What do you think?
Rate this book
On Becoming a Person: A Therapist's View of Psychotherapy
The late Carl Rogers, founder of the humanistic psychology movement, revolutionized psychotherapy with his concept of "client-centered therapy." His influence has spanned decades, but that influence has become so much a part of mainstream psychology that the ingenious nature of his work has almost been forgotten. A new introduction by Peter Kramer sheds light on the significance of Dr. Rogers's work today. New discoveries in the field of psychopharmacology, especially that of the antidepressant Prozac, have spawned a quick-fix drug revolution that has obscured the psychotherapeutic relationship. As the pendulum slowly swings back toward an appreciation of the therapeutic encounter, Dr. Rogers's "client-centered therapy" becomes particularly timely and important.
420 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1961
About the author
Carl R. Rogers
115 books1,107 followers"Experience is, for me, the highest authority. The touchstone of validity is my own experience. No other person's ideas, and none of my own ideas, are as authoritative as my experience. It is to experience that I must return again and again, to discover a closer approximation to truth as it is in the process of becoming in me." -Carl Rogers, On Becoming a Person
DEVELOPED THEORIES - THERAPIES
Person-Centered; Humanistic; Client-Centered; Student-Centered
TIMELINE
1902 - Carl Rogers was born in Oak Park, Illinois.
1919 - Enrolled at University of Wisconsin.
1924 - Graduated from University of Wisconsin and enrolled at Union Theological Seminary.
1926 - Transferred to Columbia.
1931- Earned Ph.D. from Columbia.
1940 - Began teaching at University of Ohio.
1946 - Elected president of American Psychological Association (APA).
1951 - Published Client-centered Therapy.
1961 - Published On Becoming A Person.
DEVELOPED THEORIES - THERAPIES
Person-Centered; Humanistic; Client-Centered; Student-Centered
TIMELINE
1902 - Carl Rogers was born in Oak Park, Illinois.
1919 - Enrolled at University of Wisconsin.
1924 - Graduated from University of Wisconsin and enrolled at Union Theological Seminary.
1926 - Transferred to Columbia.
1931- Earned Ph.D. from Columbia.
1940 - Began teaching at University of Ohio.
1946 - Elected president of American Psychological Association (APA).
1951 - Published Client-centered Therapy.
1961 - Published On Becoming A Person.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 542 reviews
August 11, 2014
The curious paradox is that when I accept myself just as I am, then I can change.
This book has helped me through two of the toughest weeks of my life, and everyone interested in self-improvement should read it. On Becoming a Person will appeal to anyone inclined toward psychology or therapy, as Rogers does a fantastic job discussing his client-centered approach and how his model of therapy transcends the limitations of past psychotherapeutic frameworks. Even though the book was first published in 1961, Rogers includes a variety of still-relevant techniques, such as allowing the client to guide the session and ensuring unconditional positive regard through the therapist's own congruence. He incorporates a gamut of psychological principles from areas such as developmental and social psychology, and he relates them all back to his thesis on clinical, humanistic therapy.
Not only does Rogers reach out to different branches of psychology, but he also connects client-centered therapy to education, leadership in the work place, and family life. Even though the book might feel a little repetitive in certain parts, it addresses several pertinent questions, like how therapists can reconcile their work with the conducting of research. In around 400 pages, Rogers dives deep into every facet of psychotherapy and how it relates to humans in general.
Overall, highly recommended to anyone with even a remote interest in self-growth, psychology, therapy, or being a better person. As Rogers would say, reading On Becoming a Person will not transform you into a perfect version of yourself - rather, it will set you on the path of creating a more accepting and honest self.
This book has helped me through two of the toughest weeks of my life, and everyone interested in self-improvement should read it. On Becoming a Person will appeal to anyone inclined toward psychology or therapy, as Rogers does a fantastic job discussing his client-centered approach and how his model of therapy transcends the limitations of past psychotherapeutic frameworks. Even though the book was first published in 1961, Rogers includes a variety of still-relevant techniques, such as allowing the client to guide the session and ensuring unconditional positive regard through the therapist's own congruence. He incorporates a gamut of psychological principles from areas such as developmental and social psychology, and he relates them all back to his thesis on clinical, humanistic therapy.
Not only does Rogers reach out to different branches of psychology, but he also connects client-centered therapy to education, leadership in the work place, and family life. Even though the book might feel a little repetitive in certain parts, it addresses several pertinent questions, like how therapists can reconcile their work with the conducting of research. In around 400 pages, Rogers dives deep into every facet of psychotherapy and how it relates to humans in general.
Overall, highly recommended to anyone with even a remote interest in self-growth, psychology, therapy, or being a better person. As Rogers would say, reading On Becoming a Person will not transform you into a perfect version of yourself - rather, it will set you on the path of creating a more accepting and honest self.
August 7, 2016
He writes of significant things he learned in his experience and study:
1. "In my relationships with persons I have found that it does not help, in the long run, to act as though I were something that I am not. It does not help to act calm and pleasant when actually I am angry and critical. It does not help to act as though I know the answers when I do not. It does not help to act as though I were a loving person if actually, at the moment, I am hostile. ...
Most of the mistakes I make in personal relationships, most of the times in which I fail to be of help to other individuals, can be accounted for in terms of the fact that I have, for some defensive reason, behaved in one way at a surface level, while in reality my feelings run in a contrary direction."
2. "I find I am more effective when I can listen acceptantly to myself, and can be myself. ...I have learned to become more adequate in listening to myself; so that I know...what I am feeling at any given moment
One way of putting this is that I feel I have become more adequate in letting myself be what I am....
The curious paradox is that when I accept myself as I am, then I change."
3. "I have found it of enormous value when I can permit myself to understand another person.
Our first reaction to most of the statements which we hear from other people is an immediate evaluation, or judgment, rather than an understanding of it. When someone expresses some feeling or attitude or belief, our tendency is, almost immediately, to feel "That's right"; or "That's stupid"; "That's abnormal"; "That's unreasonable"; "That's incorrect"; "That's not nice." Very rarely do we permit ourselves to understand precisely what the meaning of his statement is to him. I believe this is because understanding is risky. If I let myself really understand another person, I might be changed by that understanding. And we all fear change. ...It is not an easy thing to permit oneself to understand an individual, to enter thoroughly and completely and empathically into his frame of reference. It is also a rare thing."
4. "I have found it highly rewarding when I can accept another person.
I have found that truly to accept another person and his feelings is by no means an easy thing, any more than is understanding. Can I really permit another person to feel hostile toward me? Can I accept his anger as a real and legitimate part of himself? Can I accept him when he views life and its problems in a way quite different from mine? Can I accept him when he feels very positively toward me, admiring me and wanting to model himself after me? All this is involved in acceptance, and it does not come easy. I believe that it is an increasingly common pattern in our culture for each one of us to believe, "Every other person must feel and think and believe the same as I do." We find it very hard to permit our children or our parents or our spouses to feel differently than we do about particular issues or problems. ...
Yet it has come to seem to me that this separateness of individuals, the right of each individual to utilize his experience in his own way and to discover his own meanings in it, - this is one of the most priceless potentialities of life.
When I can accept another person...then I am assisting him to become a person..."
5. "The more I am open to the realities in me and in the other person, the less do I find myself wishing to rush in to "fix things." As I try to listen to myself and the experiencing going on in me, and the more I try to extend that same listening attitude to another person, the more respect I feel for the complex processes of life. So I become less and less inclined to hurry in to fix things, to set goals, to mold people, to manipulate and push them in the way that I would like them to go. I am much more content simply to be myself and to let another person be himself. ...
It is a very paradoxical thing - that to the degree that each one of us is willing to be himself, then he finds not only himself changing; but he finds that other people to whom he relates are also changing."
6. "I can trust my experience. ...Evaluation by others is not a guide for me. The judgments of others, while they are to be listened to, and taken into account for what they are, can never be a guide for me.
Experience is, for me, the highest authority."
(p. 16-23)
1. "In my relationships with persons I have found that it does not help, in the long run, to act as though I were something that I am not. It does not help to act calm and pleasant when actually I am angry and critical. It does not help to act as though I know the answers when I do not. It does not help to act as though I were a loving person if actually, at the moment, I am hostile. ...
Most of the mistakes I make in personal relationships, most of the times in which I fail to be of help to other individuals, can be accounted for in terms of the fact that I have, for some defensive reason, behaved in one way at a surface level, while in reality my feelings run in a contrary direction."
2. "I find I am more effective when I can listen acceptantly to myself, and can be myself. ...I have learned to become more adequate in listening to myself; so that I know...what I am feeling at any given moment
One way of putting this is that I feel I have become more adequate in letting myself be what I am....
The curious paradox is that when I accept myself as I am, then I change."
3. "I have found it of enormous value when I can permit myself to understand another person.
Our first reaction to most of the statements which we hear from other people is an immediate evaluation, or judgment, rather than an understanding of it. When someone expresses some feeling or attitude or belief, our tendency is, almost immediately, to feel "That's right"; or "That's stupid"; "That's abnormal"; "That's unreasonable"; "That's incorrect"; "That's not nice." Very rarely do we permit ourselves to understand precisely what the meaning of his statement is to him. I believe this is because understanding is risky. If I let myself really understand another person, I might be changed by that understanding. And we all fear change. ...It is not an easy thing to permit oneself to understand an individual, to enter thoroughly and completely and empathically into his frame of reference. It is also a rare thing."
4. "I have found it highly rewarding when I can accept another person.
I have found that truly to accept another person and his feelings is by no means an easy thing, any more than is understanding. Can I really permit another person to feel hostile toward me? Can I accept his anger as a real and legitimate part of himself? Can I accept him when he views life and its problems in a way quite different from mine? Can I accept him when he feels very positively toward me, admiring me and wanting to model himself after me? All this is involved in acceptance, and it does not come easy. I believe that it is an increasingly common pattern in our culture for each one of us to believe, "Every other person must feel and think and believe the same as I do." We find it very hard to permit our children or our parents or our spouses to feel differently than we do about particular issues or problems. ...
Yet it has come to seem to me that this separateness of individuals, the right of each individual to utilize his experience in his own way and to discover his own meanings in it, - this is one of the most priceless potentialities of life.
When I can accept another person...then I am assisting him to become a person..."
5. "The more I am open to the realities in me and in the other person, the less do I find myself wishing to rush in to "fix things." As I try to listen to myself and the experiencing going on in me, and the more I try to extend that same listening attitude to another person, the more respect I feel for the complex processes of life. So I become less and less inclined to hurry in to fix things, to set goals, to mold people, to manipulate and push them in the way that I would like them to go. I am much more content simply to be myself and to let another person be himself. ...
It is a very paradoxical thing - that to the degree that each one of us is willing to be himself, then he finds not only himself changing; but he finds that other people to whom he relates are also changing."
6. "I can trust my experience. ...Evaluation by others is not a guide for me. The judgments of others, while they are to be listened to, and taken into account for what they are, can never be a guide for me.
Experience is, for me, the highest authority."
(p. 16-23)
May 7, 2024
From the Purely Personal into the Truly Transpersonal!!
The biggest favour we can do for ourselves is become a PERSON. I don't mean a "person" who is worn and bent out of shape; not an angry and waspish cynic; nor even a guy who is continually pushing himself.
