Who Do You Want To Be

1. Discuss who you want to be 5, 10, and 20 years from now (discuss each of these individually). In this section, you should also address each of the following questions:
a. WHO do you want to be?
b. What kind of person do you want to be?
c. How do you want others to think of you?
2. Discuss what you are doing in your life (now/currently) that will help you to accomplish these goals. Also discuss how these current thoughts and behaviors will help you to reach your goals. I want to see the connection between what you are currently doing and how that can clearly help you in attaining your goals in becoming the person you want to be in the future.
3. Come up with a plan of what you can do in the near and distant future to become your ideal person.
a. What are some concrete things you can do now to help you accomplish your goals? (Don’t list abstract things, like thinking about xyz more or being more hopeful or optimistic. While these are good starts, I want to see more observable actions.)
b. What steps can you take to become who you want to be?
c. How can you make sure that you continue to grow as a human being?
4. Incorporate at least one theory or concept (must be something from the Bjorklund textbook that we covered in this class, this semester) into your paper.
a. Briefly explain what the theory/concept is.
b. Explain how this theory/concept supports your plan of action or how it will help you achieve your goals.

Sample Answer


The key parts of my advancing comprehension of adolescence can be isolated by thoughts of the organization, capacity, characteristics of kids. Going into the semester my thoughts regarding youth and kids were to a great extent educated by artistic and social standards I had been presented to, just as my very own encounters with youthful family members. The prevalent view that youngsters are naturally blameless and helpless unquestionably has affected how I see and communicate with kids, however is presently tempered in my psyche by a comprehension of how this conceptualisation has been developed in my childhood, training, class, race, and age.

In my underlying explanation composed right off the bat in the semester, I recorded my comprehension of youth similar to the time from birth to late youthfulness during which an individual creates under the direction and assurance of guardians or gatekeepers. I proceeded by expressing that youngsters ought not worry about the concerns or obligations of grown-ups, however should feel like esteemed individuals from a family and network, and in this setting gain fundamental abilities and build up their characters. I presumed that kids are on a very basic level powerless because of their naiveté and honesty, and in a perfect world ought to be cared for yet in addition have the opportunity to investigate, envision and make however they see fit. My portrayals of youth were very regulating, maybe even preservationist; as a period of guiltlessness, play, learning, advancement, and delicate commitment with their general surroundings; inferring that misuse, disregard, and the burden of grown-up duty or persecution are unnatural. I expressed "Youth ought to resemble a walled nursery – youngsters ought to be allowed to meander, investigate, create and connect with their general surroundings, yet inside the assurance of a family or network that can guide and shield them when vital. A mix of opportunity to act naturally, have their thoughts and perspectives heard, tempered with grown-up information and shrewdness." My convictions were to a great extent educated by material I had perused and my very own understanding of youth, and ensuing recollections of it.

Being presented to different hypotheses, especially post-current and constructivist ones, lead me to re-break down these presumptions through new focal points. While a portion of the thoughts brought up in this course have impacted and even changed my underlying previously established inclinations of youth, there are others which have not completely joined into my developing perspectives. The idea I have thought about the most has been that of organization, because of both the possibility of obligation that goes with it and the weakness that regardless I accept must be ensured in youngsters and youth. I do anyway accept that kids are engaged with building their very own youth, and frequently submit general direction to guardians regarding how they should act and feel about their lives; "For… adolescence has been essentially a social development and a site of passionate projection by grown-ups." (Brown, 2002) If youngsters are agenic creatures, would it be a good idea for them to then be considered liable for every one of their activities? Nations vary in their treatment of youngster crooks, however even inside nations there are logical inconsistencies in the measure of organization kids and minors are managed; "When does a kid quit being a kid? It positively shifts here and there. Indeed, even in the UK we negate ourselves. A kid may not cast a ballot; you are just mature enough to cast a ballot at 18. Yet, you can wed at 16, and be attempted and detained… before you are a young person." (Penn, 2008) However there is a general agreement that kids can't be held to indistinguishable gauges of conduct from grown-up residents. In the instances of kid officers and youngster whores I would contend that their lives just can't be treated as openly and energetically picked, and they should be viewed as casualties of a framework, bombed by the grown-up world. Be that as it may, what amount of office can truly be recommended to grown-ups with comparative destinies? Compulsion of work is not really constrained to kids, and on account of prostitution, induction, and sweat shop work, it can't be portrayed as a free decision when it is in certainty done under the full weight of monetary urgency.

