Lil explorers rogers: Lil’ Explorers Childcare Center – Cadence Education

Lil Explorers Rogers Inc. Daycare Home Preschool – Rogers, MN 55374

Daycare in Rogers, MN

Lil Explorers Rogers Inc. provides childcare for families living in the Rogers area. Children engage in play-based, educational activities aimed at helping them achieve important milestones. The facility is a home daycare which fosters the development of social skills in a safe, caring environment. A dual-language immersion program provides education and administrative support in both English and . The director offers age-appropriate programming for kids starting as young as 1 month to 5 years. Contact Lil Explorers Rogers Inc. to discuss operating hours, tuition rates, and schedule a free tour for you and your family.

Daily Hours
• Monday: 6:30 am – 6:00 pm
• Tuesday: 6:30 am – 6:00 pm
• Wednesday: 6:30 am – 6:00 pm
• Thursday: 6:30 am – 6:00 pm
• Friday: 6:30 am – 6:00 pm

Weekly Tuition Packages

Lil Explorers Rogers Inc. is a home daycare that provides childcare for families living in the Rogers area. Children engage in play-based, educational activities aimed at helping them achieve important milestones. The facility fosters the development of social skills in a safe, caring environment.

WeeCare lists childcare providers that are recommended by parents and have active state licenses
that are in
good standing. Our mission is to make finding safe and affordable childcare options accessible to
all.

Our parent-loved app not only helps families pay tuition and stay up-to-date with what their kiddos
are achieving, but it was also built to help providers streamline their businesses so they have more
time to do what they love!

For more information, please contact:
[email protected]

Rogers, MN
55374

Location is approximate

WeeCare lists childcare providers that are recommended by parents and have active state licenses
that are in
good standing. Our mission is to make finding safe and affordable childcare options accessible to
all.

Our parent-loved app not only helps families pay tuition and stay up-to-date with what their kiddos
are achieving, but it was also built to help providers streamline their businesses so they have more
time to do what they love!

For more information, please contact:
[email protected]

Popular Searches

Nearby WeeCare Neighborhoods

Nearby WeeCare Cities

Weekly rates

Request price

Daycare Images

Daycare Images

Lil Explorers Rogers Inc.

| Rogers MN Child Care Center

Write a Review

About the Provider

Creative Garden LC Glen Burnie – Baltimore MD Licensed Child Care Center

Description: Lil Explorers Rogers Inc. is a Child Care Center in Rogers MN, with a maximum capacity of 248 children. This child care center helps with children in the age range of Infants Toddlers Preschool School-Age. The provider does not participate in a subsidized child care program.

Program and Licensing Details

• License Number:
  1088662
• Capacity:
  248
• Age Range:
  Infants Toddlers Preschool School-Age
• Enrolled in Subsidized Child Care Program:
  No
• Type of Care:
  Day Time child care
• Current License Issue Date:
  Jan 01, 2021
• District Office:
  Hennepin County Social Services
• District Office Phone:
  (612) 348-5937 (Note: This is not the facility phone number.)

Location Map

Inspection/Report History

Where possible, ChildcareCenter provides inspection reports as a service to families. This information is deemed reliable,
but is not guaranteed. We encourage families to contact the daycare provider directly with any questions or concerns,
as the provider may have already addressed some or all issues. Reports can also be verified with your local daycare licensing office.

If you are a provider and you believe any information is incorrect, please contact us. We will research your concern and make corrections accordingly.

Reviews

Be the first to review this childcare provider.
Write a review about Lil Explorers Rogers Inc.. Let other families know what’s great, or what could be improved.
Please read our brief review guidelines to make your review as helpful as possible.

Email address (will not be published):

Display name:

Which best describes your experience?:

Select from belowI have used this provider for more than 6 monthsI have used this provider for less than 6 monthsI have toured this provider’s facility, but have not used its servicesI am the ownerI am an employeeOther

Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent):

Select your Rating1 star2 star3 star4 star5 star

Review Policy:

ChildcareCenter.us does not actively screen or monitor user reviews, nor do we verify or edit content. Reviews reflect
only the opinion of the writer. We ask that users follow our
review guidelines. If you see a review that does not reflect these guidelines, you can email us. We will assess
the review and decide the appropriate next step. Please note – we will not remove a review simply because it is
negative. Providers are welcome to respond to parental reviews, however we ask that they identify themselves as
the provider.

