As stated by Hall and Fincham (2005), there exist two possible foci of self-forgiveness available to humans, the first is the forgiving of one’s “self” for a self-inflicted injury or, conversely, the forgiving of one’s self for an injury to another person. The article proceeds to contrast true self-forgiveness from pseudo-forgiveness in that true
Self-forgiveness is similar to interpersonal forgiveness, for which there is much more literature available, but self-forgiveness is classified as intrapersonal forgiveness. Interpersonal forgiveness involves forgiveness from the offender to the person offended, therefore interpersonal. On the other hand, self-forgiveness is intrapersonal because it does not involve another person but rather one-self. Hall and Finchman attempted to show the similarities and differences between these two forms of forgiveness by providing a chart, which seems to be a very informative and useful chart. The most important observation is the fact that the person must first acknowledge the wrong done and then accept responsibility before the process of self-forgiveness begins.
The issues here are: * What are boundaries? Due to the personal nature of a helping relationship there exists a code of ethics such as boundaries that helpers abide to. Boundaries help set a structure that protects the interest of the helper and the helpee (Brammer & MacDonald, p.152, 2003). * What are boundary crossings and is it appropriate? Boundary crossings are practices going away from the traditional behaviour of helpers (Guthiel & Gabbard, 1993).
These stages must be followed in the proper order for the policy to be completed properly and successful. The stages have a direct impact on one another and are typically referred to as a cycle. When the policy is being evaluated, it may reveal issues within the policy that need to be addressed. Each of these stages will need to be repeated and reviewed. This will ensure that errors and mistakes are reduced or eliminated when implementing policy.
Especially today with schizophrenia there is a strong biological component. Another criticism is Rogers person centered therapy communicates that humanity is basically good and healthy. Not to mention, “Rogers believed people are motivated by innate tendency to actualize, maintain, and enhance the self” (Schultz, 2009, p.7939). As a result, the questions that were asked by some critics were: Should we treat people who are dangerously violent and are these people basically good and want to enhance self? Should therapists promote a relationship that demonstrates unconditional positive regard as Rogers’s method stresses?
They explain the process of forgiveness therapy as well. Avoiding plagiarism is important for any written work. Citing sources avoids plagiarism, giving credit to authors for their work. Lin et al. credits authors for factual statements.
“Enabling people to hide their inflated self-image and to maintain their current life style”, is how Adler described means of safeguarding tendencies. In our everyday lives, Adler’s responses of the safeguarding tendencies are shown to us. Excuses people use for situations or behaviors are in order to try and protect their own self (Feist, J., Feist, G., and Roberts 2013). Excuses, aggression and withdrawal are the three safeguarding tendencies. The most common, and given to us first, is excuses.
Cloud and Townsend carefully explain why one relationship works and why the other one does not. The basis of the theory is that one must be free to be responsible to completely love the other (Cloud and Townsend, 1999). Their book is a roadmap to that lasting, loving marriage relationship. Summary of Theory Cloud and Townsend teach about the property lines of life, where one person’s responsibility ends and where another person’s begins. Cloud and Townsend present their book in three sections: understanding boundaries, building boundaries in marriage, and resolving conflict in marriage.
Also identifying behaviors that contribute to failure, thus adding a second layer of understanding. The next theory that fits as well is psychodynamic that deals more with the unconscious mind and childhood experiences of the individual. “But are persons really responsible for their actions in the sense that they (1) assess the possible alternative courses of action available to them, (2) choose a particular course, and (3) construct a complex set of acts to achieve intended results? Our religions and our laws are based on the premise that these propositions are true. And so are our emotional responses.
In this paper the subject to discuss includes two arguments in reference to the existence of true altruism, better known as the ability to help others unselfishly. The “yes” side of the argument is the views of C. Daniel Batson and his colleagues who believe people are capable of helping others with true unselfish interest. The “no” side of the argument is the views of Robert Cialdini and his colleagues who believe people often help others as self fulfillment that allows people to make themselves feel better. Summary of Arguments Social psychologist C. Daniel Batson and his colleagues propose that “people sometimes help for purely altruistic reasons” (Nier, 2010, Issue 17, Issue Summary, para. 1).