Hi guys,
This will be the topic of the 4.3 lecture. You will be comparing the works of Jean Piaget, Sigmund Freud, Erik Erikson, and Lawrence Kohlberg. You are to add comments to this blog showing original thought on their works and which one has the most effective argument on adolescent development. Be sure to comment on other people's blogs, as the primary purpose of this blog is to be a vehicle for student discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Well, I guess I'm the first one. I guess I'll just start with the one I know best: Sigmund Freud. Though Freud did come up with a lot of valid theories about the sub-consious and about dreams or, what he called, "the royal road to the unconsious", when it came to child developement theories, I think he was pretty off base. His theories on psycho-sexual developement was, I think, rather off with childlike theories. To believe that an infant puts objects into his/her mouth for sexual pleasure is quite the far reach. Though I do appreciate his other works and the fact that he did theorize on the developemental process on human beings, I think that the lack of evidence supporting his theories really brings down his work on developemental psychology. I'll stop there for now, since I just wrote a novel.
I definitely agree with you on that. Child development was not one of Freud's strengths. Way back in Chapter 3, I remember reading about his theories concerning parent's as the objects of blame or praise for either rebellious or model children. While I have ungracious feelings toward my own parents on occasion (tee hee), I have to reject the notion that they control my behavior. Why would I give them that much power over my actions? Anyway, I'm skeptical of extremes in most instances--end-all-be-all answers make me doubt their validity. Though parents obviously exert a lasting influence on their children, they definitely aren't the puppeteers controlling their offspring's every move, whether directly or indirectly. But enough of nature vs. nurture. At this moment, I'm inclined to say that Erikson has the most effective argument of human development. The structure of his stages of psychosocial development lay a framework that is flexible enough to account for variations and rigid enough to accurately predict the effects of life occurrences (ex: dependably met needs leads to trust and dependably unmet needs leads to mistrust). If someone disagrees, feel free to argue with me. I'm open to changing my mind!
Out of the four psychologists we are supposed to be talking about, I found Erik Erikson's theories to be most convincing. (I can see that Chelsea feels the same way.) Each of his stages are associated with common, and significant, problems that children develop through. He explained that the way a child deals with a certain problem or stage effects how the child goes about dealing with following stages. I find this to be very true. I was reading what his stages consisted of and I realized that I could apply them to my life. I have been through some of those stages. Other psychologists (Freud, Kohlberg, Piaget) have valid and convincing theories, as well; I just find Erikson's to be the most convincing!
I agree also. But,given that that would be a bad comment, I'll continue. I found that, though Piaget's theories weren't the most convincing, that they are very useful in laying the frame, so to speak, or other developmental psychologists. He, unlike Freud, actually spent time observing children's actions, reactions, and expressions to develop his theories, giving him the proper background he needed to spark some interest (not to mention some evidence to back up his statements) So, though I think he didn't come up with the most accurate depiction of development, he was a very important scientist in his field and helped others come up with there theories by providing a good base for his. Of course, by his time, that type of research/ experimentation was common as opposed to Freud's day when Naturalistic observation and psychoanalysis of adults were all they had to go on.
Maybe one of us should pretend that we like another theory better, so we can argue about it a little. But nonetheless, I do agree with (almost) everything Abby said. It's not that I think Piaget's work should be used as toilet paper at all, I just think that Erikson's theories are the most inclusive and universal. Piaget's approach to gathering information was very admirable, the cognitive stages he described remained quite valid today, and he sparked worldwide interest in the development of the mind. But I find that also to be his weakness--his theory is based only upon the cognitive development of an individual, whereas Erikson's was a psychosocial view. The thing I don't agree with Abby about is that I'm pretty sure that Piaget's approach was naturalistic observation, though she said the reason Freud's theories weren't as good as Piaget's and Erikson's was because all he had to work with was psychoanalysis and naturalistic observation. Hmm.
Yes, Piaget did make significant contributions to developmental psychology. His theories are still looked at and used today. He did use naturalistic observation when studying children. I think this was a great way to observe because he got to see the children in their homes and places they felt comfortable in. If he studied the children in, say, a laboratory, he might not have been able to form the theories he did. The children may have acted differentyl and Piaget could have come to different conclusions. Also, I found the slide in Mr. Smith's powerpoint (about how some research suggests that Piaget underestimated young children's abilities) interesting. Studying the other psychologists theories shows this somewhat!
Out of the four, I found Piaget the most convincing, especially his ideas about schemas. This next sentence may be a contradiction, but although his theory isn't as accurate as others because of the whole gradual development thing, he still captured the big picture very well. The idea that we develop cognitively through our enhanced ways of explaining and interacting with the world made more sense to me than any of the other theories. And it explains how our interactions with the world shape us a humans. The only thing I have against Erikson is that i think he relied too heavily on his own personal experiences and the self report method for his subjects. He might also have a western bias. Do people who grow up environments foreign to us have these same problems? On an unrelated note, if I were to find out I was terminably ill, and had 5 years to live, would I experience Integrity Vs. Despair in my late teens? If Erikson's methods were to be proven, I would agree that his theory is most convincing.
