Jackie, What Are You Thinking?
I'm thinking that no one else feels like analyzing psychology like I do.
Anyway, the first statement I would like to make is that Sigmund Freud is the only one of the famous developmental psychologist who truly deserves to be something special. I do not agree with all of his theories but he's the only one who went into depth and gave complete reasoning.
The Psychosocial Stage Theory kind of exists, but not in the way that Erik Erikson presents it. His more positive, adaptive view of human nature is more pleasant than Freud's, but not one that I feel holds true. I do like how he considers that development continues throughout life and doesn't stop at age 12, but he provides little evidence. The person's only motivation is to be an active and contributing member of society. There is next to no emphasis on sexual urges, which is crazy. Judging by the commercials and shows that I see on TV the mind puts a lot of emphasis on sex. There has to be so much more. His stages all involve that age range making one of two choices. It's more or less a positive or a negative choice. I think he paints a picture that is two dimensional. The human mind is not that simple. When looking at this model I am thinking, "How does this development come about?" Everything is just to vague.
Behaviorism is way too focused on only the measurable/testable. I don't think that everything can be tested. The mind is hard to measure and keep track of if it is not your own. The behaviorist fail to consider the biological influences. I think that the learning influences play a bigger role in how a person develops, but I believe that the biological influences exist. John Watson believes that emotions and the unconscious are not important. Is he kidding? Emotions and the unconscious are the most important! They are also among the most interesting. They are the true unknown, the cause of the things that seem irrational and what we should truly focus on. In Watson's defense, classical conditioning and all of his experiments are legit. He has facts on his side, he just failed to broaden his horizons.
B.F. Skinner was another man who had some potential. I believe that Operant Conditioning is something that I think is genuinely accepted. I think everyone can relate to thousands of times when their consequences from a behavior produced a change in the probability of the behavior’s occurrence. Reinforcement and punishment works.
Albert Bandura, The Social Cognitive Theory, kudos. We do learn by the behaviors from others. I again don't think this is something that is all that special. The only thing we really learned is that it's important to be a good role model. Oh wait, I think that was realized before. Now give me something more interesting. Go somewhere with this. How does this change over a person's life. Is there anything different due to biological inheritance? I need something more to be impressed!
Jean Piaget is part of the Cognitive Developmental Theory. To be honest we've only skimmed the surface about him. I feel like there may be some potential. At each new stage, children think in a qualitatively different way. I think that this is kind of a safe bet. All kids are different. Both biological maturation and experience are required for developmental progress in Piaget's mind. Can anyone really argue with him about that? The only problem I see here is that it ignores motivation and emotion.
Lev Vygotsky is too broad. Yes, development occurs as a result of our interaction with others, but it can't be that plain. If by chance that it is that plain I am really wasting my time by thinking about all of this.
Gilbert Gottlieb stresses the complex interaction of nature and nurture. When it comes down to it we are ever changing. There is no constant when it comes to technology. He says that cognitive development is a social process and that problem solving aided by dialogues, again, I don't think many would disagree. One thing, where is the coherent developmental theory?
I know no one really uses lj anymore but if by chance you stumbled across this and read this, I am sorry. You may have just wasted away a portion of your life by reading my babble which could have been summarized by this:
Frued: You should have put more focus into adolescent development, but overall well done.
Erikison: You and your Neo-Freudians need to figure a lot of things out before I accept your theories.
Watson: Stop being so close minded!!!!!
Skinner: You were right, just not all that ground breaking
Banddura: Same thing as Skinner!
Piaget: Combine more of your ideas with Freud and we might really have something.
Vygotsky: Don't take the easy way out.
Gottlieb: Where's the development?
Anyway, what it all comes down to is who do we combine. It's all so complicated. It could be all, although I don't believe that everyone's theory is key to development.
Anyway, the first statement I would like to make is that Sigmund Freud is the only one of the famous developmental psychologist who truly deserves to be something special. I do not agree with all of his theories but he's the only one who went into depth and gave complete reasoning.
The Psychosocial Stage Theory kind of exists, but not in the way that Erik Erikson presents it. His more positive, adaptive view of human nature is more pleasant than Freud's, but not one that I feel holds true. I do like how he considers that development continues throughout life and doesn't stop at age 12, but he provides little evidence. The person's only motivation is to be an active and contributing member of society. There is next to no emphasis on sexual urges, which is crazy. Judging by the commercials and shows that I see on TV the mind puts a lot of emphasis on sex. There has to be so much more. His stages all involve that age range making one of two choices. It's more or less a positive or a negative choice. I think he paints a picture that is two dimensional. The human mind is not that simple. When looking at this model I am thinking, "How does this development come about?" Everything is just to vague.
Behaviorism is way too focused on only the measurable/testable. I don't think that everything can be tested. The mind is hard to measure and keep track of if it is not your own. The behaviorist fail to consider the biological influences. I think that the learning influences play a bigger role in how a person develops, but I believe that the biological influences exist. John Watson believes that emotions and the unconscious are not important. Is he kidding? Emotions and the unconscious are the most important! They are also among the most interesting. They are the true unknown, the cause of the things that seem irrational and what we should truly focus on. In Watson's defense, classical conditioning and all of his experiments are legit. He has facts on his side, he just failed to broaden his horizons.
B.F. Skinner was another man who had some potential. I believe that Operant Conditioning is something that I think is genuinely accepted. I think everyone can relate to thousands of times when their consequences from a behavior produced a change in the probability of the behavior’s occurrence. Reinforcement and punishment works.
Albert Bandura, The Social Cognitive Theory, kudos. We do learn by the behaviors from others. I again don't think this is something that is all that special. The only thing we really learned is that it's important to be a good role model. Oh wait, I think that was realized before. Now give me something more interesting. Go somewhere with this. How does this change over a person's life. Is there anything different due to biological inheritance? I need something more to be impressed!
Jean Piaget is part of the Cognitive Developmental Theory. To be honest we've only skimmed the surface about him. I feel like there may be some potential. At each new stage, children think in a qualitatively different way. I think that this is kind of a safe bet. All kids are different. Both biological maturation and experience are required for developmental progress in Piaget's mind. Can anyone really argue with him about that? The only problem I see here is that it ignores motivation and emotion.
Lev Vygotsky is too broad. Yes, development occurs as a result of our interaction with others, but it can't be that plain. If by chance that it is that plain I am really wasting my time by thinking about all of this.
Gilbert Gottlieb stresses the complex interaction of nature and nurture. When it comes down to it we are ever changing. There is no constant when it comes to technology. He says that cognitive development is a social process and that problem solving aided by dialogues, again, I don't think many would disagree. One thing, where is the coherent developmental theory?
I know no one really uses lj anymore but if by chance you stumbled across this and read this, I am sorry. You may have just wasted away a portion of your life by reading my babble which could have been summarized by this:
Frued: You should have put more focus into adolescent development, but overall well done.
Erikison: You and your Neo-Freudians need to figure a lot of things out before I accept your theories.
Watson: Stop being so close minded!!!!!
Skinner: You were right, just not all that ground breaking
Banddura: Same thing as Skinner!
Piaget: Combine more of your ideas with Freud and we might really have something.
Vygotsky: Don't take the easy way out.
Gottlieb: Where's the development?
Anyway, what it all comes down to is who do we combine. It's all so complicated. It could be all, although I don't believe that everyone's theory is key to development.