We were talking about Freud's phallic stage today in class and compared it to Erikson's Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt and Initiative vs. Guilt stages... And considering what I've seen of children, and what I remember from that age (3 to 5), I'm more inclined to agree with Erikson. Assuming that every child during the phallic stage sees their opposite parent as a potential mate and their same sex parent as a rival is not just disturbing, but I think far too complex for a child at that stage. First of all, it entails planning ahead, and children only develop second level theory of mind when they're four. Secondly, it has a heterosexual bias, and thirdly, it assumes that (as Freud often does), everything we do is sexually motivated. So does that mean that asexual individuals are deviant?

I just don't like the idea that the human animal is purely sexually motivated. I'm not saying that we aren't sexual creatures, just that we have other primal urges that aren't always about sex (like self preservation).

I fully agree.

Both have their place in psychological history. I mean, without Freud's work (as weird as it can seem nowadays), other people may not have come up with other ideas. All these theories have their place.

The "both" choice is also suitable.

I think freud's theory is most useful. Erickson's theory sucks and i think is ridiculous.

How is it any more ridiculous than Freud's? I explained why I thought Freud's was faulty - why do you think Erikson's is?

i think they r both good but i like this 1 better.

I know both, but Freud's is cooler xD I like both though.