We may not have able to cover any of Erikson's theory but we will shortly. However, based on the text reading, compare Jung to Erikson and decide which one makes more sense. Be sure to give supporting evidence to justify your choice.
Post response by Tuesday, March 24.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lauren Doucette
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the text, Erikson seems to make more sense to me. I understand his theory of Psychosocial Development and Identity. It discusses how preadolescent children tend to describe themselves in very concrete social and behavioral terms, when adolescents use more abstract self-descriptions that reflect personal attributes, values, beliefs, and goals. I also understand how there are fixed characteristics that we have no control over such as our gender, race, ethnic background, and socioeconomic level. Next he goes on to discuss how an adolescent begins to evaluate him/herself on several different dimensions. Erikson believes that “to successfully form an identity, adolescents not only must integrate various dimensions of their personality into a coherent whole, but they also must define the roles that they will adopt within the larger society on becoming an adult. Overall, I agree with Erikson’s theory including identity diffusion, moratorium period, and integrated identity however, within his theory he stresses that the identity evolves only in the adolescent period when I feel as though it evolves over your entire life.
Although I understand Jung’s theory I feel as though Erikson’s makes more sense. I like that her rejected Freud’s belief that human behavior is fueled by the instinctual drives of sex and aggression. He felt that people are motivated by a more general psychological energy that pushes them to achieve psychological growth, self-realization, and psychic wholeness and harmony. The part of his theory that I find a little confusing is his collective unconscious. But after reading about his whole theory the collective unconscious is the only part I find confusing, because I understand his anima and animus also his introverts and extroverts. I find it very interesting that he was the first to describe the two basic personality types. In conclusion, I feel as though both Jung and Erikson have unique theories but Eriksons’ appears to make more sense.
I can definitely connect to Erikson's theory better than Jung's, because I agree with the fact that we go through those eight stages of life and learn from those stages. The fact that Jung believes that archetypes connect humans and our ideas seems a bit bazaar to me, because we can all interpret the way we look at things totally different. For example, in class when you showed us the pictures of the different sculptures from various cultures. We all interpreted them differently, and gave different reasons for what they meant. His theory on archetypes does not seem valid enough for me to believe.
ReplyDeleteErikson's theory is one that has made the most sense to me so far during our time in Psychology class. I agree that everyone matures and develops and stages and sometimes that is why we think the way we do. These stages cause us different conflicts in our lives, and we learn from them in positive and negative ways. His identity theory is also very true since we are having values, beliefs, and ideals that guide our individual behaviors. Everyone is different and Erikson has pointed out why we think the way we do in the different stages of our lives. Once again I can connect to this theory since I have already been through plenty of stages in such a short lifetime that I have experienced. I can remember my thoughts about things when I was younger, compared to know and they have definitely matured, because of the lessons and experiences I have learned from.
While I agree with Jung in rejecting Freud's belief that human behavior is fueled by sex drives and aggression, I can relate more to Erikson's overall theory. His psychosocial stages of development all seem to make sense and I see how we mature and come up with our own personal identities from them. I don't think you can truly know who you are as a person until you're at least past your teen years. I don't like Jung's ideas about the collective unconscious because I don't think everyone has the same beliefs and feelings about the world and how it works. You never really know what other people are thinking.
ReplyDeleteWhat Jung seems to focus everything around is the idea of archetypes. Although he does focus on other things, such as the collective unconcious, he mainly focuses on what he calls archetypes or public masks. He says that everybody has somesort of archetype. The one thing I don't agree with him is the idea of the collective unconcious which has to do with everybody being connected through everything. He makes it seem like before we are born, it's like our unconcious is at school learning everything that has every happened and it's doing the same thing even when we are born.
ReplyDeleteErikson talks about his psychosocial stages of development, in which the timespans are kind of similar to Freud's stages, just with some added ones. What Erikson says seems to make more sense to me than Jung's theories. I agree with Erikson when he states that the conflicts of each of the eight stages can be resolved in a positive or negative direction.
