change in identity. While I have not gone through an identity crisis, I don't think I need to to establish my sense of self firmly. I am not sure if I am completely done establishing myself, and I have a feeling I will not be done until sometime after I have been in college and experienced that aspect of life. 

The other three stages are Intimacy vs. isolation, generativity vs. stagnation, and integrity vs. despair, which span respectively from 20 - 25, 25 - 65 and from 65 till death. 

The table attached displays how Erikson's stages correlate with Freuds.  

Entry #3 - Freud's Defense Mechanisms

The ego, in trying to deal with the demands of the id, superego and external world, will invoke various defense mechanisms. Defense mechanism are techniques used by the ego to protect itself from anxiety and the threats that may rise from it. There are a number of different defense mechanisms, and the ego will often use a combination of them. There are several important things to know about defense mechanisms. First, they operate unconsciously, otherwise, they would fail to protect the ego from anxiety. Second, most defense mechanisms offer some sort of gratification in some indirect way, reducing id's demands. Third, defense mechanisms must distort reality to be effective. 

One type is repression, which is the most primitive of all defense mechanisms. It involves the blocking of id impulses at the unconscious level. Freud saw repression as universal but extremely limited. The basic problem is that it fails to resolve the demands of the id, because no gratification occurs. Also, it can require significant amounts of mental energy to maintain the blockage against the increasing pressures for gratification. Maintaining repression can take up energy normally devoted to other things, and so the ego suffers from fatigue, but because repression is unconscious the ego is unaware why it is suffering from fatigue. For this reason, depression is seen by Freudians as extreme repression. There is also a very controversial idea that traumatic memories can be repressed and later recovered. 

I think that repression is a very interesting concept, and I do believe that people repress traumatic memories or experiences, although I have doubts as to how strong one's mind can be in repressing things, and if when you repress something if it is completely in the unconscious mind. I also have doubts as to how long you can repress something for. As far as I know I am not repressing anything, but the irony of repression is that you would not know you are repressing something until it is recovered at some point in time. One example of repression however, is that sometimes children will repress incidents of sexual abuse. 

Displacement is another type which involves redirecting drive energy from one object to a substitute object. It is a very common defense mechanism and is typically when the direct expression of the drives would be too threatening. The problem with displacement is that the substitutes are unrelated to the original object, and so involves a distortion of reality. 

I think that displacement is a very commonly used defense mechanism. I know that I have used displacement before - sometimes if I get upset with someone of authority to whom I cannot retaliate, I will later take out the anger or frustration on someone else - a friend of a family member. Displacement can also be used in healthy ways - for example, I have one friend who has anger management problems, but when she bought a punching bag, she would go take her anger out of it instead of displacing that anger onto other people - her social life improved greatly and so did her upper body strength! 

Identification is another defense mechanism which involves incorporating characteristics of a drive object into one's ego. Identification often occurs initially with one's parents, but more generally it occurs mostly with individuals who are either admired or feared. Sometimes, when we are unable to directly express impulses, we may adopt the guise of a figure in whom such impulses are acceptable. In extreme forms, the identification may replace the individual's own identity. 

I think that almost everyone uses identification at some point during their lives. It is probably most common during one's teenage years, when people are still figuring out who they are in relation to their environment. I know that when I was younger, I identified with my sister because she seemed to be everything my parents wanted in a daughter - smart, athletic, friendly, involved and trustworthy. Because I also wanted to be accepted and loved equally by my parents, I identified with her. I now realize, however, that I am equally loved and accepted by my parents, even if I am not my sister - I have my own personality and I bring my own aspects to the family. 

Rationalization is another defense mechanism that involves offering an acceptable reason for behaviour in place of the true reason. This new reason is acceptable to both the ego and other people (the external world). "White Lies" is an analogy for this mechanism. Since rationalization prevents a person from recognizing the true motives for their actions, it represents a form of distortion of reality. 

I think that people use rationalization as a mechanism more than anyone would like to admit - it is so much easier for us as humans to rationalize actions that we have "unacceptable" motives for. One example of a time that I have used rationalization is when I am procrastinating. To make an excuse to not work, I'll say, "well, I can only hang out with my friends until after dinner, and then I have to go back to dorm for study hall, so I can just hang out with them now because I will have to focus later."

A fifth type is Sublimation, which os when drive energy is redirected towards a socially desirable creative activity. While sublimation is useful, because it results in a valued product, it is also limited because the gratification cannot fully satisfy the demands of the id. Also, because it requires creative talent, it is not a workable mechanism for every individual. 

I think that sublimation is a very interesting form of defense, and I believe it to be a very healthy expression of emotions and drives. I actually believe that without sublimation, many of the greatest creative masterpieces ever made would never have been created.  Art, music, writing, you name it, is powered by emotion and experience, conscious and unconscious. I know that whenever I am feeling a particular emotion intensely, I tend to write poetry - this very well may be a form of sublimation for me.  

The image attached to this post is a flow chart showing some of the different types of defense mechanisms, how they work, and examples.