Some people have chastised me agreeing with Carl Rogers's ideas on feelings (see 24 December 2002, 19 January 2003, and 1 June 2003 entries for Rogers background). A basic premise of Rogers's view of healthy personality development (and of psychotherapy) is that one should always (honestly) listen to and trust one's feelings. My critics have taken this to mean that if something feels good, then we should do it. The danger here is that people will do cruel things to others because they feel good. I think this criticism reflects a misinterpretation of Rogers's views.

Without a doubt, lots of people do bad things and defend themselves by saying, "Well, I did it because I listened to my feelings, just like you said." My contention is that people who do bad things and say that it feels good don't completely feel good about what they're doing. Their behaviours may feel good on the surface, but in the back of their minds—and in their hearts—they actually feel quite bad (because they know that their behaviours are the expression of certain conflicts or defences which are interfering with their natural propensity to be good, prosocial, and moral). In this sense, these people aren't really listening to their true feelings and acting in accord with them (the true feelings being the deeper, more positive, prosocial ones). Thus, the criticism that there is a danger in doing things in accord with one's true feelings is groundless. If we all listen to our true feelings, then chances are that the result will be behaviours which are quite healthy and positive—not mean or malicious.

The trick, of course, is getting people to feel safe enough to be their true selves—with all the requisite healthy, socially responsive feelings that go along with this.