Log in

No account? Create an account
New Member - The Most Fascinating, Yet Treacherous Journey Can Be Made... [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
The Psycho-Explorers

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

New Member [Mar. 1st, 2005|09:42 am]
The Psycho-Explorers


Hi all:

After searching for a communitiy to discuss the human development theories, I found this one. I know that this community is not dedicated to theories...however the userinfo did mention theories...so let me begin...

my name is vanessa (24), i am a grad student (SPECIAL EDUCATION)(i am switcing careers from compuiter science to this, so i do not understand the theories_), a wife and a mother. aside from always thinking about the developmental milestones of my sons life, i also wonder about my husbands way of being along with everything else as well...i tend to find meaning in everyday things...sometimes some that are silly...

currently, i am wondering about four theories. I am confused a little but their perspectives, mechanisms of change and if our role in them are active or passive...

maybe this community can help clear me up...

okay here goes, this is what i know...(or think i know)

the Psychoanalytic/Psychodynamic by Freud and Erickson this is what i know :•
-based on inner conflicts and how these conflicts affect our development
-has the “physic energy” which are the conscious (id = the child in us), unconscious (ego=reality principal) and the preconscious (super-ego=sense of morality)
-has the four developmental stages which are : oral, anal, phallic and genital

as for the mechansisms of change...i am a little confused...i believe that this theory is an active...becuase whether it is unconciously or not we respond to our surroundings...

the next theory is the behaviroal by watson and skinner...

and the third is piaget, cogntive development

and finalyl the epigenetic theoretical perspective...

any help would be appreciated...

From: the_only_pirate
2005-03-01 05:06 pm (UTC)
hey, welcome to the community (i'm the manager so to speak). i think most of us are still in our late teens, but i'm in college...and a psychology major. i just took the class actually. before i go into what i think about those theories, i was hoping you could clarify what you mean by passive and active. i'm just wondering what exactly you're looking for in someone else's response. i'm familiar with three of those theories. thanks and once again, welcome!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: beautifulstorms
2005-03-02 05:52 pm (UTC)
hi and thank you for the welcome...

what i mean by passive and active is this:

for instance: do we have control of what happens? are we active when it comes to those decisions? or cant we not control them...

for the freud thoery,...i belive it we are passive...we can not control many of the thoughts that come to our mind...whereas for the skinner theory...we can be active and work against any models we see...

-i hope i made it clear because i am still confused myself... :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: the_only_pirate
2005-03-03 02:58 am (UTC)
ok, i'm sure this is debatable and truly there is no right answer, but i'll take a stab at my opinion. the freudian theories seem to be a little of both. the function and separation of consciousness is passive. according to him, there's no controlling the fact that you have "evil" desires. people can't help but want things that society would be shamed to see that they want. but i believe he also intended it to be active in the sense that psychology (at least the clinical aspect) is meant to uncover these things...it's meant to work through the consciousness and control it to a degree. to make the three forms live in some type of harmony. and only an active person can truly achieve this, through some type of recognition or therapy.

something like the developmental stages are probably mostly passive in that it is hard to be aware of those stages at the age when one supposedly goes through them. but personally, i think that's just one of many of freud's bogus, far-fetched theories.

the behavioral theory is perhaps the same way. it's a natural inclination for people to imitate those that they see, based on the way that they are treated or rewarded after such behavior. this is passivity. but an increased awareness of this possibility, this inclination to imitate will help a person take personal action to avoid it. the theories themselves suggest that it is passive in that they state simply that it is what happens, but the reason it is studied, i believe, is in an effort to remain active in one's own life.

cognitive development and the theoretical perspective are probably the same way, in the fact that the theories state what seems to be the nature of a person's psychology, but the goal is to use that knowledge to control it...in an active way.

if any of that makes sense. just thoughts, i suppose.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ashrayne
2005-03-01 09:50 pm (UTC)


i haven't taken any phsycology classes, my mom won't let me, but i am greatly interested in things of this nature. not, to be a bother or anything, but what does the first theory mean, exactly?
(Reply) (Thread)
From: the_only_pirate
2005-03-01 10:35 pm (UTC)

Re: explain?

freud believed there were three parts to the mind...or three types of conscious (i believe). the id represents unreasonable desires, usually associated with things we secretly want but shouldn't want. this is commonly referred to as the unconscious so when people have repressed feelings...it goes to the "id." the id wants everything here and now...it wants to indulge completely without taking into account consequences or others. the ego is the down-to-earth part. one wants to rob a store because it would be cheaper than buying something, but the ego realizes that there are consequences to robbing a store and it simply isn't logical. the super-ego is the part that decides if something should or should not be done morally. for example, the id wants to rob a store, the ego realizes that there are consquences, but the super-ego decides that robbing a store is wrong. because someone else will be hurt in that selfish act. keeping in mind this is freud, and not everyone agrees with him...those 4 stages listed in the same paragraph are the 4 stages people supposedly go through as children. if they go through each stage successfully, they will not be negatively affected by it later. for example, if the person successfully gains "pleasure" from defecating and then from withholding from defecation during the "anal" stage, they will not be excessively messy (anal repulsive) or clean (anal retentive) later in life. freud believed that being prevented from going through these stages appropriately left people with problems they would struggle to deal with throughout the rest of their lives. however, being something like anal retentive is hardly a problem worth struggling over. i think that's all. anyone else fee free to add. i didn't want to say way too much, but perhaps i already have...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ashrayne
2005-03-02 03:09 am (UTC)

Re: explain?

No, you didn’t say way too much, it was very explanatory lol. I thought I had heard of it, and I have, and plus I just looked him up in the encyclopedia n’ an old history book…but that definition really helped, thanks! I agree with his philosophy, to a certain extent. Not knowing a great amount on this subject, this is purely speculation, I have no idea if it’s true or not. If it is true that our actions are determined by subconscious drives(good or bad) or memories of when the three parts of the mind did not work together in harmony and there were resulting experiences, is that saying that the actions we perform today are a direct result of the things we experienced in the past, that have been lodged in the subconscious mind and are resurfacing in an indirect way? (not sure if that sentence made any sense, it’s kindof muddled up)
But for instance, if I had a bad childhood upbringing, and therefore was angry at a parent or some other such person, and later in my life I committed some deed that was most likely a direct result of my past situation, is that justifiable because it is a direct result of the three parts of my mind not working together in harmony as a result of the situation I was placed in?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)