Development through the eyes of theorists

 

 

 

The concept of development can be seen from many angles—socially, morally, cognitively, and so on. In this assignment, you will look at development through the eyes of one of the theorists listed below.

 

Choose 1 of the following theorists and then answer the questions:

Theorists:
Sigmund Freud: Psychosexual stages
Erik Erikson: Psychosocial stages
Jean Piaget: Cognitive stages
Lawrence Kohlberg: Moral development
In your own words, give a brief summary of each of the stages in that theorist’s stages of development.
Discuss 1 of your theorist’s stages of development, and relate it back to a family member, friend, or yourself. For example, if you chose Piaget’s cognitive stages of development, you could discuss the sensorimotor stage as it relates to your 1-year-old child, niece or nephew, or grandchild.
Research and discuss one criticism of the theory of development you chose. Provide your reaction to that criticism.
If you were having dinner with the theorist whose stages of development you selected, what is 1 question you would ask him about his stages of development?

 

 

 

 

Sample Solution

Development through the eyes of theorists

Piaget`s stages of development are part of a theory about the phases of normal intellectual development, from infancy through adulthood. This includes thought, judgment, and knowledge. The stages were named after psychologist and developmental biologist Jean Piaget, who recorded the intellectual development and abilities of infants, children, and teens. Piaget`s four stages of intellectual (or cognitive) development are: 1. Sensorimotor-birth through ages 18-24 months. 2. Preoperational-toddlerhood (18-24 months) through early childhood (age 7). 3. Concrete operational-ages 7 to 11. 4. Formal operational-adolescence through adulthood. Piaget acknowledged that some children may pass through the stages at different ages than the averages noted above. He also said some children may show characteristics of more than one stage at a given time.

 

 

 

Synopsis

President’s Obama’s Iran understanding, with dealings composed by Russia, China, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, is a dubious one since it would enable Iran to keep up its atomic innovation, proceed with its human rights manhandles, support fear mongering, detain American prisoners, and stay a danger to American partners. Yet, the US states have the ability to confine such dangers. Sought after as an official understanding and not as a settlement, the arrangement stayed away from the Congress. With this, states can go to their very own choices in regards to Iran. Around 25 states have instituted Iran endorses through the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010. Be that as it may, the government authority vowed to discourage the states to drop their assents. Pundits accept that the states ought to try and reinforce their Iran sanctions. The states have all the good, reputational and prudential motivations to not concur with the speculations of open advantages for organizations associated with Iran and psychological warfare. Also, there are more. To start with, Iran has an awful human rights record, abusing ladies and mistreating individuals of most religions. Second, Iran is a staunch supporter of fear based oppression, bankrolling psychological oppressors, giving weapons and shielding them. Third, Iran still holds American prisoners. Lastly, the system that still controls the nation proceeds the “death to America” and Israeli demolition talk. There are likewise hazards associated with putting resources into states (particularly with annuity reserves) that support psychological oppression. Such speculation is as of now stacked against any state arrangement of contributing open assets. The dangers associated with putting resources into a nation like Iran should convey the conspicuous sign that such try isn’t reasonable. With every one of these reasons, all states ought to carefully and forcefully uphold their current authorizations with Iran. It might be considered “impedance” for Obama, however it is the correct activity.

Talk

This recent development is a case of federalism since it pits both the bureaucratic and state governments into settling on a significant choice that will completely influence worldwide security as well as residential security. The way that the government picked to utilize official activity to authorize the arrangement and not experience the rigors of the Constitutional procedure shows the basic strength of the national government. Nonetheless, with the states having the ability to authorize Iran through a 2010 Act, that government control is being tested.

The national government, I accept, has the greater duty on the grounds that the arrangement, as introduced by pundits, has such huge numbers of results. Iran being a hotbed for issues both with fear based oppression and human rights mishandles isn’t deserving of a speculation utilizing open assets. I comprehend the situation of the states here being enabled too to endorse Iran and shield open speculation standards.

At the present time, the Iran issue is being bantered on the two sides however I think the course is going in the support of the government. Despite the fact that it might be not kidding with respect to gambling household and worldwide security as well as open cash, I don’t accept the government doesn’t know about such outcomes. Be that as it may, with half of the states having authorized Iran endorses, the issue will take long to be settled, possibly until the following organization. It is political race season. The two gatherings are occupied with quarreling.

Despite the fact that there is no distinction between how power is adjusted according to Tenth Amendment, for example states additionally enabled to authorize Iran as a reaction to the official activity, the manner in which the central government utilized its Constitutional forces to forego Constitutional procedures, for example dodge Congress for endorsement, is especially political. The government anticipates that Republicans should not endorse of the arrangement on the off chance that it was made as a bargain, so to guarantee a swifter order, an official activity was utilized.

Work Cited (Article Source)

Inhofe, James and Scott Pruitt. “Let States Do the Job Obama Won’t: Sanction Iran”. The

Money Street Journal Online, 30 Aug 2015. Web, 14 Sept 2015.

<http://www.wsj.com/articles/let-states-carry out the-responsibility obama-wont-authorize iran-

1440975261>

 

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.