Free Report On Personality Theories

When it comes to psychologist, Freud may be the most announced. The minds to follow had distinguished theories that hold relatable fascinations. With the intrinsic motivation of Carl Rogers to the social-spectrum of Abraham Maslow, theories will be looked for what they celebrated, and what they overlook.
Sigmund Freud, well established in Vienna, is the mouth piece on speaking on the Unconscious Mind and how we attempt to regulate it. His ideas of Id, Ego, and Superego are well popularized in how we doctor our motivations, desires, instincts, instead of possessing fleeting perceptions and flimsy, short-term goals if any. With it also arrive the stages of defense that are so widespread that it probable to fall into one or another or more at any given situation. It’s the rationalizing of our bad habits to be not socially acceptable but personally irresponsible, to experiencing an emotional whiplash by an event more intimate than expected. It’s the mental trickery we play on ourselves to instantly be convinced of something not occurring, or throwing our feelings sloppily onto another person during times of guilt. Distancing the self from the actual is a reoccurring condition in our lives and Freud made it a firm and through spectrum of actions we are all capable of.
It is in acknowledging this circumstance through digging that Freud is elated about trauma and pinpointing the occurrence that still affects the present day of a person. Fortunately these are discoveries held in relaxed circumstances. But the trauma in this method of therapy is sought after as a prize to understanding a patient instead of an unhitched memory for a reason.
With the depth of language and inscription as the heart of his studies, Switzerland’s Carl Jung developed a potential career of deciphering extinct cultures into understanding our daily selves and those who come before us.
A valuable detail of Jung’s theory is Personal Unconscious, by which someone can be aware of it rather than oblivious. An individual can be naturally attracted or aware of a circumstance, usually when there has not been previous exposure, is it unique. Jung considers this the Archetype, the magnate, of ideas that follow and surround us, but how they factor in our daily lives is a matter interpretation and imagination. This is because our development is not a physical product or invention but much more spectral or inconstant. Our personalities, the things we are attracted to are an extension, Jung believes, a spiritual power. This can be understood as our better characteristics or the unkindly ones, the superficial or instinctive, the ephemeral or withstanding. These manners aren’t without a name as words such as Shadow/Persona, Hero/Trickster, masculine/feminine, thinker/intuition and other stock characters are invested by our depth of emotion. These traits are energies. To view the body as a husk and the personality as a spiritual reflection turns the individual into a legend of its own without deciding causes or blame.
The theory of exhuming certain traits allows the good and bad, the lacking and fulfilled to co-exist. Jung explains this with complexes and principles, particularly the Principle of Entropy. It’s a measure where what is wanting in the body can be found with someone who has an adequate supply. This is a reason why certain people getting along, why some persons are attracted to what’s unnatural to them. When it comes to deliberating choices of what we do and become, there’s Maslow.
Raised in Brooklyn to immigrant parents, Abraham Maslow was engraved with education as a priority of the means. Believing a person is their achievements, their actualities, Maslow theorized how self-perception and earning a position decipher what is important for us. This process is the Hierarchy of Needs, where all of us begin, but fewer actually evolve from.
The goal of the Needs Hierarchy is Self-Actualization. Plenty of other theologists have some form of it as the prize of their journeys, Maslow applies it as not an end goal but a trait that surfaces as we detach from basic needs and balancing our esteem with socially-based needs. It is reassured that we are what we make of ourselves, and we are what preoccupy us. Once fulfilling the instinct necessities of accumulating food, territory, security, and family, we can develop elsewhere: the self and community. In this peopled stage of the Hierarchy, it is a constant teeter between our humility and our kinship. We can devastate or prosper when it comes to this stage, and depending on our successes, most of us remain there. We cannot reach the peak of A-Level status unless we have the foundation plus the love of our community and our own esteem. Only then can we be the blissful achievement of our motivations and growth, but also the stuff that instigates others to do the same.
How Maslow goes about illustrating self-actualization is rather superficial. Superficial by the means of using the biography of celebrated people, the esteemed society and unreachable society, as the faces of self-actualization. Though this certainly gives a place for showing how personal greatness can turn some of us into superstars, it is because of these select people that we have the enculturation, a sense of humility, degrees of tolerance and most importantly, are reality-centered when it comes to our own problems in comparison to others. Genuine issues compared to the foreign or publicized.
Alfred Adler, born of Vienna, was grounded in a sickly childhood. Once recovering, he flourished with a veraciousness that acted on what motivates a person. As a member of the Viennese Analytic Society, Adler’s beliefs divided the organization and were respectfully established as its own institution, now known as the Society for Individual Psychology.
Adler’s theories are subjective, possibly short-sided as he accumulated ideas such as Compensation as a foundation and umbrella to our actions such as Masculine Protest and the Aggression drive, where boys achieved themselves through brawn and were esteemed for it, which blossoms into a natural frustration of our actions being vengeful and our lives revealingly unfulfilled. This inferiority claim gears us to be better, seek more, and find valuable qualities so we feel priceless. In evaluating our motivation, or goals reaching for the grandeur of superiority, Adler excuses teology. Teology is how we see ourselves in context to others. The matter of Adler’s psychology is that he was not interested in conditioning but in abruptly altering, changing the now for the future instead of examining the past to normalize our potential.
The incident for Adler is that his trials are immeasurable. Perfection and inferiority cannot be calculated. Not only are these traits self-oriented, there is no definite, factual, objective history of it to be compared to. Pattern-based data of behavior is a pillar of psychology, and it is one Adler doesn’t have faith in. A psychologist who believed in what will be will be, and the extensible facts with be fall out was Carl Rogers.
