Parents have a TREMENDOUS impact on who we become as adults. We spend the majority of our childhood (18 years) with them - so they have a HUGE influence on who we become
Not to discount the fantastic explanation of these developmental paradigms, I did think it was important to point out that a number of biologists argue that thinking about "nature" and "nurture" as being dichotomous is pretty artificial. Very very little is expressed solely by genetics and very very little can solely be explained by society. What matters, instead, is how these forces *interact* with each other. It's rarely nature or nurture but rather nature AND nurture that explains our behavior. Also, as an aside, I love how you guys write these to make them accessible to those who haven't seen the preceding episodes. Gonna start working my way back!
The effects of social isolation is important to discuss as well as extreme isolation but Anna is not the best case study. (As a side, Anna may have been discovered in a shed but she was kept in a room in the family home.) Kingsley Davis himself said that Anna's case is flawed because Anna's mother was mentally disabled so heredity may be in play with Anna's development. Also, Anna was not given ideal post rescue treatment/education which may have influenced her lack of advancement. Still a very sad case and yes, social isolation is extremely detrimental.
Tosh T Before Anna was mentioned in the video, I thought it was going to talk about Genie, an American girl who went through a similar situation. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)
There's always so much good info in this series. The five theories of development put me in mind of The Bard's seven ages of man. Arguably, another astute observer of the study of social problems, in his own right. Thanks Nicole and Crash Course!
I had an exam on this exact topic today, it also involved the agents of socialisation and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs which is something I'd love to see a video on. I love the series by the way of you hadn't caught on already.
Best episode yet :) (Do you think you could add a second break between sentences and perhaps keep a graphic at the side of the screen (like the one at the end of the video) so we can keep things focuses?) Would sure help me.
I believe the Shoulder devil and angel analogy to be an inadequat choice, enclosing Freud's topic into a binary system of value. Both the id and the super ego are neither moraly nor religiously good or bad. They just are. One of Freud's greatest influences on our society was to weaken the Church's denny of our most basic needs, and this analogy takes a step back.
Agree. I think that a lot of the things we consider "good" come from the id, like the way we feel empathy for others could be stemming from the primal instinct to form social bonds to help the tribe survive. Alternatively, "evil" things can come from the superego, like someone who was educated in a fascist state might feel compelled by social norms to be violent toward outsiders.
She misrepresented the entire idea really. For example, the ego is not just the mediator between the ID and super ego, it's just the conscious mind, that mediates the desires of the ID, expectations of the superego, and the constraints of reality to make decisions.
I understand your point, and I must agree to some extent. Nevertheless, I also realise that although very logical, it relies on the predicate that I'm ''paying too much attention to the moral roles of the angel and devil on the shoulder''. The fact is that I did not choose to pay this much attention. I come here as an average viewer, far from any kind of specialisation, and this is how I understood the analogy. Could I be the exception, the only mind who found an inapropriate trace of moral judgment? The comments above let me believe that I'm not. I assume that this heterogeneity is partly due to cultural differences. You mention the King James Version of the Bible. Well I'm not from Christian Anglo-Saxon descent, nor do I live in an English speaking country, and it seems that you pop-culture is not the same as mine, for in mine, the angel/devil dual symbolic is still close to it's religious roots. Therefor, I believe to find a compromise in writing that this choice in analogy, although very speaking and efficient within an Anlgo-Saxon cultural paradigm, is far from universal. I thank you for opening my eyes to a new understanding of cultural gaps.
Studies suggests that peers, as in friends, class mates are way more determination on how a person turns out than parents ( taking aside genetics of course)
Humbly, I also believe it would be interesting to explore more about the negative side effects at later stages of social development. Especially those that may be focused on the current social isolation trends associated with social media.
weesh ful Thanks for your reply and perspective. How do you feel about your own personality type, and it's influence on your observations of these types of traits? Do you believe that can influence your perspective? Also, how would you qualify/quantify your observation with respects to introverted versus extraverted personalities that may be more or less vocal about their individual feelings and values?
My personality is very empathetic. I try to see things from other people's perspective, and I assume the best in them until they prove me wrong. I try not to assume things about people, and to let them show me what works for them. I teach in a way that is conducive to a wide range of personality types. Not the best at it, but I try, and can often tell when I've made a mistake, so I'm getting better. I work hard to break my larger groups up into smaller groups so that the introverted kids have space to talk. I like groups of about 4-5 kids, because the introverts will probably talk in that size of group. Also, you have to build trust generally, but ESPECIALLY with the introverts. Many kids tend to be open with me quickly, because I listen, and treat them like maturing adults, and validate their feelings and answers. But I've had kids that still took like 8 sessions before they opened up to me. Since I'm open-minded, I look for and find the boys and girls that are exceptions to the generalities. That was a bit of a spitball at your questions, but hopefully it helped.