Write a Review

Providers in ZIP Code 55374

New Horizon Academy

Tri-Valley Rogers Head Start

WCCA Head Start Rogers

KinderCare Learning Center

Kids of Peace Preschool

Appletime Inc

Kids Grow Hope

Lil Explorers Rogers Inc.

Mary Queen of Peace Catholic School

Primrose School of Rogers

Karl b. Rogers (1902-1987): Introducing Theory Author

Carl R. Rogers was born January 8, 1902 in Oak Park, Illinois. He was brought up in a strict and uncompromising religious and moral atmosphere. His parents constantly thought about the well-being of their children and instilled in them respect for hard and hard work. In the descriptions of childhood that Rogers gives, we see two important tendencies that appeared in his subsequent work. The first concerns attention to moral and ethical matters. The second has to do with respect for the methods of the natural sciences. This respect seems to have grown from his father’s attempts to scientifically manage the farm and from Rogers’ reading of scientific literature on agricultural problems.

Rogers began his education at the University of Wisconsin, majoring in agriculture, but two years later he decided to change careers and try his hand at spirituality. During a trip to Asia in 1922, he happened to observe the adherence of people to other religious doctrines, as well as the mortal hatred of the Germans and the French (who in all other respects remained very pleasant people) for each other.

Reflections on similar topics influenced his decision to enter a liberal theological seminary, the Unionist Theological Seminary in New York. Although Rogers was preoccupied with questions about how people see the meaning of their lives, he doubted the correctness of specific religious doctrines. Therefore, he decided to leave the seminary to work in the field of psychological assistance to children and try himself as a clinical psychologist.

Rogers completed graduate studies at Columbia University Teachers College, earning a Ph.D. on psychology, which prevailed at that time in the College of Education. And here again we see a pull in two different directions, the development of two somewhat opposite inclinations. In his later life, Rogers tried to harmoniously combine these two trends. Indeed, in later years, Rogers sought to combine science with religion, intuitive knowledge with objective knowledge, and clinical research with statistical research. Throughout his professional career, Rogers has constantly tried to apply objective scientific methods to what is fundamentally the subject of the humanities.

Therapy is an activity in which I can afford subjectivity. Research is an area in which I can step back and try to look objectively at this rich subjective experience, using the elegant and rigorous methods of science to determine if I am being deceived. A conviction is growing in me that we must discover laws of personality and behavior that are as relevant to human progress or to human relationships as the laws of gravity or thermodynamics.

In 1968, Rogers and his humanitarian colleagues founded the Center for the Study of Man. The creation of the center meant a change in emphasis in Rogers’ activities: from working within a formal academic structure, he moved on to working with a group of like-minded people who shared his goals, from working with people with disabilities to working with normal people, from individual therapy to intensive group therapy. training and from traditional empirical research to the phenomenological study of man. While at this center, Rogers believed that much of psychology was sterile and felt alienated from psychology as a scientific discipline. Nevertheless, the discipline continued to highly value his contributions to psychology. He was president of the American Psychological Association at 1946-1947, was one of the first three psychologists to receive the Distinguished Contribution to Science Award (1956), and in 1972 he won the Distinguished Professional Contribution Award.

Rogers’ views on man

Through Rogers’ efforts, theory, man and life are closely intertwined. In the chapter “This is Me,” Rogers lists 14 principles that he derived from analyzing thousands of hours of therapy and research. Here are some of them:

1. I’ve found that in the end I don’t get along with people if I pretend to be someone I’m not.

2. I discovered what a great value it is to allow myself to understand another person.

3. Experience is the highest authority for me… It is to experience that I must return again and again in order to gradually move closer and closer to the truth, as it usually happens in the process of my own becoming.