No - a natural, settled and very human person.
Our market-driven economy won't tell you that - in fact, it will tell you anything but that. Philosophy leads us to more and more questions. Diversions all grow stale. But reverence for life and warm, caring humanity WILL tell you.
We have to press the eject button in our supersonic rockets, and float into the endless weightlessness of our unencumbered inner space. No kidding.
The flight we're on is leading us nowhere but into the furthest reaches of futility.
Nothing - not money, not learning, not fame - will ever ease our overarching angst. No.
Nothing but Being Ourself.
Without a non-apocalyptic coming of age (unlike mine) it can be relatively easy. Mine was the pits, and my search for happiness became imperative. When I retired (badly burnt out) I screamed for sedatives. But I kept going.
It's now going on twenty years later. I now at last know tranquillity.
This book, then, is a nudge toward peace of mind. Finding what will finally make us happy.
Guess what? The answer is our forgotten HUMANITY.
It will give you the peace of mind of finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow in a self we can feel COMFORTABLE in, for a change.
The satisfaction of knowing Mecca is in your own front-yard flower garden.
The happiness that can only come from knowing there's no where to go, really, outside of yourself.
As Ringo sang on Abbey Road, "and oh, that magic feeling - nowhere to go!"
Want that feeling?
Read Carl Rogers.
The biggest favour we can do for ourselves is become a PERSON. I don't mean a "person" who is worn and bent out of shape; not an angry and waspish cynic; nor even a guy who is continually pushing himself.
No - a natural, settled and very human person.
Our market-driven economy won't tell you that - in fact, it will tell you anything but that. Philosophy leads us to more and more questions. Diversions all grow stale. But reverence for life and warm, caring humanity WILL tell you.
We have to press the eject button in our supersonic rockets, and float into the endless weightlessness of our unencumbered inner space. No kidding.
The flight we're on is leading us nowhere but into the furthest reaches of futility.
Nothing - not money, not learning, not fame - will ever ease our overarching angst. No.
Nothing but Being Ourself.
Without a non-apocalyptic coming of age (unlike mine) it can be relatively easy. Mine was the pits, and my search for happiness became imperative. When I retired (badly burnt out) I screamed for sedatives. But I kept going.
It's now going on twenty years later. I now at last know tranquillity.
This book, then, is a nudge toward peace of mind. Finding what will finally make us happy.
Guess what? The answer is our forgotten HUMANITY.
It will give you the peace of mind of finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow in a self we can feel COMFORTABLE in, for a change.
The satisfaction of knowing Mecca is in your own front-yard flower garden.
The happiness that can only come from knowing there's no where to go, really, outside of yourself.
As Ringo sang on Abbey Road, "and oh, that magic feeling - nowhere to go!"
Want that feeling?
Read Carl Rogers.
August 7, 2011
Bluntly; although what was written often seemed foolish, impractical and fantastical I found Roger's style of writing cohesive and difficult to stop following. I know little of psychology and its various approaches and perspectives but I intuitively felt that Roger was at the time the book was written, revolutionary, bringing forward into the light a new way of regarding clients of psychotherapy. Mind you; the book did seem to drag on. Repetition. Repetition. On, further and on further still. What was said often seemed to be mere common sense and yet, I found my views regarding my own feelings, my own fears and my own mistakes to be changing. I feel that for a short after reading this book my own, my way of viewing the world, my perceptions of what is and was were somehow changed in such a way that to me seemed progressive and positive. It was an imperfect eye opener, that despite all of its flaws, I would recommend to anyone.
September 28, 2022
Without a doubt the most important book I've ever read about psychotherapy, feelings, finding yourself, growth. The whole book is basically a meditation of what it means to "be yourself". It sounds like simple advice, but it's wickedly complicated. We do not have one fixed "self" we can simply "be". And even if we did, we are always changing, so "be yourself" is actually about hitting a moving target. And can we not change ourselves? If I surround myself with different people, and start reading different books, will I not find myself becoming a different self, or at least, find certain parts of myself coming to the fore that might not get expressed in other contexts?
So, what does it mean to "be yourself"? I've been thinking about it like this: simply embrace what I actually want and like. Whenever possible, I should try to separate my motivations from the myriad other factors influencing my thoughts and behaviour: other people's expectations, cultural norms, feelings of jealousy. The good life, says Rogers, comes from confronting your own actual desires, even if those desires are ugly and you do not yourself endorse them, and recognizing that that's who you are. Deeply understanding your wants and needs is the only place from which you can actually change or grow.
This is not easy to do. There are a number of reasons why. First off, there is often a clash between what I want to want and what I actually want. When there's pizza in front of you, and you say "that pizza looks hella yummy", your hungry ass actually wants to eat pizza. There's no ambiguity there. But when you're walking around a stack of classical books and say "I want to dig into the canon and study all the important ancient texts", you're describing an aspiration. You wish you could sit your literate ass down and read these books all day, but if you dig deep down, you don't actually want this, moment-by-moment. You might get distracted, or bored, or suddenly want something else, like scrolling on social media or hanging out with friends. Maybe you're jealous of the people who can sit down and read the Epic of Gilgamesh in one sitting, but that ain't you. That ain't most of us.
This realization was huge for me. There are some books I wish I wanted to read, or some styles of music I wish I wanted to play, or some writing I wish I wanted to do, but if I really look deep down, I simply don't want to actually do those things. I want to mostly read simple books that are tailored to my current interests, and play funk music, and write Goodreads book reviews. I can claim to want other stuff, but if I look at what I do, it's clear what I actually want. It's a real "if he wanted to, he would have" situation. The best way to know what a person wants to do is simply look at what they actually repeatedly do. And instead of saying "ugh, I really wanted to read more ancient classics, but I failed and read a bunch of 21st century campus novels instead", it's very easy to reframe that as "I thought I wanted to read ancient classics, but I actually want to read 21st century campus novels, and I should embrace that."
The hard part is embracing my actual desires. Recognizing that the things I want to read, and write, and learn, are completely valid, and that I should just dive head-first into the things I actually want, rather than yearning for some set of things I need to force myself to want. This has happened to me on many occasions. I have tried so many times to make myself interested in drawing or dance, but my hands and feet simply do not comply. My hands and feet do, however, want to bike around and listen to audiobooks about oil barons. What it means to "be myself" is to recognize that I do not get to choose to want biking and barons, instead of wanting drawing and dancing. And that's great.
This also happens when I lose interest in something, but I don't realize I've lost interest. In undergrad I mostly studied math, but by my 4th year my interest (and aptitude) was rapidly waning. But I had spent the past four years planning for a life spent doing math, and assumed I would go to grad school for the subject. So here I was, sitting in math classes, no longer interested, but forcing myself to remain invested because I assumed that's what I'd wanted. I would wonder what was wrong with me. Maybe I'd lost my ability to focus? Maybe my work ethic had just gone down the drain? Nope. I was just failing to keep up with my own desires. Unbeknownst to myself, my central interest had in fact shifted to a different field (psychology), which I could have easily realized had I only paid attention to the fact that I was reading like two psychology books a week.
This is what Rogers means by "becoming a person". There is no endpoint here. You are never the fixed self you will be forever. It's a constant process of becoming—a lifelong process of understanding how past experience has shaped you and of keeping up with the person you are now becoming through your present action.
The cool thing about this book is that it also doubled for me as a theory of creativity. I think the ultimate act of creative expression is simply being yourself. The most creative people I know are actually just deeply in touch with their own taste, their own feelings, their own aesthetic desires and preferences, their own style, and then turn that into an artifact.
It took me a very, very long time to realize this, but a few things really locked it in for me. The first was seeing this website by my friend Avi, who launched his video game studio earlier this year: https://magiccircle.studio/. I saw this website and just felt this overwhelming sense: "this website *is* Avi." He had somehow taken his inner gestalt and translated it into an external artifact (in this case a website). He's done it in a style that was uniquely his. That right there, that's creativity.
The second key thing was this podcast interview between John Mayer and Cory Wong (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...), where they both talk about finding their artistic voice. Cory and John both repeatedly make the point that, simply due to the anatomy of their fingers and the way they approach the guitar, they both cannot help but sound a particular way when they play. Becoming an artist, they say, is about learning how to play in this way—the way that you cannot help but play—and turning it into a unique style. Instead of thinking about how you can sound more like your heroes, ask, "how can I sound more like myself"? (At one point, John Mayer says that he will play stuff on guitar and think "ugh, that's pretty unoriginal, just sounds John Mayer", and then has to remind himself that he himself is John Mayer. This dude cannot help but play like himself.) This is deeply related to the idea of "becoming a person". Becoming an artist is about embracing how you actually sound, instead of trying to sound like someone else; becoming a person is about embracing your actual desires, instead of worrying about the things you wish you felt.
This whole process requires an unbelievably, almost egregious, amount of self-confidence. You need to look at your blank canvas, staring at your personal style of painting, and have the audacity to say, "wait, real artists don’t paint like that, but I suppose I do”, and then believe in yourself enough to put that out into the world. That’s what makes you a real artist.
It dawned on me while thinking about this that people are often not the best judges of which of their own art is actually good or not. I remember watching the Long Pond Studio Sessions and hearing Jack Antonoff saying that his favorite song off the record was Mirrorball. Taylor Swift herself did not know that All Too Well would be a hit. This is crazy to me. But on reflection, it makes total sense. When you’re a totally singular artist, when you’ve found your artistic voice, you’re operating completely in your own realm. There’s no benchmark anymore. You’re not acting according to anyone else’s standard but your own. So of course you won’t know which of your works will actually resonate with fans or not. If you could know that in advance, you would start making music for the purpose of it being enjoyed by fans, and it would lose all of its integrity.
In other words, you don’t get to decide what you’ll be recognized for. All you can do is find your style, find your voice, and be prolific. It’s often up to other people to tell you what your actual talents are. Personally, I find that the stuff that comes super easy to me, the stuff that doesn’t even feel like “work”, is the stuff other people are often impressed by or encourage me to do more. It’s a very strange feeling. But of course it makes sense. The artist cannot also be an art critic. In the words I heard the novelist Jonathan Cohen say on a podcast, “an elephant cannot be a zoologist.”
I happened to be thinking about this idea when I read Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Harry’s peers insist he needs to teach them Defense Against the Dark Arts because he’s so gifted at it. After all, he’s defeated Voldemort and other dark wizards multiple times in battle. Harry insists those victories were just luck, and that he has no special aptitude. But his friends insist that this is his central talent. This is how it works to learn you’re good at something. You don’t know you’re good at it, you just know that you never had to work that hard to master it, and so it feels like luck. It won’t feel like “work”, but it just might be the most important thing you can do. In the words of another quote I heard on a podcast but can no longer attribute, “find what you’re good at, then do that on purpose.” Boy is that hard. [Edit: I found the quote, and it's even better than I thought! "Find out who you are and do it on purpose" – Dolly Parton. Unreal.]