weesh ful As a consistent INTJ on a Myers-Briggs scale, I find few people understand how I think or what I find interesting. Most of the time certain aspects of an INTJ are highlighted, but the negatives are overlooked. The largest of which I believe to be a low level of emotional development. I grew up having a hard time understanding why so much of the world seems to focus on emotions and relationships above, beyond, and often in conflict with intuitive reasoning. Personally I found it difficult to come to terms with statements like boys like one thing but later develop emotionally or develop awareness. I must actively seek out and consciously structure my social interactions to appear more conventionally minded. If I had known this at an earlier age it would have saved me a lot of grief. I also appear extraverted to many outside observers due to my ability to discuss almost any subject with depth and apparent openness. Most people are unaware of what I find intriguing about subjects, while I am totally oblivious to their emotional understanding and investment in a conversation, subject, or relationship. That's simply a more rare perspective on this subject from someone who falls on the fringe of personality types.
Gillian's findings lead to the development of one of the newest ethical frameworks in philosophy called the ethics of care. It's pretty dope, you should look it up
Nature vs Nurture, Freud- how personalities dev Piaget 4 Stages Khol's moral and Gilligan's expansion moral on boy/girl Herbert Mead- symbolic interactionism touch on Erikson
I spend a great deal of time teaching and interacting with a variety of 4th graders, who are about 10. I love it immensely because pretty much all of them are ALREADY at the Formal Operational Stage. Back when I interacted more broadly with kids 7-12, I was frequently impressed by 9 year olds that were already there. 12 is close, but seems late to me. Or maybe it was more accurate back in the day?
great information provided,that also get to the bank of my knowledge .it means in short we can say about the topic that what you speaks reflects how yours parents treated you in your childhood . nice saying by someone that " give me good mothers i will give you good nation".
so as i understand it, our minds process information not only within itself, but also by projecting it and testing it against other minds. this social processing of info is such a large part of how the mind works that if you isolate a person they will become less of themselves, like the 8 year old girl being at a similar level as a 2 year old.
Nature or Nurture, inherited or learned/acquired. Our world or lens rather, is cultivated by the society we are apart of or in close proximity with, influence our lives going forward into adulthood and beyond. Liked the combination of sociological and psychological ideas in this video! - James
Great vid, good not thinking mind food for that other individualistic whatever. I'd recently decided to bail on ever read "The World According To Garp," and watched the warner brothers film featuring Robbin Williams. Surreal humor although poignant thought like mowing the grass for some as a literary fodder for cognitive action. The two resources made for an interesting combination.
question.. as far as people growing after high School. why are we seeing many subcultures (goth emo scene) persist in many folks well past high school? I'm seeing people age 25 still dressing as ash from Pokemon.
I have a hypothesis that people born during the Cold War subconsciously didn't expect to survive into adulthood because of nuclear annihilation, so we never bothered to learn how to "adult."
I guess the interesting thing about being a grown up is, that you define your self what it means to be one as long as you are ready to deal with the consequences. I am in my late 20s and my profile picture is from a kids show but I probably wouldn't walk around in coseplay in my everyday live. So I guess it depends strongly on your souroundings how you act.
subcultures exist in many forms. daughters of the revolution is a subculture. the Baptists church has a subculture. That has always existed and has little to do with constructs of what is "age appropriate". Now if you want to know why people still like Pokemon, or say why people still obsess over Elvis then that's a whole other question
Wearing certain clothing or cosplaying has nothing to do with maturity. Now my mother acting like a high school mean girl in her late 40s, on the other hand.....
How do you feel about the apparent surfacing of subcultures as it coincides with the active social suppression of the bullying of any and all none confirming social elements within the western world? Do you believe these are new aspects of society or are they the result of a social maturity and growth allowing for the acceptance of diversity?
Piaget's theory of developmental stages has been challenged in a number of ways - e.g. it's been found that younger children are a lot more capable and less self-centered than he thought.
Why didn't they mention any studies involving children adopted at ages younger than one years old, but still growing up to have many behavioral similarities to their birth parents instead of their adoptive parents? I had a feeling their conclusions would learn more towards nurture over nature, despite the scientific community generally learning towards nature over nurture. Yes, traumatic situations like being raised alone in a shed will effect a child, but that isn't really a big marker to show that nurture plays a bigger role than nature. In fact, if five different kids when raise alone in separate sheds, then removed from the sheds and all raised by the same set of people, those five kids would likely hadn't that situation differently. Take the same exact person and have them deal with a situation, then pump a bunch of testosterone or estrogen into their system and have them deal with the same situation again, that they're likely deal with if and be impacted by it differently.. and I don't bring up testosterone and estrogen to specify men and women, since even among men and women, hormone levels vary. Two men can have pretty different levels of hormones, and two women could as well. Look up many transgender stories and how much taking hormones effected them. Even if they were passing as a gender for years, once they took the hormones many felt changes in behavior... it could be argued it's a placebo effect, and they just feel like the hormones are impacting their behavior, but it just being a placebo effect doesn't line up with other studies on the hormones. Though on the side of nurture; hormone levels can be impacted by diet and social environment.