4. Perhaps what is most personal and unique about us affects people the most when we can share it with them.

5. My personal experience convinces me that a person as a whole strives to develop in a positive direction.

6. Life at its best is an ongoing, ever-changing process in which there is nothing frozen or fixed.

Rogers’ views of man

For Rogers, the core of human nature is essentially positive. In general, a person moves in the direction of self-realization. Rogers believed that religion, especially the Christian religion, has taught us to believe that we are fundamentally sinful. Moreover, Rogers argued that Freud and his followers painted for us such a portrait of a man with an id and an unconscious that, given him only will, he will manifest himself in incest, murder and other crimes. According to this position, we are inherently irrational, antisocial, and destructive of ourselves and others. According to Rogers, sometimes we can indeed behave in this way, but at such moments we behave like neurotics, and not like mature, developed human beings. When we act freely, we experience and realize ourselves as social animals with a positive focus.

Knowing that scientists often look for parallels between the behavior of human beings and other animals, Rogers draws his own parallel. For example, he notes that although lions are often depicted as voracious, insatiable monsters, they actually have many attractive qualities: they kill only when they are hungry, and not for the sake of a thirst for destruction; they grow from helpless and dependent animals into independent animals; and they go through a developmental journey from self-centeredness in childhood to group co-operation and patronizing behavior as adult animals.

Rogers’ views on science, theory and empirical research

Although Rogers’ theory and his specific research methods changed over time, he always remained a phenomenologist. According to his phenomenological position (Kogers, 1951), each individual perceives the world in a unique way. These perceptions constitute the phenomenal field of the individual. The phenomenal field of the individual includes both conscious and unconscious perception, including both that which he is aware of and that which he is not aware of. But the most important determinants of behavior, especially in healthy people, are those that are or can be recognized. Rogers’ approach thus differs from the psychoanalytic emphasis on the unconscious. Although the phenomenal field is the intimate, private world of the individual, we can try to perceive this world as it appears to the individual, to see the behavior of the individual through his own eyes, with the psychological meaning that the individual himself attaches to it.

Rogers was committed to phenomenology as the basis of the science of man. According to Rogers, research in psychology should be a purposeful, well-organized effort to understand the content of internal subjective experience. In the service of science, these efforts should not begin in the laboratory or at the computer. He believed that the clinical material obtained as a result of therapy is the most valuable source of phenomenological data.

In his attempts to understand human behavior, Rogers always started with clinical observations and then used these observations to formulate hypotheses that could be tested by more rigorous methods. He viewed therapy as a process of subjective “disinhibition” of the individual, and research as an objective action subject to certain rules; and if he was committed to therapy as a source of hypotheses, then he was just as committed to research as a tool to confirm these hypotheses.

Throughout his professional life, Rogers tried to bridge the gap between the subjective and the objective, just as in his youth he felt the need to bridge the gap between religion and science. In the context of this task, Rogers was concerned with the development of psychology as a science and the preservation of people as individuals, and not just as material for science.

Carl Rogers’ Theory of Personality

Rogers’ attention was mainly directed to the process of psychotherapy, and his personality theory became an offshoot of therapy theory.

In contrast to psychoanalysis, which emphasizes the importance of drives, instincts, the unconscious, stress relief, and early character formation, the phenomenological approach emphasizes images, feelings, subjective self-report, self-actualization, and the process of change.

Structure

I (self)

The key structural concept of the Rogerian theory of personality is the concept of I. According to Rogers, the individual perceives external objects and his internal experience and endows them with certain meanings. The general system of images and meanings constitutes the phenomenal field of the individual. Those parts of the phenomenal field that a person calls the words “self” (self), “me” (me) or “I” (I) form I (self), or I-concept (self-concept) – these two terms Rogers uses as synonyms. The self-concept is an organized and coherent pattern of perceptions. Although the self-concept changes, it always retains this quality of structure, integrity, organization*.

There are two other aspects that deserve attention in connection with Rogers’ concept of the Self. First, I am not a little dwarf sitting inside of us. I don’t “do” anything. The individual does not have such an instance of I, which would control his behavior. According to Rogers, the Self is an organized set of perceptions. Secondly, the pattern of experiences and images, denoted by the concept of I, is generally accessible to awareness, i.e. he can be realized. Although individuals have, of course, unconscious inner experiences, the self-concept is mostly conscious. Rogers believed that such a definition of the self is accurate and necessary for research. If unconscious material is included in the definition of the Self, then, according to Rogers, this phenomenon cannot be studied by objective methods.

