Social Development: Crash Course Sociology #13


Have you ever met a friend’s parents and
realized that your friend was basically a
mini-me of their mom? Not just because they both have brown hair
or a pointy nose. It’s how they talk, the way they both like
making silly puns, their attitudes and beliefs. Now the question is: How much of that
similarity is genetic, and how much is just a function of that fact that your
friend grew up with their mom, and pretty much learned
how to be a human being by watching her? This is the age old question: nature or nurture? Nature is the part of human behavior that’s
biologically determined and instinctive. When a baby latches onto your finger and won’t
let go, and it’s basically the cutest thing in the whole world, it’s not because they
learned to do that – it’s natural. A lot of human behavior, however, isn’t
instinctive – it comes instead from how
you’re nurtured. The nurture part of behavior is based on the
people and environment you’re raised in. And it’s this second part – the social
environment that determines human behavior – that sociologists tend to investigate
and have many different theories about. [Theme Music] To a big extent, we develop our personalities
and learn about our society and culture through a
social process – one known as socialization. Sounds legit, right? But what happens if you don’t have people
around you? Social isolation affects our emotional and
cognitive development, a lot. To get a glimpse into how and why this is, let’s
go to the Thought Bubble to look at sociologist
Kingsley Davis’s case studies on Anna. In the winter of 1938, a social worker investigated a
report of child neglect on a small Pennsylvania farm and
found, hidden in a storage shed, a five-year-old girl. That five-year girl was Anna. She was unwanted by the family she was born into and was passed from house to house among neighbors and strangers for the first six months of her life. Eventually, she ended up being kept in a shed
with no human contact other than to receive food. Kingsley Davis observed Anna for years after
her rescue and wrote about the effects of this
upbringing on her development. When Anna was first rescued, she was unable
to speak or smile, and was completely unresponsive
to human interaction. Even after years of education and medical
attention, her mental development at age eight
was less than that of a typical two-year old. This is a story with both a sad beginning
and a sad ending. Anna died of a blood disorder at the age of
10. And Davis’ study of how isolation affects
young children was only one of many that have
shown how a lack of socialization affects
children’s ability to develop language skills,
social skills, and emotional stability. Thanks Thought Bubble. There are lots of different theories about
how we develop personalities, cognitive skills, and moral behavior, many of which come from
our siblings in social science: psychologists. Take Sigmund Freud. You’ve heard of him: Austrian guy? Liked cigars?
Invented the field of psychoanalysis? One of his main theories was about how personalities
develop. He thought we were born with something called
an id. You can think of the id as your most basic,
unconscious drive – a desire for food, comfort,
attention. All a baby knows is it wants THAT and it will
scream until it gets it. But then we develop the ego and superego to
balance the id. Ego is the voice of reason, your conscious
efforts to rein in the pleasure-seeking id. And your superego is made up of the cultural
values and norms that you internalize and
use to guide your decisions. So if the id is the devil on your shoulder,
the superego is the angel on the other shoulder, and the ego is the mediator who intervenes
when the angel and devil start fighting. Now, a lot of Freud’s work hasn’t stood
the test of time, but his theories about how society affects our
development has influenced pretty much everyone
who has researched the human personality. This includes Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget,
who spent much of his career in the early
1900s studying cognitive development. While researching ways to measure children’s
intelligence, Piaget noticed that kids of similar
ages tended to make similar mistakes. And this, to Piaget, suggested that there
were four different stages of cognitive development. First Stage: TOUCH EVERYTHING! Babies learn about the world by grabbing things
and sticking them in their mouths. This curious, slobbery interaction with the world
is what Piaget called the sensorimotor stage – the level of development where all knowledge
is based on what you can perceive with your senses. Around age 2, a child enters the next stage,
known as the preoperational stage. At this point, kids have learned to use language
and begin to ask questions to learn about
the world, rather than just grabbing stuff. Now they can think about the world and
use their imaginations – which leads to playing
pretend and an understanding of symbols. But thinking about the world is pretty much
limited to how THEY think about the world. Kids in the preoperational stage are pretty
ego-centric; if they love playing with trains and you ask them
what their dad’s favorite thing to do is, they’ll probably
say that he loves playing with trains too. It’s not until they reach the concrete operational
stage, around 6 or 7, that they develop the ability to take in other people’s perspectives,
and begin to make cause-and-effect connections
between events in their surroundings. And in the formal operational stage, at about
age 12, Piaget said, kids begin to think in
the abstract and use logic and critical thinking. Now, American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg later
expanded on Piaget’s model of cognitive development
to incorporate stages of moral development. Essentially, kids’ sense of what is “right” begins
in what Kohlberg called the pre-conventional stage, where right is just what feels good
to them personally. Next, they move to the conventional stage,
where what’s right is what society and the
people around them tells them is right. And then finally, children end up in the post-conventional
stage, where they begin to consider more abstract
ethical concepts than just right or wrong. So at a young age, a child doesn’t realize
