Self actualisation and the individual.

Old 05-13-2006, 12:44 PM
  # 1 (permalink)  
Member
Thread Starter
 
equus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 3,054
Question Self actualisation and the individual.

As part of a (very) low level intro course in counselling we've been given homework of 'explaining' self actualisation. Very briefly (at the risk of slight inaccuracy) self actualisation is the tendency of living beings to move towards growth, that given the right enviroment beings make choices that fill their potential and that this is 'inside' each individual. Roger's argues that this is the sole motivator for all our actions and that providing an enviroment of growth is all that's needed for people to make the best indivifualised choices for themselves and begin to heal.

As part of the homework we've been asked to make it clear what we believe in regards to Roger's theories. Initially I wanted to simply state that without asking further research questions I didn't yet know. But then in the spirit of Roger's belief that answers are inside ourselves I've decided I should write from opinion only, referenceless - no names, dates, footnotes.

As I have no objection to making a prat of myself, and often think better in discussion - what would folk think of me writing the evaluation part here?
equus is offline  
Old 05-13-2006, 04:06 PM
  # 2 (permalink)  
Ann
Nature Girl
 
Ann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: By The Lake
Posts: 60,328
I know that I'd be interested in reading it, Equus. It sounds like an interesting theory to me, and I'd love to see how you work through it.

Hugs,
Ann is offline  
Old 05-14-2006, 12:06 AM
  # 3 (permalink)  
Member
 
minnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 3,410
I would love to hear your thoughts, Eq. I am becoming increasingly interested in concepts such as those proposed by Rogers (and Maslow).

I am certain you won't make a prat of yourself - opinion is not fact.
minnie is offline  
Old 05-14-2006, 12:18 AM
  # 4 (permalink)  
Member
 
leviathon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somwhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,175
I tend to be a bit more towards behaviouralism in that I think you need to often move people from where they are stuck before they can get to a place where they can self actualize.... sorta need the pavlovian dog stuff b/f you can be free to think and become...

What do you think about the whole "empty slate" idea? Are we born as empty slates that are then filled up or do we come with some genetic predispositions that are hardwired...

Sorry, I digress, I'd be interested in reading. Heck if you wanted input, I'd be happy to contribute that as well. I love intellectual stimulation!

Levi.
leviathon is offline  
Old 05-14-2006, 03:34 PM
  # 5 (permalink)  
Member
Thread Starter
 
equus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 3,054
Hehehehee... yep my background is more behaviourism, but I think I've always been interested in mixing it up a bit. For example, I could never understand behaviourist not being interested in neural nets and connectionism.

I went for the course because it's opposite of many of my leanings - I thought it would be stimulating and it is.

I'l start tomorrow - I might do it in bits though. THANKS for the encouragment!!
equus is offline  
Old 05-15-2006, 09:38 AM
  # 6 (permalink)  
Member
Thread Starter
 
equus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 3,054
Part 1.... Self actualisation.

Self Actualisation.
Carl Rogers argued that a discovery had been made, “But we have not known or recognised that in most if not all individuals there exist growth forces, tendencies towards self actualisation…”

Rogers continues describing how given the right conditions individuals are motivated to explore their own attitudes and reality, feel an emotional release and that, “The individual is capable of discovering and perceiving, truly and spontaneously, the interrelationships between his own attitudes, and the relationship of himself to reality. The individual has the capacity and strength to devise, quite unguided, the steps that will lead him to a more mature and more comfortable relationship to his reality.” (Rogers 1946). Roger’s stated that the actualising tendency exists within every living organism and given the right conditions results in growth towards the reaching of full potential.

I believe this contains two important elements, firstly that the motivation for growth exists within us all, that it’s a primary force which is innate rather than received. Rogers uses the metaphor of how plants develop depending on environment. One example used by Rogers is that of a potato growing in the dark with only a minute source of light. He describes how the potato produces a white sprout that would reach towards the light. “The sprouts were, in their bizarre futile growth, a sort of desperate expression of the directional tendency I have been describing. They would never become plants, never mature, never fulfil their real potential. But under the most diverse circumstances, they were striving to become.” (Rogers 1980).

The second element goes beyond desire to grow and suggests that the means to realise growth needs no guidance, it is also innate and exists within us. As I understand it Rogers claims we need nothing more than an environment that allows our own fertile growth to reach our potential. We don’t so much need teaching as an environment that allows us to learn, that it is not direction we need, rather that we are allowed to move freely.

