thank you so much for this series Chris, using it to understand the basics of PCT. I am confused about the difference between the real and ideal self, and specifically about what the real self is. is it the same as our self concept?
“Real” self can be a risky term to use because in a sense, it is all “real” and hard to define what would count as a real or not. The distinction is usually classified as our Organismic Valuing Process and our self-concept. OVP is more our organic responses to things and self-concept is how we see ourselves and this can be incongruent, as a result. I hope that helps but if not, please feel free to write back
Hi Chris, if the self concept is how we view ourselves as people what if a person had absorbed an aspect of themselves through introjected values etc but they weren’t aware of it ? (say either through denial or maybe it was just a side of themselves that they couldn’t see), for example if a person had very competitive parents who imposed competitiveness on them as a condition of worth and as an adult many others told them how competitive they are but they just couldn’t see it within themselves and didn’t view themselves this way is this still part of the self concept or is it something else? Great videos by the way 🙂
Hi Paul, firstly, apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I think this is a great question and had to give it some thought!! I suppose that these would be things that are out of our awareness but can still control us. I believe many clients will come to counselling acting in these ways without even knowing it! I think for that reason, it could be said that these things are still within our self-concept because we have clearly absorbed it on some level. However, through a process of Counselling or self-discovery we may begin to become more aware of these conditions and how they have a hold on us, and then decided how we might want to relate to these going forward. I think this is a common process for many clients but your question helped me really think about this idea. I think I would say that this would still be part of our self-concept but also out of awareness, but it is a tricky one!! Thanks for stopping by and commenting, would be happy to discuss more. What are your thoughts on it?
@@ChrisTheCounsellor Hiya Chris, yeah sounds reasonable to me, I think it’s a bit like the “blind” side of the Johari Window (known by others, not known by self). I think some of the stuff that we introject must be outside of our consciousness awareness really and all that would be part of the self concept whether we know about it or not. I think as with a lot of these terms they’ve got a “pure” definition and then a meaning that has developed over time to include other definitions ie try asking three different counsellors what projective identification is, you’ll get three different answers! Anyway, thanks for reply, keep doing the cool videos 🙂
@@ChrisTheCounsellor Hi Paul and Chris, if self-concept is purely how we see ourselves how can aspects of our behaviour/personality (developed from introjected values or not) that are hidden/unknown to ourselves be part of our self-concept?
So on the difference between Rogers and Maslow...Rogers' version of self-actualisation does not *necessarily* promote inward happiness, meaning or congruence? If it's serving a self-concept that is primarily the product of introjections and external locus of evaluation etc? It's surprising that the two of them use the term so differently as they were both part of the humanist movement??
Yes, it’s a strange one. Rogers Self-actualisation could take so many forms depending on what, and how accurate the persons self-concept is. It could possibly be extremely congruent, with happiness and meaning and could equally be incongruent and destructive, for example. Maslow’s version is much more utopian really, whereas Rogers is very unique and individual.
@@ChrisTheCounsellor So are you saying that only by gaining an awareness of our Self Concept and how the world around us is having a negative impact can we work towards a positive Self Actualization? Am I also right in saying that Rogers thought that achieving true Self Actualization was very rare? You have answered the second part of the question in Part 3 lol. Thanks.