that grabbing the candy bar they want at the
store is wrong – they just want it. But then, a combination of societal norms
and being scolded by their parents convinces
them that stealing is wrong, no matter how
much they want the candy bar. And over time, they learn that morals have
gray areas; stealing is wrong if it’s just for fun, but
might be considered less wrong if you’re
stealing to feed your family. Eventually, children reach a point where they’re
able to think about things like freedom and justice, and realize that societal norms about
what’s right may not always line up with
these principles. Sure, laws against stealing candy may be just,
but what about laws that say only certain
people can get married? Just because something is a law, is it right? How you feel about that question may depend
on your socialization. And on your gender. Carol Gilligan, an American psychologist who
started out as a research assistant and collaborator of Kohlberg’s, explored how girls and boys
experience these stages differently. She realized that Kohlberg’s original studies
only had male subjects – which may have biased
his findings. When she expanded the research to look at
both male and female children, she found that boys tended to emphasize formal rules to define
right and wrong – what she called a justice
perspective. Whereas girls tended to emphasize the role
of interpersonal reasoning in moral decisions – what she called a care and responsibility
perspective. Gilligan argued that these differences stem
from cultural conditioning that girls receive
to fulfill ideals of femininity. She thought that we socialize girls to be
more nurturing and empathetic, and that influences
their moral interpretation of behavior. The next theory of social development I want
to focus on is from American sociologist George Herbert Mead, who was one of the founders
of the sociological paradigm we talked about a few episodes ago, known as symbolic interactionism. His work focused on how we develop a “self.” What makes up the you that is inherently you? Are you born with some inherent spark of you-ness? According to Mead no! Instead, he believed that we figure out who
we are through other people. All social interactions require you to see
yourself as someone else might see you – something Mead described as “taking on
the role of others.” In the first stage of development, according
to Mead’s model, we learn through imitation – we watch how others behave and try to
behave like them. You see your mom smile at your neighbor, so
you smile too. And Mead observed that as kids got older,
they moved on to a new stage – play. Rather than just imitating your mom, you might
play at being a mom, taking care of a doll. Assuming the role of “mommy” or “daddy”
is a kid imagining the world from their parent’s
perspective. The next stage of development is the game
stage, where children learn to take on multiple
roles in a single situation. What does that have to do with games? Well, games use rules and norms, and require
kids to take on a role themselves, and develop
that role in reaction to the roles that others take on. Team sports are a great example of this. When you’re playing soccer, you need to not only
know what you’re going to do, but also what your
teammates and your opponents will do. If you were ever the kid who ended up running
the wrong way on the soccer field because you didn’t realize the ball had switched
possession, you know how important it is to
anticipate what other people do. The last stage, in Mead’s model, occurs
when we learn how to take on multiple roles
in multiple situations. In this phase, we weigh our self and our
actions not against one specific role, but against
a ‘generalized other’ – basically, a manifestation of all of our
culture’s norms and expectations. Now, you might have noticed that all these
theories focus on childhood. So, does that mean that your personality is
set once you hit 18? No, definitely no. As anyone over 18 will tell you, you keep
growing well past high school. And that’s why yet another theorist, German-born
psychologist Erik Erikson, came up with his own eight-stage theory of development, that
goes all the way from infancy to old age. He based these stages on the key challenge
of each period of life. When you’re a toddler, for example, your
biggest challenge is getting what you want – or as Erikson puts it, gaining autonomy,
which helps you build skills and confidence
in your abilities. But once you’re a young adult, you’ve
got plenty of autonomy. Now a bigger challenge is developing intimate
relationships. Falling in love, finding friends – there’s a reason
that’s the focus of every 20-something sitcom. And his list goes on. Every life stage from when you’re born to when
you die features different expectations that inform
what we see as markers of social development. Moving out, getting married, having kids – they’re
all societal markers of social development as an adult. But whether you feel like one or not, adulthood
will come for us all – and it’s your socialization that will determine
how exactly you perform the role of “adult.” Next week, we’ll talk about the different
agents of socialization that shape who we
really end up being. Today we learned about social development,
starting with the role of nature and nurture
in influencing a person’s development. We talked about social isolation and the importance
of care and human interaction in early years
for proper emotional and mental development. Then, we talked about five theories of development:
Freud’s Id, Ego, and Superego; Piaget’s Four Stages of Cognitive Development, Kohlberg and Gilligan’s theories of moral
development; Mead’s theory of self;
And Erik Erikson’s life stage theory. Crash Course Sociology is filmed in the Dr.
Cheryl C. Kinney Studio in Missoula, MT, and it’s
made with the help of all of these nice people. Our animation team is Thought Cafe and Crash
Course is made with Adobe Creative Cloud. If you’d like to keep Crash Course free for
everyone, forever, you can support the series at Patreon, a crowdfunding platform that allows
you to support the content you love. Thank you to all of our patrons for making
Crash Course possible with their continued
support.