While the theory of self-actualisation is attractive to me and one that I find uplifting I have some reservations. I don’t doubt that people will naturally endeavour to choose what seems best for them in any situation, nor do I personally doubt that it is a highly individual process; however it seems to a certain extent untestable. For example nothing would induce me to leave a perfectly serviceable aeroplane until it had landed and come to a halt, yet to others parachuting is a hobby and a means of fulfilment. How is it possible to objectively evaluate whether parachuting and waiting till the (working!) aircraft lands to get off are both choices leading to growth? If it’s suggested that all choices in the right environment are towards growth and that the person choosing has more expert knowledge than anyone on which choice is optimal, how could we prove the null hypothesis? Despite it’s attraction to me as an idea I would even in full agreement consider it a belief rather than a theory which can be subjected to testing. I believe it is a circular argument, that may not lead to it being wrong but it would be hard to show it as wrong if it was.

On the second issue of whether guidance is needed to make choices leading to growth I would again use the example of parachuting. Having no desire to leap from a aircraft, having decided for myself the few moments of ‘rush’ are not worth the risk, having self determined I don’t want to do it and not feeling in any way stunted by my decision I wouldn’t leap from an aeroplane. However if I was guided by the captain that the aeroplane had run out of fuel and within 3 minutes we would hit a mountain, I’d bet I would be one of the fastest on board to buckle my parachute, get instruction and jump! In that instance I am totally reliant on guidance, my innate will to survive is not enough for me to choose the right path to fulfilment – I need another’s teaching.

The above example is extreme but I would suggest that we are as a species faced continuously with dilemmas. As a species we have the longest childhood, we have culture, language, shared wisdoms, politics, medicine, and that separates us in a distinct way from potatoes. Where as a potato may contain all it needs to know in order to move consistently towards growth I have been grateful to the teachings of others, guidance, and corrections; even the language with which I can express this viewpoint has been the result of teaching. I believe these outside influences have enhanced our potential and that no real world exists with which to examine how much an individual can achieve without guidance. However I have not been passive in learning, I have evaluated both teachers and teachings for myself, not something which all teachers have appreciated.
equus is offline  
Old 05-15-2006, 11:22 PM
  # 7 (permalink)  
Member
 
leviathon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somwhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,175
Here are my comments:

First, your analysis is bang on, I agree ... for the most part... that's sorta my nature...

"... given the right conditions individuals are motivated to explore their own attitudes and reality, feel an emotional release and that, “The individual is capable of discovering and perceiving, truly and spontaneously, the interrelationships between his own attitudes, and the relationship of himself to reality."

To use alcoholism as an example, say there were no consequences of drinking, would you have quit? Would you have discovered or perceived or otherwise spontaneously realized the relationship of your attitudes and your relationship to reality without the consequences?

I use this example because it is one we have in common, and it is also good because it deals with the learning process. I learned drinking was not working anylonger when it started having consequences... i.e. financial, emotional, work, etc. I changed b/c I had no choice. On the flip side, now that I am sober, when I have relapsed, I have learned from that experience, see my recent HALT light bulbs exploding thread. So there is an element of we are able to self actualize and learn spontaneous, however, the idea of HALT came from someone else, I just applied it to myself. This is consistent with what you have written, you could not have learned, etc., but for the society that facilitates it.

An alternate example, slavery, KKK and racism in US or globally. It existed for a long period of time. One group of people actively denied the other group the ability to self actualize. Despite this, some in the controlled group did self actualize, but their progress was seriously limited. I.e. how many black doctors did you see in the 1800's in the US South? Not for lack of interest in health, rather lack of opportunity to self actualize their own drive to improve conditions.

Another example, we see some people as geniuses. However, some say that genius is simply the ability to take what already is and apply it to a new use. For instance, Einstein's theory of relatively was built on the foundations set by those who came before him (i.e. Newton), he needed their theories to be able to come up with relativity. Had they not existed, would Einstein have developed relativity? According to Rogers he would in the right conditions... well the right conditions were the foundation built by those that came before... very circular reasoning.