Could the chain be broken at any point? I guess these stages may not have the same duration based on the subject, maybe some don't even happen at all? Argggg, I'm burning for more!
This crash course about social development is 25 years behind the current science. Source: I have a masters in sociology with concentration in social development.
Im trying to get meaning in all of this psychology - sociology sciences to live a healthier mental life quality i never had i was basically raised by madness and insanity coupled with strict rules and emotional dereliction and its been my drive for a long time its taken me to these places where i learn more about our minds hoping that i can get meaning of who am i why do i think/act and feel the way i do is it all a product of an environment or is it something else maybe genetics are the reason behind the structure of my personality or is there even a meaning behind all of this. sometimes i feel that i dont have feeling or my cognitive functions are failing me to really perceive the world the way it truly is its like living in a delusion or am i going insane i keep riding of people / family / friends because their presence is heavy it feels like the air get sucked out the room and it exhaust me even the slightest noise can get into my nerves or the premise of pain is like a knife to the heart and it should be avoided at any cost and it make no sense to me how did i got there its like getting fed up from living
i like😊 this episode. i 👍💗 really like this episode because anything about parenthood👪 im interested in........yet im not even parent?😕 or even sure i want be.😅😅
Neats wrong. I have a family with over 234 members, and I've watched them all grow up, and in some members of the family there are very clear signs as early as 3 years old of their future path, which was true over and over. You also keep devloping as an adult for the rest of your days
Now that subject in psychology seems to be a bit twisted in how they learn things... until u talked about stages, but the senses therefore create bias, not culture, but self senses since they don't understand culture. As a kid's brain develop, the biological function might have shaped a baby, that would even colors as they might cry in pain. Brains can be altered by societal interactions, so therefore can mask what they like. But yes, almost children's children are observed to go through those stages that way.
In my experience, I have a laugh like CGP Grey and say stuff half my classmates don't understand because I listen to too much Hello Internet (but you can never listen to too much of it.) I also curse and have/make too many puns, sarcasm, snarkiness, and dickishness because of UA-cam comments.
Rand fanatics should watch this video... I've heard a lot of them start arguments like this: "IF humans are social animals, and that's a big IF..." hahaha
This video here is further evidence that sociology is in desperate need of reform. First off, at 6:08, saying that cultural conditioning explains why women have care-based morals is incomplete. Where does culture come from? It didn't just fall out of the sky. It comes from us. If culture has been structured in such a way that women are being conditioned into care-based morals, then that would be because women have care-based morals innately. It would be a feedback loop. We create culture, then culture reinforces our behaviors, which reinforces culture, which reinforces behaviors, and so on. The point is that it starts with _us._ If you think men and women are somehow equal underneath, then can you explain why culture conditioning doesn't reflect that? You can't. The default position to hold is that we're not the same. If you think we are equal, then the burden of proof should be placed on you. Also, you're completely divorced from an understanding of biology. When talking about individuals, nature and nurture are a false dichotomy. Everything that you are, appearance and behavior, is a collection of genes expressed in an environment. You cannot separate the genes from the environment; they are intrinsically connected. You can only talk about nature and nurture when looking at differences between people. You can work out what these differences are by using twin studies. The fact that you just left these out is ridiculous.
From what I have read this is the current theory; because women had be pregnant and then look after the child because they couldn't hunt during pregnancy and because the males who could hunt would have more experience than the females it made more sense to make the women take care of their children and to gather instead leading to the females caring more about their children then the men and this would take an effect on the children but the males would then be taken away when they could help hunt and be raised by the less caring males while the females would still be basking in their mother's care. Over time this lead to females being more compassionate than males. Also in the couple of examples where the males do the child rearing they were the more compassionate ones
Could you explain your thought process of "If culture has been structured in such a way that women are being conditioned into care-based morals, *_then that would be_* because women have care-based morals innately"? I don't understand how one can draw that conclusion. EDIT: Also, while genes and environment are connected, they aren't "fully" connected. There are traits and behaviors that arise independently of environment, or different genes will give different outcomes in the same environment.
This argument could actually be used to justify the existence of aristocracy / the feudal class system / slavery etc. If you think that people are equal underneath, why was there slavery? Why were for centuries certain people considered better than others? It surely must be because it comes from us, right? Then culture reinforced what was already there and so on. You see how ridiculous that sounds?
