Carl rogers stated that healthy personality would result from congruence between one’s ideal self and their perceived self.
Carl Rogers was an American psychologist and regarded as one of the most eminent thinkers in psychology.
The psychologist created the concept of congruent self where he stated that for a person to achieve self-actualization, they must be in a state of congruence.
The state of congruence means the state in which a person's ideal self and actual experience are very similar.
Therefore, Carl rogers stated that healthy personality would result from congruence between one’s ideal self and their perceived self.
Learn more about this here
<em>brainly.com/question/10846181</em>
According to dutch researcher, fons trompenaars, "individualism" refers to people regarding themselves as individuals, while "<span>Communitarianism " </span>refers to people regarding themselves as part of a group.
One of the most sizzling contentions in social philosophy nowadays is whether communitarianism or individualism is the more suitable hypothesis for depicting the connection between the individual and society. Extensively, we may state that individualism is the view that every person (except just people) has, and should see himself as having, moral hugeness and natural rights. Communitarianism is the view that networks additionally have moral noteworthiness and certain rights.
Answer:
Not everyone can live like an upper class white man. They posses privaleges and live in a different mindset compared to for example a lower class woman or a man of color. Therefore you cannot compare a white middle class mans mental state as opposed to many other different peoples.
Explanation:
The correct answer is: "The elites use their payoffs to stay in power."
Firms constantly seek to hire as cheap as possible. The less amount they pay in terms of salaries, the greater will be the margin of profits, as the calculation will be profit= revenue - costs, being salaries one fraction of the costs.
This mechanism produces an increase of the inequality gap. Workers get lower salaries and firmowners and directives keep on rising the amount of profits generated by their businesses, and in turn, their payoffs also grow. This trend creates elites.
Answer? 1) Yes, it is a bit ironic. If a company has an Ethics program that's comprehensive enough, executives should not have to be caught in business criminal activities.
2.) First let's talk about Ethics programs. These are basically programs that embody the business philosophies of a company such that every stakeholder understand how business is run in the company. It basically defines to employees, staff, investors, vendors and customers the rules of Business Ethics as defined by the firm, from the maximum amount of tips to collect from customers to how intimate employees get with clients so that there's no confusion. Now, all this is to clarify but the question here is how effective was the program if criminal activity was discovered? It's simple. The most comprehensive Ethics programs can't control human circumstantial behaviour. As clear as rules may be, they are always still broken. And this is because, with humans, there an infinite number of things to put into consideration, most of which won't always follow rules. One may be 100% compliant with said rules but find themselves weak to give in at some point for any possible reason the person deemed more important than upholding the companies ethics. In other words, these rules are held by the people it binds and the delivery will always be subjective. Whenever it is deemed unfavorable to uphold, it most likely will be dropped.
Therefore, it might have been the most effective and comprehensive Ethics program in the world but only as effective as the executives demmed it subjectively.
