Life-Span class is shortening mine.

[Peeps Mcarthur]

I'm just whinning........certainly to a group of intellectuals that can somehow utilize this contradictory load of crap.

I'm certain this will be the only useless part of school, but I just can't get "up" for this.

I've been staring at it since early this morning. I can't see any content when I read it. It's like one of those pictures that you're supposed to look at and kind of let your eyes go out of focus and out pops a spaceship or some other such image that's not apparent by just looking at it. It's as if it's just someone talking about how thier day went or making casual conversation. When it does try to make a point, it only speculates, never settling on one thing, but presenting a range of possibilities.......all possibilities.

So they can never be wrong.....................how convienient.

I'm supposed to be writting a bibliography. I have to read and summarize ten papers.

I have to summarize speculation................beautiful.

Morons.

[live4today, RN]

Originally posted by Peeps Mcarthur

But you must answer how you came up with a theory don't you?

You can't have a "theory" without an "hypothesis" that is not yet disproven

That's how science works.

That's why psychology seems made-up to me. Why should I believe Erikson? How did he establish his theory?

Seems irresponsible to just believe without proof.

Future Nurse Peeps...maybe.......here is a link to Erik's bio online so you and others can research more about him "online"...if you desire to. :)

facultyweb.cortland.edu/~andersmed/erik/bio.html

I decided to do a little online research this afternoon just so I could post a site where those who desire to read specifics about Erikson could do so. There are other materials online about him...and others...at that site, but Erikson is the only one I agree with. :)

If I made up the theory, yes I would personally prove how I came up with it, but since I did not make Erikson's theories, it would be up to him to prove how he came up with it and the whys. You can read about some of that at his site I posted above.

I believe his theory to be true based on applications I have made of his Stages of Development theory on the many patients I have personally cared for, as well as those I have met in real life...my kids for one...friends...other family members...even myself.

Erikson's theories have NOT to my knowledge ever been DISPROVEN unless you are aware that they have????

As for why should you believe Erikson? You don't have to any more than anyone else who questions his theory UNTIL you put his theory to a test yourself....then you can say...it works, it doesn't work, etc. Have you tried applying Erikson's eight stages of development with children through adults that you personally know?

Now, nursing students do not have to like or believe in Erikson's

theories...or any other psychologists theories if they choose NOT to...however...if you want to become a nurse, and the course is a required part of the curriculum...what choice do you have but to get through the Life Span class??? It's either take the course...or forget about becoming a nurse. Even if you find a college that does NOT require the Life Span course to become a nurse, I guarantee you that you will learn about Erikson, Freud, Piaget, Maslow, and others somewhere in the context of one of your actual nursing textbooks. These guys are mentioned in the Med/Surg textbooks for nursing students, so it would behoove you to apply yourself for the sake of reaching your goal to become a nurse. As a RN who previously instructed students...this is what I advise and encourage you to do. :)

[Peeps Mcarthur]

I most definitely have to do it.

That is the only reason I ponder the great truths.

Eriksons "theories" cannot be disproven.

That's what makes them invalid from sciences point of view.

There is no way we can find out what a baby is thinking without a Vulcan Mind-Meld.

Of course I can say that you have a commitment issue because of a "trust vs mistrust" unresolved crises when you were a baby.

How could that be disproven? In other words,how can it be TESTED.

It cannot. "trust vs mistrust" cannot be validated by faith in science, it must be tested by sound scientific method.

ALL VALID THEORIES ARE TESTABLE.

This one is not and that makes it incomplete and needing to start back at a TESTABLE hypothesis.

If you believe in Erikson's ideas then you must believe by faith at least in the case of "trust vs mistrust"..........right?

I'm not saying that all of it is invalid but I am saying that "trust vs mistrust" is absolutely invalid because it cannot be tested.

I always question information before it's accepted.

I would do that with a vital sign, a doctors order, a medication and I would certainly do it for a way I'm being taught to think about what my patient might be thinking. That is a fair statement of disagreement.

So.......must it be by faith then?

I present to you that it cannot be learned because faith cannot be learned.