Many, if not generally, later and current hypotheses in regards to youth are gotten from a constructionist point of view, "to be specific a view got from post-structuralists including Barthes, Foucault, and Lacan that human subjects are socially built and truly factor, and that there is no basic human instinct outside society and the intercession of language." (Brown, 2002) While a few parts of constructivism are clear and recognizable, for example, the specific time, spot, and setting of an individual's childhood, despite everything I accept that an individual's most punctual years have a fundamental nature that rises above the surroundings they are naturally introduced to. The arrangement of kids into classifications is a reasonable development be that as it may, and one that impacts grown-ups as much as their posterity. At the point when kids are situated as blameless, obligation and culpability for their conduct and improvement is put onto their folks, watchmen and instructors. Anyway when the youngster is situated as freak or malevolence, pressure is as yet set on the grown-ups around them control and shorten their "awful" conduct. Hence good gauges for youngsters definitely wind up policing the grown-ups in their lives as much as the kids themselves.

The post-present day hypothesis that the present development of kids is a Western, industrialist creation is engaging from various perspectives, particularly when one takes a gander at how this age section is built and popularized by promoting, training frameworks, the media and more extensive society. Dark colored expresses that while legitimate changes helped the predicament of youngsters working in mechanical industrial facilities, simultaneously "free enterprise found in white collar class kids and their folks an instant shopper class. A prospering industry of youngsters' toys, books, magazines, melodies, garments, and guidance manuals for guardians helped showcase the kid as an image of progress and what's to come." (Brown, 2002) This is more clear than any time in recent memory, and keeping in mind that maybe not effectively to the disservice of kids, it unquestionably adds nothing basic to the lives of them or their folks.

Another inquiry to ponder is the job of grown-ups in the lives of youngsters. Seeing someone of educator and understudy, parent and youngster, there is an accepted predominance of the grown-up, which positions the kid as substandard. There are numerous other such polarities in the grown-up youngster relationship, for example, division among insensible and instructed, enthusiastic and sound, youthful and develop, wild and socialized, even inconsiderate and amenable. Kids are situated as an issue to be managed, an unreasonable power to be prevailed upon, a susceptible individual to be shaped. With all these expansive, and maybe out of line, speculations stacked against them, the issue of kids' own voice gets significant, and indispensable, to framing a genuine comprehension of them.

Rousseau's dispute that a provincial domain is the best spot for youngsters to be in their developmental years has been profoundly persuasive in Western culture, and all alone qualities. In my initial reaction to the inquiries presented toward the start of semester I composed that I accepted kids required both security from the brutality of more extensive society and the opportunity to wander and develop in whatever way they like, and this normally lines up with Rousseau's speculations in regards to adolescence. I accept that people as a rule have a profound and crucial need to invest energy in green spaces and have an association with the common world, and I would contend this is especially fundamental for kids, and can go about as a physical prologue to the planet. Expelled from this current, youngsters' central commitment with the characteristic world is through screens and their advancement, as I would like to think, is prevented by this estrangement. Anyway the sentimentalism and optimism of his position is unreasonable and unfeasible. A nostalgic picture of youth is at last unhelpful and off base in finding out and giving youngsters what they really need, which may vary for every individual kid.

In any case, despite everything I accept there is merit in the thoughts laid out by Rousseau for two reasons. Right off the bat, I accept that in the hour of fast development and revelation that imprints adolescence, it is best that they can encounter the world in a protected and animating condition. Jones expresses that "Nation childhoods are seen intensely as far as a blend of honesty, ferocity, play, experience, the friendship of other kids, contact with nature, horticultural spaces and practices, strength, spatial opportunity and opportunity from grown-up reconnaissance." (Powell, Taylor and Smith, 2013) This untainted impression of it is without a doubt

to some degree romanticized, and applies more to small kids than to youths, who are bound to express fatigue and dissatisfaction with life in the nation; "Rustic people group are viewed as being preferred spots for youngsters over youngsters." (Brown, 2002)

Eventually I keep up my underlying position that kids are "turning out to be" creatures. This ought not prompt them being treated as bumbling, senseless or silly, or denied their individual rights, yet ought to rather shield them from the full weight of the grown-up world while they are getting the hang of, creating, and turning out to be. The idea of turning out to be gets muddied as they enter pre-adulthood, in any case, and it is this phase in their advancement that requires further examination and investigation, and which maybe ought to be contemplated as both identified with and unmistakable from early youth.