Like Jacob i found that Piaget was the most convincing. I admired the way that he observed the children in their natural environments rather than meeting somewhere such as a park to observe them. I beleive other psychologists gained off of Piagets findings giving them a more solid conclusion. The way Piaget ordered his stages of cognitive development with ages and what they do really helped me understand the big picture a lot better. Although the other psychologists had significant points I found Piaget the most convincing.
That's a really interesting thought, Jacob, about Erikson's stages being relative to the life span (if that makes any sense, which I don't think it does). I don't think a single theory can account for the variations of a population of over 6.5 billion, but for the vast majority of people I believe Erikson's theory holds true. After all, only a small percentage of people are ever aware of the approximate time or manner in which they will die. In those few cases, though, I would think that, yes, those individuals experience the old age "crisis" of integrity vs. despair. They likely wonder "Was my life fufilling thus far?", "Did I make a positive impact", etc. And in answer to your doubts that Erikson's theories transcend cultures, take the teenage/young adult crisis-- identiy vs. role confusion. While a Western teen might spend those years forging an indvidualistic identity as a seperate person, an Eastern teen might strive to assume a beneficial role in the communal social structure. Either way, the goal of the process is to discover who they are in the context of their society.
I know that Piaget used naturalistic observation, but by interacting with the children and asking them questions he was able to better back up his theories thus making them more valid. I'm also not saying that naturalistic observation is not credible, but by itself I don't think it's enough to draw a conclusion. In response to Tayla's comments, I can't help but disagree. I don't believe that Piaget used just naturalistic observation. He used expiriments such as in his works on object permanence. But, in addition, I found that Piaget, though a good scientist failed to make the "spectrum" continuous. Also, though he is quite broad in his explanations, he tended to miss things that later developmentalists picked up on through experiment. Also, maybe I'm wrong, but, isn't observing children in the park more of naturalistic observation than is taking them somewhere and observing them there? I don't know, I tend to find Erikson more convincing mostly because his theories tend to hold up the best when "put to the test". Also he seemed to adress what each stage of life tended to be concerned with.
I have studied these men before, and i will all ways stick by this man and his intelligence. I believe in Sigmund Freud's theories. Sigmund Freud theorized that personality is developed by the person's childhood experiences.
In Piaget's theory he believed that a child development does not entirely go smoothly, but it has certian points at which they develop new areas of life.
Kohlberg's theories are derived from Piaget's theories but with a little more encouragement from the guardians. Children learn lessons thought out there lives from their surroundings, absorbing as much knowledge they can at very young ages.
And finally Erikson's theory. Where as Freud believed that personality development stopped at age five, Erikson believed that it continued.
I agree with all of them. Each theory has some importance and some understand to how your environment, social setting and you upbring has so much impact to how your personality and morals develop as you age.
I never really thought about Erik Erikson's theory like you did Jacob. That is a good point. Erikson's theory might only apply to Western cultures. People in some Eastern cultures (and maybe even some Western ones) grow up differently then we do and different then Erikson did. His theory may not be able to be applied to the children of those cultures. Jacob's point puts a new light on Jean Piaget's theory. His theory of development seems more universal. I think Piaget's theory could be applied to most cultures. And also, Piaget's theory looks at interactions with the environment, where as Erikson's theory looks at problems that are personal and 'psychological'.
Out of these four developmental psychologists I would have to say that Erikson had the most convincing theory (as did most other people). He broke down the lifetime of a human being and assigned specific issues to the stages. Erikson delved deeply into one's search for identity which is an issue that everyone faces. We all want to know who we are and where we belong so each of us have experienced at least one of Erikson's stages. I also think that Piaget was an important player in the whole topic of developmental psychology because he got the wheels turning. Basically he layed the foundation for developmental psychology to build off of.
Not to be a complete trend follower, but I also feel that Erikson has the most convincing argument regarding child development. I love his explanations on how babies minds are working just as hard as adults, they're just working in different ways. You can tell if you're watching an infant that there are a million different things going through their minds, and their forming opinions on all of them. I'd like to defend Freud, however, since everybody seems to be against the poor guy. His theory that childrens' actions are results of their parents may not be 100% accurate, but there is definitely some truth behind it. Maybe not as you get closer to your teenage years, but as a very young child, your world basically revolves around your parents. You tend to act like them and do what they tell you to do. And a person is bound to become a more trusting or fearful adult based on the attention given to them by their parents as a child. So basically, Erikson's theories as the best supported and most convincing in my opinion, but Freud deserves some points too.
While I would agree that Erikson and Piaget had very convincing theories and probably the most support for their experiments, I disagree with the ages given to each of their categories. Some of the stages for each of them can occur throughout life. An example of this would be the crisis of identity which Erikson claims takes place in adolescence. However, there are many adults today who still have not found their own place in society. In general though, Erikson and Piaget have the most valid theories on development, and they did open a pathway for other developmental psychologists to follow. I also agree with Carly on the idea that Freud was accurate in his studies of children. Our parents provide a foundation for us, from which we eventually will choose where to go. As children we are constantly looking up to our parents so that we can act as they do, and someday, be like them.
