On the Spiritual Trauma thread you made the following statement:
Your psychology is the Carl Rogers humanistic theory. It really sounds nice, all touchy feeling, unconditional love, etc. But the problem is, it is not very efficacious in terms of treatment. The way to change feelings of self worth is not through sympathy. It is through supporting the individual in making changes toward competence.
I assume that you refer to Carl R. Rogers. If so, I'd like to know what you think about his theories on learning and facilitation of learning.
I am more than certain that this thread will be moved to the Off Topic Forum, just posting it here to get your attention.
Rogers made greater contributions to learning theory than he did to therapy, although not many people not involved in education know about it.
His ideas about non-threatening learning environments are not given credit as much as they should because it makes so much sense that everybody slaps themselves on the forehead and says, "Well, duh." But they didn't say it, and he did.
Your psychology is the Carl Rogers humanistic theory. It really sounds nice, all touchy feeling, unconditional love, etc. But the problem is, it is not very efficacious in terms of treatment. The way to change feelings of self worth is not through sympathy. It is through supporting the individual in making changes toward competence.
Rogerian therapy is very difficult to do, because unconditional love on the part of the therapist is very hard to sustain, and the client knows the instant the therapist has slipped.
It's not sympathy; it's empathy that is needed. Again, too many therapists get the two mixed up, to the detriment of their clients.
Cognitive behaviorial theory is much easier for the therapist.
harmony wrote: Rogerian therapy is very difficult to do, because unconditional love on the part of the therapist is very hard to sustain, and the client knows the instant the therapist has slipped.
It's not sympathy; it's empathy that is needed. Again, too many therapists get the two mixed up, to the detriment of their clients.
Most therapists cannot really feel unconditional love for their patients. They don't know them well enough. Their dysfunctions get in the way. I have a close friend who quit a graduate program when she realized that if a client came to her and admitted child sexual abuse during a therapy session she would have to throw him out of her office.
harmony wrote:Cognitive behaviorial theory is much easier for the therapist.
I for one liked the non-directive and simple inquisitive style of his therapy.
It was always conforting when he put on his sweater and changed his shoes,
althought it did seem a bit compulsive. Never the less, he was right about us
needing to play nice together. Forget about that banana in his pocket, it was
merely his lunch.
moksha wrote: I for one liked the non-directive and simple inquisitive style of his therapy. It was always conforting when he put on his sweater and changed his shoes, althought it did seem a bit compulsive. Never the less, he was right about us needing to play nice together. Forget about that banana in his pocket, it was merely his lunch.
Yes, thank you dear Penguin for your unintentional efforts to get this thread back on to the topic of education.
Can you tell me who it is doing the tribute? I'd rather not be reduced to a puddle of tears without warning. He was one of the most holy, God led spirits that ever graced this planet.