Comments
  1. 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!

  2. 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 YouTube comments.

  3. 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.

  4. hey crash course I was wondering if you guys could consider to start doing high school level math starting with algebra please.

  5. I talk very differently from my mum or dad, and I don't know why. I speak slower and they have an upper class tone while I have a middle class tone but a very rich vocabulary…

  6. Nature isn't limited to instinct. There are only a handful of human instincts, while genetics/nature are arguably more significant than nurture.

  7. 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.😅😅

  8. I don't understand why there is such an obsession with finding some biological component that implies one sex is "made for" nurturing or raising children. There is no culture on earth where men /never/ have contact with children and /all/ women only raise children. Two year old girls don't tell people "I only want to be a mom forever." What we are TOLD is that men should not spend the majority of their time at home raising kids but if you're looking for some hormone or brain difference that implies that biologically, I'm sorry. You're going to be waiting a long time for proof of that.

  9. Anyone know if there are any differences between males and females in terms of moral behavior in the pre-conventional stage of development?

  10. 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.

  11. 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?

  12. 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!

  13. 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.

  14. How every stage can be evil:
    Pre-conventional stage: Think of a werewolf, or someone with anti-social personality disorder. It has no control over its urges and goes berserk in a certain set of conditions. It quite simply does not have notions of right and wrong, just 'want' and 'do not want'.
    Post-conventional stage: Think of a vampire, or someone with narcissistic personality disorder. It has nothing but contempt for the lives, values, beliefs and thoughts of humans, thinking itself to be so much above them. Its notions of right and wrong are its own, and it wraps right back to behavior that is indistinguishable from that of a werewolf from an outside observer. Quite simply, self serving biases and rationalization produce continuous shifts in beliefs and situational interpretation to synchronise its ethical views with whatever happens to align with his own best interest.
    Conventional stage: Think of ISIS, or of the fact that almost all of the soldiers who committed atrocities in Nazi Germany claimed to have "only been following orders". Following the norms is only as good as the goodness of the norms being followed, and an unwillingness to challenge the social order is indistinguishable from amorality, or moral apathy.

    Well, that was depressing.

  15. As a Psychology student that knows about his theory on psychosexual development, when Freud was mentioned I wanted to scream

  16. 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.

  17. Thank you for this amazing lesson,dear creaotors)
    Your channel takes me an opportunity to improve my "English Level" every day.

  18. gay people have always been allowed to get married, so it's not discrimination. Gay people just were't allowed to marry homosexually

  19. 2:24 You’ve heard of him: COCAINE guy? Liked COCAINE ? Invented the field of psychoCOCAINEanalysis?
    There you go, fixed

  20. 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 😀

  21. 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.

  22. Interesting would here Kinsey be remembered? :/ He was banned for speaking truth. I think He will not be mantioned, cause "democracy" is so "free" that banned all other thoughts, except few.

  23. Id! Triple word score!
    Hey, no abbreviations!
    No, not I.D. Dad, Id! it's a word!

    Id! Applying to the ego and the superego, one of the components of the psyche!

    As in this game is stup-id.

  24. 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".

  25. 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

  26. 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.

  27. sigmund freud is stupid. how would you kow what's inside human head without understanding human cognitive functioned and what consciousness is scientifically. to categorize id, ego and super-ego based on guess work is a massive arrogance

  28. I think it's important to mention that Gilligan's gender based moral reasoning theory has been discredited. Subsequent research identified that males and females tend to reason on issues of morality with little to no different in most cultures.

  29. 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

  30. I love your videos, they're always so informative! You need to do more videos on post-modernity and digital sociology/economy!

  31. African, Asian, and Latino psychologists and sociologists would enhance these courses by adding different perspectives and more information

  32. It will be very useful if you could please slow down your verbal pace.. As its hard to catch with it. Especially in non English speaking nation.

  33. Gay marriage was and is opposed by some because of legitimate objections to it being considered a social norm. Stop acting like it was motivated by hate.

    Why don’t we legalize incestuous marriage? It’s two consenting adults? Why not polygamy? It’s three (or 4 or 5) consenting adults? Because they are considered morally wrong in the Judeo-Christian tradition and neither are social norms. It was for this same reason that people like President Obama opposed gay marriage.

    But hey crash course, keep referring to the issue like it was some horrible, unjust, homophobic oppression that had to be overcome in the name of equality and social justice. I’m sure students watching this won’t know you are indoctrinating them and not educating them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *