Briefly discuss two criticisms of the cognitive-self-regulation perspective

What will be an ideal response?

Among the possibilities, (1) Some of those who speak from the cognitive self-regulation perspective take the computer metaphor very literally, but, knowing how a computer accomplishes something does not necessarily tell us anything about how people do the same thing; (2) Computers or robots cannot possibly serve as adequate models for human behavior, since both have limitations humans do not. For example, humans have free will and make their own decisions, while computers and robots rely on programs they have been given; (3) The cognitive approach, in particular, is little more than a transplanting of cognitive psychology into the subject matter of personality; (4) A model of human behavior based on feedback principles is merely a model of homeostasis ("steady state"). Such mechanisms make sense when talking about control over body temperature, etc., but people rarely have behavioral goals that involve steady states; (5) The feedback approach fails to deal effectively with the homunculus problem (refers to a hypothetical tiny man who sits inside your head and tells you what to do). The question is where do the highest-order goals come from? What tells the "little man" what to do? (6) The cognitive self-regulation perspective seems too mechanistic; too much a description from the outside looking in, with too little of the feel of what it means to be a person who has a personality.