[live4today, RN]

originally posted by peeps mcarthur.............."i most definitely have to do it...........that is the only reason i ponder the great truths..................eriksons "theories" cannot be disproven. that's what makes them invalid from sciences point of view. there is no way we can find out what a baby is thinking without a vulcan mind-meld......................of course i can say that you have a commitment issue because of a "trust vs mistrust" unresolved crises when you were a baby. how could that be disproven?"

cheerfuldoer responds: peeps...i agree with all of the above.

however...the remainder of your post affects me in the following ways

peeps says: "in other words,how can it be tested.

it cannot. "trust vs mistrust" cannot be validated by faith in science, it must be tested by sound scientific method............all valid theories are testable.............this one is not and that makes it incomplete and needing to start back at a testable hypothesis."

cheerfuldoer responds: "trust vs. mistrust" is proven through the many people studied by erikson over the life span of his career as a follower...but not firm believer in freud...he was known as freud's superego...

if today i were part of erikson's study...i would be one example of the proof scientists seek in order to validate erikson's theories.

you nor i can prove electricity exists because we can't see electricity...now can we??? yet...we flick on that lightswitch, turn on our radios and stereos, use our microwaves and computers at the flick of a switch....and so forth. hmmmmmmm...wonder where that juice is coming from since we can't see it???

peeps says: "if you believe in erikson's ideas then you must believe by faith at least in the case of "trust vs mistrust"..........right?

i'm not saying that all of it is invalid but i am saying that "trust vs mistrust" is absolutely invalid because it cannot be tested."

renee replies: it is not by faith that i believe in erikson's theories....my belief comes from having tried and so proven his 8 stages of human development. i, myself, am living proof of his theory because it works for me in whatever area i have used it in...at home with my family members, friends, acquaintances, pediatrics, adult inpatient units, and so forth....therefore...proven...imh&professionalo!

peeps stated: "i always question information before it's accepted. i would do that with a vital sign, a doctors order, a medication and i would certainly do it for a way i'm being taught to think about what my patient might be thinking. that is a fair statement of disagreement.............so.......must it be by faith then?"

renee replies: as well you should question an order you don't understand, and/or professionally believe to be harmful to a patient if carried out. bravo on that truism! however...carrying out orders given by man should not be done by faith, or it could cost you your future nursing license...and we have too great a nursing shortage, so we wouldn't want that to happen now would we. :chuckle any orders you carry out when carrying for patients had better be done on nothing short of accurate knowledge learned as a nurse...not by faith either!

peeps final response:..."i present to you that it cannot be learned because faith cannot be learned."

renee's final reply:

i agree with you that faith cannot be learned. it is of my personal spiritual belief that faith comes by hearing............hearing through the word of god! faith is not and cannot be manmade....faith can only come from a profound trust placed in someone who would never fail us...and no man can make that promise...nor should he/she be made to....because human beings are sinners and too fallible as fleshly carnates to not cower in the midst of fear...thereby...caving in at times...even if for a tiny wee bit...with the "faith" we may have hoped we could count on from those we trusted to care for us. i don't know about you....but my faith never fails because i only place my faith in the living god...whom...i...without a shadow of a doubt...and scientific evidence is not needed in my belief system...it just is what it is because god said it...i believe and have complete faith in it...and that settles it for me. :kiss :)

[live4today, RN]

p.s....why do brown or black cows eat green grass but produce white milk, peeps??? are you a milk lover? why drink that white milk that came from a black or brown cow if scientifically it hasn't been proven as to why the milk comes out white??? oh.......another unproven theory would be: why do moms of many colors eat foods of many colors and textures, but their milk always comes out a thin bluish/white smooth color and consistency...turning into white opaque milk that we rightly insist is better for our darling babies??? where's the scientific proof on that one. i've got more, if you want to compare notes. :rotfl:

[Nursemelo]

ughhhh all of this makes me rember my horable lifespan class last semester!!! our class was teleconferenced which means i got to sit there and listen to a black box talk for 3 hours!! and i was at night from 6 until 9 after i had already been at school since 8 AAAHH!!! and the teacher was absolutly crazy...she would tell us these weird stories and it was just such a bore i would end up sitting there snacking and working on physiology labs or just going home...thank goodness she couldn't see us because the whole class was rarely there. so i can totally understand were all of you are coming from !!! we used to sing C is for credit (instead of cookie, like the cookie monster)that's good enough for me!!! :)

[Peeps Mcarthur]

Because you can examine the source.

