A humanist and a Freudian psychoanalyst are arguing about human nature. What underlying assumptions about psychology and human potential are they likely to bring to their discussion? How can they resolve their differences without either-or thinking?

What will be an ideal response?

The Freudian assumes that human nature is basically selfish and destructive; the humanist assumes that it is basically loving and cooperative. They can resolve this either-or debate by recognizing that human beings have both capacities, and that the situation and culture often determine which capacity is expressed at a given time.