"the means to realise growth needs no guidance, it is also innate and exists within us." I think this refers to curiousity. Humans as a species have an innate curiousity that is part of our species and it is a means to learning, but it is far more useful when guided. So yes, as it pre exists in humans it doesn't need guidance; however, ask any teacher, if you can capture the curiousity of a child and guide it, the interest will last a lot longer and greater growth and development will occur.

In contrast, I have two cats, one is a kitten, the other is fully grown. They have curiousity, but they don't write books, heck I can't even train them to flush the toilet or use it for that matter... although some can... let me know if you figure out how. The difference between their curiousity, which is also innate, and human curiousity is that our intellect is much greater. They learn from each other through play and by interacting with their world, the same as children do. However, it is clear from watching them that their ability is limited in how far they go with it. In contrast, the abilities of children is not generally so limited. Take the Perry Pre School Study (see below) example, two similar groups of kids, give one an enriched environment and one the same old, the enriched environment group does a lot better. If Rogers' theory is correct, then if I provide a suitable environment (i.e. all the necessaries of life), shouldn't they both self actualize at a similar rate? No, because as you've said, the enrichment of the environment adds something that causes greater development.

The potato example, as you have rightly suggested, is not comparable with humans. A potato does not have a brain. It is a biological form of life that simply seeks nutrients based on a preset genotype and then grows to what it is preset to be, there is no evolution to something new. Just to what it already was programmed to be. As you've said the potato comes with all the information it requires to become a potato. Human beings, like potatos, come with everything they need to grow into human beings. However, while human beings come with a preset set of abilities, including curiousity, what they become is determined by who and what they are exposed to. In contrast, with a potato, you simply get a potato. Let me put it more concretely, the Perry Pre School Project (longitudinal study of disadvantaged youth from ghettos in US were followed over time). Control group received nothing out of their normal range of experiences, other groups received varying levels of early intervention and early childhood enrichment. Data gathered shows those with the intervention experienced significantly greater achievement consistently across their lifetimes. This would appear to be a problem for Rogers' theories.

Hope this is useful, really enjoyed your insights. I really miss not being in university!

Levi
leviathon is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 04:16 AM
  # 8 (permalink)  
Member
Thread Starter
 
equus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 3,054
Thank you so much for your ideas and comments - I know exactly what your getting at. I have to have it finished for tonight so 'm cracking on with the second half.

Once I've done that it'll be easier to pull together and maybe comment a little more on your points.

P.S - this isn't uni, it's just about the most basic level of study, but it set me thinking - especially regarding the value of being non-directive/directive because that's relevent to my work.
equus is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 09:27 AM
  # 9 (permalink)  
Member
Thread Starter
 
equus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 3,054
Part 2.

The Therapeutic Relationship.
“The third distinctive feature of this type of therapy is the character of the relationship between therapist and client. Unlike other therapies in which the skills of the therapist are to be exercised upon the client, in this approach the skills of the therapist are focused upon creating a psychological atmosphere in which the client can work.” (Rogers 1946).

Rogers argued that as each of us has the best knowledge of how as individuals we need to grow the counsellor must not confuse or attempt to guide; instead the counsellor can be of far better help by creating a relationship that gives the counsellee an environment in which their innate self actualising tendencies are not blocked. He stated that it was this relationship in itself which acted as a catalyst for healing through the client’s own ability to self examine and understand their individual barriers and create their own solutions.


Creating the psychological atmosphere in which the client can work. Roger’s stated that there were 3 core conditions which were necessary to create a therapeutic relationship. These conditions were unconditional positive regard, empathy, and genuineness (congruence).

Unconditional Positive Regard
In reading explanations around the issue of unconditional positive regard it appears to me to describe deep seated compassion and a belief system based on the intrinsic worth of people. For want of a better word to feel a sense of love for another person, because they are a person, because of a belief about people that goes beyond their behaviour, their beliefs and their attitudes and is instead based on an internal valuing of human life. Perhaps this is what was meant or perhaps it is the only way in which I can feel it as a part of my own beliefs and life experience.

Empathy
The difference between empathy and sympathy is that of attention. Empathy involves attending to the way the other feels about a situation, their perspective, reasoning and their emotions. Sympathy is tending to our own perception of another’s situation, our feelings about their circumstance, our own reasoning regarding their situation. Because Rogerian counselling centres on the counsellee’s insights and problem solving abilities, the counsellor becoming tangled in their own thoughts regarding the other’s situation only creates a distraction. Rogerian counselling not only requires the counsellor to have empathy but to show it, to show that attention is given to the counsellee’s perspective, feelings and reasoning. It requires the counsellor to demonstrate verbally and non verbally that the counsellee is being understood in their own terms and that it’s their words which hold the real importance.

