The following conversation took place in the mind of one Seth Hock on the evening of January 27, 2012.
Interviewer: Mr. Hock, thank you for taking the time to sit down with yourself and share your opinion about the assignment due for Intro to Clinical Psychology. The question we are all dying to have answered is this, are human beings more alike or are they more different from one another?
Seth Hock: Well, it really depends on a lot of different variables, but the short answer is… yes.
Interviewer: Could you elaborate a little further on the variables you are referring to?
Seth Hock: The question of whether human beings are more alike or more different from one another is like asking if fruit is more different from or similar to other fruit. At first glance, you might point out that there are many diverse species of fruit with many different shapes, sizes, colors, smells and tastes. Yet, fruit often has many like qualities which includes, to the chagrin of ethnofruitaious advocates, shapes, sizes, colors, smells and tastes. For instance, if an apricot, peach and nectarine were presented to the average person, they may not be able to tell the difference. Even after tasting each one, it might be difficult to differentiate them. They are each different in their own way, but they are also very similar. Humans are the same way; often the border lines of human similarities are so blurred at the societal level that distinctions become difficult to interpret.
Interviewer: Did you say ethnofruitaious?
Seth Hock: It’s not in Webster’s yet, but give it time.
Interviewer: This example seems to make sense, but perhaps the elephant in the room is that fruit doesn’t have anything nearly as complex as culture to define it. Surely humans, in their seemingly endless imaginations, have created cultures that would obviously highlight very easily definable categories.
Seth Hock: This is a good point. For instance, our western culture here in the States is much more individualistic then many Asian or Middle Eastern cultures, which tend to be collectivist in nature. This difference may seem black and white when our cultures cross-examine each other. However, we aren’t really looking at the whole picture. Like the story of a little boy trying to explain why his baseball is now nested in a pile of broken glass and china pieces, we get the idea that something is missing. We could choose to focus on the individual or collective differences in these cultures, but something is being omitted from that example. If we go deeper we could ask if humans in the western hemisphere share similar gathering habits as those one the other side of the world. In the face of this new question we could answer yes, absolutely. Humans from New York to Beijing and from one pole to the other gather very similarly. Tribes and towns, cities and rural farming communities, and gigantic metro cities can all be found all over the world. Humans, for the most part, have a need to gather. On the largest levels human beings are generally very much the same. Religion is the same way. There are so many different religions one could study; yet the bigger picture remains the same. People want to believe in something more than matter and the natural. This leads them to look for and believe in the intangible and the supernatural. In other words, while religion is diverse, faith isn’t . Like using a magnifying glass, the smaller the picture is, the more detail and diversity will show. The global population is our largest picture, and the individual is our smallest. Instead of trying to argue if we are more different or similar to others, we need to understand that our differences and similarities are interwoven or painted into a single pattern or canvas. We cannot separate or quantify our differences and similarities without removing or omitting part of this picture. This argument, much like the nature/nurture argument, is not about some arbitrary amount of evidence that can be gathered together to make a declarative statement about what matters most. What matters is that we remember that the differences, or lack thereof, between and amongst people are both relative and subjective to the social backdrop in which it is being examined.
Interviewer: This leads to the next question, as a student pursuing an occupation in clinical psychology, how would your view of the differences or similarities of humans effect how you would engage with people seeking treatment?
Seth Hock: As stated before, the individual is as small as we can magnify our lens in which we view humanity. There is no formula for the individual; she is the wild card that changes every pattern that we might hope to apply. When I encounter a new individual I immediately want to categorize her. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. Categories and schemas help us keep track and make sense of the millions of details we as humans have to remember every day. However, this process is only so helpful before it becomes harmful, and that can happen in a hurry. While I want to simplify the individual, I have to remember that they are in some ways very similar, and in some ways very different from me and everyone else. This can be a cognitively difficult task. We like the dichotomic categories of nature or nurture and similar or different. However, I think it’s the clinical psychologist’s responsibility to keep in mind that she is both very similar and very different from her client at the same time. The difficult part is finding out what picture we are looking at. As I said, the individual has no guaranteed pattern. As a clinical psychologist, I would want to put the picture of the client together with her help instead of asking her to assume the picture of what I think she might be like. With an accurate picture in place, our social backdrop defined, and the understanding that what makes us unique in some cases may camouflage us in others, we are better able to help those seeking treatment. I believe my view of culture would assist in my ability to become an effective clinical psychologist.
Interviewer: Very interesting, it’s almost like I knew you would answer that way. Well anyway, thank you again for sitting down with yourself and taking the time to answer these questions.
Seth Hock: It was my pleasure, thank you for the opportunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment