Behaviour Does Not Reveal Everything About a Person
Why does a child become more enthusiastic about learning after receiving a reward for becoming class champion? Why is one person afraid of failure, while another regards failure as part of the process? And why do we often label someone based only on visible behaviour?
These simple questions became increasingly interesting to me after attending a lecture on Human Behaviour and the Social Environment. In that lecture, I was reintroduced to three approaches to understanding human beings: psychoanalytic, behaviourist, and humanistic. The three approaches offer different perspectives, but for me they complement one another in understanding people.
The psychoanalytic approach helped me understand that human behaviour does not always emerge suddenly. There are past experiences, conflicts, and internal processes that are not always conscious but can influence the way a person thinks and acts. For example, a child who was often compared with a sibling from an early age may grow into a person who is very afraid of failure. As an adult, others may see him only as someone who is too perfectionist. Yet it is possible that past experiences helped shape the way he views success and failure.
In contrast, the behaviourist approach allowed me to see how the environment and consequences can shape human behaviour. The example given in the lecture felt very close to everyday life. When a child receives a gift or praise after achieving first rank, that reward can become an encouragement for the child to repeat the same study behaviour. In daily life, we actually often encounter this pattern. When a behaviour receives a positive response, we tend to be encouraged to repeat it.
From this I came to understand that the environment has a major influence on a person’s development. The way parents show appreciation, the way teachers give recognition, and even the way the social environment responds to someone can all help shape behaviour.
Of the three approaches, however, the humanistic approach was the part that most attracted my attention. There is one simple understanding that has stayed firmly in my mind: “human beings essentially have the potential and capacity to develop.”
That understanding made me think that people should not be seen only on the basis of their shortcomings or current behaviour. A child who is considered lazy does not necessarily lack ability. A quiet student does not necessarily lack ideas. A person who has failed is not necessarily incapable of succeeding. Even someone in a difficult situation has not necessarily lost all of his or her potential.
Too often we are quick to label someone based on what we see. We say someone is lazy because he did not do something, call someone unconfident because he rarely speaks, or assume someone is incapable because he has experienced failure. Yet we never truly know the whole journey of another person’s life.
This is where I feel the humanistic approach offers a different point of view. Human beings are not merely a collection of problems to be fixed. People also have strengths, hopes, choices, and potential that can be developed. The task of the environment is not only to judge, but also to provide space for that potential to grow.
I then connected this understanding with the social welfare science I am studying. In social welfare, a person cannot be separated from his or her social environment. When we see someone experiencing poverty, for example, it seems too simplistic to conclude immediately that the person is incapable or unwilling to make an effort. We need to look further. What is the person’s family situation? What has his or her life experience been? Does he or she have access to education?
These questions made me understand that helping someone is not only about solving the visible problem; there is also a process of understanding the human being as a whole.
For me, the three approaches studied in this lecture ultimately provided three different ways of viewing human beings. Psychoanalysis taught me to look backwards and understand how past experiences can affect a person. Behaviourism allowed me to see how the environment and consequences can shape behaviour. Humanism, meanwhile, invited me to look forward, recognising that people still have the potential to develop for the better. The three approaches taught me to be more careful in judging others.
In the end, this lecture did not only help me understand theories about human behaviour. More than that, I feel I gained a new way of seeing people.