The difficulty of embracing your own style really hit home for me when I was teaching university courses in 2020. My students had to write weekly reflections on the text that we read in class, and I insisted that they try to write about their actual thoughts and opinions, rather than merely summarizing the text. I know what the text says. It’s not interesting for me to read an essay about what the text says. What is interesting, I tell my students, is their reactions and actual thoughts. They may not be experts on the subject material we talk about in class (in this case, the history of science), but they are the world’s leading authorities on one subject: their own experience. If you can lucidly and thoughtfully communicate your own experience, you are by definition saying something original, because no one else is you.
Again, this is a simple idea, but it was basically impossible to apply in practice. My students had years of experience regurgitating ideas and almost no experience reflecting on their own reactions to the text. They would ask me whether I was looking for criticisms, or analysis, or summaries, and I would tell them: “no, I am looking for you to actually just honestly, genuinely tell me what this text made you think about. Maybe you hated it. Maybe it made you think about some completely unrelated thing that has nothing to do with the material. That’s ok.” The thing I was trying to convey is that this is what the professionals are doing. “Real” writers and philosophers are not in the business of summarizing text for a professor. They’re in the business of being super in touch with, and very much trusting, their own experiences and insights, and refining the vocabulary to convey those experiences and insights to others. In other words, they are in the business of being themselves.
This was a massive revelation for me. When I myself was a student, I was very good at citing what famous authors would say about the subject matter. I could quote Marx or John Locke out the wazoo. “Who am I”, I would think, “to opine on this material? I am a lowly undergraduate student. I am 20 years old. My opinions do not matter. You know whose opinions matter? People from the past who are venerated and respected and whose ideas form the basis for our culture and society.” In some sense, this is obviously true. But imagine saying this to Marx and Locke. Then they would have never become Marx and Locke! They’d just be experts at quoting their predecessors and would never have dared trust their own naive opinions. And what fun would that be? The whole point of the Great Conversation is to read the works of the past and then articulate how they resonate in the present. That’s what I want my students to do, and that’s what I hope I’m doing right now.
I now feel like high schools do an immense disservice by teaching students about plot, character, themes, symbols, etc., and never giving students the space to just react to media, without any frameworks. I almost feel that the latter is actually a prerequisite to being able to analyze anything in a rigorous way. This only clicked for me a few years ago, listening to the podcast Very Bad Wizards. The hosts talked about the movies they watched in a way that was totally new to me. There were no “analytic tools” at play, at least not explicitly. They didn’t talk about cinematography for the sake of talking about cinematography. They talked about what moved them. What bothered them. Which characters they found endearing and which they found annoying. In other words, they just talked about their actual experience of taking in this movie. And it was SO MUCH BETTER than any assignment version of the same exercise. I now feel that being able to express your own authentic reactions is a prerequisite for the frameworks we learn in high school. How are you supposed to say anything interesting about plot if you don’t even know whether you liked the plot in the first place? Come ON!
One final set of thoughts before wrapping up. I’ve been thinking a bunch about the relationship between being yourself, finding your creative voice, and avoiding competition. I realized earlier this year that I really, really dislike competition. I haven’t really sought out competitive activities, and when I play sports, I’ve never been particularly motivated by winning. When I’m around competitive environments, I often try to act as the ambassador of some other thing. Among the technologists, I am the local historian. Among the mathematicians, I’m the resident musician. Among the comedians, I’m an academic; among the academics, I’m a comedian.
Part of this, surely, is due to some kind of insecurity, and not wanting to be perceived as “one of them”. But I think a big part of it is avoiding competition. I never want to feel like I’m measuring up against others. I never want to engage in zero-sum thinking—thoughts like “only some small number of us are going to make it”. I never want to feel like I’m entering a race. I do want to feel like I’m pursuing my own authentic goals and have fun. Most people I know who participated in competitive music or sports as kids have quit those activities and grown to resent them. I don’t even know what it would mean for me to “quit” the piano, because I only ever play it when it’s fun for me.
I think there’s a relationship between this notion of avoiding competition and the idea of being yourself and finding your authentic voice. If you know your strengths and understand your unique vantage point, anything you say or build or create will be unique and original. That doesn’t necessarily mean that what you’re creating is good—as we saw before, that’s not up to you to decide—but it means that you’re avoiding competition, and competition is toxic. My goal is to focus ruthlessly on being myself, be open to learning what my strengths are through feedback from others, and avoid the temptation to enter crowded fields at all costs. If I focus on being myself, the notion of competition disappears.
One final note on this book: Carl Rogers has the most calming and self-assured authorial voice. He only speaks in "I" statements, which is actually quite unusual. He would never say "if you accept who you are, you can change"—it's only "when *I* accept who *I* am, then *I* can change". It's a pretty profound shift in perspective, and I found it rather moving.
Well, there you have it. These are my thoughts. This book clearly did a number on me, but I think I just happened to read it at a very particular time in my life when I was thinking a great deal about what it meant to pursue the things I wanted. I’ve since recommended the book to many friends, and everyone has taken their own nuggets of wisdom from it. But the central nugget of wisdom, sappy and sentimental though it may be, is this: you can only ever be yourself, so now’s the time to learn to love exactly who you are.
So, what does it mean to "be yourself"? I've been thinking about it like this: simply embrace what I actually want and like. Whenever possible, I should try to separate my motivations from the myriad other factors influencing my thoughts and behaviour: other people's expectations, cultural norms, feelings of jealousy. The good life, says Rogers, comes from confronting your own actual desires, even if those desires are ugly and you do not yourself endorse them, and recognizing that that's who you are. Deeply understanding your wants and needs is the only place from which you can actually change or grow.
This is not easy to do. There are a number of reasons why. First off, there is often a clash between what I want to want and what I actually want. When there's pizza in front of you, and you say "that pizza looks hella yummy", your hungry ass actually wants to eat pizza. There's no ambiguity there. But when you're walking around a stack of classical books and say "I want to dig into the canon and study all the important ancient texts", you're describing an aspiration. You wish you could sit your literate ass down and read these books all day, but if you dig deep down, you don't actually want this, moment-by-moment. You might get distracted, or bored, or suddenly want something else, like scrolling on social media or hanging out with friends. Maybe you're jealous of the people who can sit down and read the Epic of Gilgamesh in one sitting, but that ain't you. That ain't most of us.
This realization was huge for me. There are some books I wish I wanted to read, or some styles of music I wish I wanted to play, or some writing I wish I wanted to do, but if I really look deep down, I simply don't want to actually do those things. I want to mostly read simple books that are tailored to my current interests, and play funk music, and write Goodreads book reviews. I can claim to want other stuff, but if I look at what I do, it's clear what I actually want. It's a real "if he wanted to, he would have" situation. The best way to know what a person wants to do is simply look at what they actually repeatedly do. And instead of saying "ugh, I really wanted to read more ancient classics, but I failed and read a bunch of 21st century campus novels instead", it's very easy to reframe that as "I thought I wanted to read ancient classics, but I actually want to read 21st century campus novels, and I should embrace that."
The hard part is embracing my actual desires. Recognizing that the things I want to read, and write, and learn, are completely valid, and that I should just dive head-first into the things I actually want, rather than yearning for some set of things I need to force myself to want. This has happened to me on many occasions. I have tried so many times to make myself interested in drawing or dance, but my hands and feet simply do not comply. My hands and feet do, however, want to bike around and listen to audiobooks about oil barons. What it means to "be myself" is to recognize that I do not get to choose to want biking and barons, instead of wanting drawing and dancing. And that's great.
This also happens when I lose interest in something, but I don't realize I've lost interest. In undergrad I mostly studied math, but by my 4th year my interest (and aptitude) was rapidly waning. But I had spent the past four years planning for a life spent doing math, and assumed I would go to grad school for the subject. So here I was, sitting in math classes, no longer interested, but forcing myself to remain invested because I assumed that's what I'd wanted. I would wonder what was wrong with me. Maybe I'd lost my ability to focus? Maybe my work ethic had just gone down the drain? Nope. I was just failing to keep up with my own desires. Unbeknownst to myself, my central interest had in fact shifted to a different field (psychology), which I could have easily realized had I only paid attention to the fact that I was reading like two psychology books a week.
This is what Rogers means by "becoming a person". There is no endpoint here. You are never the fixed self you will be forever. It's a constant process of becoming—a lifelong process of understanding how past experience has shaped you and of keeping up with the person you are now becoming through your present action.
The cool thing about this book is that it also doubled for me as a theory of creativity. I think the ultimate act of creative expression is simply being yourself. The most creative people I know are actually just deeply in touch with their own taste, their own feelings, their own aesthetic desires and preferences, their own style, and then turn that into an artifact.
It took me a very, very long time to realize this, but a few things really locked it in for me. The first was seeing this website by my friend Avi, who launched his video game studio earlier this year: https://magiccircle.studio/. I saw this website and just felt this overwhelming sense: "this website *is* Avi." He had somehow taken his inner gestalt and translated it into an external artifact (in this case a website). He's done it in a style that was uniquely his. That right there, that's creativity.
The second key thing was this podcast interview between John Mayer and Cory Wong (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...), where they both talk about finding their artistic voice. Cory and John both repeatedly make the point that, simply due to the anatomy of their fingers and the way they approach the guitar, they both cannot help but sound a particular way when they play. Becoming an artist, they say, is about learning how to play in this way—the way that you cannot help but play—and turning it into a unique style. Instead of thinking about how you can sound more like your heroes, ask, "how can I sound more like myself"? (At one point, John Mayer says that he will play stuff on guitar and think "ugh, that's pretty unoriginal, just sounds John Mayer", and then has to remind himself that he himself is John Mayer. This dude cannot help but play like himself.) This is deeply related to the idea of "becoming a person". Becoming an artist is about embracing how you actually sound, instead of trying to sound like someone else; becoming a person is about embracing your actual desires, instead of worrying about the things you wish you felt.
This whole process requires an unbelievably, almost egregious, amount of self-confidence. You need to look at your blank canvas, staring at your personal style of painting, and have the audacity to say, "wait, real artists don’t paint like that, but I suppose I do”, and then believe in yourself enough to put that out into the world. That’s what makes you a real artist.
It dawned on me while thinking about this that people are often not the best judges of which of their own art is actually good or not. I remember watching the Long Pond Studio Sessions and hearing Jack Antonoff saying that his favorite song off the record was Mirrorball. Taylor Swift herself did not know that All Too Well would be a hit. This is crazy to me. But on reflection, it makes total sense. When you’re a totally singular artist, when you’ve found your artistic voice, you’re operating completely in your own realm. There’s no benchmark anymore. You’re not acting according to anyone else’s standard but your own. So of course you won’t know which of your works will actually resonate with fans or not. If you could know that in advance, you would start making music for the purpose of it being enjoyed by fans, and it would lose all of its integrity.
In other words, you don’t get to decide what you’ll be recognized for. All you can do is find your style, find your voice, and be prolific. It’s often up to other people to tell you what your actual talents are. Personally, I find that the stuff that comes super easy to me, the stuff that doesn’t even feel like “work”, is the stuff other people are often impressed by or encourage me to do more. It’s a very strange feeling. But of course it makes sense. The artist cannot also be an art critic. In the words I heard the novelist Jonathan Cohen say on a podcast, “an elephant cannot be a zoologist.”
