|
*EDIT: I was told that the previous link was a bad link and required log-in, so I found a different link to the article:
http://www.jeffreyarnett.com/articles/ARNETT_Emerging_Adulthood_theory.pdf
*END EDIT*
Thesis: There is a distinct developmental period between adolescence and young adulthood, namely "emerging adulthood". (A general age range of this period is between the ages 18-25)
This is one of the few articles that I regret not having read earlier. I can totally identify with the author's notion of an "emerging adult" in myself.
Just wanted to share this article. Please post here or PM me if you have any reflective thoughts after reading this article.
 
|
Sounds like an interesting article. Unfortunately, we can't read it without a subscription.
I'm pretty skeptical of these "stages" things as a source for assessing a person's personality or whatnot - they might be useful for classifying groups of people with similar traits, but it gets very tricky when you try and use them predictively.
|
no summary? ill just assume that its talking about the trend of young adults still living with their parents and still heavily dependent on them, and how this number is higher than before, which may correlate with not only more going into higher education and thus need the financial assistance (of room and board by parents) but also the i-generation's liberal apathy and lack of motivation
|
It says you have to pay in order to read past the abstract.
|
Everyone is different. Some mature quicker than others, but I suppose that would be the general range.
|
Alright...sorry about the silly link, now it should be fixed.
|
I despise psychoanalysis in all shapes and forms. And this appears to be one -.-
Sorry, can't make myself read past the first 2 pages.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
On July 30 2008 13:14 BottleAbuser wrote:
I despise psychoanalysis in all shapes and forms. And this appears to be one -.-
Sorry, can't make myself read past the first 2 pages.
Firstly, I haven't read the whole thing yet, I'll finis the rest later. Secondly, some comments to BottleAbuser:
Developmental Psychology is rarely used predictively after a certain age, and is mostly used to identify common traits during specific stages of life. More often though, developmental psychology will focus on the reasons why these traits are common at a specific time of life. However, there is an exception here which is early developmental psychology (birth to around 15 years of age), in which biological processes (myelination for instance, or puberty) have big psychological impacts. That is why someone like Piaget (probably the most influential developmental psychologist) identifies four stages of development, the last one which goes from 11 to death, because up to then you can predict the bigger trends fairly accurately due to social and biological developments that are standard for the age. This doesn't mean it's written in stone, but it's accurate to the point of any gross deviations deserving investigation.
Secondly, this article doesn't concern psychoanalysis at all (atleast not the first few pages, and I have difficulty seeing how it will be incorporated later on). Psychoanalysis refers almost exclusively to the theories of Freud, or his psychoanalytical theory. Sometimes it's used to refer to the neo-Freudians as well (like Jung and Erikson), but their connection to psychoanalysis is very scant. Jung is an analytical psychologist, while Erikson is an psychosocial psychologist. Erikson is mentioned in the article, but as probably the second most influential developmental psychologist, that's not odd. The only reason Erikson is considered a neo-Freudian is because he takes Freud's idea of the ego (the part of the brain that mediates between what society wants, and what our animalistic side wants) and says the ego needs to mediate between socially constructed problems, for instance trust vs mistrust, where an infant needs to find the balance between trusting those that need to take care of it, and not trusting them.
So, on to the OP:
I haven't finished reading it yet, but I can agree with much of what has been said so far. The problem that I have with much of developmental psychology is that it was done in the early 70s, or even before that, and hasn't been updated yet. While, as I said, early developments are largely due to biological developments, the same can't be said for later developments which are due to environmental and social factors. A theory like this one seems to take society as it is currently and develops a new and updated stage to describe the situation of people. What I'm trying to say is that theories like Erikson's psychosocial stages of development need to be updated for the modern day, and this does that. I'll post here again once I finish reading (not now, need to do some work now).
Interesting blog.
|
I object to the whole approach of treating the mind as composed of.... entities... that were created pretty much arbitrarily. Both Jung and Erikson are called psychoanalysts for that reason, despite whatever other classification you call them. I'd say they're just as bad as Freud, they just took a (slightly) different set of arbitrary assumptions to start with.