You have the cows and the human female and thier baseline intake is readily observable as a comparison of thier output.

You cannot however observe the "feelings" of a baby, or input,therefore you have no baseline with which to measure an output in the form of life-span.

I see how you got into this. It is wonderful to get your opinnions and explore how the "other side" thinks.

Back to the discussion.

Here's an example of faith becoming fact.

Before the flight of John Glen into orbit around the earth the hypothesis that the earth was flat was invalid because it was not observable or measurable. In spite of this glaring discrepency the majority of the earths population believed it was flat.

Thier reasoning,which they strongly believed,hypothesised that it was possible to travel for a great distance and the horizon would remain constant so the earth must be flat because we have traveled farther than the eye can see so we would have certainly passed the point of the curvature and slid down its side if it was round!

Since it was not yet observable,you would need

faith to belive the flat earth hypothesis could be proven simply by moving along its surface.

Although this experiment proving the earth is flat and its results are repeatable.................just as Eriksons insecure adults are repeatable...........The baseline,or starting point,is not observable in comparison to the end result.

The feelings of the baby's insecurity would have to be observed as having existed in the first place in order to be said that they "still" linger in the adult,just as the starting point in relation to the end point in the flat earth experiment would have to be observed in order to establish that it "still" is flat.

Neither trust or mistrust can be observed in an infant. They can be communicated by an adult,even assumed by body language,but the "body language" of an infant is reflex because it lacks the motor skills of expression.

So your left with communication.

So tell me how you observe trust vs mistrust in an infant in order to follow it through life-span?

You have only your faith in a flat earth.

[darby1]

I guess the lifespan course you guys are talking about is similar to the Developmental Psychology class that I'll be taking soon. I'll admit that General psych. was kind of boring, but it was an easy "A". Give me two of those Lifespan courses:D I hope to get the same instructor for Dev. Psych., as I had for Gen. Psych. He is really cool, and our class was kind of laid back. He would even go over class notes a few days before the tests. I pretty much cruised in that class. As long as you showed up for class, and participated in class "labs", things went really well. I wish all my classes were this boring and easy. I'll take all of them that I can get. I actually found psychology pretty interesting, so that made time go by a little better. Also, some things were kind of like review, such as chapters dealing with the nervous system. I had studied some of this in A&P, so I had a good understanding about a lot of those subjects. This helped to cut down on some of my study time, at least in that class. Anyway, it's been nice reading the replies, and I look forward to hearing from you all in the upcoming months. Thanks for your time. Darby:)

[live4today, RN]

Peeps....you are hell bent on NOT liking the Life Span course, so.......I hope you make it through the course with a passing grade that will get you into nursing If that is the career choice you seem to think has your name all over it.

I take it you do NOT have children either??? If you did, and you spent a great deal of time with them as babies, you would know that even an infant can show fear...most infants begin to fear being apart from their mothers around nine months of age...some sooner. As a mother myself, I don't know how else to explain this to you except you just happen to be one of those adults who doesn't seem to connect much with the 'SOFT SIDE' of life. Best of luck in whatever you do...for your sake...I really hope it isn't nursing...that's just a gut feeling I have...Erikson would agree, I'm sure. :chair: :chuckle :)

[Peeps Mcarthur]

Well,I guess you are just going to say "you can just tell"

with the caveat being I won't accept it because I don't have a baby to observe.

Is that it?

Cheerful,do you know how those phone psychics seem to know everything about you?

Because you want it to be true and this is not much different.

Now don't just go off halfcocked and say "boy peeps is really screwed up man".......ok. Think about it. If you believe even a little tensy bit of what I'm saying or consider its ramifications or have even criticaly read what I've posted then there is little indication of that in your replies. I really wanted to give it its due and discuss it but you seem so afraid to consider what I'm saying that I am getting zip out of you Cheerful.

If you can't explain the foundation of what you believe in,then what good is it? Just saying that I must be ignorant because I don't have kids doesn't cut it.

