Psychological Evolutionary Theory

TruthSeeker

TruthSeeker

Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey
Valued Senior Member
Well... I can probably write a whole book about it... but I'll summarize it...

I'll post it into pieces, so that it's not so long...

Summarizing...

Stages of Life
  1. Unawareness (0-3)
  2. Self-Centralism (3)
  3. Experimentation (3-4)
  4. Judgement (4- )
  5. Perspective Formation (5- )
  6. Web of Beliefs (6- )
    [/list=1]

    Psychological Reajustment

    1. Becoming Aware
    2. Breaking Beliefs
    3. Breaking Habits
    4. Discovering the Truth
      [/list=1]



    1. There will probably have a conclusion too...
      My ideas might evolute from now... I might link things into one, or incorporating something else...

      Comments and suggestions are welcomed... :)

      Enjoy... :)
 
Hmmm....

Personally don't like "Unawareness". I think infants are very aware, just not in the sense most people think they are.

Self-Centralism seems to be true.

Experimentation happens across all points of life, heavily at birth.

The word "Truth" is a dirty word to me. I place truth on a relative scale rather than an absolute.

What you have is very interesting. You might want to look at Piaget's model of development, which parallels yours in some aspects. His is also discontinuous.

Makes me think what kind of developomental outling I'd make. Mine would firstly be continuous in nature. I'll have to think some more...

-Xenu
 
Yea, that was the 2000th post in the Human Science forum. Let's get this machine rolling.
 
Xenu,

Personally don't like "Unawareness". I think infants are very aware, just not in the sense most people think they are.
Click to expand...
Not before the age of 3...

Experimentation happens across all points of life, heavily at birth.
Click to expand...

Heavily at 3 years old. People that study children know that...
and mothers... :)

The word "Truth" is a dirty word to me. I place truth on a relative scale rather than an absolute.
Click to expand...

We will get to this later.... when talking about perspective and non-judgment...

I will explain them all...

It's too late for that
I'll to go to bed...
 
Umm, why in the fuck is this not in pseudoscience? :rolleyes:

Not before the age of 3...
Click to expand...

You're in science now, Nelson, not religion, not pseudo, so you know what you need?

EVIDENCE!!

Heavily at 3 years old. People that study children know that...
and mothers...
Click to expand...

EVIDENCE!!

We will get to this later.... when talking about perspective and non-judgment..
Click to expand...

How about we talk about legitimate science, instead of mysticism for once, mmkay Nelson?
 
Not before the age of 3...
Click to expand...

There was an experiment done with Object permanence to try to "fine tune" the Piagetian model. Piaget claimed object permanence happened at 9 months, well this study claimed it to be as early as 3.5 months (possibly earlier, this is just what they tested). In object permanence, an infant has to be aware of an object; if hidden from sight the infant know the object is still there. Without object permanence the child gets the "out of sight, out of mind" state of being. If object permanence isn't awareness, then I don't know what is.

Here's reference to the study...

Baillergon (1987). Object Permanence in 3.5 and 4.5 month old infants. Developmental Psychology, 23, 655-664.

Many people take a self-centered approach (not directing this at you TruthSeeker) to awareness. They correlate awareness with language. "If the infant can't talk to me, it must not be aware of its environment."

Maybe, the awareness you are talking about is "Self-Awareness". You'd have more people backing you up there. But even then I'd try to make a case against it.

-Xenu
 
Heavily at 3 years old. People that study children know that... and mothers...
Click to expand...

Yes mothers know that at this age are heavily experimenting with their language. The little brats are getting into everything. Mothers (and Experimenters?) fail to realize that, when children are infants, when they flail their limbs around, when they "gaa gaa" and "cooo", they aren't just being cute.

The limb flailing is the child trying to work their limbs. That's why it's a back and forth motion. It's like first trying to thread a needle, or how a torpedo operates. Overshoot, and correct. They're experimenting with those suckers.

When a baby makes those funny noises, they're experimenting with the phonological sounds they need to aquire the language that they are hearing around them. They're experimenting with their vocal cords.

If infants had the physical capabilities to trash the house, I'm sure they would do this to.

-Xenu
 
How about we talk about legitimate science, instead of mysticism for once, mmkay Nelson?
Click to expand...

Xev, I understand where you come from, but Nelson hasn't had enough chance to explain/defend himself yet. Even if he doesn't have enough evidence right now, maybe we can help hammer and revise his theory so that it is more "scientifically acceptable".

Speaking of pseudo-science. I'd probably have to call most of psychology a "pseudo-science", just because most psychological experiments are what is called "pseudo-experiments". These are experiment without a truly randomized sample. Does this mean that they aren't evidence, no. Even when you have "true" experiments, they should be taken as a grain of salt and not be made dogma.
 
Nelson:
There are lots if you are a mother...
Click to expand...

Are you?

I hope not. Last I checked, males could not bear children.

So we'll need somthing better than this. Such as citations from child development texts, or Xenu noted Piaget, or scientific papers.....

You want a scientific theory, you adhere to the rules of science.

Xenu:
Xev, I understand where you come from, but Nelson hasn't had enough chance to explain/defend himself yet. Even if he doesn't have enough evidence right now, maybe we can help hammer and revise his theory so that it is more "scientifically acceptable".
Click to expand...

You're right Xenu. I'm just a twee bit over-sensitive to Nelson's antics.

Let's se what we can do.