A related structural concept is the ideal self. The ideal self is the self-concept that the individual would most like to have. It includes images and meanings that are associated with the Self and which are highly valued by the individual.

Methods for Measuring Self-Concept

Rogers constantly mentioned that he did not start his work with the concept of “I”. However, in listening to clients formulate their concerns and express their attitudes about various things, he found that, to one degree or another, they all actively use the word “I”. Although he was deeply impressed by clients’ judgments of themselves, Rogers still felt that it was necessary to objectively define this concept, develop a way to measure it, and develop a research tool.

Q-sorting technique. Rogers began his research by recording several therapeutic conversations and then categorizing all the words related to the self. After this first research with conversation recordings, he applied the Q-sort method developed by Stephenson. The Q-sort technique has often been used to measure self-concept. In this case, the experimenter gives the subject a set of cards, each of which contains a statement regarding some personal characteristic. One card might say, “Makes friends easily,” another, “Having difficulty expressing anger,” and so on across the cards. Subjects were asked to read these statements (about 100 in total) and then sort the cards according to which characteristics they felt suited them the most and which ones least. They were asked to arrange the cards in a certain order: at one end should be the cards “most characteristic of me,” and at the other end, “the least characteristic of me.” The subjects were told how many piles the cards should be divided into and how many cards should be in each pile. For example, if there are only 100 cards, subjects may be asked to sort the cards into 11 piles in the following order: 2-4-8-11-16-18-16-11-8-4-2. This is a normal distribution, and it expresses the comparative assessment by the subjects of how each characteristic corresponds to it.

Thus, the 0-sort is actually a task in which the subject sorts statements (in this case about himself) into categories, ranking them from the most characteristic to the least characteristic. In addition, the same phrases can be categorized into the same number of categories, but in relation to the ideal self – from “closest to my ideal self” to “furthest from my ideal self.” This makes it possible to quantify the differences or mismatches between the self and the ideal self. As we will see later (in chapter 6), such concepts and indicators are very important for understanding psychopathology and personality change under the influence of psychotherapy. With the help of Q-sorting, we obtain data on the subjects’ subjective perception of parts of their phenomenal field. However, these data are not entirely phenomenological, as subjects must use the statements provided by the experimenter, not their own, and must classify these statements into predetermined categories according to a normal distribution, not according to a distribution they could. to offer themselves and which would make more sense to them.

Process

Self-actualization

Freud considered the most essential components of personality to be relatively fixed and stable, and developed a detailed concept of personality structure. Rogers and his theory of personality made an acceptance of change and used very few structural concepts. Freud viewed man as an energy system, he created a dynamic theory to explain how energy is discharged, transformed or contained. Rogers thought that man is constantly evolving, moving forward. In the end, he attached less importance to aspects of behavior associated with tension and discharge of energy, and shifted the emphasis towards self-actualization. While Freud emphasized the role of drives, for Rogers the concept of motivation, in the sense of some kind of motivating drives, did not exist at all. In its place was a fundamental tendency towards self-actualization: “The organism has one fundamental tendency and one desire – to actualize, preserve and expand itself. ”

Rogers settled on a single motivation for life and stuck to that postulate all along, refusing to get involved in abstract concepts of multiple motives. In one of his poetic passages, he described life as an active process, comparing it to a tree on the ocean, the trunk of which remains straight, hard and steady, realizing and strengthening itself in the process of growth: “In this plant, like a palm tree, such tenacity is hidden , such trust in life, such an ability to grow into an incredibly hostile environment, and not only survive, but also adapt, develop and become yourself.

The concept of actualization means the tendency of an organism to grow from a simple being into a complex one, to move from dependent to independent existence, to move from fixation and rigidity to the possibility of change and freedom of expression. The concept includes the desire of each person to satisfy needs or reduce tension, but it especially emphasizes the pleasures and satisfactions that are caused by activities that promote the growth of the organism.

Although Rogers was preoccupied with the problem of the operationalization of the concepts he introduced, he did not create an instrument for measuring the motive of self-actualization by them. Over time, a number of different scales have been developed for and as a measure of self-actualization. The most recent attempt in this area is a 15-item scale that measures the ability to act independently, the level of self-acceptance or self-esteem, acceptance of one’s emotional life, and trust in interpersonal relationships (Figure 5.2). The scores on this self-actualization questionnaire were found to correlate with self-esteem and health scores on other questionnaires, as well as with assessments of individuals as self-actualizing individuals given by independent experts.

