Taborite, Jaylou M.

Statement: Traditional approach to the study of human development is better than

the life span approach.
Claim: I’m going to say yes, I agree that the traditional approach to the study of
human development is better than the life span approach.
Evidence: The article gives evidence why traditional approach to the study of
human development is better than the life span approach. The author gives evidence
that traditional approach to the study of human development is better than the life
span approach. The traditional approach focuses on lifespan development, which
studies how people grow and change throughout the different stages of their lives,
whereas the life span approach focuses on factors that affect human growth and
development in terms of biological, cognitive, and psychosocial perspectives.

The author argues that traditional approaches to the study of human development is
better than the life span approach because it includes an analysis of individual
differences in personality traits as well as how these differences can be related to
specific outcomes over time (like school performance).

Evedince: Erik Erikson created eight stages within his theory of human
development. He believed that each stage was vital for a child's healthy
psychological growth. The first stage he described was Trust versus Mistrust (Birth -
1 year). This stage is when children begin to develop a sense of trust or mistrust
towards others based on their interactions with others
First Reason: The first reason is that I believe it's easier to take a traditional
approach to the study of human development because you don't have to look too far
into the future or in the past. You just look at what's happening now, which is a lot
less complicated than trying to predict what will happen in the future or studying
records that may not even be reliable from long, long ago. Another reason why I
think it's easier to take a traditional approach is because, as I said earlier, we can't
really predict what will happen in the future, so there's no point in worrying about it
or trying to figure it out. We should just focus on now and see where it takes us.

Second reason: is that life span is too hard of an approach because there are too
many factors you have to consider when studying human development over a long
period of time. For example, if you're taking the life span approach then you have to
consider things like genetics, nutrition, medical history and environment...which can
all be pretty tricky! It's also hard for some people

The traditional approach to the study of human development is better than the life
span approach.
The reason why I agree with this statement is because when you look at people from
a traditional approach, you look at how they were raised. Looking in their
background will give you a good indication of their future. The life span approach
does not focus on that too much.

I think that a person's background can really determine how they will live and act as
adults. If a person was raised in a loving home, then it is likely that he or she will
also grow up to be loving, caring and respectful towards others. By contrast, if
someone was abused as a child, then it is likely that they will have some anger issues
later on in life and not be able to return love or respect to others.

I think the traditional approach to studying human development is the best way to
look at people because it gives us greater insight into why they are the way they are
now and if we can help them change their future.