Speaking of pseudo-science. I'd probably have to call most of psychology a "pseudo-science", just because most psychological experiments are what is called "pseudo-experiments". These are experiment without a truly randomized sample. Does this mean that they aren't evidence, no. Even when you have "true" experiments, they should be taken as a grain of salt and not be made dogma.
Click to expand...

AYE! Or they have no control group, or they have a ridiculously small sample, or are not double blind....or.....

Glad somone else agrees.
 
Xeny,

Even when you have "true" experiments, they should be taken as a grain of salt and not be made dogma.
Click to expand...

Good... :)


Xev,

Let's not discuss my knowledge about children, please... :D:eek:
 
Sure, Nelson, you seem inexperienced enough in dealing with the little monsters.

Unfortunatly, I make such my occupation.

So, like, you know, evidence.....?
 
If you want to talk children, then come on up. I have a 15 year old son, who's very aware. I worked for three years at a day care centre (must say these very young children are fully aware in what mood you are, for they are especially difficult to handle when you have a bad day, for instance) and I teached dancing classes at a lot of 10 - 17 year old "children". Believe me, it is an experience on its own to work with, most, girls that age who just start to explore their bodies and are giggling one moment and when you turn around they are upset about the slightest thing, happened to them. Like a remark from one of the others.

Do I need proof for this? Don't think so. It is common fact, as in psychological fact that young people, both male and female, go through this progress. Whether they have all the answers to call it truth is a different case. They sure have the ability and enthousiasm to find their truth, through life.

Self Centralism is a high good in these years.
Judgement, over others, is another.
Through experimentation they come to their main beliefs, if not already formed by their parents for a big part. Which has to be placed in perspective in the teen years and combined or changed with the own beliefs, which form over the years, through life experiences with other people and so on...

As people grow older, you may suspect they get wiser and less self centered. This does not always work out so good and than people find themselves back bumping against the same brick walls all the time. That's the result if you refuse to look at others with understanding and respect for their beliefs and looking at the "world".

It's all so simple when people just learn in time that there is more in life to worry about than just your simple self.

So, let's go from here and give me your replies. Then I will broaden it out for you. In case it is to difficult to comprehend without a website to proof...
 
Cut the crap!

Xenu,
Mothers (and Experimenters?) fail to realize that, when children are infants, when they flail their limbs around, when they "gaa gaa" and "cooo", they aren't just being cute.
Click to expand...
Mothers maybe, but I do not know any psychologist who makes that mistake. ... and I know quite a few psychologists.

And what is this thing whith double blind experimentation?
In psychology there are not many studies compararble to clinical studies on the effects of medicines!
Have you ever heard of a double blind experiment at CERN?
The format of the experiment has to fit the object of study.
True,in socuial psychology there is a problem with randomisation of questionaires. Usually it isn't done. But there is a reason for that, and I know you can figure out what it is by yourself. :)

What sets pseudoscience and science apart is not the type of experimentation, but therebeing experimentation at all. Pseudoscience is built on pre-scientific knowledge (ie guesswork, intuition and the like).

Do I need proof for this? Don't think so.
Click to expand...
Banshee, I am really happy for you that you have a wonderful child, and that you have had the privilage to work at a day care centre and with "bakvissen" (that's Dutch for a type of teen-age girls). However, you will need proof of it all. otherwise I request you to GO BACK TO PSEUDOSCIENSE!!!! this is supposed to be a section on human sciences. Not human gut-feeling.
Don't you understand the difference?

If you want to do some speculation, that is finne, but then you have to present it like speculation and suggest a way to test it all! Have you no idea of why sciences are the way they are?
And if you don't like the ways of science, let go of your car, cd-player, tv set, computer, telephone, bike, rain-coat, toilet and drain, musical instrument .... without sound experimentation we would still be using rocks and sticks to survive!

However, it started with a summary of Truthseekers work. (looks more like an index page, I must say).
Being a scientist, I must always give others a chance. So,...
let's have it!

merlijn
 
Merlijn...

So for every sentence written down here, there has to be a website? Man, get real!

Do you know how much garbage websites there are floating on the internet?

I speak out of experience, I think that is just as important as your everlasting websites. You really think it is all that bliss working with people, young or older?

Yes! I know very well the world of science, I am not world strange!

Who are you to tell me where I can and can not post anyway...?
 
Xenu,

I'll write something about it soon... after some people stop criticizing me for nothing... and after the Provincial Exams...

PS: the first link is more phisiological... here is more psychological... ;)
 
PS: the first link is more phisiological... here is more psychological...
Click to expand...

When you take a discontinuous (concrete stages that follow one another in a specific order) development theory stance, which you have, you are automatically inferring physiological causes. Does this make sense?

For example, your theory above says that, everyone, regardless of culture, will follow through these stages, maybe roughly and in their own ways, and at slightly different times, but they will experience these stages in some form or another. This infers physiology at work. If this is not your stance than please say otherwise, because this is what it is currently inferring to me.

The first link is Piaget, who also takes a discontinuous stance and parallells your theory (his centration is like your self-centralism, your experimentation is like his sensory-motor, etc.). This is why I posted it.

I've also posted Vygotsky who takes an opposite, continuous stance. His theory revolves around social learning rather than physiology.

-Xenu
 
Mine is completly sociological and experimental. It focus not only the environment the child is risen in, but also the inner aspects of the development.
 
Mine is completly sociological and experimental. It focus not only the environment the child is risen in, but also the inner aspects of the development.

Will your theory be based on scientific evidence, hours of research, painstaking detailed experimentation...

...or will it be similar to your other theories, based on a dream you had last night ? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top