The need for positive evaluation

But in many studies we come across evidence that the individual tries to behave in accordance with his self-concept and that subjective experiences that are inconsistent with the self are often ignored or denied by the individual. In Rogers’ early writings, there is no mention of the causes that lead to conflict between subjective experience and self-concept and, therefore, to the need for protection. But in 1959, Rogers introduces the need for positive evaluation.

The need for positive evaluation includes such values ​​as warmth, sympathy, respect and acceptance, and is manifested in the child’s need for lupins and affection. If parents provide the child with an unconditional positive assessment that does not depend on any conditions, if the child feels that for. he is dearer to his parents than anything in the world, then he does not have the need to reject certain aspects of his subjective experience. However, in those cases when parental evaluation and acceptance depend on some conditions, the child will be forced to ignore his subjective experience that conflicts with his self-concept. For example, if the child feels that he is rewarded with love (positive evaluation ) only for the fact that he himself is always a loving son (daughter), then he (she) will deny any feeling of hatred in himself and will fight to preserve the image of himself as loving. In this case, the feeling of hatred is not only incongruent I- concept, but also threatens the child with the loss of a positive assessment.Thus, imposing on a child a condition for recognizing value leads to a denial of subjective experience, to a discord between the organism and the Self. are thus rooted in the desire of the individual to preserve love.0003

So, Rogers does not need to resort to the concepts of motive and drive in order to explain the activity and purposefulness of the organism. For him, a person is active by nature and initially aimed at self-actualization. In the process of self-actualization, we try to maintain congruence between the self-concept and subjective experience. However, because of past experiences with conditioned positive evaluation, we may deny or distort subjective experiences that threaten our self-concept.

Growth and development

Rogers did not really develop the theory of growth and development and did not conduct research in this area, in terms of longitudinal experimental research or the study of parent-child relationships. And in principle, Rogers believed that everyone has the potential for growth. The natural process of growth of the organism consists in the complication, expansion, strengthening of autonomy and at the same time in the growth of socialization, in short, in self-actualization. The self concept becomes a separate part of the phenomenal field and stops C in a more complex system. As soon as the self-concept appears, the individual has a need for a positive assessment. If the need for positive evaluation from others becomes more important than the need to be in contact with one’s own subjective experience, the individual will not allow some of the experience into consciousness and will remain in a state of incongruence.

Self-actualization and healthy mental development

But essentially, for Rogers, the main problem of development is whether the child will develop freely in a congruent state, actualizing himself, or whether he will go along the path of protective adaptation and will act while in an incogruent state. Healthy psychological development of self-conception takes place in an atmosphere in which the child has the opportunity to experience the fullness of subjective experience, the opportunity to accept this experience and be accepted by parents, even if they do not approve of any particular forms of his behavior. This point is emphasized by most child psychiatrists and psychologists. There is a difference between those parents who say to the child; “I like what you do,” and those who say, “I don’t like you.” By saying, “I don’t like what you do,” parents accept the child without approving of his particular behavior. This contrasts sharply with situations where parents explicitly or implicitly tell the child that he is also misbehaving. that he himself is bad. In this case, the child feels that the recognition of certain feelings is not consistent with the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe self as loved or sympathetic. And then he is forced to deny or distort these feelings.

Congruence between self and ideal self: gender differences that emerge over time?

