Contrast of Human Nature

I have been assigned the following question for a short essay and I am having trouble developing a clear response.

Compare Alexander Pope's Essay on Man with Samuel Johnson's The Vanity of Human Wishes. How do these poets see human nature? What do they caution against? What do they advocate? What important differences do you see between the works?

Here is what I have so far.

In An Essay on Man, Alexander Pope believes man is a prideful being and it is in his nature to serve himself. Man, Pope claims, is driven by his desire for pleasure and is ultimately proud of his achievements. Pope believes that man is ruled from within by passion, or instinct, but passion is guided by reason. However, reason often fails. According to Pope, happiness is attainable, but it can only be found in nature. Pope claims it is human nature to desire to change things. Man is never happy with his current situation and constantly desires more. In the ultimate search for happiness, Pope cautions against man being too trusting, but at the same time, says he shouldn't be too skeptical.

Samuel Johnson, in The Vanity of Human Wishes, also sees man as a restless being. Man, in his constant desire for change, will never find true happiness. Johnson believes happiness is a state of mind and cannot be found anywhere in the physical world, including nature.

Can anyone provide more information on Samuel Johnson's view of human nature in The Vanity of Human Wishes? I may be reading it wrong, but it appears he is more concerned with the search for happiness (as demonstrated in Rasselas) than he is with man's prideful nature.

Any and all comments would be greatly appreciated! If my argument is unclear, please let me know and I will try to refine it.

Thanks again,
Brooks