I've never seen a serious paper justifying the assumption of an "id" and "subconscious." Occam's razor destroys psychoanalysis.
|
what do you mean by
On July 30 2008 17:37 BottleAbuser wrote:
I object to the whole approach of treating the mind as composed of.... entities... that were created pretty much arbitrarily.
|
Okay, so we have the brain, which is apparently the seat of all thought. Freud & Co. decided that it would be cool if we had the id, the ego, and the superego. Which are all subsets of what we think of as "me." Which is why we sometimes get "oh I should do this, but I don't really think I want to, why do I have conflicting thoughts?" Ah! It's because we have 3 different entities that do different things inside our minds. True, I suppose, as we have different faculties that perform different tasks, but cognition is mostly performed in the same area. Different functions != different parts of the mind.
But that wasn't enough; they decided also that we do thing "without really knowing it," which means that either we did know it and decided to forget, which is a "defense mechanism," or because we actually knew it in a part of our brain called the "unconscious." Which only means we knew it but ... didn't. Bleh. Arguing with psychoanalysis feels the same as arguing with religion.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
On July 30 2008 17:37 BottleAbuser wrote:
I object to the whole approach of treating the mind as composed of.... entities... that were created pretty much arbitrarily. Both Jung and Erikson are called psychoanalysts for that reason, despite whatever other classification you call them. I'd say they're just as bad as Freud, they just took a (slightly) different set of arbitrary assumptions to start with.
I've never seen a serious paper justifying the assumption of an "id" and "subconscious." Occam's razor destroys psychoanalysis.
Wait, what? You don't believe in the subconscious? That must be the most absurd comment ever made. All of psychology is based on the idea of the subconscious. If all our thoughts were conscious, then a person with an eating disorder could simply stop thinking she was needed to become thinner, because the simple act of not thinking you need to be thinner would be an all encompassing thought since there would be no subconscious to deny that thought.
If there is no subconscious, then people who suffer from depression are constantly and actively thinking about their depression, and necessarily have conscious reasons for being depressed, which you should know is not true. Seriously, denying the subconscious is to psychology what denying atoms exist would be to physics. Absurd.
With entities I assume you are talking about things like the subconscious, the id and the ego? eg. The mind is divided into sections arbitrarily, or entities are created in the mind that you do not believe exist? Well, as I pointed out, it is almost impossible to deny the existence of the subconscious, whether you use the Freudian definition of the subconscious or not. The same goes for the Id and the Ego, and that's perhaps where you make the mistake of classing Erikson and Jung with Freud. Both Erikson and Jung agree that there are forces at work in the human mind, and the Id and Ego are good enough words concepts, although their perception of these things are vastly different from Freuds. Erikson uses the ego as the part of the human brain that reasons and is influenced by society, and Erikson doesn't speak about the Id at all. It is not the entity created by Freud, but simply a general name for something with roughly the same purpose. Jung pretty much denies the Id, so yeah, you can't say that's the same thing either.
And Occam's razer kills psychoanalysis? That is a dreadful statement to make. Occam's razer is a statistical tool, that says the most obvious explanation is the most likely. Occam's razer does not say complicated explanations cannot exist. If we were to use Occam's razer like you do, Occam's razer would kill quantum mechanics as well, and even relativity. Occam's razer is especially useless in theoretical psychology, because we understand so little of the human mind, and there are so many layers of influence on the human mind. Denying a psychological theory because there are more simple theories available is retarded, and in any case, how does one decide what is a simple and logical theory when talking about an item as complex as the brain.
And finally, this isn't the classification I give Erikson and Jung, that is their classification.
I can understand you not agreeing with the principles of psychoanalysis as a modern therapeutic device, and I share these, but disregarding all that Freud said would be the same as disregarding all the Newton said. Everything after Freud was built on Freud, and denying him outright is just pointless. Even behaviourism and cognitive theory are built on Freud's foundations of the subconscious. How can people learn behaviours through repetition if there is no subconscious to store this learnt behaviour? Unless you are implying that everytime we do something we have learned through repetition we remember the repetition and then make a decision based on that memory... And the very basis of cognitive theory is that we have deep-seated cognitive styles that we are not aware of (subconscious) that can cause problems or disorders.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
On July 30 2008 18:09 BottleAbuser wrote:
Different functions != different parts of the mind.