Liz Horan
I agree, Jas_8o (is that your real name? ;-)), that each psychologist has some valid points to offer-- I like Piaget's schemas, completely adore Freud's unconscious mind theory, and generally believe in the trajectory of Kohlberg's morality stages (as far as Western cultures go). But if I had to pick one, and only one, to live by, it would definitely be Erikson's. In response to Liz's concern that "there are many adults today who still have not found their own place in society", yes, I agree, many adults struggle with their identities. Erikson's theory was about how the psychosocial stages didn't occur as singular events, they were wide-ranging "crises" that start during an age range and continually impact our lives from that point on. The adults who have struggled to "discover themselves" DID go through Erikson's identity vs. role confusion stage-- they simply didn't reach a positive, affirming outcome and instead the latter (role confusion) won out. Erikson's stages build off of each other like a lasagna (mmm), rather than as isolated events that come and go without further consequence. Well, that's my two-cents anyway.
I like Jacob's point about Erikson catagorizing these stages to very specific age groups. I think what he was doing was making a general outline of the problems individuals face, not necessarily saying they will occur during this time. It is interesting that Jacob picked up on this though because I never would have. I think that it would be possible for anyone to experience any of these stages at any time in their life because situations can vary.
Since this man hasn't been mentioned yet I'd like to give him some recognition. Lawrence Kohlberg took on a challenging and prominent aspect of development: morals. As we grow we begin to develop our own sense of right and wrong and Kohlberg tried to identify what shapes this development. Personally, I think he has a pretty convincing theory just not the strongest one. It is interesting that he identified six things that seem to influence our decision making the most and that these things, if you think about it, do really affect us. When we are making decisions many factors are involved such as what's best for ourselves, what's best for other's, and what's deemed right by law. There are even more questions that we ask ourselves when making a decision. Kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning really broadened the idea that Carol Gilligan had about moral development.
I don't know jas_08 (I'll call you jas from now on.) I think that Freud's theories were genius (I've also studied him before) but when it came to child development, I think he hit a weak point. His theories, though they were a great thought, put much too much emphasis on 1. sex 2. parental influence and childhood experience. For example, his theories on psycho sexual development have been considered by most psychologists to be off by a lot (after all, it has been widely accepted that an infant puts things into its mouth to test them, not to satisfy the ids urge for oral stimulation). Though I do admire him for his other theories (and Jung's theories developing off of them) I don't believe that his child development theories were that accurate merely because he put much too much emphasis on parental influences. Though I do agree with you on the grounds that all of the child development psychologists each had a point that they were "right" on.
That Jean Piaget's theory on cognitive development was not as valid as Erik Erikson's theory. I don't know why Piaget's theory is so praised compared to Erikson's. Piaget's theory only had four stage and just talked about how objects are percieved. His ideas were very vague in explaining how children were developing during each stage. Erikson did a much better job than Piaget in being more specific to how humans develop socially. Of course both stage theories are about two different types of development. Erikson just did a much better job explaining the specifics of how/why we behave.
As a similar opinion about Piaget I also believe that many of his ideas are still used today and that is use of observance in naturalistic behavior was very persuasive, I still believe that there is still some contradiction needed to be made about some of his findings. He describes a child's mental development to occur in stages. This, however, cannot always be proven. One child's ability can differ from another child's ability thus his findings will not always be the same. Many children do not necessarily develop in stages, but all at once, and some not at all. Erik Erikson made his findings very clear in which he stated that many of our experiences affect our later life. Instantly I thought about children who udergo traumatic experiences such as abuse or sexual abuse and they turn out very emotional and dependent. This theory also has extraneous variables that need to be taken into consideration. The child may deal with this experiences differently than others, in the sense that they may not turn out any less "normal" than a child who did not experience these traumas.
I recently visited friends of our family who had a baby boy two months ago. The baby's name is David and we went to see him. He is so cute :) This may seem like a random story but I will connect it! I was watching David and actually thinking about psychology. The visit fit in perfectly with what we have been reading about. I thought about Piaget's Sensorimotor stage and connected it to David. It was fun to watch David and think about developmental psychology. David was watching everything with his eyes. He was grabbing things with his tiny, little hands :P Anyway, it was really interesting to get a first-hand observation using Piaget's theory!
I agree with Shelly and Sam that Piaget's theory just doesn't stack up to Erikson's. I found Erikson's theory the most interesting, especially his whole idea that each stage in life has its own psychological task. With his theory, you get the feeling that life has purpose. We are supposed to meet and overcome these psychological hurdles in order to get to the last level. I guess you could think of it as a video game. I don't know how well a game about psychology would sell, especially if in the last level, you're 60 and reflecting on life. I think I'll stick to mario cart.
Post a Comment