Nathan Doucette
ReplyDeleteAfter our class discussions on Jung, I know where he's coming from and what he is trying to say, but I don't find it to be true. For example, the collective unconscious. From my personal experience I remember when a friend of mine from elementary school moved, and when I started to wonder where he went, he moved back the next year for a little while. I think that that is more of a coincidence then everyone being connected. Because if we were connected then why do those things happen so rarely. I mean in a way I guess it could be true, but it just doesn't happen enough for me to be certain. As for the anima and the animus, that too makes sense to me. Like when the guys hockey team was all jumping around singing to Taylor swift, or the girls lacrosse team and how they get all physical and angry..I guess.
And then there is Erikson who says that children usually describe themselves braudly while adults have a little more description to their personality. Then how every human being shares similar traits no matter who they are or where they are from. Along with other examples, I think that Erikson makes more sense but I can understand both Erikson and Jung.
In the book, the Jung and Erikson selections are somewhat unrelated – I’ll deal with them separately.
ReplyDeleteRieff on Jung:
"The lost God had now," in the twentieth century, to be "sought below, not above." Unfortunately, being Jewish and therefore rather fanatical in his devotion to some unifying truth, Freud sought for the lost God too single-mindedly. The "realm of darkness," out of which the new light was to come, contained much more than sexuality. It contained, in fact, a veritable old treasure-trove of symbols, discarded once as nonsense, which could be recovered for use against our insanely narrow rationalism. In Jung, psychology itself was to take on the mythic style, although rationally, for the sake of personal integration, and thus serve the saving purpose once served, less rationally, by the religious.
A religious culture operates by domination of the superego – people, united by common symbols, repress the id according to a set of moral dictates. These dictates are so ingrained in the society they need not be justified ontologically (although they usually are). To them, men submit themselves, and gain a sense of meaning and communal purpose.
Freud stresses the power of the id and claims that we need to mediate between it and the superego – the id is no longer considered an enemy to the sacred communal order, which is a casualty of modernity. Through interminable analysis, one can satisfy the id and maintain an uneasy truce with the superego.
However, Freud lacks therapeutic power because he doesn’t acknowledge any eternal truths that can stave off anomie. Jung wants to bring them back; he is a sort of conservative. However, Jung’s mysticism is not a return traditional religion, as each person can create his own personal faith from the repository of the “collective unconscious.” He suggests a process of creativity and renewal powered by this unconscious, diametrically opposed to the philosophic encrustations of Christianity. If the “Christ archetype” retains no power, stop repressing the collective unconscious under a weighty edifice! Get a new archetype.
Erikson’s stages of development rely too much on the parent for resolution. Studies have shown that identical twins reared apart are no more different behaviorally than twins reared together. The same is true for fraternal twins and plain siblings. Therefore, parent influence on development is virtually nil. (I don’t know if this has been nailed down empirically, but I’ll forge ahead anyway. Pinker assures me that the finding is quite robust.)
ReplyDeleteDevelopment is thus dictated by genes, randomness (a neuron “zigs instead of zags”) and something called the “non-shared environment.” Researchers do not know the precise nature of this environment. One hypothesis is that we form an idea of what the average stranger thinks of us, and adjust our behavior accordingly. As this idea is constructed from many data points, the effect is diffuse and difficult to detect – and not significantly influenced by parents.
Feedback loops emerge. Imagine two twins have slightly different conceptions of others’ opinions. They adjust their behavior accordingly. This, in turn, changes the strangers’ conception and drives more divergence.
Personally, this makes evolutionary sense to me. Why should one or two parents shape behavior so powerfully when they die before their child’s adulthood? They are socially outdated. And why rely so much on one or two individuals? To optimize fitness, development should be driven by many data points from the social world – thus shaping the most well-adjusted human beings possible.
Of course, its reasonable to assume traumatic childhood experiences can have great influence. And we are not perfectly well-adjusted – genetic variation and developmental randomness foil the non-shared environmental mechanism. (And maybe this mechanism is unsuited to our modern world. And maybe the mechanism varies between individuals, resulting in different outcomes...)
I agree with the book’s (Erikson’s?) statement that “As we embrace new and different roles over the course of our lives, we define ourselves in new ways.” This is reminiscent of the Flynn effect, the general increase in IQ scores over time. The upward march continued, even though nutritional deficiencies in modern countries almost disappeared. Flynn’s explanation: Our world is becoming more cognitively demanding, boosting intelligence. Those who move into a more intellectually stimulating environment, at any age, enjoy an IQ gain.
