| Subject: Re: Assignment #4 |
Author:
Angelica Woods
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:25:00 07/01/10 Thu
In reply to:
Rashunda Stitt
's message, "Re: Assignment #4" on 21:19:17 06/29/10 Tue
Great, I am not the only fan of Erikson! That was one of my criticisms I had of Erikson is the outdatedness (if that's a work) of the theory. I thought about the new era of technology that we are in, post 9/11, and homosexuality, which is a huge part of identity.
>This is interesting to me because the things I like
>about Kohlberg’s I dislike about Piaget’s theory. I
>like the stages of moral development. I also like the
>fact that these stages are based off of a cognitive
>development theory. Kohlberg is saying that if you
>have not reached a certain cognitive level, then your
>moral development is also limited. This is just
>logical and makes sense. After all, how can a five
>year old child make the same moral judgment as a 25
>year old adult? At age 5, many areas of the brain are
>not fully developed. However, by age 25 the prefrontal
>cortex has developed. This is the part of the brain
>important for decision-making. It seems to me that
>many adults consider their moral development when
>making decisions. In fact, is this not what our
>previous example (Heinz’ Dilemma) shows us? We each
>made a decision on what Heinz should do based on our
>moral development. There are two things I do not like
>about Kohlberg’s theory. The first is the idea of
>stages 0 and 4 1/2. Before taking this class, I had
>never heard of either of these stages. I just do not
>understand how you can have a stage 0. Is this like
>the baseline? As far as stage 4 ½ goes, why is that
>the only half? I know the reasoning behind it is
>because this is the only transitional period that
>people can stay in forever or move back and forth;
>however, what about people with cognitive impairments
>that never reach stage 4? Is it possible that they
>can stay in stage 1 or 2 forever? Did Kohlberg study
>this? The second thing I dislike about Kohlberg’s
>theory is stage 6. What is the point of Kohlberg and
>Piaget having these final stages that most or some
>people never reach? If most people never reach this
>stage, then how do we know it truly exists? The
>aspect of this theory that personally speaks to me is
>the different levels associated with the stages:
>preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. I
>like the idea pre and post parts. I really like the
>conventional aspect because in this sense conventional
>means process. Therefore, you are either at the
>beginning stages where you cannot process, or you are
>at a stage where you can process, or you are at a
>stage where you can process and draw conclusions.
>Thinking of it this way makes it easier for me. I
>place myself in stage 5 of Kohlberg’s stages of moral
>development. I place myself in this stage because I
>believe that I am able to make moral decisions using
>skills from all the previous levels; however, I think
>that I try to consider the greater good when I make a
>decision.
>
>Erikson’s theory is my absolute favorite. I love how
>each of the stages are broken down and I also love how
>the crisis must be resolved in order for a person to
>successfully move to the next stage of development.
>This makes perfect sense. If a person has a problem
>in a later stage of development, they probably have
>some unfinished business or unresolved issue lingering
>from a previous stage. There is only one thing I
>dislike about Erikson’s theory. In the original work
>published by Erikson, the intimacy vs. isolation stage
>(stage 6) only considers heterosexual relationships.
>This shows how dated the theory is and that it should
>perhaps be revised to include homosexual couples.
>Since adolescent development is my preferred area of
>research, stage 5 (identity vs identity confusion)
>speaks to me personally. This stage does a wonderful
>job of providing an explanation for early, middle, and
>late adolescence. I am currently in stage 6 and I have
>no idea if I’ll successfully move through it. I’m at
>the time in my life where most women my age are
>getting married and having children; however, my focus
>is my education. I may be in this stage a little bit
>longer than anticipated.
>
>The last question is the most difficult for me to
>answer. As far as my life is concerned, Erikson’s
>theory is most relevant. However, when thinking about
>my career, Kohlberg’s theory is more relevant. Still
>for my major, the theories are equally relevant. For
>my major, these theories are equally relevant because
>my concentration is human development. I need to know
>both of these theories inside and out. For my life,
>Erikson has already mapped out my development. I feel
>that if I get lost along the way I can just read his
>theory and focus on getting back on track. This is why
>they say too much knowledge is a dangerous thing. For
>my career, Kohlberg is important because being able to
>use my moral development in my decision-making is
>going to be major when I enter my career. I would use
>each of these theories to grow in each of the three
>areas mentioned. Moral development will assist me in
>decision-making in all areas. Erikson’s theory will
>help me stay on a path of self-exploration and growth.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 