I can explain all the science facts I know and believe in,but I cannot explain how a theory would begin with an outcome so I understand completely what you must be feeling. I would be feeling a little queasy myself if I was up against the master of argument of Allnurses;) When we began discussing it I actualy thought it was going to be constructive................about that I was wrong. This is very one-sided and not an exchange of ideas at all.

C'mon Cheerful,a baby's "fear" is nothing more than the fact that when it cries the hunger or the diaper rash goes away. A baby has no idea what fear even is,how can it express it? I have actually observed that behavior and noticed that when the baby's discomfort is relieved,it shuts up. :) and everything is once again quiet.

You've expressed concern that I might not be able to become a nurse if I can't accept these theories and utilize them...............well,let me tell you something. If nurses are supposed to be a bunch of friggingsheep that can't even discuss the foundation of thier beliefs unless they agree blindly with everything then what the hail good is it? I thought I was taking a science course for crying out loud(little pun there) not; "the teachings of the Third Reicht.......or else!":devil:

If all nursing instructors think that its theories are absolutes without possibillity of argument then nursing school will be easier than I thought.:chuckle

[live4today, RN]

Peep oh boy...all I can safely say to you at this point is this: I am sure glad I am not one of your future nursing instructors...that is...if you get that far because many a nursing instructor has chewed plenty of heads off of students for attitudes such as you exhibit towards that which you disagree with. Write us when you graduate...IF you graduate nursing school...and let us know more about how you feel about nursing then....especially after you've worked as a nurse. I wish you well, and I rest my case with this matter. Stay well, I wish you the best in whatever you strive to do, and I sure hope I never end up your patient because I am going to DEMAND to see the care plan you have made up for me to make sure Erikson's stage of development for my age group is on it, and how you have planned to resolve any issues I may be having with my particular stage of life. :rotfl: And...if YOU ever become a patient of mine...you can bet your buns I will have you down to a science with the proper stage of development straight out of Erickson's theory. TaTa, Peeps! :rotfl: :kiss

[Peeps Mcarthur]

But we never said much of anything to eachother. You just told me how it is. You didn't explain anything.

I asked questions and you told me I was difficult for doing so?

Why are you treating me this way?

Geeze.............psych majors:rolleyes:

[darby1]

Hey guys,

I've spent probably an hour or more trying to get the "jist" of this thread, and I'm still confused. From what I can gather, Peeps is a man around 40 y.o.a., is that right? Peeps also stated that he has a 4.0 average in all classes except this "lifespan" course, which he has withdrawn from twice. Am I right so far? Anyway, the lady he has been discussing this course with is a psych major, right? I hope I haven't misquoted anyone, for that's not my intention. I can see Peep's point about psych courses being "boring",and he can't see where it will be of use to him. I can also see Mrs. Cheerful's point about needing to know about the way people think, and about their state of mind during various stages of development. My General Psych class was pretty easy compared to other courses, and was at times pretty boring. But I did understand that this was part of the program, and just went along with it. I didn't even crack a book, until a few days before out tests. Our professor didn't even follow the book, so it was confusing to try and study and keep up with his notes. Basically, the test was based on his notes, and that's what I studied before the test . It was all mostly memorization, and I didn't really learn a whole lot in there. We studied a bunch of junk about Freud and how he started the first psych labs, etc. Also, we studied about Pavlov, or whatever the dude with the slobbering dogs name was. This stuff was what I found annoying too, but I just went along with the program and came out of there with an easy "A". I can understand about having "hang ups"with certain courses, and I have a gripe myself about having to go back and take Algebra. I made an "A" in there also, but I despise that crap. Where the heck am I going to use that stuff? Anyway, I was just wondering what the fuss is all about. I'm not a psych major, nor do I plan to take anymore than is required for the program. My Psych professor even said Freud and some of those other dudes were "kooks". Maybe this lifespan course is not enough to challenge Peep's mind, I don't know. It is pretty aggrevating at times. I guess you have people who love it, and some who hate it. I'll just accept it, and try to do my best to get another "A". Yeah, I like "A's" You guys take care. PEACE. Darby:)