I happened to be thinking about this idea when I read Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Harry’s peers insist he needs to teach them Defense Against the Dark Arts because he’s so gifted at it. After all, he’s defeated Voldemort and other dark wizards multiple times in battle. Harry insists those victories were just luck, and that he has no special aptitude. But his friends insist that this is his central talent. This is how it works to learn you’re good at something. You don’t know you’re good at it, you just know that you never had to work that hard to master it, and so it feels like luck. It won’t feel like “work”, but it just might be the most important thing you can do. In the words of another quote I heard on a podcast but can no longer attribute, “find what you’re good at, then do that on purpose.” Boy is that hard. [Edit: I found the quote, and it's even better than I thought! "Find out who you are and do it on purpose" – Dolly Parton. Unreal.]
The difficulty of embracing your own style really hit home for me when I was teaching university courses in 2020. My students had to write weekly reflections on the text that we read in class, and I insisted that they try to write about their actual thoughts and opinions, rather than merely summarizing the text. I know what the text says. It’s not interesting for me to read an essay about what the text says. What is interesting, I tell my students, is their reactions and actual thoughts. They may not be experts on the subject material we talk about in class (in this case, the history of science), but they are the world’s leading authorities on one subject: their own experience. If you can lucidly and thoughtfully communicate your own experience, you are by definition saying something original, because no one else is you.
Again, this is a simple idea, but it was basically impossible to apply in practice. My students had years of experience regurgitating ideas and almost no experience reflecting on their own reactions to the text. They would ask me whether I was looking for criticisms, or analysis, or summaries, and I would tell them: “no, I am looking for you to actually just honestly, genuinely tell me what this text made you think about. Maybe you hated it. Maybe it made you think about some completely unrelated thing that has nothing to do with the material. That’s ok.” The thing I was trying to convey is that this is what the professionals are doing. “Real” writers and philosophers are not in the business of summarizing text for a professor. They’re in the business of being super in touch with, and very much trusting, their own experiences and insights, and refining the vocabulary to convey those experiences and insights to others. In other words, they are in the business of being themselves.
This was a massive revelation for me. When I myself was a student, I was very good at citing what famous authors would say about the subject matter. I could quote Marx or John Locke out the wazoo. “Who am I”, I would think, “to opine on this material? I am a lowly undergraduate student. I am 20 years old. My opinions do not matter. You know whose opinions matter? People from the past who are venerated and respected and whose ideas form the basis for our culture and society.” In some sense, this is obviously true. But imagine saying this to Marx and Locke. Then they would have never become Marx and Locke! They’d just be experts at quoting their predecessors and would never have dared trust their own naive opinions. And what fun would that be? The whole point of the Great Conversation is to read the works of the past and then articulate how they resonate in the present. That’s what I want my students to do, and that’s what I hope I’m doing right now.
I now feel like high schools do an immense disservice by teaching students about plot, character, themes, symbols, etc., and never giving students the space to just react to media, without any frameworks. I almost feel that the latter is actually a prerequisite to being able to analyze anything in a rigorous way. This only clicked for me a few years ago, listening to the podcast Very Bad Wizards. The hosts talked about the movies they watched in a way that was totally new to me. There were no “analytic tools” at play, at least not explicitly. They didn’t talk about cinematography for the sake of talking about cinematography. They talked about what moved them. What bothered them. Which characters they found endearing and which they found annoying. In other words, they just talked about their actual experience of taking in this movie. And it was SO MUCH BETTER than any assignment version of the same exercise. I now feel that being able to express your own authentic reactions is a prerequisite for the frameworks we learn in high school. How are you supposed to say anything interesting about plot if you don’t even know whether you liked the plot in the first place? Come ON!
One final set of thoughts before wrapping up. I’ve been thinking a bunch about the relationship between being yourself, finding your creative voice, and avoiding competition. I realized earlier this year that I really, really dislike competition. I haven’t really sought out competitive activities, and when I play sports, I’ve never been particularly motivated by winning. When I’m around competitive environments, I often try to act as the ambassador of some other thing. Among the technologists, I am the local historian. Among the mathematicians, I’m the resident musician. Among the comedians, I’m an academic; among the academics, I’m a comedian.
Part of this, surely, is due to some kind of insecurity, and not wanting to be perceived as “one of them”. But I think a big part of it is avoiding competition. I never want to feel like I’m measuring up against others. I never want to engage in zero-sum thinking—thoughts like “only some small number of us are going to make it”. I never want to feel like I’m entering a race. I do want to feel like I’m pursuing my own authentic goals and have fun. Most people I know who participated in competitive music or sports as kids have quit those activities and grown to resent them. I don’t even know what it would mean for me to “quit” the piano, because I only ever play it when it’s fun for me.
I think there’s a relationship between this notion of avoiding competition and the idea of being yourself and finding your authentic voice. If you know your strengths and understand your unique vantage point, anything you say or build or create will be unique and original. That doesn’t necessarily mean that what you’re creating is good—as we saw before, that’s not up to you to decide—but it means that you’re avoiding competition, and competition is toxic. My goal is to focus ruthlessly on being myself, be open to learning what my strengths are through feedback from others, and avoid the temptation to enter crowded fields at all costs. If I focus on being myself, the notion of competition disappears.
One final note on this book: Carl Rogers has the most calming and self-assured authorial voice. He only speaks in "I" statements, which is actually quite unusual. He would never say "if you accept who you are, you can change"—it's only "when *I* accept who *I* am, then *I* can change". It's a pretty profound shift in perspective, and I found it rather moving.
Well, there you have it. These are my thoughts. This book clearly did a number on me, but I think I just happened to read it at a very particular time in my life when I was thinking a great deal about what it meant to pursue the things I wanted. I’ve since recommended the book to many friends, and everyone has taken their own nuggets of wisdom from it. But the central nugget of wisdom, sappy and sentimental though it may be, is this: you can only ever be yourself, so now’s the time to learn to love exactly who you are.
December 18, 2012
Picked this one up for a course I was taking in college- Personal Development.
It turned out to be one of the best psychology-related books I have ever read. It described the therapeutic process in a personal way, rather than clinical. Since this process was from the point of view of Carl Rogers himself as a therapist, I felt I was able to discern how we develop as a person using relationships.
I felt like I was given more insight into how people change from this book than from any other piece of literature, honestly.
Read this if you are interested in psychology, and want to get greater insight into the backbone of the Humanist movement!
It turned out to be one of the best psychology-related books I have ever read. It described the therapeutic process in a personal way, rather than clinical. Since this process was from the point of view of Carl Rogers himself as a therapist, I felt I was able to discern how we develop as a person using relationships.
I felt like I was given more insight into how people change from this book than from any other piece of literature, honestly.
Read this if you are interested in psychology, and want to get greater insight into the backbone of the Humanist movement!
October 2, 2009
If anyone wants to know Rogers' theoretical framework, I can explain it to you in 5 minutes and spare you the grief of reading this long, redundant book. It was somewhat interesting, but too repetitive.
August 21, 2021
3.75
Sách đã mua lâu, đã đọc lâu nhưng nhờ có booktalk mới đọc trọn vẹn từ đầu đến cuối.
Nội dung sách có thể được gom lại trong khoảng 2-3 chương thôi. Những phần còn lại là những chiêm nghiệm, câu chuyện trị liệu mà tác giả chia sẻ cách thức ứng dụng những đúc kết của mình với liệu pháp thân chủ trọng tâm.
Những bạn có sở thích về tâm lí hoặc đang nghiên cứu về tâm lí trị liệu, làm những công việc giúp đỡ người khác thì đọc cuốn sách sẽ tìm thấy được nhiều điều quý giá. Có thể sẽ vượt qua được văn phong dịch hơi khó chịu và từ ngữ chuyên ngành hơi là lạ.
Sách đã mua lâu, đã đọc lâu nhưng nhờ có booktalk mới đọc trọn vẹn từ đầu đến cuối.
Nội dung sách có thể được gom lại trong khoảng 2-3 chương thôi. Những phần còn lại là những chiêm nghiệm, câu chuyện trị liệu mà tác giả chia sẻ cách thức ứng dụng những đúc kết của mình với liệu pháp thân chủ trọng tâm.
Những bạn có sở thích về tâm lí hoặc đang nghiên cứu về tâm lí trị liệu, làm những công việc giúp đỡ người khác thì đọc cuốn sách sẽ tìm thấy được nhiều điều quý giá. Có thể sẽ vượt qua được văn phong dịch hơi khó chịu và từ ngữ chuyên ngành hơi là lạ.
August 22, 2019
this is an extremely valuable book for all "thinking humans" to read. It really helped me begin to understand myself, and it gave me insights that allowed me to eventually discover what makes me happy, what motivates me, what I truly need to AVOID in life (because I'm just not wired to deal with it) and in general it gives you a framework for finding your inner self.
June 23, 2018
The first chapter or two was interesting enough. Then it was simply one idea chewed over and over and over and over, then it was chewed some more.
I love Carl Rogers but this book is unforgivably, outrageously repetitive! Had to skip half of it. I was dozing off too much.
I love Carl Rogers but this book is unforgivably, outrageously repetitive! Had to skip half of it. I was dozing off too much.
May 10, 2010
Read it many years ago, and his simple, trusting view that we humans need witness and listening, and that will go a long way toward enabling the person to find their own answers within themselves.
At the time my husband was a Rogerian counselor. Later, I studied at Center for Studies of the Person, Carl Roger's center in LaJolla, CA, and experienced what he was talking about. He was there with us for a day each of the 2 summers I participated in their 17-day workshops. (In my 2nd summer, my weekend group "kidnapped" Dr. Rogers, set him in a raised chair in the big hall (all 70 participants) and bowed down to him.
He said "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. I am uncomfortable being raised above the rest of you; it is not what I believe."
When we told him we had been randomly kidnapping and elevating EVERYBODY in the larger group, he relaxed and had a good time.
He was a great man.
At the time my husband was a Rogerian counselor. Later, I studied at Center for Studies of the Person, Carl Roger's center in LaJolla, CA, and experienced what he was talking about. He was there with us for a day each of the 2 summers I participated in their 17-day workshops. (In my 2nd summer, my weekend group "kidnapped" Dr. Rogers, set him in a raised chair in the big hall (all 70 participants) and bowed down to him.
He said "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. I am uncomfortable being raised above the rest of you; it is not what I believe."
When we told him we had been randomly kidnapping and elevating EVERYBODY in the larger group, he relaxed and had a good time.
He was a great man.
November 12, 2016
'To be the self, one truly is ' is the core thesis of this book. For realising our true self, the need is to free ourselves from all the facades : pleasing others, trying to be good etc. We can then begin by accepting our real feeling. With it, comes the beginning of trusting ourself. It is the rise of a creative human being who is willing to take life as a endless river in constant flux.
For unlocking our potentialities, the therapist or the other person must be himself aware of his own attitude. There is a significant emphasis on ' EMPATHETIC LISTENING'. It means that we listen to the other person without evaluation, judgements and negative attitudes. We listen to help the individual explore his self. There is an interesting experiment mentioned in the book on classroom teaching. the students are allowed to say what they really experience, while Rogers engages in deep listening. At the end of the course, there are understanding and meaningful relationships between the people which facilitate growth. This can be applied in family, inter- group discussions etc.