+Ermude10 "Could you explain your thought process of "If culture has been structured in such a way that women are being conditioned into care-based morals, then that would be because women have care-based morals innately"? I don't understand how one can draw that conclusion." If men and women are equal underneath, then culture would be structured in such a way that men and women are conditioned to be equal. It makes no sense, to say that we are equal, and then say that the culture we end up producing puts us in different roles. Think about it this way: Human behavior is produced in a feedback loop. This is understood by using logical deduction. Premise 1: Human beings produce their cultures. Premise 2: Culture conditions humans to behave in specific ways. Conclusion: There is a feedback loop that starts with humans creating their culture. if you accept the premises, then the conclusion is entailed. We observe differences between men and women. The question is "where do these differences come from?" We can conclude that cultural conditioning influences people's behavior. So culture plays a part in causing these observable differences. But then you must ask, "where does culture come from?" We know that culture comes from us. So while part of the observable differences in behavior are partially explained by cultural conditioning, these different cultural conditionings for men and women are produced by us. And this feedback loop starts with us, so you must conclude that the differences come from us. "EDIT: Also, while genes and environment are connected, they aren't "fully" connected. There are traits and behaviors that arise independently of environment, or different genes will give different outcomes in the same environment." No. All of this is false. Traits and behaviors are genes expressed in an environment, by definition. It is impossible for traits and behaviors to be independent of the environment. And while you are correct to say that different genes will give difference outcomes in the same environment, you are missing the point of my comment. Remember that I specified between individuals and differences. Nature and nurture are a false dichotomy when talking about a specific individual person. Only when looking at differences between two people (or more) can you break things down into nature and nurture. Saying that different genes will give different outcomes in the same environment is talking about comparing two genes with each other. In other words, you are looking at differences in variant alleles between two different people.
+dynamiths86 [EDIT] "This argument could actually be used to justify the existence of aristocracy / the feudal class system / slavery etc. If you think that people are equal underneath, why was there slavery? Why were for centuries certain people considered better than others? It surely must be because it comes from us, right? Then culture reinforced what was already there and so on. You see how ridiculous that sounds?" This made me laugh. Apparently cultural conditioning like women being conditioned into care-based morals is the equivalent of the aristocracy, the feudal class system, and slavery. Lol. This is a moronic false equivalence: 1: Culture conditioning, which involves expectations being placed on people, thus influencing their behavior. Is apparently equal to: 2: The aristocracy, the feudal class system, and slavery, which involves the use of violence to force people into their respective roles. You see how ridiculous that sounds?
Parents have a TREMENDOUS impact on who we become as adults. We spend the majority of our childhood (18 years) with them - so they have a HUGE influence on who we become
Not to discount the fantastic explanation of these developmental paradigms, I did think it was important to point out that a number of biologists argue that thinking about "nature" and "nurture" as being dichotomous is pretty artificial. Very very little is expressed solely by genetics and very very little can solely be explained by society. What matters, instead, is how these forces *interact* with each other. It's rarely nature or nurture but rather nature AND nurture that explains our behavior.
Also, as an aside, I love how you guys write these to make them accessible to those who haven't seen the preceding episodes. Gonna start working my way back!
On the slide of Erik Erikson there's a question "Gues what his middle name is?" and well, turns out it's Erik Homburger Erikson :D
The effects of social isolation is important to discuss as well as extreme isolation but Anna is not the best case study. (As a side, Anna may have been discovered in a shed but she was kept in a room in the family home.) Kingsley Davis himself said that Anna's case is flawed because Anna's mother was mentally disabled so heredity may be in play with Anna's development. Also, Anna was not given ideal post rescue treatment/education which may have influenced her lack of advancement. Still a very sad case and yes, social isolation is extremely detrimental.
Tosh T Before Anna was mentioned in the video, I thought it was going to talk about Genie, an American girl who went through a similar situation.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)
There's always so much good info in this series. The five theories of development put me in mind of The Bard's seven ages of man. Arguably, another astute observer of the study of social problems, in his own right. Thanks Nicole and Crash Course!
Thanks for another great video on sociology! Totally loving this series, Nicole (and team)! ❤️
Yes, I commented before finishing the video 😬
I love her
" I love meeting people's parents. It's like seeing a manual on why people are crazy" -ted lasso
This area is super interesting to me. I'm in a research program at my school and I'm hoping to do something like this next year. Thanks u guys!
As a Psychology student that knows about his theory on psychosexual development, when Freud was mentioned I wanted to scream
I had an exam on this exact topic today, it also involved the agents of socialisation and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs which is something I'd love to see a video on. I love the series by the way of you hadn't caught on already.
I love your videos, they're always so informative! You need to do more videos on post-modernity and digital sociology/economy!
African, Asian, and Latino psychologists and sociologists would enhance these courses by adding different perspectives and more information
Best episode yet :)
(Do you think you could add a second break between sentences and perhaps keep a graphic at the side of the screen (like the one at the end of the video) so we can keep things focuses?)
Would sure help me.
