. Which school or schools of thought seem to match your own assumptions? Why? You may use these guidelines to help define your assumptions:
Importance of biology; how much "animal heritage" remains in humans? Are people basically good? Bad? Neutral? Is human behavior determined by past events and training? Is there "free will"? How are mind and body related? How much influence is exerted by "nature" and by "nurture"? What is the relative importance of feelings, thoughts, and actions in human behavior?
When looking at a baby for the first time, I believe that one who is considering human nature could only conclude that it is purely and exquisitely good. Conversely, reflecting on the heinousness of violent crime, it would seem logical to question whether human nature might be intrinsically bad. Indeed, a consideration of behavioral outcomes alone begs the question of essential goodness or evil. Behavior, however, does not exist in isolation of experience. There are elements of human nature (e.g., temperament and personality) that are largely intrinsic, but behavior is mediated significantly by context, culture and social construction. In my view, all people are good, yet each of us has the capacity (albeit latent) for evil. Individuals (at least in Western society) are free to choose among competing opportunities, but depending upon where and how an individual grows up, the opportunities themselves may be either extraordinarily vast or extremely limited. The will to choose is not entirely free, but rather it is guided (or encumbered) by internalized values and the cumulative results of past experiences. Additionally, the spate of teratogenic substances that may alter brain development in utero, may further complicate behavioral choices and outcomes for individuals so affected. Other than being imbued with a propensity for good, human nature is not, in my view, fixed or predetermined; it is malleable and significantly dependent upon external influences. My personal philosophy is primarily, though not exclusively, consistent with the Humanistic school of thought as it is outlined by Aanstoos (2003). Humanistic psychology, which rose to prominence in the late 1950s and early 1960s, is largely attributed to the work of Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. It is based in a holistic perspective on human being. Growing from the precepts of phenomenological theory and existentialism, one of its main premises is that people are inherently good. While humanistic psychology has a particular resonance with me, I believe that a singular approach can be limiting and that every perspective has something to add to our understanding of human behavior. Reviewing the Schools of Thought Matrix (adapted from Hergenhahn, 2009), my thoughts regarding human nature and behavior are also very much in alignment with cognitivism. The cognitive school of thought considers humans as complex information-processing systems. According to this theory, perception, attention, judgment, decision-making and problem-solving are a result of the ways in which sensory information is received, processed and stored (Ruisel, 2010). Behavior, by this view, is a product of information and
experience and humans do their best to adapt to their environments. There are, according to Ruisel, overlaps among existentialism, Gestalt psychology and cognitivism just as there are among these theoretical views and humanism. It seems, at least to this nave observer, that there is very little among the various schools of thought which is exclusive; instead, the ideas represented within each school of thought appear to represent a progression. With developments in science, neuroscience and technology it is possible to understand more about the brain and about the underpinnings of behavior. With greater understanding comes the generation of new ideas and ultimately new ways of thinking about behavior. Sternberg and Grigorenko (2001) proposed a unified theory of psychology the aim of which was to avoid the fragmentation of psychology along theoretical lines and to form connections which would allow the study of a particular phenomenon from various perspectives and forms of analysis. This, I believe, would allow for a more comprehensive view of a given problem dimension, perspective and depth. References Aanstoos, C.M. (2003). The relevance of humanistic psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 43(3), 121-132. DOI: 10.1177/0022167803254119. Hergenhahn, B.R. (2009). An introduction to the history of psychology, (6th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Unified psychology. American Psychologist, 56(12), 10691079. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.12.1069 Ruisel, I. (2010). Human knowledge in the context of cognitive psychology. Studia Psychologia, 52(4). 267-284. Retrieved from ProQuest. Carol Dickey Doctoral Learner, I/O Psychology