This work can have transformative impact of the reader. there are profound questions raised on the nature of interactions we have with each other, what it is to be free etc.the answers have to be explored by us.
For unlocking our potentialities, the therapist or the other person must be himself aware of his own attitude. There is a significant emphasis on ' EMPATHETIC LISTENING'. It means that we listen to the other person without evaluation, judgements and negative attitudes. We listen to help the individual explore his self. There is an interesting experiment mentioned in the book on classroom teaching. the students are allowed to say what they really experience, while Rogers engages in deep listening. At the end of the course, there are understanding and meaningful relationships between the people which facilitate growth. This can be applied in family, inter- group discussions etc.
This work can have transformative impact of the reader. there are profound questions raised on the nature of interactions we have with each other, what it is to be free etc.the answers have to be explored by us.
April 29, 2008
This was the first book I read by Carl Rogers. I really like what i perceived as his foundation; that humans have pure wonderful cores that are surrounded by protective hurt layers. This premise rings true in my life. I believe that humans are capable of great beauty and great ugliness. I've seen wonderful people do ugly things, and vice versa, and I've always wondered why. Rogers draws on his unique history as an experienced psychoanalyst to try and answer this tough question. Something else I loved about this book was his discussion of the universal human desire to "know their truest selves;" to be in touch with who we genuinely are at our deepest point. This very search has been a preoccupation of mine for quite some time so i liked that i was reading a book by an author that was equally interested in this search. However! The book was really repetitive. Driving home the same points from slightly different perspectives over and over again. I skipped some sections about psychological research methods and discussions about behavioral sciences, etc. I am still looking forward to reading some of Rogers more personal works.
September 8, 2016
Thought this was a pretty interesting read. As a psychology major in college, it is somewhat inevitable that some classes will concern themselves with therapy and therapy techniques, regardless of whether or not an individual wants to become a therapist, and this was where I first encountered the book. Nonetheless, all information is good and relevant in some way, and this book was incredibly interesting to me. I graduated, am not a therapist and have no interest in becoming a therapist, but I still found this book to be enlightening and engaging. So much so that I picked it up and continued reading it after we were done with it in class. I feel like it was fairly well written and difficult to put down, and that the things he wrote about made me re-examine some of the things I did and do in my own life and relationships, and improve them. Carl Rogers' work was, and is, influential in the field and I recommend this read for anybody who is interested in the field of psychology or gaining more insight into themselves and others.
January 30, 2009
This book was a pleasure to read. Reading Rogers helps me whenever I lose faith in the efficacy of long term psychotherapy. It is so important when practicing to get over your own worries and anxieties in order to be truly responsive to your patient. Through his anecdotes, teachings, and overall philosophy, I have been able to make major breakthroughs in my own comfort sitting with my patients.
April 4, 2019
След "Към психологията на Битието" на Маслоу отдавна се каня да се запозная е с другия виден представител на хуманистичното направление в психологията - Карл Роджърс. Може би все пак трябваше първо да посегна към "Начин да бъдеш" като основополагаща за идеите на т.нар. "роджърианство". В "Израстването на личността" също са представени тези идеи, разбира се, но тук, особено в първата част и това малко ми доскуча, бяха цитирани доста дълги откъси от терапевтични интервюта с клиенти, които бяха неясни и трудни за интерпретиране без намесата на самия Роджърс.
Втората част обаче беше точно такава, каквато исках :) - с представяне на клиентоцентрираната терапия на Роджърс с необходимите за провеждането й условия, които, както самият той твърди, щом са налице, обичайно се наблюдава така желаната личностна промяна у клиента.
Като цяло Роджърс през цялото време говори за това, че във всеки тип междуличностни отношения, за да бъдат пълноценни и автентични, са нужни тези три компонента - емпатия, безусловно приемане и конгруентност (съответствие между преживявано и осъзнавано и между осъзнавано и показвано в поведението).
Това, което най-много ме привлича у хуманистичното направление и което и Маслоу споделя, е, че водещият стремеж в човешката природа (и тук е основното противоречие с Фройдовата психоанализа и бихейвиоризма) е стремежът към себеактуализация, развитие, разгръщане на потенциала. На пръв поглед звучи парадоксално, но според Роджърс това се случва, когато успеем да "станем такива, каквито действителност сме". Той заимства това от Киркегор, от когото признава, че се е повлиял значително.
Идеята е, че именно когато се приема такъв, какъвто съм, всъщност аз започвам да се променям. Стремежът е да се приема в цялата си противоречивост и да не се опитвам да изтласквам онова, което не ми харесва, или е социално неприемливо, защото то рано или късно ще се прояви.
"Първата ни реакция по отношение на повечето неща, които другите ни казват, е непосредственото им оценяване или осъждане, а не разбиране. Когато някой даде израз на чувствата си, нагласите си или вярванията си, ние почти незабавно откликваме така: "Това е правилно" или "Това е глупаво", "Това не е нормално", "Това е неразумно", "Това не трябва да е така", "Това не е добре". Много рядко си позволяваме да разберем какъв точно е смисълът на казаното от другия. Вероятно това е така, защото разбирането е рисковано начинание. Ако се оставя наистина да разбера другия, може да се случи така, че това да ме промени. А ние се страхуваме от промяна."
"Човекът - това е поток на ставане, а не завършен продукт. Това означава, че той е текущ процес, а не застинала, статична същност; това е течаща река от изменения, а не късче твърд материал; това е постоянно променящо се съцветие от възможности, а не застинала сума от характеристики."
Втората част обаче беше точно такава, каквато исках :) - с представяне на клиентоцентрираната терапия на Роджърс с необходимите за провеждането й условия, които, както самият той твърди, щом са налице, обичайно се наблюдава така желаната личностна промяна у клиента.
Като цяло Роджърс през цялото време говори за това, че във всеки тип междуличностни отношения, за да бъдат пълноценни и автентични, са нужни тези три компонента - емпатия, безусловно приемане и конгруентност (съответствие между преживявано и осъзнавано и между осъзнавано и показвано в поведението).
Това, което най-много ме привлича у хуманистичното направление и което и Маслоу споделя, е, че водещият стремеж в човешката природа (и тук е основното противоречие с Фройдовата психоанализа и бихейвиоризма) е стремежът към себеактуализация, развитие, разгръщане на потенциала. На пръв поглед звучи парадоксално, но според Роджърс това се случва, когато успеем да "станем такива, каквито действителност сме". Той заимства това от Киркегор, от когото признава, че се е повлиял значително.
Идеята е, че именно когато се приема такъв, какъвто съм, всъщност аз започвам да се променям. Стремежът е да се приема в цялата си противоречивост и да не се опитвам да изтласквам онова, което не ми харесва, или е социално неприемливо, защото то рано или късно ще се прояви.
"Първата ни реакция по отношение на повечето неща, които другите ни казват, е непосредственото им оценяване или осъждане, а не разбиране. Когато някой даде израз на чувствата си, нагласите си или вярванията си, ние почти незабавно откликваме така: "Това е правилно" или "Това е глупаво", "Това не е нормално", "Това е неразумно", "Това не трябва да е така", "Това не е добре". Много рядко си позволяваме да разберем какъв точно е смисълът на казаното от другия. Вероятно това е така, защото разбирането е рисковано начинание. Ако се оставя наистина да разбера другия, може да се случи така, че това да ме промени. А ние се страхуваме от промяна."
"Човекът - това е поток на ставане, а не завършен продукт. Това означава, че той е текущ процес, а не застинала, статична същност; това е течаща река от изменения, а не късче твърд материал; това е постоянно променящо се съцветие от възможности, а не застинала сума от характеристики."
April 19, 2010
This book is quite possibly the best book that I have read as a part of my graduate school experience thus far.
This is the third theory book that I have read (Skinner, Jung) and Rogers is the most easy to get along with and understand. Rogers is humble, and every step of the way takes you along his journey to how he developed person centered therapy. At no point does he insist that his theory is the right one, or the only, but he says that his theory is what he has developed from his own experiences.
I would definitely recommend!!
This is the third theory book that I have read (Skinner, Jung) and Rogers is the most easy to get along with and understand. Rogers is humble, and every step of the way takes you along his journey to how he developed person centered therapy. At no point does he insist that his theory is the right one, or the only, but he says that his theory is what he has developed from his own experiences.
I would definitely recommend!!
April 11, 2022
It's ok, but... did he really write this: [with tests] Top managers can....base their selection on knowledge of the degree to which each man has latent hostility to society, or latent homosexuality...
So among all the great things he said there's interspersed some really backwarded shit. Not to be dismissed though. There's still lot of value in this book.
Zeitgeist is a real bitch, although I would have expected more, far more from a psychologist. Let alone this great and famous.
So among all the great things he said there's interspersed some really backwarded shit. Not to be dismissed though. There's still lot of value in this book.
Zeitgeist is a real bitch, although I would have expected more, far more from a psychologist. Let alone this great and famous.
July 24, 2022
No self-help book can compare to such GREAT psychotherapy books. It feels like a slap in the face, a really hard one, by someone who knows you really well, without actually knowing you personally. I am barely halfway, and have already recognized myself a million times between the pages. It taught me so much about myself. It reminded me of things I had forgotten about. Can't recommend it enough.
November 11, 2012
Holy crap. This book just changed my life. I'm going to have to think about how to write a review for it.
June 22, 2015
I’m going to get a little intimate in this review. I’m doing this because I’ve been touched deeply by Carl Rogers’ work, and I simply feel within me a passionate drive to express how his psychotherapeutic findings have impressed themselves upon me. So here it goes…
I think very many of us are extremely miserable. In our First World society, we possess enormous sums of money, luxury items, cars, food, technology, phones, safety, affluence, freedom, you name it. We live the “American Dream” (indeed, something that’s more of a fantasy). And yet, I’m afraid, we’re very unhappy individuals. Yesterday was Father’s Day. I listened to numerous people vent to me about how the holiday was a sorry excuse for a family gathering: siblings who no longer talk (no, who actually strongly dislike each other) came together and awkwardly pretended to be a “family” for a little while; a few fake laughs, some alcohol to ease uneasiness, participating in activities that might help divert the tensions inside each person that something feels “awfully wrong.”
Rogers speaks healing and help into these very hurts. In experience, so many of his clients feel alienated from their spouses, siblings, parents, friends, and from themselves. How can we grow as persons in such a situation? Rogers argued that we must relate to each other as persons—not as objects to be diagnosed, manipulated, or studied. In the therapist-client relationship, there exists—for once in life—a relationship of empathy, affectionate, and unconditional positive regard. The goal of therapy is to help the client feel truly heard. Most of don’t actually listen to people. We simply wait for them to be done talking so that we can disprove everything they’ve just said. We’re awful at communicating, and don’t understand the dynamics of interpersonal relationships. This, in large part, is why the divorce rate is so bad. People are miserable and feel alienated from their spouses. Children and parents don’t get along. Siblings don’t really talk to each other—I mean “really” talk.