This has been my favorite CC Sociology lesson. 👌👌
I believe the Shoulder devil and angel analogy to be an inadequat choice, enclosing Freud's topic into a binary system of value. Both the id and the super ego are neither moraly nor religiously good or bad.
They just are.
One of Freud's greatest influences on our society was to weaken the Church's denny of our most basic needs, and this analogy takes a step back.
Agree. I think that a lot of the things we consider "good" come from the id, like the way we feel empathy for others could be stemming from the primal instinct to form social bonds to help the tribe survive. Alternatively, "evil" things can come from the superego, like someone who was educated in a fascist state might feel compelled by social norms to be violent toward outsiders.
She misrepresented the entire idea really. For example, the ego is not just the mediator between the ID and super ego, it's just the conscious mind, that mediates the desires of the ID, expectations of the superego, and the constraints of reality to make decisions.
I understand your point, and I must agree to some extent.
Nevertheless, I also realise that although very logical, it relies on the predicate that I'm ''paying too much attention to the moral roles of the angel and devil on the shoulder''. The fact is that I did not choose to pay this much attention.
I come here as an average viewer, far from any kind of specialisation, and this is how I understood the analogy. Could I be the exception, the only mind who found an inapropriate trace of moral judgment? The comments above let me believe that I'm not.
I assume that this heterogeneity is partly due to cultural differences. You mention the King James Version of the Bible. Well I'm not from Christian Anglo-Saxon descent, nor do I live in an English speaking country, and it seems that you pop-culture is not the same as mine, for in mine, the angel/devil dual symbolic is still close to it's religious roots.
Therefor, I believe to find a compromise in writing that this choice in analogy, although very speaking and efficient within an Anlgo-Saxon cultural paradigm, is far from universal.
I thank you for opening my eyes to a new understanding of cultural gaps.
Studies suggests that peers, as in friends, class mates are way more determination on how a person turns out than parents ( taking aside genetics of course)
6:00 I wish to explore this difference further.
Humbly, I also believe it would be interesting to explore more about the negative side effects at later stages of social development. Especially those that may be focused on the current social isolation trends associated with social media.
weesh ful
Thanks for your reply and perspective.
How do you feel about your own personality type, and it's influence on your observations of these types of traits? Do you believe that can influence your perspective?
Also, how would you qualify/quantify your observation with respects to introverted versus extraverted personalities that may be more or less vocal about their individual feelings and values?
My personality is very empathetic. I try to see things from other people's perspective, and I assume the best in them until they prove me wrong. I try not to assume things about people, and to let them show me what works for them.
I teach in a way that is conducive to a wide range of personality types. Not the best at it, but I try, and can often tell when I've made a mistake, so I'm getting better.
I work hard to break my larger groups up into smaller groups so that the introverted kids have space to talk. I like groups of about 4-5 kids, because the introverts will probably talk in that size of group.
Also, you have to build trust generally, but ESPECIALLY with the introverts.
Many kids tend to be open with me quickly, because I listen, and treat them like maturing adults, and validate their feelings and answers. But I've had kids that still took like 8 sessions before they opened up to me.
Since I'm open-minded, I look for and find the boys and girls that are exceptions to the generalities.
That was a bit of a spitball at your questions, but hopefully it helped.
weesh ful
As a consistent INTJ on a Myers-Briggs scale, I find few people understand how I think or what I find interesting.
Most of the time certain aspects of an INTJ are highlighted, but the negatives are overlooked. The largest of which I believe to be a low level of emotional development. I grew up having a hard time understanding why so much of the world seems to focus on emotions and relationships above, beyond, and often in conflict with intuitive reasoning.
Personally I found it difficult to come to terms with statements like boys like one thing but later develop emotionally or develop awareness. I must actively seek out and consciously structure my social interactions to appear more conventionally minded. If I had known this at an earlier age it would have saved me a lot of grief.
I also appear extraverted to many outside observers due to my ability to discuss almost any subject with depth and apparent openness. Most people are unaware of what I find intriguing about subjects, while I am totally oblivious to their emotional understanding and investment in a conversation, subject, or relationship.
That's simply a more rare perspective on this subject from someone who falls on the fringe of personality types.
Gillian's findings lead to the development of one of the newest ethical frameworks in philosophy called the ethics of care. It's pretty dope, you should look it up
I'm learning an enourmous amount. Thank you for your time and effort. I'm grateful.
Thank you for this amazing lesson,dear creaotors)
Your channel takes me an opportunity to improve my "English Level" every day.
The story of Anna just wrecks me...
Nature vs Nurture, Freud- how personalities dev
Piaget 4 Stages
Khol's moral and Gilligan's expansion moral on boy/girl
Herbert Mead- symbolic interactionism
touch on Erikson
I am sooo loving this series. I love CC, like very much
We talked about this in school today!!
