The articles chosen tend to be more informative in illustrating the humanistic theories and the biological theories. The articles are more scholarly and add knowledge in comprehending and being able to apply the different ideologies concerning the comparison of the theories and application in the real life situation.
The basic concepts of biological theories and the humanistic theories show great differences. To begin with, it important to highlight the basic concepts that illustrates the social psychology. The humanistic theories describe the adherence on the present rather than to the past or to the future (Maslow, 1967). Healthy people need to take the health regardless of the actions taken. Every person; explain the possession of the inherence. Regardless of the presence of the negative actions that may affect a person. In addition, the fourth aspect indicates the achievement of personal growth and comprehending the goal in life.
On the hand, the biological view has the different focus in that the feeling other that the personal worth. The living theorists point at the generic makeup, which depicts the individual way of determining the intelligence. The indirect relation of their biological concept shows the way it affects growth. The living theorist point at the intelligences and the genes and determine the character of humans (Zentall & Galef, 1988). Regardless of this view, the humanistic theories are oversimplified in the way of its argument while the biological theory is overcomplicated. Although they represent the essence of being on the illustration of the person, personality there is the emphasis on the essence of the theories.
The premise of the biological theory indicates that people inherit the features from their family members. Furthermore, the theory indicates that individuals have no power of influencing their characteristic characteristics since they are genetically modified and predetermined. This differs with the humanistic theory in which it indicates that an individual have the power to influence their features. This can be through learning behaviors and influences from the environment.
The findings according to the different theorists indicate that humanistic and biological theories are different. The humanistic theory as stated by Abraham Maslow in the example of the hierarchy of needs. According to Maslow, (1967) “A THEORY OF METAMOTIVATION: THE BIOLOGICAL ROOTING OF THE VALUE-LIFE”, the highest rank based on his pyramid is self-actualization as individuals fulfill their needs fully.
According to biological theorists, Hans introduced the three dimension of their explanation of the individual’s character. They include the extroversion-introversion, psychotics and neurotics. His argument is based ion the classification that either shows the outgoing and the impulsive example of the personality traits.
In my opinion, a different view tends to show the character of people. The theory of Maslow is valid since in the current world people strive to meet basic needs and climb the ladders as they seek to self-actualize. It helps in the management and motivation regarding personal development. The psychological; needs are food, sex, clothing, shelter, health, water and sleep. The biological perspective is in detail as it is a fact that our brains develop and consist of neutrons. The physical characteristics show the disposition of the characteristics. I would choose the humanistic theories because I can easily relate and understand especially when using Maslow’s theory.
In conclusion, the theoretical perspective tends to explain the human character. The theory relates in their explanation of character. It is important to view the behavioral characteristics that are learned depending on the environment. The analysis of the humanistic and biological theories helps in understating the human character and the traits they represent.
Maslow, (1967) A THEORY OF METAMOTIVATION: THE BIOLOGICAL ROOTING OF THE VALUE-LIFE., A. H. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol 7(2), 1967, 93-127. Doi:
T. R. Zentall, B. G. Galef, (1988) Social Learning: Psychological and Biological Perspectives