Rogers seeks to highlight, in a safe place, these sorts of concerns that nobody is really looking out for or focusing on. His genius is in his desire to open up space for real conversations to take place. He wants to help people experience each other, listen to each other, in short, participate in the journey of becoming a person. It’s a journey, not a destination. He wants us to know ourselves, to love ourselves, and to know and love others. He wants us to be individuals who make our own decisions rather than simply going along with what everybody else is doing. He wants us to be creative, to experience our own self-actualization and personal growth. And he wants to facilitate these kinds of environments that make this growth possible. There is no formula that works for everybody. All Rogers wants to do is open up room for people to grow themselves, to discover themselves, to become people who are open to others, open to experience, and live more real, rich, fulfilling, and vivid lives. This in no way means that life will be “happy.” If anything, the sad times will be more vivid, making them perhaps more emotional and difficult. But so will the high times be more special and meaningful. If you want to feel life, live to the point of tears, to laugh, and grow, and experience change, in short, experience the process of becoming a person, then Carl Rogers is a helpful resource and friend along the way.
I think very many of us are extremely miserable. In our First World society, we possess enormous sums of money, luxury items, cars, food, technology, phones, safety, affluence, freedom, you name it. We live the “American Dream” (indeed, something that’s more of a fantasy). And yet, I’m afraid, we’re very unhappy individuals. Yesterday was Father’s Day. I listened to numerous people vent to me about how the holiday was a sorry excuse for a family gathering: siblings who no longer talk (no, who actually strongly dislike each other) came together and awkwardly pretended to be a “family” for a little while; a few fake laughs, some alcohol to ease uneasiness, participating in activities that might help divert the tensions inside each person that something feels “awfully wrong.”
Rogers speaks healing and help into these very hurts. In experience, so many of his clients feel alienated from their spouses, siblings, parents, friends, and from themselves. How can we grow as persons in such a situation? Rogers argued that we must relate to each other as persons—not as objects to be diagnosed, manipulated, or studied. In the therapist-client relationship, there exists—for once in life—a relationship of empathy, affectionate, and unconditional positive regard. The goal of therapy is to help the client feel truly heard. Most of don’t actually listen to people. We simply wait for them to be done talking so that we can disprove everything they’ve just said. We’re awful at communicating, and don’t understand the dynamics of interpersonal relationships. This, in large part, is why the divorce rate is so bad. People are miserable and feel alienated from their spouses. Children and parents don’t get along. Siblings don’t really talk to each other—I mean “really” talk.
Rogers seeks to highlight, in a safe place, these sorts of concerns that nobody is really looking out for or focusing on. His genius is in his desire to open up space for real conversations to take place. He wants to help people experience each other, listen to each other, in short, participate in the journey of becoming a person. It’s a journey, not a destination. He wants us to know ourselves, to love ourselves, and to know and love others. He wants us to be individuals who make our own decisions rather than simply going along with what everybody else is doing. He wants us to be creative, to experience our own self-actualization and personal growth. And he wants to facilitate these kinds of environments that make this growth possible. There is no formula that works for everybody. All Rogers wants to do is open up room for people to grow themselves, to discover themselves, to become people who are open to others, open to experience, and live more real, rich, fulfilling, and vivid lives. This in no way means that life will be “happy.” If anything, the sad times will be more vivid, making them perhaps more emotional and difficult. But so will the high times be more special and meaningful. If you want to feel life, live to the point of tears, to laugh, and grow, and experience change, in short, experience the process of becoming a person, then Carl Rogers is a helpful resource and friend along the way.
August 17, 2021
Zaujalo mě, že v češtině je titul překládán jako “Být sám sebou“. Myslím, že tahle kniha však nabízí mnohem víc než návod, jak se stát sebou samým. V souboru přednášek Rogers polemizuje o člověku, který usiluje o vlastní poznání, přestože se k smrti bojí této změně čelit. I když se na první pohled zdá, že text staví na klišé seberozvojových tématech (na které jsem sama dost háklivá), můžu říct, že ve mě doposud žádná kniha nezanechala tak významný otisk. Přestože pravidelně čtu hlavně v mhd, přistihla jsem se, že si kapitoly šetřím a vyhrazuju si pro ně zvláštní čas každý večer.
Kniha je stavebním kamenem terapeutického přístupu zaměřeného na člověka (Person Centered Approach), Rogers úspěšně argumentuje a vyvrací efektivitu tehdy konvenčních léčebných postupů (Freudovy psychoanalýzy, Skinnerova behaviourismu). Dále otevírá otázky autentického vztahu klienta a terapeuta a zdůrazňuje význam empatie a porozumění, které jsou základem změny struktury osobnosti druhé osoby. Upozorňuje však také na nebezpečí tohoto procesu, jelikož pokud opravdu porozumíme druhému člověku, vstoupíme do jeho světa a vidíme život jeho vlastní optikou, riskujeme změnu v našem vlastním vnímání reality. Paradoxně, Rogers dokáže psát o takto tíživých tématech s nevídanou lehkostí.
Závěrem musím ocenit způsob, jakým Rogers píše o psychoterapii. Díky naslouchání tak výjimečné osobě, z jejichž úst zní popis terapeutického procesu jako malování obrazu, jsem si uvědomila, jaké je privilegium terapeuta mít možnost ve svém životě poznat široké spektrum lidí na existenční a intimní úrovni bytí (Rogers popisuje tyto chvíle jako “those pregnant moments when you see a human soul revealed before you“). A tyto momenty vnímám jako jedny z nejcennějších v životě obyčejného člověka.
Pointu knihy vyjadřuje následující věta:
(not just as therapists, but as human beings) „We usually ask the question, How can I fix or change this person? However, the ultimate question is, how can I provide a relationship which this person can use for personal growth?“
Kniha je stavebním kamenem terapeutického přístupu zaměřeného na člověka (Person Centered Approach), Rogers úspěšně argumentuje a vyvrací efektivitu tehdy konvenčních léčebných postupů (Freudovy psychoanalýzy, Skinnerova behaviourismu). Dále otevírá otázky autentického vztahu klienta a terapeuta a zdůrazňuje význam empatie a porozumění, které jsou základem změny struktury osobnosti druhé osoby. Upozorňuje však také na nebezpečí tohoto procesu, jelikož pokud opravdu porozumíme druhému člověku, vstoupíme do jeho světa a vidíme život jeho vlastní optikou, riskujeme změnu v našem vlastním vnímání reality. Paradoxně, Rogers dokáže psát o takto tíživých tématech s nevídanou lehkostí.
Závěrem musím ocenit způsob, jakým Rogers píše o psychoterapii. Díky naslouchání tak výjimečné osobě, z jejichž úst zní popis terapeutického procesu jako malování obrazu, jsem si uvědomila, jaké je privilegium terapeuta mít možnost ve svém životě poznat široké spektrum lidí na existenční a intimní úrovni bytí (Rogers popisuje tyto chvíle jako “those pregnant moments when you see a human soul revealed before you“). A tyto momenty vnímám jako jedny z nejcennějších v životě obyčejného člověka.
Pointu knihy vyjadřuje následující věta:
(not just as therapists, but as human beings) „We usually ask the question, How can I fix or change this person? However, the ultimate question is, how can I provide a relationship which this person can use for personal growth?“
March 3, 2018
Cartea prezintă un tip de terapie ce aparține psihologiei umaniste - terapia centrată pe client -, formulată de Carl R. Rogers. Ea presupune ca terapeutul să fie autentic, să dea dovadă de o acceptare necondiționată și de empatie față de client. Această relație va produce schimbare. Ideile prezentate se pot aplica la nivelul tuturor relațiilor interumane.
„În terapie, persoana adaugă experienței obișnuite conștientizarea deplină și nedeformată a experiențelor sale - a reacțiilor sale senzoriale și viscerale. Ea încetează să mai deformeze experiența când o conștientizează, sau cel puțin reduce deformările. Poate fi conștientă de ceea ce trăiește cu adevărat, nu doar de ceea ce-și permite să trăiască după o triere minuțiosă printr-un filtru conceptual. În acest sens, persoana întruchipează pentru prima oară întregul potențial al organismmului uman, elementul conștientizării fiind adăugat liber la aspectele fundamentale ale reacțiilor senzoriale și viscerale, și îmbogățindu-le. Persoana ajunge să fie ceea ce este, după cum spun atât de des clienții în terapie. Aceasta pare să însemne că individul ajunge să fie - la nivel de conștientizare - ceea ce este - la nivel de experiență. Altfel spus, este un organism uman întreg și cu funcționare deplină.
Presimt deja reacțiile unora dintre cititori. „Vrei să spui că, în urma terapiei, omul devine nimic altceva decât un organism uman, un animal uman? Cine-l va controla? Cine-l va socializa? Va renunța el de-acum la toate inhibițiile? N-ai făcut nimic altceva decât să eliberezi fiara?” La asta, răspunsul cel mai adecvat pare a fi: „În terapie, individul a devenit de fapt un organism uman, cu toată bogăția pe care o presupune acest lucru. E capabil de autocontrol realist și e socializat incorigibil în dorințele sale. Nu există fiară în om. În om există doar om, și asta e ceea ce am putut să eliberăm.”
În relațiile mele cu alte persoane am constatat că, pe termen lung, nu folosește la nimic să mă port ca și cum aș fi ceva ce nu sunt. Nu ajută să mă port calm și agreabil când, de fapt, sunt furios și critic. Nu ajută să mă port ca și cum aș cunoaște răspunsurile atunci când nu le știu. Nu ajută să mă port ca și cum aș fi o persoană iubitoare dacă, de fapt, în acel moment sunt ostil. Cu alte cuvinte, am constatat că nu folosește la nimic și nici nu este eficient, în relațiile mele cu alți oameni, să încerc să întrețin o mască, să mă port la suprafață într-un fel, când în interior trăiesc ceva foarte diferit. Cred că asta nu mă face să fiu util în încercarea de a forma relații constructive cu alții.
Simt că sunt mai eficient atunci când mă pot asculta pe mine însumi cu o atitudine de acceptare și pot fi eu însumi. Un mod de a formula acest lucru este că am devenit mai priceput la a-mi da voie să fiu așa cum sunt. Astfel îmi este mai ușor să mă accept pe mine însumi ca pe o persoană categoric imperfectă, care nu funcționează în niciun caz tot timpul așa cum ar vrea să funcționeze. Probabil că unii consideră că aceasta este o direcție foarte ciudată în care să te îndrepți. Mie îmi pare că are valoare în virtutea unui paradox straniu: când mă accept pe mine însumi așa cum sunt, mă schimb. Cred că am învățat asta de la clienții mei, ca și din propriile-mi experiențe - nu ne putem schimba, nu ne putem distanța de ceea ce suntem până când nu acceptăm în întregime ceea ce suntem. Iar când o facem, schimbarea pare să se producă aproape pe neobservate. Un alt rezultat ce pare să decurgă din faptul de a fi eu însumi este acela că relațiile devin reale. Relațiile reale au capacitatea incitantă de a fi pline de viață și semnificație. Așadar, constat că este eficient să-mi permit să fiu ceea ce sunt în atitudinile mele, să știu când am ajuns la limita rezistenței sau a toleranței și să accept asta ca pe o realitate care există în mine. Mi-ar plăcea să accept aceste sentimente tot atât de bine ca pe cele de căldură, interes, îngăduință, bunătate, înțelegere, care sunt și ele o parte foarte reală din mine. Atunci când accept cu adevărat toate aceste atitudini ca pe o realitate, ca pe o parte din mine, relația mea cu cealaltă persoană devine ceea ce este și poate să crească și să se schimbe mai ușor.