The different parts aren't physical. The different parts refer to the general purpose of those thoughts. There isn't a "Id" part of the brain (although it could be argued that the cerebellum is the Id part if you want to), or an "ego" part or a "superego" part. These are simply descriptions given to general functions of the brain, not physically divided parts.
|
All right, let's start small. Simply being aware of something doesn't mean that you have control. I'm aware of my little toe, but I can't move it by will. Does that mean it's part of my sub-body? Or controlled by my subconscious?
I really don't like proposing mechanisms and so on by merely observing the input and output. Now, describing tendencies that correlate input and output make sense, but trying to put a meaning on them? Hit and miss. And when you miss, make up some sort of "mechanism" that makes your theory right after all.
This seems more like an ad hominem attack, but Jung was really into metaphysical and spiritual stuff. And seemed to incorporate such ideas into his work. I really don't see the man as a true scientist. Or his work as science. On the whole, I really see psychoanalysis as similar to alchemy.
On a more argumentative note, I see denying a subconscious to psychology as similar to denying ether to physics. Sure, it's fundamental to the traditional framework, but no, it's not necessary to explain what we see. See behavioral and cognitive psychology. That's science.
Let's also try to correlate psychoanalysis to what we know about biochemistry. How do stimulants and depressants fit in? When we can reproduce "depression caused by factor X" as diagnosed by psychoanalysis with certain drugs, what does that mean? When we have brain scans to see what the brain is doing, and it doesn't show the patterns indicating that we're scared or angry, does it really make sense that it's a "defense mechanism" that we can't remember certain details later?
Okay, I re-read your last paragraph. Seems like what you and I call an "unconscious mind" differ. Which seems to moot most of our arguments; we're not talking about the same thing. I'll concede that there definitely are aspects of our "minds" that we are not conscious of. Easy example: the part of our brain that controls our heart rate.
|
On July 30 2008 19:00 BottleAbuser wrote:
I'm aware of my little toe, but I can't move it by will.
Awww that's sad, because I can 
|
Fine, replace with your ear. Or your hair. The point still stands -.-
|
Uhm. Where's the relation between adulthood and moving your toe? I think you're going overboard, that's all ;P
|
South Africa4316 Posts
On July 30 2008 19:00 BottleAbuser wrote:
Okay, I re-read your last paragraph. Seems like what you and I call an "unconscious mind" differ. Which seems to moot most of our arguments; we're not talking about the same thing. I'll concede that there definitely are aspects of our "minds" that we are not conscious of. Easy example: the part of our brain that controls our heart rate.
So what is the subconscious then in your opinion? According to wikipedia:
"The term subconscious is defined as existing or operating in the mind beneath or beyond conscious awareness."
Which is how I used subconscious the whole time, and I fail to see how subconscious can mean anything else. Surely the only meaning of the subconscious is something that is beneath consciousness?
I'm aware of my little toe, but I can't move it by will. Does that mean it's part of my sub-body? Or controlled by my subconscious?
I have no idea what this has to do with the subconscious. If you can't move your little-toe, then it's because you don't have a muscle in your little-toe? But since your brought up this issue, what about people with conversion errors? That is, people who go blind (or have any physical disability) without a physical cause. It has been proven that these people firstly do not lie about their blindness, and secondly that their blindness is not under their control, but that their blindness is psychological. How do you explain that without a subconscious?
I really don't like proposing mechanisms and so on by merely observing the input and output. Now, describing tendencies that correlate input and output make sense, but trying to put a meaning on them? Hit and miss. And when you miss, make up some sort of "mechanism" that makes your theory right after all.
I've got no idea what you mean here, or what it has to do with what we are discussing.