Congruence, (genuineness)
What matters in this respect is that no ‘act’ is taking place, no ulterior motive, no pretence in showing empathy or in having positive regard for the other. In this sense it is not enough to learn Rogerian counselling as a technique, because the method relies on a deep belief and trust in the counsellee. Rogers argues that the more deeply the client’s own constructive forces are relied upon the more deeply they are released. To truly rely on anything requires genuine trust or is likely to cause considerable distress! Only through the belief that the client will grow and make the right choices can the counsellor be truly relaxed.
equus is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 10:19 PM
  # 10 (permalink)  
Member
 
leviathon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somwhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,175
Your understanding of Rogers' theory is very good... here's my comment...

"Rogers argued that as each of us has the best knowledge of how as individuals we need to grow the counsellor must not confuse or attempt to guide; instead the counsellor can be of far better help by creating a relationship that gives the counsellee an environment in which their innate self actualising tendencies are not blocked."

SOUNDING A LOT LIKE FREUD!

Levi
leviathon is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 12:31 AM
  # 11 (permalink)  
Member
Thread Starter
 
equus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 3,054
I think reading his stuff I was aware of it's historical context. I reckon he made some valid and important points, especially seeing the potential in the individual and expressing the importance of the relationship of anyone that wants to help. But as they would say where I live he then 'went off on one!' thinking that meant ONLY those things are positive.

A child's curiosity is magic, innate and exquisite but I know from experience it can be captured many ways, sometimes by answering a question, sometimes by letting a child experiment for themselves, sometimes by simply giving information that opens a whole new line of discovery. I believe as adults we are much the same.

Learning to reason and question I think are very important, to be taught by those that value independant thought and enjoy being challenged, rather than those who are offended and seek 'believers'. In it's context it's possible that at that time an approach which was so strict in shutting the counsellor up and respecting the client was needed. It certainly was an age of hero worship and almighty respect for 'experts', perhaps in that enviroment the answer was for them to stay quiet for a while and allow the client to realise their own potential.

I don't think we should lose that understanding of potential, or the respect for the 'other's' perspective, I don't think we should lose sight of how much a person can achieve alone or forget how important regarding them well is. But I don't think those elements clash with us sharing knowledge and learning, as long as we offer rather than force, as long as we encourage independant minds and discourage passive, one way learning - then I think we can enhance each other's potential.

When I was a child about 5 or 6 I asked my dad why a rain drop was the shape it was. He painstakingly gave me the correct answer, the air resistance, surface tension, from a drip to a raindrop he told me. If he had only supported my self discovery I would have waited years for the love of physics he gave me in a day. It is possibly the best memory I have of my father, a rare moment feeling utterly loved and respected - a place I instinctively knew I could challenge (something which in all other respects was a no no with my dad).

I don't believe we always get in the way, I think we are designed and meant to teach but the important part is how we do it.
equus is offline  
Old 05-18-2006, 06:36 AM
  # 12 (permalink)  
Member
 
leviathon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somwhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,175
I agree with your assessment. As humans we are inherantly social beings. We lived in groups from the get go b/c of the need to survive, to learn from one another and because we require social bonding. There are a few, sociopaths, that truly do live outside of the need for social interaction. However, research has shown that their brains have either evolved or devolved and thus, their ventral lobe, which is responsible for the functioning of emotions, is different than that of the rest of the population.

I could be a living example for Rogers' self actualization theories in that I left home at 13/14 and despite that I put myself through highschool, when it wasn't working I dropped out, and then when things were right, I got into uni b/c the system provide a place for adult students without highschool, and then I reached my "full academic potential" b/c uni offered a playground that allowed me to actualize.

However, the reality is that I have an unusual drive that has allowed me to challenge and overcome much of what has been put in front of me. This only went so far, however, as I still needed to learn from others, to be supported by others and to have experiences (neg / pos) that allowed me to learn and adjust my behaviour as I went (i.e. laws - got an impaired, forced me to stop drinking and consider my actions... led me to quit working in bars and go to uni, without that there would have been no consequences to my behaviour and I would have kept using and drinking - i.e. despite the fact that the surroundings were ideal for a comfortable life, I chose to use and drink heavily without let up for 2-3 yrs b/c there was no consequences. It was only when consequences started to happen that I adjusted my behaviour... this is where i believe Rogers' theory falls apart).