A-mi da voie să înțeleg o altă persoană are o valoare imensă. Felul în care am formulat această afirmație poate să vă pară ciudat. E nevoie să-ți dai voie să înțelegi pe altul? Eu cred că da. Prima noastră reacție la majoritatea afirmațiilor pe care le auzim de la alții este o evaluare sau o judecată imediată, și nu o înțelegere a lor. Când cineva își exprimă un sentiment, o atitudine sau o convingere, tindem să gândim aproape imediat: „Așa e” sau „E o prostie”, „E anormal, irațional, e incorect”, „Nu-i frumos”. Foarte rar ne dăm voie să înțelegem exact ce semnificație are pentru celălalt afirmația sa. Eu cred că se întâmplă așa fiindcă a înțelege pe celălalt e riscant. Dacă-mi dau voie cu adevărat să-l înțeleg pe altul, acea înțelegere ar putea să mă schimbe. Și toți ne temem de schimbare.
Kirkegaard arată că disperarea cea mai des întâlnită e aceea cauzată de faptul de a nu alege sau a nu vrea să fii tu însuți, dar că forma cea mai adâncă de disperare vine din a alege „să fii altul decât tu însuți”. Pe de altă parte, „a fi acel sine care ești cu adevărat constituie într-adevăr opusul disperării”, și această alegere reprezintă cea mai profundă responsabilitate a omului. Explorarea clienților devine și mai perturbatoare când se trezesc implicați în înlăturarea chipurilor false despre care nu știau că sunt chipuri false. Clienții încep să se angajeze în sarcina înspăimântătoare de a explora sentimente turbulente și uneori violente pe care le nutresc. Îndepărtarea unei măști despre care credeai că face parte din adevăratul tău sine poate fi o experineță profund tulburătoare; totuși, când are libertatea de a gândi, a simți și a fi, individul se îndreaptă spre un astfel de țel.
„Îți spui că trebuie să creezi tu însuți tiparul, dar sunt atât de multe elemente și e atât de greu să vezi care e locul fiecăruia! Uneori le pui unde nu trebuie și, cu cât ai mai multe elemente puse în locul greșit, cu atât e nevoie de eforturi mai mari ca să le ții în loc, până când ajungi să fii atât de obosit, încât până și confuzia teribilă e mai bună decât să continui. Și atunci descoperi că, lăsate de capul lor, elementele amestecate își găsesc firesc locul propriu și rezultă un tipar de viață fără ca tu să fi făcut un efort. Ai doar misiunea să-l descoperi și, făcând asta, te vei găsi pe tine însuți și-ți vei găsi propriul loc. Trebuie chiar să-ți lași experiențele să-ți spună singure ce înseamnă; în clipa în care le spui tu ce înseamnă, te afli în război cu tine însuți.” - Să vedem dacă pot să traduc exprimarea poetică a clientei în semnificația pe care o au pentru mine afirmațiile ei. Cred că ea spune că a fi ea însăși înseamnă să găsească tiparul, ordinea subiacentă care există în curgerea mereu schimbătoare a experiențelor ei. În loc de a încerca să-și țină forțat experiența în forma unei măști sau s-o constrângă într-o formă ori structură, alta decât cea care este, a fi ea însăși înseamnă să descopere unitatea și armonia ce există în sentimentele și reacțiile ei actuale. Asta înseamnă că sinele adevărat e ceva ce se descoperă în mod confortabil în experiențele proprii, nu ceva ce se impune asupra lor.
Se pare că individul explorează treptat, în mod dureros, ceea ce se află în spatele măștilor pe care le arată lumii și chiar și în spatele măștilor cu care s-a indus pe sine însuși în eroare. El face experiența profundă și deseori intensă a diferitelor elemente din sine care au fost ascunse înăuntrul lui. Astfel devine tot mai mult el însuși - nu o fațadă de conformism cu alții, nu o negare cinică a oricăror sentimente, nici un paravan de raționalitate intelectuală, ci un proces viu, care respiră, simte, fluctuează - pe scurt, devine persoană.
Un mod de a exprima fluiditatea prezintă într-o astfel de viețuire experențială (deschidere față de experiențele noi, lipsă absolută de defensivitate) este acela de a spune că sinele și personalitatea decurg din experiență, în loc ca experiența să fie tradusă ori deformată pentru a se potrivi cu structura preconcepută a sinelui. Asta înseamnă că individul devine participant la proces și observator ar lui, al experienței la nivel de organism, proces aflat în permanentă desfășurare, în loc să-l controleze.”
„În terapie, persoana adaugă experienței obișnuite conștientizarea deplină și nedeformată a experiențelor sale - a reacțiilor sale senzoriale și viscerale. Ea încetează să mai deformeze experiența când o conștientizează, sau cel puțin reduce deformările. Poate fi conștientă de ceea ce trăiește cu adevărat, nu doar de ceea ce-și permite să trăiască după o triere minuțiosă printr-un filtru conceptual. În acest sens, persoana întruchipează pentru prima oară întregul potențial al organismmului uman, elementul conștientizării fiind adăugat liber la aspectele fundamentale ale reacțiilor senzoriale și viscerale, și îmbogățindu-le. Persoana ajunge să fie ceea ce este, după cum spun atât de des clienții în terapie. Aceasta pare să însemne că individul ajunge să fie - la nivel de conștientizare - ceea ce este - la nivel de experiență. Altfel spus, este un organism uman întreg și cu funcționare deplină.
Presimt deja reacțiile unora dintre cititori. „Vrei să spui că, în urma terapiei, omul devine nimic altceva decât un organism uman, un animal uman? Cine-l va controla? Cine-l va socializa? Va renunța el de-acum la toate inhibițiile? N-ai făcut nimic altceva decât să eliberezi fiara?” La asta, răspunsul cel mai adecvat pare a fi: „În terapie, individul a devenit de fapt un organism uman, cu toată bogăția pe care o presupune acest lucru. E capabil de autocontrol realist și e socializat incorigibil în dorințele sale. Nu există fiară în om. În om există doar om, și asta e ceea ce am putut să eliberăm.”
În relațiile mele cu alte persoane am constatat că, pe termen lung, nu folosește la nimic să mă port ca și cum aș fi ceva ce nu sunt. Nu ajută să mă port calm și agreabil când, de fapt, sunt furios și critic. Nu ajută să mă port ca și cum aș cunoaște răspunsurile atunci când nu le știu. Nu ajută să mă port ca și cum aș fi o persoană iubitoare dacă, de fapt, în acel moment sunt ostil. Cu alte cuvinte, am constatat că nu folosește la nimic și nici nu este eficient, în relațiile mele cu alți oameni, să încerc să întrețin o mască, să mă port la suprafață într-un fel, când în interior trăiesc ceva foarte diferit. Cred că asta nu mă face să fiu util în încercarea de a forma relații constructive cu alții.
Simt că sunt mai eficient atunci când mă pot asculta pe mine însumi cu o atitudine de acceptare și pot fi eu însumi. Un mod de a formula acest lucru este că am devenit mai priceput la a-mi da voie să fiu așa cum sunt. Astfel îmi este mai ușor să mă accept pe mine însumi ca pe o persoană categoric imperfectă, care nu funcționează în niciun caz tot timpul așa cum ar vrea să funcționeze. Probabil că unii consideră că aceasta este o direcție foarte ciudată în care să te îndrepți. Mie îmi pare că are valoare în virtutea unui paradox straniu: când mă accept pe mine însumi așa cum sunt, mă schimb. Cred că am învățat asta de la clienții mei, ca și din propriile-mi experiențe - nu ne putem schimba, nu ne putem distanța de ceea ce suntem până când nu acceptăm în întregime ceea ce suntem. Iar când o facem, schimbarea pare să se producă aproape pe neobservate. Un alt rezultat ce pare să decurgă din faptul de a fi eu însumi este acela că relațiile devin reale. Relațiile reale au capacitatea incitantă de a fi pline de viață și semnificație. Așadar, constat că este eficient să-mi permit să fiu ceea ce sunt în atitudinile mele, să știu când am ajuns la limita rezistenței sau a toleranței și să accept asta ca pe o realitate care există în mine. Mi-ar plăcea să accept aceste sentimente tot atât de bine ca pe cele de căldură, interes, îngăduință, bunătate, înțelegere, care sunt și ele o parte foarte reală din mine. Atunci când accept cu adevărat toate aceste atitudini ca pe o realitate, ca pe o parte din mine, relația mea cu cealaltă persoană devine ceea ce este și poate să crească și să se schimbe mai ușor.
A-mi da voie să înțeleg o altă persoană are o valoare imensă. Felul în care am formulat această afirmație poate să vă pară ciudat. E nevoie să-ți dai voie să înțelegi pe altul? Eu cred că da. Prima noastră reacție la majoritatea afirmațiilor pe care le auzim de la alții este o evaluare sau o judecată imediată, și nu o înțelegere a lor. Când cineva își exprimă un sentiment, o atitudine sau o convingere, tindem să gândim aproape imediat: „Așa e” sau „E o prostie”, „E anormal, irațional, e incorect”, „Nu-i frumos”. Foarte rar ne dăm voie să înțelegem exact ce semnificație are pentru celălalt afirmația sa. Eu cred că se întâmplă așa fiindcă a înțelege pe celălalt e riscant. Dacă-mi dau voie cu adevărat să-l înțeleg pe altul, acea înțelegere ar putea să mă schimbe. Și toți ne temem de schimbare.
Kirkegaard arată că disperarea cea mai des întâlnită e aceea cauzată de faptul de a nu alege sau a nu vrea să fii tu însuți, dar că forma cea mai adâncă de disperare vine din a alege „să fii altul decât tu însuți”. Pe de altă parte, „a fi acel sine care ești cu adevărat constituie într-adevăr opusul disperării”, și această alegere reprezintă cea mai profundă responsabilitate a omului. Explorarea clienților devine și mai perturbatoare când se trezesc implicați în înlăturarea chipurilor false despre care nu știau că sunt chipuri false. Clienții încep să se angajeze în sarcina înspăimântătoare de a explora sentimente turbulente și uneori violente pe care le nutresc. Îndepărtarea unei măști despre care credeai că face parte din adevăratul tău sine poate fi o experineță profund tulburătoare; totuși, când are libertatea de a gândi, a simți și a fi, individul se îndreaptă spre un astfel de țel.