Carl Rogers was raised within pious means on a Chicagoan farm. Originally he intended to be a minister but after years of independent thinking and the catalyst of a seminar, he was no longer interested in lofty ideas. His sense of thinking was preoccupied with how the means of personal cultivation was more common and less haughty.
The first matter to accept is the state of humanity. Like any other organism, we are neutral, what Rogers equates as natural well-being. Fully-functioning is the actuality of someone experiencing, flowing with natural urges that promote acceptance, freedoms, and certainly a lot more opportunities than if the initial response was to decline and be defensive. Rogers’ opinion undermines how comparing the humane individual to a faceless group is how humanness goes astray. That Conditions of Worth is where materialism, empty values, and frailty thrive, and are the characteristics that distract, deny, and cause much anxiety that does not enrich our lives. In fact, it suffocates and then explodes into another voice that isn’t heard.
How humans abides stigmatism is not a significant effect in Roger’s theories. Though he promotes conditioning and openness and empathy to enthrone others, it can be abstracted to more indifferent realities. Being a good person is considered the normal, and being bad, is marginalized as a deconstruction but not a denominator. Both sets of people would have the ideal, unobtainable self in common. If the bad person has thrived from conditioning, openness, and a certain level of empathy for unpleasant then there is a possibility that this is actually the Real Self who we have all denied. It may even be the elaborate and heavy jungle of the culture we have disassociated with because it weighs us down.
As for how each of the described psychologists affects me, my opinions fluctuate. Alfred Adler’s speculations tinker with the needs of an individual. His ideas highlighted my own firmly devout decisions of perfectionism. As in, my goals, both aggressive and narrow, were about being smarter, wiser, stronger, and filling-in where I was lacking, and that is very much a part of Adler’s theory. But, in looking back (something Adler is not interested in) my comparison, my motivations, to be better transcended the extrinsic values in gender, age, or ethnic culture. My inferiority complex was actually self-propelled instead of being fueled by the community of my own peers.
My thoughts toward Abraham Maslow are conflicted by his theory of once our basic and social needs are completed then we seek to be an example for others. I understand the theory. It validates ourselves one level at a time: instinctual, territorial, friends and love, these are relatable and understandable causes to motivate us to be better. But his use of celebrities as the example of self-actualized feeds into an idea that already starves us as a culture. Looking up to celebrities, I think, is not going to help me better myself. Instead, I might be more motivated by the no-name who is actually helping someone else fulfill the needs that the rest of us are preoccupied by instead of coveting the celebrities we know and love.
When reading Carl Roger’s examinations, I instantly identified with them. I accepted his theories not out of relief but how plainly revealing they are. That life, an organism, will thrive in whatever way it can because it has the means to do so. A weed in a sidewalk is a troubled creation, but it continues to grow despite restricted resources and trampling. For me, it provides the neutral view of how and why human beings aren’t innately bad. Roger’s view provides reason why and how people react. If there is progress, a nurturing path, good things will happen; if there is natural resistance but no progress then a stagnancy may occur. From then, if diminished, that organism is deployed and another fills it place to resume living.
Freud’s theory involves investigation and provocation. In how this affects me, my answer is that I am rather repelled by it. Not all current issues can be solved by unveiling a seed planted years before by an ill-willed neighbor. To me, it initiates a blame game where it serves much better for entertainment purposes. I prefer a method that helps someone heal and resume their life with a better mind.
While I do agree most with Freud’s theory of triggers opening doors to a proverbial tip to our unfathomable selves, I find Carl Jung’s ideas on the public, interpersonal, and intimate self to be the most relatable of the psychologist reviewed. Jung is most relatable to me. His theory better includes how a person is not predetermined but can be enticed by what is not natural to them and grow from what is. With Jung, to me, his theory of attraction of personality and energy, and coincidences is a string theory. That the ordinary archetypes we are surrounded by and nonchalantly carry, draw us to certain matters and those things fill us in. Synchronicity is the theory and it turns the casual person into a saga.
After looking to each psychologist I’ve shown preference to who I’m more comfortable in being a credit to. In relation to others, I do respect Carl Rogers identifying how an indifferent therapist is not a beacon of growth. When engaging someone for empathy, it helps when that listener bounces back the projected ideas. It simply helps to be heard, and to hear your own voice repeated in others without condemnation or condescension.
My approach as a therapist, however, would be exhibiting the archetypes of Carl Jung. I prefer this approach because it encompasses broad sweeps of answerable emotions, identifiable situations, and relevant characters. Psychology often makes a person into a science project and I am indifferent to those methods. I rather deal with ideas that are not faceless, print on paper test subjects but symbols and notions that have rolled through the generations, almost universal in context but can be narrowed down to the individual person for an effective and defining conversation. I rather discuss how extraordinary a person is as they are. In effect, it helps to be able to pluck out known, steady concepts and then be able to apply it. This way, I can boot out Freud’s boogeyman, Maslow’s elitism, Rogers’ feel-good, and Alder’s social construct.
Seeing the methods, tactics, and theories of celebrated psychologist gave a name to ideas I didn’t know I was aware of. It also provided credibility to inane possibilities that are actually most natural. If anything, I appreciate how, through generations of study and thinking and creativity, that there is an index of intellectualism to provide a context to the notions we can always put into worlds, let alone consciously decide.