Thanks for sharing this post, I've really enjoyed it.

Levi
leviathon is offline  
Old 05-18-2006, 06:48 AM
  # 13 (permalink)  
Member
 
leviathon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somwhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,175
continuing thoughts... the potato

Rogers used the potato shute growing towards the light as an example of self actualization even in an adverse environment.

However, even potato development is limited / has boundaries. I.e. only so many potatoes will grow per acre or they will over use the available nutrients and die out (Irish potatot famine). The potatoe actualization is still pre determined by natural boundaries... mother nature... nutrient availability, sunlight, growing season, competition with other fauna, natural predators.

This "boundaries" issue does not seem to be there in Rogers' theories. Rather it is simply, "provide a suitable environment and the being will self actualize"... The problem I see is that, as history shows, we all require boundaries (i.e. behaviouralism) or one's tendency to pursue ones own desires can result in massive destruction (Gengis Khan, Hitler, Bismark, Spanish Crusades, etc.). Human learning, like every other kind of development, requires guidance and boundaries as self actualization allowed to go too far can result in total chaos.

Even animals do set boundaries... mothers of kittens play fight with them to teach them to survive, without this play they would be defenseless and would die. Same for all animals. Some non mammals, crocadiles, turtles, etc., simply lay their young in eggs and leave, but the compensation for lack of learning is large scale production and Darwinian survivalism at its basest. I guess, these types of creatures are the exact personification of the Rogers' theories in action. I.e. crocodile egg laid in the right enviro will hatch and the crocodile will develop into the perfect top predator, assuming it survives, in this group as it is intended to by its very predetermined genome (i.e. self actualize), but it never goes beyond that to become more than a "crocodile" and "top predator". It is limited in its development by its genetic programing and inability to "contemplate" its self.

In contrast, humans do (see Perry Pre School studies) go beyond their basic genetic traits to become whatever they choose as a result of their ability to contemplate themselves. However, that is not sufficient in and of itself as you still have to provide guidance, the right environment and challenges (Perry Pre School studies clearly demonstrated that rather than coddling these disadvantaged youth, you had to challenge them to see change and growth... Rogers' theories don't allow for that b/c you are actively challenging rather than putting them in the "right environment" - PPS showed that control group plus right environment but without challenge resulted in kids turning out much like those in the control non intervention group).

Another example, general evolution of humans throughout history, the dark ages for instance, human development actually regressed for about 100 years. Can we say that all humans (millions if not a billion on planet at that time) were not in the right environment at that time??? No, Europe was in a bad way b/c of the plague, etc., but other areas of the world was not impacted. Overall human achievement has progressed consistently as a result of our expanding recognition of the need for learning and social responsibility within government, rather than the Laisez faire economics of the 1800's which saw millions of European youth, etc., enslaved for the "self actualization" of a few privileged industrialists.

Am I just rambling or do you get what I am saying Equus?

Levi
leviathon is offline  
Old 05-18-2006, 07:03 AM
  # 14 (permalink)  
Member
 
leviathon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somwhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,175
Man I miss university! LOL
leviathon is offline  
Old 05-18-2006, 08:26 AM
  # 15 (permalink)  
Member
Thread Starter
 
equus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 3,054
I think in fairness Rogers is pro boundaries on behaviour but with a slant that there's nothing wrong with whatever underlies it. For example he says a child must learn not to break a window but know that it's ok to feel like breaking a window.

If we were talking about direction or guidance that is forced on a person then I would agree with the above but where guidance is more a matter of sharing wisdoms I don't. Feeling as though I wish to break a window has an impact on me, frustration, fear, anger etc aren't good for the physical health and aren't enjoyable; therefore if I can be OFFERED guidance (not judgement) on how to avoid those feelings I'm all ears!

Using examples of crocodiles I think we can learn something, I do think there are innate abilities but just as you say we can see how in human society these have been enhanced by our recieved knowledge. This converstaion is enriching - perhaps even allowing me to further actualise my beliefs, yet I doubt it would have occurred if I'd had to invent the computer myself to start with OR if your only interest was to refrain from your own opinion so I might let mine go (I'd have got bored!).