„Îți spui că trebuie să creezi tu însuți tiparul, dar sunt atât de multe elemente și e atât de greu să vezi care e locul fiecăruia! Uneori le pui unde nu trebuie și, cu cât ai mai multe elemente puse în locul greșit, cu atât e nevoie de eforturi mai mari ca să le ții în loc, până când ajungi să fii atât de obosit, încât până și confuzia teribilă e mai bună decât să continui. Și atunci descoperi că, lăsate de capul lor, elementele amestecate își găsesc firesc locul propriu și rezultă un tipar de viață fără ca tu să fi făcut un efort. Ai doar misiunea să-l descoperi și, făcând asta, te vei găsi pe tine însuți și-ți vei găsi propriul loc. Trebuie chiar să-ți lași experiențele să-ți spună singure ce înseamnă; în clipa în care le spui tu ce înseamnă, te afli în război cu tine însuți.” - Să vedem dacă pot să traduc exprimarea poetică a clientei în semnificația pe care o au pentru mine afirmațiile ei. Cred că ea spune că a fi ea însăși înseamnă să găsească tiparul, ordinea subiacentă care există în curgerea mereu schimbătoare a experiențelor ei. În loc de a încerca să-și țină forțat experiența în forma unei măști sau s-o constrângă într-o formă ori structură, alta decât cea care este, a fi ea însăși înseamnă să descopere unitatea și armonia ce există în sentimentele și reacțiile ei actuale. Asta înseamnă că sinele adevărat e ceva ce se descoperă în mod confortabil în experiențele proprii, nu ceva ce se impune asupra lor.
Se pare că individul explorează treptat, în mod dureros, ceea ce se află în spatele măștilor pe care le arată lumii și chiar și în spatele măștilor cu care s-a indus pe sine însuși în eroare. El face experiența profundă și deseori intensă a diferitelor elemente din sine care au fost ascunse înăuntrul lui. Astfel devine tot mai mult el însuși - nu o fațadă de conformism cu alții, nu o negare cinică a oricăror sentimente, nici un paravan de raționalitate intelectuală, ci un proces viu, care respiră, simte, fluctuează - pe scurt, devine persoană.
Un mod de a exprima fluiditatea prezintă într-o astfel de viețuire experențială (deschidere față de experiențele noi, lipsă absolută de defensivitate) este acela de a spune că sinele și personalitatea decurg din experiență, în loc ca experiența să fie tradusă ori deformată pentru a se potrivi cu structura preconcepută a sinelui. Asta înseamnă că individul devine participant la proces și observator ar lui, al experienței la nivel de organism, proces aflat în permanentă desfășurare, în loc să-l controleze.”
April 9, 2023
“The self, at this moment, is this feeling. This is a being at the moment, with little self-conscious awareness, but primarily a reflexive awareness, as Sartre terms it. The self is, subjectively, in the existential moment. It is not something one perceives.”
On Becoming a Person is so much more than about mental health; it’s about the therapeutic process; the characteristics of a relationship between a therapist, a psychotherapist and a client; what it means to become a person; the various processes involved in becoming a person, both mentally and emotionally; and lastly, a philosophical and psychological approach of what it means to therapize oneself.
(Therapize, I realize, is a word we don’t use a lot when talking about psychological and philosophical books but it’s a word that I kept coming back to while reading this book.)
What I loved most about the book is how human and sympathetic its existential approach is to sort of navigate through the nuanced complexities of being and becoming a person, which Carl Rogers emphasizes is never the same for any two people.
There is a distinction made between awareness and experience which I never fully realized before reading the book. This intuitive approach identifies what it means to “become” a person: when an individual comes to be in awareness what he is in experience. Bridging that gap and being accepting of every ounce of emotion that sort of flows from it makes the essence of the book.
In a lot of ways, it’s a paradox because this is a process of “unselfing” as much as it is a process of becoming a self. A book like this deserves to be read over and over again. Carl Rogers unifies philosophy with psychology as cogent approaches for understanding mental health, self-acceptance, and self-awareness.
On Becoming a Person is so much more than about mental health; it’s about the therapeutic process; the characteristics of a relationship between a therapist, a psychotherapist and a client; what it means to become a person; the various processes involved in becoming a person, both mentally and emotionally; and lastly, a philosophical and psychological approach of what it means to therapize oneself.
(Therapize, I realize, is a word we don’t use a lot when talking about psychological and philosophical books but it’s a word that I kept coming back to while reading this book.)
What I loved most about the book is how human and sympathetic its existential approach is to sort of navigate through the nuanced complexities of being and becoming a person, which Carl Rogers emphasizes is never the same for any two people.
There is a distinction made between awareness and experience which I never fully realized before reading the book. This intuitive approach identifies what it means to “become” a person: when an individual comes to be in awareness what he is in experience. Bridging that gap and being accepting of every ounce of emotion that sort of flows from it makes the essence of the book.
In a lot of ways, it’s a paradox because this is a process of “unselfing” as much as it is a process of becoming a self. A book like this deserves to be read over and over again. Carl Rogers unifies philosophy with psychology as cogent approaches for understanding mental health, self-acceptance, and self-awareness.
April 16, 2018
Came at the right moment—
Bought this book about a year ago, but never got around to reading it. And then one day last month, I woke up with a definite feeling that I should read it. And so my instinct proved to be quite correct, as I devoured the book (though skipping some chapters I found to be a little too technical and not worth the time). The stages of growth Rogers describes were so similar to what I'd been going through with meditation that I was just riveted—it was as if he was diagnosing me. I also found his dynamic concept of process—as opposed to fixed states of happiness, nirvana, and contentment—fascinating, especially since I'd just read about dynamic inequality in Taleb's new book and since it shed new light on many aspects of Buddhism (e.g., "enlightenment" as a fixed state might not exist, and its dynamic nature is captured by the metaphor of the path, which doesn't necessarily have to have a destination; non-Self as the dissolution of an imposed self, a fixed self, etc.).
Highly recommended.
Bought this book about a year ago, but never got around to reading it. And then one day last month, I woke up with a definite feeling that I should read it. And so my instinct proved to be quite correct, as I devoured the book (though skipping some chapters I found to be a little too technical and not worth the time). The stages of growth Rogers describes were so similar to what I'd been going through with meditation that I was just riveted—it was as if he was diagnosing me. I also found his dynamic concept of process—as opposed to fixed states of happiness, nirvana, and contentment—fascinating, especially since I'd just read about dynamic inequality in Taleb's new book and since it shed new light on many aspects of Buddhism (e.g., "enlightenment" as a fixed state might not exist, and its dynamic nature is captured by the metaphor of the path, which doesn't necessarily have to have a destination; non-Self as the dissolution of an imposed self, a fixed self, etc.).
Highly recommended.
October 24, 2015
A beautifully written book written so the layman can understand and apply...simply life changing and brought me to tears in many places. I read the version with his own intro, a 'to the reader' and 'this is me' section which moved me. I just wish a lot of the more modern psychotherapy/psychology authors would put their writings in the simple to understand and accessible way that Rogers did. This is one of those books where you read a page and have to then put the book down to ponder and absorb. Rogers humility and warmth comes across in droves. A man I would definitely have loved to have a conversation with...and thank him.
August 3, 2016
While Carl Rogers work is foundational to the field of counseling, I did not enjoy his writing. I read about half of this book, and much of the content was incorporated in the many textbooks I read in grad school. I decided to put my time into more current research in the field.
March 1, 2015
Toward the end of authenticity, the author astutely presents the case for accepting ourselves and accepting others as a prerequisite for healthy relationships.
June 13, 2013
First of all, there's really no reason to read this book if you have some exposure to his ideas through a class, a psych intro book, or even if you just read a wikipedia article I imagine. I think, in some ways, that simplicity speaks to why his ideas are so powerful and accessible. I can also see how this would be pretty revolutionary stuff in the time it was written - back in the 50s or 60s when expressing feelings was sort of a taboo thing. In all honesty, one might say people have a tendency to overshare this kind of stuff these days.
But, what is still the same and maybe universal is this idea of unconditional regard for or acceptance of someone else's feelings, and by extension, for our own feelings as well that leads to becoming a more complete person. Having that experience of feeling completely accepted by another is a precursor to us completely accepting ourselves. And, according to Dr Rogers here, this is more of a continual process of growth rather than some finite destination we reach. He talks about it in terms of therapy, but really, it doesn't have to be that formal - the stuff can easily be applied to everyday relationships too. As a write this out, I can see how there might be something creepily paternalistic about this whole thing, but eh whatever, anyone who's had a positive, therapeutic experience knows this to be true. And, if there's one thing that would please ol' Mr Rogers here, it's that our own experience is in fact our best teacher.
But, what is still the same and maybe universal is this idea of unconditional regard for or acceptance of someone else's feelings, and by extension, for our own feelings as well that leads to becoming a more complete person. Having that experience of feeling completely accepted by another is a precursor to us completely accepting ourselves. And, according to Dr Rogers here, this is more of a continual process of growth rather than some finite destination we reach. He talks about it in terms of therapy, but really, it doesn't have to be that formal - the stuff can easily be applied to everyday relationships too. As a write this out, I can see how there might be something creepily paternalistic about this whole thing, but eh whatever, anyone who's had a positive, therapeutic experience knows this to be true. And, if there's one thing that would please ol' Mr Rogers here, it's that our own experience is in fact our best teacher.
November 11, 2020
Tai vieno iškiliausių psichoterapeutų, vieno iš humanistinės psichologijos pradininkų, psichoterapijos proceso ir žmogaus pokyčio psichoterapijoje proceso apybraiža. Tai nėra savipagalbos knyga, tačiau skaitant ją galima daug kartų išgyventi tą jausmą "žinau! Ir man taip būna ir nežinau, ką su tuo daryti!". Ar dažnai gyvenime susiduriate su tuo vidiniu arba išoriniu (arba išoriniu, bet "prarytu" ir tapusiu vidiniu) reikalavimu, kuris prasideda "aš privalau...", "aš turėčiau...", "man negalima...", "aš (ne)teisingai turiu...", "aš negaliu..." - elgtis, jausti, sakyti, išgyventi, atskleisti, daryti, būti ir t.t. vienaip ar kitaip?
Mano manymu, tokie reikalavimai yra duotybė - mes negalime būdami žmonėmis to išvengti ir nesusidurti su vienokiais ar kitokiais įsitikinimais apie tai, kokie mes turėtume būti. Rodžersas puikiai atskleidžia, kokias pasekmes tai turi žmogaus gyvenime ir kaip atrodo procesas judant išsilaisvinimo nuo tokių rėmų link.
Šioje knygoje nemažai teksto skiriama psichoterapeutams ir joje nemažai kalbama apie psichoterapijoje vykstančius procesus, jų suvokimą, terapines sąlygas ir terapeuto laikyseną. Nepaisant to, iš jos daug ką gali pasiimti kiekvienas, nes, tiesą sakant, buvimas geru psichoterapeutu neišvengiamai susijęs ir su buvimu geru žmogumi.
Mano manymu, tokie reikalavimai yra duotybė - mes negalime būdami žmonėmis to išvengti ir nesusidurti su vienokiais ar kitokiais įsitikinimais apie tai, kokie mes turėtume būti. Rodžersas puikiai atskleidžia, kokias pasekmes tai turi žmogaus gyvenime ir kaip atrodo procesas judant išsilaisvinimo nuo tokių rėmų link.
Šioje knygoje nemažai teksto skiriama psichoterapeutams ir joje nemažai kalbama apie psichoterapijoje vykstančius procesus, jų suvokimą, terapines sąlygas ir terapeuto laikyseną. Nepaisant to, iš jos daug ką gali pasiimti kiekvienas, nes, tiesą sakant, buvimas geru psichoterapeutu neišvengiamai susijęs ir su buvimu geru žmogumi.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 542 reviews