Rogers’ ideas about the ideal self and the p-sorting method that he promoted still attract the attention of modern researchers. One example is the work of Block and Robins (Bloct & Roots, 1993), who studied the dynamics of self-esteem from adolescence to early adulthood.
Has your self-esteem changed from the time you were in your early twenties to the time you were in your twenties? According to Block and Robins, the answer may depend on your gender: on average, during this personality-shaping period, self-esteem rises in men and decreases in women.
The level of self-esteem was determined by the degree of similarity between the idea of ​​​​self and the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe ideal self. Both of these constructs were measured by p-sorting adjectives, which included such self-descriptions as “competitive”, “loving”, “responsible” and “creative” . Subjects whose self-image matched their ideal self received a high self-esteem score. Conversely, subjects whose self-image diverged sharply from their ideal self scored low on self-esteem.
Between the ages of 14 and 23, men become more self-confident and women become less confident. If at the age of 14 their self-esteem is approximately the same, then by the age of 23 in men it becomes much higher. Clearly, men and women differ in how they experience their teenage years and how they navigate the transition to adulthood. For young men, the situation is more favorable. This phase of life is associated with approaching their ideal. Unfortunately, for women, the opposite is true: they move away from their ideal as they enter adulthood.
What personality traits are characteristic of men and women with high self-esteem? Block and Robins conducted in-depth interviews with subjects who were 23 years old and found that women with high self-esteem mostly value close relationships with people. Men with high self-esteem, on the other hand, are emotionally more distant from others and more in control of their feelings. Sex differences in the relationship of self-esteem with interpersonal relationships reflect the very different expectations that exist in society on the question of what it means to be a woman or a man. Not surprisingly, those young adults whose personalities conform to cultural expectations are more likely to be satisfied with themselves, and their self-concept will be closer to the ideal self.
Unanswered in this study remains a phenomenological question that would be of great interest to Rogers: what is the content of the ideal self? Do men and women differ in their ideal self? The ideal self seems to be especially susceptible to external influences –
to what we think is valued in society. The content of the ideal self tells us something about the qualities that a person appreciates and therefore tries to show in order to get high self-esteem. An interesting question for future research is how does the content of the ideal self affect psychological adjustment? Does the ideal self include the characteristics of a self-actualizing person, or do they contain the prescriptions of society regarding the ideal man or ideal woman?

📖 Evaluation, Chapter 14. Carl Rogers and the Human Centered Perspective.

Theories of personality and personal growth. Frager R. Page 144. Read online

During one conversation in 1966, Rogers described his status as follows:

Psychology bookap

“I have a not very enviable position in psychology itself, one that I could not wish for less. But as regards education, production, group dynamics, social work, philosophy of science, spiritual psychology, theology and other fields, my ideas have penetrated there and had such a strong influence that I never dreamed of “(1970, p. 507).

By the time of Rogers’ death, his work had received worldwide recognition (Macy, 1987). The extensive network of therapy centers he founded has been successfully operating in Japan (Hayashi, Kuno, Osawa, Shimizu & Suetake, 1992; Saji & Linaga, 1983). Recently, under the influence of his ideas, permanent meeting groups and corporate trainings have been organized in Japan (Murayama & Nakata, 1996; Ikemi & Kubota, 1996).

Critics of Rogers’ ideas made Rogers’ positive view of man the object of their remarks. They believe that Rogers smoothes over the dark sides of human nature. A number of authors believe that it would be too naive to base therapy and education, relying only on the internal ability of the individual to self-actualize (Ellis, 1959; Thorne, 1957).

They argue their point of view by saying that Rogers does not take into account the psychopathological patterns that are firmly rooted in people and hinder their improvement. Rogers’ theories have also been criticized for not being rigorously testable.

“Whether human nature, untouched by society, is as satisfactory as this point of view seeks to prove to us is certainly debatable. It will be rather difficult both to confirm and to refute its premises on the basis of empirical experience… given so much importance … suffers, in our opinion, from the vagueness of its definition, the vagueness of its presentation, and the inadequacy of the evidence for its main points” (Coffer & Appley, 1964, p. 691-692).

Other scientists believe that self-actualization is neither an innate trait nor an aspiration acquired in the course of personality development. The desire for self-actualization arises from a primary desire, a need for stimulation (Butler & Rice, 1963). The crux of the criticism of Rogers lies in distrust of his enduring optimism. Rogers’ unbending belief in inherent goodness does not resonate with the experience of those who ridicule his work and research. People who do not believe in human kindness rarely encountered its manifestations. They will probably argue that goodness is present in every person, but it is hidden. Maslow believed that the goodness in a person is easily drowned out by personal and cultural pressures. And Rollo May says: “The Rogers technique hides the therapist’s desire for power, and the absence of one’s own judgment looks unreal.” Walt Anderson insists the same: “No judgment, no manipulation it does not take into account the whole of human nature” (Arons & Harri, 1992). Nevertheless, a careful and unbiased study of Rogers’ work in conflict resolution shows that his approach to the individual leads to the results he predicted.

