FREUD’S VS. ERIKSON’S STAGES OF PSYCHOSEXUAL VS. PSYCHOSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Approximate
Ages
Freud's Stages of Psychosexual Development
Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial
Development
Oral Stage Trust vs Mistrust
Birth to 1 year
A child's primary source of pleasure is through the mouth, via sucking, eating and tasting.
Anal Stage
Children learn to either trust or mistrust their caregivers.
Autonomy vs. Doubt
1-3 years Children gain a sense of mastery and competence by controlling bladder and bowel movements.
Phallic Stage
Children develop self-sufficiency by controlling activities such as eating, toilet training and talking.
Initiative vs. Guilt
3-6 years
The libido's energy is focused on the genitals. Children begin to identify with their same-sex parent.
Children begin to take more control over their environment.
Latent Period Industry vs Inferiority
7-11 years
Adolescence
The libido's energy is suppressed and children are focused on other activities such as school, friends and hobbies.
Children develop a sense of competence by mastering new skills.
Genital Stage
Identity vs Role Confusion
Children begin to explore romantic relationships.
Children develop a personal identify and sense of self.
According to Freud, the genital stage lasts throughout adulthood. He believed the goal is to develop a balance between all areas of life.
Intimacy vs Isolation
Young adults seek out romantic love and companionship.
Adulthood
Generativity vs Stagnation
Middle-aged adults nurture others and contribute to society.
Integrity vs Despair
Older adults reflect on their lives, looking back with a sense of fulfillment or bitterness. http://psychology.about.com/library/bl/bl-freud-erikson-compared.htm

20114/03/29
Neither of these seems very good, because it doesn't seem to concentrate on the actual development of the child's brain or body. It concentrates on sexuality, which is a small part of life until puberty from the kids. Although of course there's interest at an early age. And that's
Freud.
And Erickson concentrates on overall tasks, which is an improvement, but again fails to look at what's happening in the developing organism.
That's what I find problematic about all these series. They seem nonsensical to me because don't take into account of the aspects of development that center about the body, brain etc. Any psychology needs to take that into account. I like Jung's theory because it doesn't even bother with development. It starts at a point where that has already occurred.
Melanie Klein also bothers me because, again, it's about psychic conflict rather then looking at the whole picture.
At least I'm starting to understand what's bothering me about this stuff. Maybe I can find good simple books that I can read that will help me with it.
I think that Jungian work is fine for something very specific. I'm not sure it's fine as a general purpose therapy.
This may be part of the problem I'm having. I think that some things have gotten mixed up in this theory. I think Jung was really about mid-life and spirituality, for someone with a strong ego, meeting your demons alone and overcoming them, not about solving problems in general. He's for people who really want to become self-realized. I'm not sure this is a good technique for a
24-year-old who needs friends and has obsessions.
I think I need to shut up and learn the technique, and hold in abeyance some of these questions.
I wish, however, I had a supervisor of whom I could ask these things. It feels like they're all brainwashed, have drunk the Kool-Aid, are groupies, and can't look at these questions in an unbiased way. I would like someone to talk to who isn't like that. I wonder if Ken would talk to me honestly, or if he's even considered these questions?
At least this helps me understand and conceptualize what my difficulties are. That in itself helps.