I'm fascinated by the richness of what we recieve and often even take for granted, language being one of the things I boggle to imagine life without. I love the vast number of words in the english language, I love that I often still have to look a few up! Even more I enjoy that I can add or make up a word and you never know - they all started somewhere!

I'm a confirmed aitheist but can't help but be interested in religions as they hold some of our most ancient and influencial records of beliefs and thoughts.

Leave me to myself and I'm unsure what fraction would be left, I can't imagine me without words or history, culture or debate - I am not outside of that, I never have been.

Like you I don't always understand my own drive to grow, I recognise something and I'd like to know where it came from - me or enviroment? Was it a chance learning at a young age that determined what happened next, a forgotten incident where I learned something not everyone had chance to? Amongst incidents I remember I know I had advantages too in what I got opportunity to learn - I guess unusual would cover it!

Even if my drive was born inside me, genetically inbuilt, as I've moved and grown I've used so much outside influence, had so many teachers, read so much text, talked to so many people - how can I know what I owe to that drive and what I owe as result of what I was given? It's not so simple to say my drive got me here because I've no experience of that drive without guidance being available. Guidance has often been sought by me because I'm a brain borrower, an ideas thief, wisdom collector, shameful imitator of what I see work.

On the note of uni - my application pack for an MA arrived in the post today!! I too miss uni but that can be solved.
equus is offline  
Old 05-18-2006, 05:35 PM
  # 16 (permalink)  
Member
 
leviathon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somwhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,175
lol, this exercise has been fun... I agree with what you have written. Rogers has to be, as you've rightly stated, kept in the context of the period and ideas he was writing in.

I can see how he is abosulely correct in his theories; however, as much of his reasoning is inherently circular, I am left with the issue of "great theory, so what?". I mean if it is a self fulfilling theory that you can neither prove or disprove, what have you gained? Well the answer is he challenged us to think outside the accepted box of his time. So that is important.

I prefer harder science based methods of discovery such as behaviouralism, which all true sciences people would argue isn't really hard science b/c you can't control human reaction... c'est la vie, the point is it is the best evidence based group of psychological studies there is to date... although I took all of this over a decade ago and I am suprised I remember any of it... who'd a thought!

Congrats on the MA application... I've been playing with that myself... doing an online MA via the uni of Athabasca (Canadian Uni) with a broader perspective. I did an honours history in undergrad and I would like to have more of a generalized MA program... history, after all, is just writing stories, using footnotes, for credit. I actually proved to one of my profs that I could use the exact same sources and write papers that would be diametrically opposed and yet totally supportable based on these same sources. He was very surprised and thought it was comical.

Cheers, Levi

PS this has been fun, let me know if you want feedback on anything else
leviathon is offline  
Old 05-19-2006, 12:42 AM
  # 17 (permalink)  
Member
Thread Starter
 
equus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 3,054
Yeah - it's been fun! I think you should chase up that course too!!

I used to avoid this kind of psychology like the plague - I liked sticky bits of brain function and behaviourism - I worked for 3 years in Apllied Behavioural Analysis with autistic kids. The funny thing is to push myself right outside my own box is what's attracting me right now.

I don't have such a huge definition between hard and soft science - the whole thing to me is a huge debate conducted on reasoning and the best available knowledge. I used to think physics was about as hard as it gets but after a while you find it has a squishy centre too...

My love of science is because it is a debate and anyone gets invited to join, as the game raises so the effort it takes to play a part goes up - but from dinner time chat's to proffessor's publishing seminal papers anyone can take part.
equus is offline  
Old 05-19-2006, 02:54 AM
  # 18 (permalink)  
Member
 
leviathon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somwhere over the rainbow
Posts: 1,175
Equus, I am going to enroll, it is just a matter of when... finances are a problem... I bought a house so dropped a lot of cash for that in Dec, now gotta pay down some debt and free up some room b/f I can register, I will take the first course by fall.

This is the first course I will be taking... I really like the creative writing concept from a fiction perspective and I think this will assist me in completing a book I've already half written (100plus pages) ...MAIS 616 Writing the Self: The Experience and Potential of Writing for the Purpose of Personal Development
leviathon is offline  

Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:38 AM.