This is waaaaay better than my lecturer teaching. She only basically say everything that is already in the notes ==
0:53
Cultural Diversity~ It mean you've have caught every Alola Pokèmon.
One of the best episodes so far!
I spend a great deal of time teaching and interacting with a variety of 4th graders, who are about 10.
I love it immensely because pretty much all of them are ALREADY at the Formal Operational Stage.
Back when I interacted more broadly with kids 7-12, I was frequently impressed by 9 year olds that were already there.
12 is close, but seems late to me.
Or maybe it was more accurate back in the day?
I like how Nicole mentioned Freud's theory of the psyche. I also liked how she used it to compare the psychology side of sociology. Nice work! :)
thank you for this !!!
this is literally my developmental psychology lecture today
great information provided,that also get to the bank of my knowledge .it means in short we can say about the topic that what you speaks reflects how yours parents treated you in your childhood .
nice saying by someone that " give me good mothers i will give you good nation".
so as i understand it, our minds process information not only within itself, but also by projecting it and testing it against other minds. this social processing of info is such a large part of how the mind works that if you isolate a person they will become less of themselves, like the 8 year old girl being at a similar level as a 2 year old.
this section is so relatable
Thank you for making sociology easy for me!
Nature or Nurture, inherited or learned/acquired. Our world or lens rather, is cultivated by the society we are apart of or in close proximity with, influence our lives going forward into adulthood and beyond. Liked the combination of sociological and psychological ideas in this video!
- James
Looking forward to Crash Course Linguistics!
Crash Course is the best thing ever. Thank you for making short yet extremely informative videos.
5:38
Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale, a tale of a social trip.
Excellent ... thank you from Rhode Island Nurses Institute Middle College Charter School, Providence, RI!
Great stuff!
A girl saying that "A baby grabbing youre finger is the cutest thing in the world" is a nice opening when talking about nature vs nurture...
Nicole is stunning, and intelligent.
(Great charisma as well, she will rock in edutainment)
Though I agree, I have to listen on 0.75 speed.
Great Video!
big thumbs up
it was a serious question that captured my mind for a while
waiting for your new video 😊
Dang, this would been helpful to find *before* I wrote my essay on communication and emotional development..... Maybe for the next paper.
Great vid, good not thinking mind food for that other individualistic whatever. I'd recently decided to bail on ever read "The World According To Garp," and watched the warner brothers film featuring Robbin Williams. Surreal humor although poignant thought like mowing the grass for some as a literary fodder for cognitive action. The two resources made for an interesting combination.
Ur all videos helped me a lot love u
How can I read about the Anna's case study? There is an article written by Kingsley Davis anywhere?
Ur reach so super...
Please reach slowly but surely
You should do a video on the interaction with relationships
do one on SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND HEALTH
thanks madam...u are helpin us indeed
Great video! I loved your integration of a few psychological concepts to flesh out your points.
question.. as far as people growing after high School. why are we seeing many subcultures (goth emo scene) persist in many folks well past high school? I'm seeing people age 25 still dressing as ash from Pokemon.
I have a hypothesis that people born during the Cold War subconsciously didn't expect to survive into adulthood because of nuclear annihilation, so we never bothered to learn how to "adult."
I guess the interesting thing about being a grown up is, that you define your self what it means to be one as long as you are ready to deal with the consequences. I am in my late 20s and my profile picture is from a kids show but I probably wouldn't walk around in coseplay in my everyday live. So I guess it depends strongly on your souroundings how you act.
subcultures exist in many forms. daughters of the revolution is a subculture. the Baptists church has a subculture. That has always existed and has little to do with constructs of what is "age appropriate". Now if you want to know why people still like Pokemon, or say why people still obsess over Elvis then that's a whole other question
Wearing certain clothing or cosplaying has nothing to do with maturity.
Now my mother acting like a high school mean girl in her late 40s, on the other hand.....
How do you feel about the apparent surfacing of subcultures as it coincides with the active social suppression of the bullying of any and all none confirming social elements within the western world? Do you believe these are new aspects of society or are they the result of a social maturity and growth allowing for the acceptance of diversity?
Really Goooooooood !
3:15 Is that an Arrested Development reference?
best course best episode
Piaget's theory of developmental stages has been challenged in a number of ways - e.g. it's been found that younger children are a lot more capable and less self-centered than he thought.
Why didn't they mention any studies involving children adopted at ages younger than one years old, but still growing up to have many behavioral similarities to their birth parents instead of their adoptive parents?
I had a feeling their conclusions would learn more towards nurture over nature, despite the scientific community generally learning towards nature over nurture.
Yes, traumatic situations like being raised alone in a shed will effect a child, but that isn't really a big marker to show that nurture plays a bigger role than nature. In fact, if five different kids when raise alone in separate sheds, then removed from the sheds and all raised by the same set of people, those five kids would likely hadn't that situation differently.