These non-developmental environmental effects could be found in other personality traits, too. Such plasticity is adaptive – being able to conform to many social settings boosts an individual’s fitness.
(This plasticity also explains why children seem to resemble their parents so much. At home, the children pick up social cues and resemble their parents temperamentally. When they move into a different environment, only genetic resemblances remain.)
After reading the text Erikson’s theory makes a lot more sense to me. He states that we are born with characteristic such as gender and race but we also start to evaluate how we act as we get older. We start to see how others act and we adapt some of their habits to complete who we are. We also do through a stage where we need to find and identity of self definition. All of these ideas make a lot more sense to me then Jung does. It’s hard to grasp that everyone and everything that has happened and will happen is connected throughout the whole world. When you look at all the stages and read threw them it seems to make a lot of sense as to the order we would go through life. Unlike Freud who said we were all set by eighteen, Erikson shows what happens in middle adulthood and late adulthood. I definitely feel that Erikson makes a lot more sense than Jung did to me.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the text and discussing Jung and Erikson in class i would have to say that I think Erikson's theory makes more sense. I don't really agree with Jung and how he believes everyone is somehow connected and we know what others are thinking. Erikson makes more sense because I agree we all go through the eight stages of life and develop into the person we become by learning through those stages.
ReplyDeleteRight from day one of this unit, I didn’t agree with Yung’s theory. I can’t see eye to eye with him that there is a collective unconscious. I agree with absolutely 0% of everything he’s saying. One supporting argument to his theory is the archetypes of society but to that I say coincidence. He believed that all of human civilization since the beginning of time was connected mentally because we all see similar archetypes in the world. He believed that we all thought the same way because of some magical connection thing we all have. I thought this guy called himself a scientist… Magic, spirits, ghosts, and mystical connections are all nonsense because it’s simply not scientific. What is scientific is the mechanics of our brains. Since the beginning of time and to this day, we all can see color and hear frequencies, feel, taste, and smell things the same. Two people can identify the color blue or hear the sound of thunder, is this mystical? No. How should an archetype be any different? I say the archetypes are all scientific and have been identified based on the consistent development of all human brains. Two people can identify the woman archetype as well as the color red simply because our brains have scientifically developed the same way from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteA theory that makes a heck of a lot more sense is Erikson’s Psychosocial Developmental Theory. He said that we developed an identity based on experiences and observations throughout our lives. Parts that cannot be controlled involve characteristics such as gender, race, ethnic background, and socioeconomic levels. These provide some input to the identity as well as how others may view that person. But the main part of identity development is integration. He believed that as we age, we evaluate ourselves in different roles upon experimenting with them and we see what we like and don’t like about what we are trying. Conflicts in choosing are caused by self-doubt and insecurity. Many different factors come in to play when choosing a side in each stage which is heavily affected by our relationships with others. In adolescence, we experiment with different roles, values, and beliefs until we find the traits that will eventually make up our integrated identity. This idea makes more sense because it is more environmental and scientific than Yung’s theory. I can buy what Erickson is saying because I feel I can relate in my own life and I think we can all see places where this theory is in action.
john tangherlini
ReplyDeletewhile reading the text im swaying more towards Erikson bec his Psychosocial stages of development makes the most sense bec we do develope as we grow and mature and develope our identities um as a teen or young adult i dont think we have our identities quite 100% yet and i dont think they ever will be but it deffinatly takes alot longer that 17-18 years to develope that. yung and his stupid collective unconscious is soo dumb i just dont get it. well maybe thats why i thinks is dumb but like how can everyone in the world be connected and know each others thought. dead alive or future i just dont understand how i have memories of people that lived 300 years ago thats like me living a second life and being alive at that time its just not possible.
-Shirley Pouliot
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the text both jung and erikson have uniques ideas but erikson's made more sence to me. His psychosocial stages make the most sence because as we grow up we develope are identities and we mature as we get older. I think that it does take more then 18 years to develope are identities because we deffinetly keep changing after 18 years old are identities and personalitys dont just stop at that age and were you are at it stays it just doesnt work that way. Jung is quite confusing to me. His idea that everyone is connected in some way and that we all can sense what eachother feels. I dont understand how i can just always think and have memories and thoughts about people that live over 100 years ago and we can be connected to these people even if we are dead. This idea is just very confusing to me. Like when you think about calling someone you havent talked to in a while and then they end up calling you. This is one of jungs theories, that we can sence what others are thinking because we are all connected. Eriksons theorie just makes alot more sence to me. He say we through are experiences and observations throughout are growing up we develope are identities, and i can agree with him because as we grow up the things around us and how we grow up and mature is how we are going to be when we get older, its what shapes us as people. We all have identities as much as they may be different. I believe that we do go through the 8 stages of life and by this we all grow up and develope to have are own identities.
