Comparison of Theories: Humanism and Behaviourism
             The Humanistic approach basically states that we strive to be all that we can be, reaching out through life to
             fully use all our abilities and potential. This is why we behave the way we do. It views personality and
             human development in a positive and optimistic way, focusing on personal traits, free will, feelings, motives,
             and thoughts. But, there is not much empirical evidence to support this theory.
             The Behavioristic approach, however, surmises that an individuals behaviour is controlled exclusively by the
             external environment, where humans and animals learn through conditioning, and observational imitation,
             which I think is a rather robot-like (as the textbook puts it) approach. Though, Skinner and Bandura
             provide quite a lot of evidence for their Behaviouristic theories.
             I think that humans do learn from conditioning and observing, but that only does not contribute to our
             behaviour. In my view, both Humanism and Behaviourism have relevance to the understanding of
             personality and human development - I can't say one has more relevance over the other.
             What we have 'learnt' does actually help us to use all of our abilities and potential. Behaviourism and
             Humanism kind of work with each other.
             I do not agree with just one of the models (Humanistic or Behavioural), but I believe a bit of both. I reckon
             the individual is made up of, yes, some 'repertoire behaviours' resulting from environment (nurture), and
             also personal traits (nature), that are characteristic of the individual.
             ...