Psychology bookap

Considering the criticism of Rogers’ ideas from an emotional or rational point of view, one can conclude that his critics either treated a completely different type of patient, or they cannot accept his confidence in the ability of people to find their own way (Rogers & Skinner, 1956). Carl Menninger believes that Rogers’ insistence on the idea of ​​an innate human desire for health is only a half-truth. “Many patients, consciously or unconsciously, doom themselves to stagnation and slow spiritual death” (Menninger, 1963, p. 398).

This dispute, in which both sides no longer rely on information or research data, obviously refers to their personal experience. Thus Quinn is of the opinion that “psychotherapeutic practice in a person-centered approach places too much emphasis on empathy and caring at the expense of sincerity, and this lack is rooted in the excessive optimism of the beliefs underlying it” (Quinn, 1993, p. 7).

Let Rogers have the last word in this dispute. Here is what he wrote in an article discovered and published after his death.

“I would not like to be misunderstood. I do not subscribe to Pollyanna’s view of human nature. I am well aware that our defensive reactions and inner fear can and do cause unusually destructive, immature behavior, they cause us to behave antisocially or cause pain to others. Still, the most inspiring and refreshing part of my experience was working with just this type of people. It revealed the strong positive tendencies that exist in them and in all of us at the deepest level” (Rogers, 1995, p. 21).

Human nature as described by Rogers does not seem to impress his critics. Therefore, it is unlikely that further research and reliable evidence in favor of the Rogersian image of man will somehow influence critics of his ideas. For Rogers, the test of his theory was not about its elegance, it was about the general benefit. Rogers’ developments are becoming increasingly important and are becoming more widespread every year. The popularity of his ideas within and outside of clinical psychology continues to grow.

Although Rogers’ theory is obviously a simplistic view of things, a parallel can be drawn with Freud’s ideas that satisfied people’s need to understand certain aspects of human nature. Unless the ideas of Rogers most fully satisfied the needs of the Americans. Rogers’ philosophy “fits perfectly into the American democratic tradition. The client is treated as an equal who has the inherent ability to ‘heal’ without relying on the wisdom of an authority figure or expert” (Harper, 1959, p. 83). The close connection of Rogers’ ideas with the American worldview helped his ideas win universal approval. Thanks to this, his therapeutic methods and his conviction in the ability and desire of the individual to be a whole person gained popularity.

Rogers’ close attention to the individual is evident in a series of theses that Rogers calls essential information . In them, he summarizes “the thousands of hours I have spent in intensive individual work with people experiencing personality disorders” (1961, p. 16). Here are some of his findings:

“1. Communicating with people, I realized that during long work it bothers me if I try to behave like someone else.

Psychology bookap

2. It is more effective to listen to yourself and be yourself.

3. When I allow myself to understand another person, it turns out to be extremely valuable.

4. I find myself enriching myself when I open channels through which people can convey to me their feelings, their personal perceptions.

Psychology bookap

5. When I can approve another person, it seems to me extraordinarily fruitful.

6. The more I open myself to the reality in myself and in the other person, the less I feel like rushing to “set things right”.

7. I can trust my own experience” (1961, pp. 16-22).

Psychology bookap

In his work on conflict resolution, Rogers derived a similar set of axioms, including the following:

“I feel civic satisfaction:

When each person is helped to realize his or her own power and authority.

Psychology bookap

When members of a group realize that sharing power is more satisfying than trying to use power to control others.

When each member of the group gives force to its decisions by controlling their behavior.

When each member of the group is aware of the consequences of the decision and their impact on the members of the group and the world around” (1984).

Psychology bookap

“You [Rollo May] apparently never cared whether the evil impulses in a person are genetic and innate or acquired at birth… Their origin is very important to me” (Rogers, 1982b).

“This new world will be more humane and humane. It will explore and develop all the faculties of the human mind and spirit. People will appear more integrated and whole. It will be a world in which individuality will be encouraged, one of our greatest wealth” (Rogers, 1980a, p. 356).

Rogers concludes his list with the following statement: “I am sure that many of you will find this list hopelessly idealistic.