I believe that Erikson's theories make more sense than Jung's. Jung has more of an abstract way of thinking about psychology that's hard for some people to grasp. I especially have trouble believing his thoughts on the collective unconcious. I don't know how all thoughts that all people have had since the beginning of time could be linked. Things were so vastly different even a few hundred years ago, nevermind thousands of years ago. I really like Erikson's theory on the other hand. It was obvious to me while studying Freud that personality traits in a human do not stop being developed when you're 18 or so. I think that this is when you do most of your personality developing. Erikson believes this too. It is also interesting that he took off time before going to college because that is what I would like to do as well. I know that it is important to learn about yourself before you go to college. Jung's ideas make less sense to me than Erikson's because I already think like Erikson does.
ReplyDelete*Julie Do*
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the text, I would have to say that I am leaning more towards Erikson's theory. I agree with Erikson that everbody has an identity that they will sooner or later discover. I think his idea on the eight stages of the identity makes sense, and that personal factors in which an idividual has no control of such as race, gender, socioeconomic status, has an effect on our identity. His theory just seem a more down to earth and normal than Jung. I mean, yes Jung does have some really good point, but the only thing that threw me off was his whole idea of the collective unconscious.
Jung's idea of the collective unconscious is extremely interesting but reallllllly out there. I don't quite understand where he got the basis to make that claim in the first place but I find it quite interesting that he believes us all to be linked on some deep unconscious level.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would have to say that Erikson's theory makes far more sense to me as a whole. His theories on identity development make a lot of sense overall, that our experiences shape a large part of our personality. The eight stages he outlines in development seem especially fitting and it could just be that as a more modern counterpart to Freud, Erikson was able to develop something that makes more sense to us in this time period than Freud's somewhat outdated theories do. Many people today would like to believe that their experiences shape who they are and that they can continue to develop and change their personalities past the young age of 18, especially as people are living much longer these days. Erikson's theories make a lot of sense.
After learning about both Erikson and Jung's theories, Erickson's theory seems a lot more believable to me. Jung's idea of the collective unconscious was hard for me to believe is possible. I really don't think that people stay connected to each other through their unconscious, and I feel it really is just coincidental.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I can understand where Erikson is coming from with his stages of childhood. I feel that I can relate to his theory, and that I myself have shaped my personality throughout my childhood, and as I continue to grow older.
Ever since hearing about jung, I have been thinking about the concept of the collective unconscious constantly. It seems everyday since that class someone will text me just as im picking up my phone to text them, or suggest the exact idea i am thinking. It is certainly a very idealist look at society, but like Freud there really isnt any way to prove or disprove it, and seems to be based on speculation. Eriksons theory is much more logical. He learned from Freuds and advanced his theory, which is a very 'science-like' thing to do. In the scientific community people are always trying to improve theories and make them more accurate. Erickson did just that, making his theory much more appealing to me.
ReplyDeleteScientifically, Erikson’s theories are more logical, and his stages of psychosocial development seem evident in humans. He accurately describes the struggles that humans face as they grow into fully-functioning adults, and the results of those struggles (the virtues). His theory appears to be proven true more easily than that of Carl Jung. Though there is no scientific evidence to support some of Jung’s theories, I am drawn to his idea of the collective unconscious, and in the context of art, religion, and mythology, his archetype theory. Jung seems to be more of a “dreamer,” which makes his conjectures more difficult to prove. Both psychologists’ theories make sense to me, but Erikson’s are more logical and tangible.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading all the text im leaning more towards Erickson’s theory. He said that we developed an identity based on experiences and observations throughout our lives. We all go through 8 stages of life. No one matures and gets their identities over night, it takes a while and that’s what Erickson is saying. Jung’s theory does not even make sense. What is a collective unconscious? Don’t ask me because I don’t understand the theory, its kind of dumb.
ReplyDeleteRichard Votta