This seems more like an ad hominem attack, but Jung was really into metaphysical and spiritual stuff. And seemed to incorporate such ideas into his work. I really don't see the man as a true scientist. Or his work as science. On the whole, I really see psychoanalysis as similar to alchemy.
Yes, that is an ad hominem attack. You cannot disregard Jung's psychological theories because of his interest in spiritualism. His theory on the collective subconcious, while circumspect, was the first theory to truly incorporate environmental and social factors in psychology. Before him psychology focused on the individual in isolation most of the time.
On a more argumentative note, I see denying a subconscious to psychology as similar to denying ether to physics. Sure, it's fundamental to the traditional framework, but no, it's not necessary to explain what we see. See behavioral and cognitive psychology. That's science.
Both behavioural and cognitive psychology require the subconscious to make any sense. As I've said, I agree with you that psychoanalysis should not be used in therapy anymore. The theory is outdated, and based on suspicions, and no test has been able to deliver clear results. However, that doesn't mean that you can discard all of psychoanalysis, especially since all of psychology is built on the back of psychoanalysis. There is a reason why Freud is called the father of psychology, and it is not because psychoanalysis is the main therapeutic style.
Let's also try to correlate psychoanalysis to what we know about biochemistry. How do stimulants and depressants fit in? When we can reproduce "depression caused by factor X" as diagnosed by psychoanalysis with certain drugs, what does that mean? When we have brain scans to see what the brain is doing, and it doesn't show the patterns indicating that we're scared or angry, does it really make sense that it's a "defense mechanism" that we can't remember certain details later?
As I've said, psychoanalysis isn't, in my opinion, a viable therapeutic device anymore. However, to talk about what you mention here, the best anti-depressants have a success rate of just over 60%, and a 90% relapse rate. Now, major depressive episodes are in themselves temporary, lasting between two weeks and nine months, so "curing" an episode has long since not been the major aim of psychology. The aim is to present relapse. CBT has proven much more effective at this than drugs have, and even IPT has shown better success rates than drugs, although it's slightly slower than CBT. Thus, and I'm sure you know this, depression, as with most disorders (barring some very distinct disorders like autism) is caused by integrated factors, not just neurological factors, such as lowered serotonin rates. Few modern psychologists believe that any one psychological theory (and emphasis needs to remain on theory) has the explanation for the human psyche, but that it's rather an integration of many theories.
Furthermore, Freud's defense mechanisms have receieve a lot of research, and they are one of the few parts of psychoanalysis that do have scientific backing. Repression for instance, is the major "cause" (although it's not really a cause, the traumatic experience would be the cause) of disassociative identity disorder. So, like you say, much of what psychoanalysis was based on haven't been proven yet, and I doubt will ever be proven. However, there is a lot of truth to psychoanalysis which has set the tone for modern psychology.
Finally, you should know that even though behaviourism and cognitive therapy are commonly used, they are still not conclusive psychological theories. While many disorders, especially depression based disorders, can be helped by CBT, there are many other disorders that do not respond to CBT treatments, or respond more effectively to other treatments such as social skills training, or the aforementioned inter-personal training. Modern psychology has, in something I really enjoy, moved away from reductionist theories that cover the whole mind, to more scientific practices. No longer does the psychologist need to believe in one school of thought, and apply it to all disorders, but we have found that multiple disorders have different treatments that work for them. No longer are psychologists looking for theories that cover all of psychology, but they are looking for specialised treatments for each disorder, regardless of which school they are from. This is what science is about.
|
Okay, I give up on the unconscious bit. I was thinking of Freud's idea of this unknowable black box that can be pointed to for explaining everything - not as the parts of our brain that we have no "conscious awareness" of (quotation marks because... well, to be honest, I don't know the exact meaning of the term, or what causes it, or how to characterize it).
I'm not touting behavioral or cognitive theories as complete. I just much prefer their methodologies - actual data collection and falsifiable hypotheses. Actually, I guess that's the key - falsifiability, which psychoanalysis lacks.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
i see emerging adulthood every time i pull back my foreskin
hows that for serious intellectual discussion
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