Take the same exact person and have them deal with a situation, then pump a bunch of testosterone or estrogen into their system and have them deal with the same situation again, that they're likely deal with if and be impacted by it differently.. and I don't bring up testosterone and estrogen to specify men and women, since even among men and women, hormone levels vary. Two men can have pretty different levels of hormones, and two women could as well.
Look up many transgender stories and how much taking hormones effected them. Even if they were passing as a gender for years, once they took the hormones many felt changes in behavior... it could be argued it's a placebo effect, and they just feel like the hormones are impacting their behavior, but it just being a placebo effect doesn't line up with other studies on the hormones.
Though on the side of nurture; hormone levels can be impacted by diet and social environment.
Surely this is more psychology than sociology?
"...but whether you feel like it or not, adulthood will come for us all."
tell that to the President.
Inherent spark of Eunice.
Perfect!
may I get presentation form of this crash episode
what was nature vs nurture, i didnt heard you saying that once?
Could the chain be broken at any point? I guess these stages may not have the same duration based on the subject, maybe some don't even happen at all? Argggg, I'm burning for more!
nice u r devoted for me BA student thanks a lots sis
This crash course about social development is 25 years behind the current science. Source: I have a masters in sociology with concentration in social development.
Im trying to get meaning in all of this psychology - sociology sciences to live a healthier mental life quality i never had i was basically raised by madness and insanity coupled with strict rules and emotional dereliction and its been my drive for a long time its taken me to these places where i learn more about our minds hoping that i can get meaning of who am i
why do i think/act and feel the way i do is it all a product of an environment or is it something else maybe genetics are the reason behind the structure of my personality or is there even a meaning behind all of this.
sometimes i feel that i dont have feeling or my cognitive functions are failing me to really perceive the world the way it truly is its like living in a delusion or am i going insane i keep riding of people / family / friends because their presence is heavy it feels like the air get sucked out the room and it exhaust me even the slightest noise can get into my nerves or the premise of pain is like a knife to the heart and it should be avoided at any cost and it make no sense to me how did i got there its like getting fed up from living
Some people never fully develop past the "it's a law/social norm so it is bad/good" stage I've noticed ;)
Surely this is psychology not sociology I'm confused?
A lot of sciences are closely related and sometimes overlap.
Actually they both overlap on many subjects...
There is this thing called social psychology.
lol
You really can't do sociology with psychology. They're both about how humans work, they're going to overlap considerably.
i like😊 this episode. i 👍💗 really like this episode because anything about parenthood👪 im interested in........yet im not even parent?😕 or even sure i want be.😅😅
I heard "inherent sense of Eunice". Yes. I am Eunice.
All the psychologists she talked about deserve a video or a series of videos of their own.
I am what I am and what I am needs no excuses...
Neats wrong. I have a family with over 234 members, and I've watched them all grow up, and in some members of the family there are very clear signs as early as 3 years old of their future path, which was true over and over. You also keep devloping as an adult for the rest of your days
Pls explain. Social human and gender development
Do you actually talk this way in your day to day communications with people?
Anyone know if there are any differences between males and females in terms of moral behavior in the pre-conventional stage of development?
Gene's vs meme's
meme's please.
Stan Lee cameo in the bus at 0:55
3:15 Bob's BURGERS!!
let's make a social group of sociology
Erik Homburger Erikson. Homburger is his middle name?
Loving the series so far. But I'm lost as to your antonymic description of the ego? "The voice of reason" couldn't be further from the truth.
Crash Course Ad Sense Ad on Crash Course video, to a subscriber?
More a child psychology vid than a sociology one.
Lovely
so THATS why when me and my friends played house we always had the family love to party-its what our parents did every time all of us hung out
The baby is not the cutest thing in the world. Nicole is.
Is it Jon 'Snow' sitting in the iron throne?
Now that subject in psychology seems to be a bit twisted in how they learn things... until u talked about stages, but the senses therefore create bias, not culture, but self senses since they don't understand culture. As a kid's brain develop, the biological function might have shaped a baby, that would even colors as they might cry in pain. Brains can be altered by societal interactions, so therefore can mask what they like. But yes, almost children's children are observed to go through those stages that way.
In my experience, I have a laugh like CGP Grey and say stuff half my classmates don't understand because I listen to too much Hello Internet (but you can never listen to too much of it.) I also curse and have/make too many puns, sarcasm, snarkiness, and dickishness because of UA-cam comments.
Maybe we can teach AI’s to go through Piagetian stages
Rand fanatics should watch this video... I've heard a lot of them start arguments like this: "IF humans are social animals, and that's a big IF..." hahaha
Do you guys think morality is inate or learned through socialization?
This course references Freud way too much
Well, the Green brothers have near-identical verbal patterns...
