Steps or Fluid

I personally agree with the context that Nakkula presents in the field of cognitive development.  The ideals presented by are presented by the fields predecessors were integral towards the development of her ideals.  Erickson's steps of development the portray someone constantly growing was revolutionary and extremely relevant to the field, but by no means is the end.  Neither will Nakkula's concept of contextual mapping.  But the ideal that a person can skip stages and even regress back to previous stages of development is extremely powerful and relevant.  Many times someone going through trauma or an integral juncture in their life may not act rationally, and revert to a state of mind of a previous stage.  This is where Nakkula's concept comes into play much more.  My biggest disagreement with her is the idea that there are only 4 different stages.  This is where Erickson's theories shine and hers do not.  Over the course of s persons life they go through a wide variety of ideal changes and maturing.  So much so that it cannot be condensed into 4 different stages.  It may be prudent for future psychologists who want to examine the idea of cognitive development to develop a much more extensive list of stages for Nakkula's contextual mapping.  I am exited for our field;s use of these ideals because with more knowledge of how our participants think and develop the better we will be able to teach and help them grow into happy well adjusted members of society.