Türkçe altyazı ekleyebilir misiniz?
That's not Sigmund Freud ... he is Steven Spielberg.
This video here is further evidence that sociology is in desperate need of reform.
First off, at 6:08, saying that cultural conditioning explains why women have care-based morals is incomplete. Where does culture come from? It didn't just fall out of the sky. It comes from us. If culture has been structured in such a way that women are being conditioned into care-based morals, then that would be because women have care-based morals innately. It would be a feedback loop. We create culture, then culture reinforces our behaviors, which reinforces culture, which reinforces behaviors, and so on. The point is that it starts with _us._ If you think men and women are somehow equal underneath, then can you explain why culture conditioning doesn't reflect that? You can't. The default position to hold is that we're not the same. If you think we are equal, then the burden of proof should be placed on you.
Also, you're completely divorced from an understanding of biology. When talking about individuals, nature and nurture are a false dichotomy. Everything that you are, appearance and behavior, is a collection of genes expressed in an environment. You cannot separate the genes from the environment; they are intrinsically connected. You can only talk about nature and nurture when looking at differences between people. You can work out what these differences are by using twin studies. The fact that you just left these out is ridiculous.
From what I have read this is the current theory; because women had be pregnant and then look after the child because they couldn't hunt during pregnancy and because the males who could hunt would have more experience than the females it made more sense to make the women take care of their children and to gather instead leading to the females caring more about their children then the men and this would take an effect on the children but the males would then be taken away when they could help hunt and be raised by the less caring males while the females would still be basking in their mother's care. Over time this lead to females being more compassionate than males.
Also in the couple of examples where the males do the child rearing they were the more compassionate ones
Could you explain your thought process of "If culture has been structured in such a way that women are being conditioned into care-based morals, *_then that would be_* because women have care-based morals innately"? I don't understand how one can draw that conclusion.
EDIT: Also, while genes and environment are connected, they aren't "fully" connected. There are traits and behaviors that arise independently of environment, or different genes will give different outcomes in the same environment.
This argument could actually be used to justify the existence of aristocracy / the feudal class system / slavery etc. If you think that people are equal underneath, why was there slavery? Why were for centuries certain people considered better than others? It surely must be because it comes from us, right? Then culture reinforced what was already there and so on.
You see how ridiculous that sounds?
+Ermude10
"Could you explain your thought process of "If culture has been structured in such a way that women are being conditioned into care-based morals, then that would be because women have care-based morals innately"? I don't understand how one can draw that conclusion."
If men and women are equal underneath, then culture would be structured in such a way that men and women are conditioned to be equal. It makes no sense, to say that we are equal, and then say that the culture we end up producing puts us in different roles.
Think about it this way: Human behavior is produced in a feedback loop. This is understood by using logical deduction.
Premise 1: Human beings produce their cultures.
Premise 2: Culture conditions humans to behave in specific ways.
Conclusion: There is a feedback loop that starts with humans creating their culture.
if you accept the premises, then the conclusion is entailed.
We observe differences between men and women. The question is "where do these differences come from?" We can conclude that cultural conditioning influences people's behavior. So culture plays a part in causing these observable differences. But then you must ask, "where does culture come from?" We know that culture comes from us. So while part of the observable differences in behavior are partially explained by cultural conditioning, these different cultural conditionings for men and women are produced by us. And this feedback loop starts with us, so you must conclude that the differences come from us.
"EDIT: Also, while genes and environment are connected, they aren't "fully" connected. There are traits and behaviors that arise independently of environment, or different genes will give different outcomes in the same environment."
No. All of this is false. Traits and behaviors are genes expressed in an environment, by definition. It is impossible for traits and behaviors to be independent of the environment.
And while you are correct to say that different genes will give difference outcomes in the same environment, you are missing the point of my comment. Remember that I specified between individuals and differences. Nature and nurture are a false dichotomy when talking about a specific individual person. Only when looking at differences between two people (or more) can you break things down into nature and nurture. Saying that different genes will give different outcomes in the same environment is talking about comparing two genes with each other. In other words, you are looking at differences in variant alleles between two different people.
+dynamiths86 [EDIT]
"This argument could actually be used to justify the existence of aristocracy / the feudal class system / slavery etc. If you think that people are equal underneath, why was there slavery? Why were for centuries certain people considered better than others? It surely must be because it comes from us, right? Then culture reinforced what was already there and so on.
You see how ridiculous that sounds?"
This made me laugh. Apparently cultural conditioning like women being conditioned into care-based morals is the equivalent of the aristocracy, the feudal class system, and slavery. Lol. This is a moronic false equivalence:
1: Culture conditioning, which involves expectations being placed on people, thus influencing their behavior.
Is apparently equal to:
2: The aristocracy, the feudal class system, and slavery, which involves the use of violence to force people into their respective roles.
You see how ridiculous that sounds?