Human development is complex, ever changing, and delicate. There is not a more important time in someone’s life than the first few years of life. This holds true for the most part, but according to the dynamic-systems theory, human development doesn’t stop when the mind halts its development. We are ever changing; anytime one thing is affected, it could affect all parts of our life. Once one aspect of your life changes, other aspects will change as well. So in any case, development doesn’t just happen early in life. We are always developing, according to the dynamic-systems theory.
This theory is a relatively new idea. A new way to approach human development as opposed to the classic theories. In my opinion, I believe this theory holds true in many cases. For example, Britney Spears was once an innocent, sweet child. Her fame eventually led to new surroundings that were unfamiliar to the young star. People she had never met were suffocating her, the paparazzi was following her, and she began to party in the club scene. Little by little, her personality started to change, she started acting in odd ways, she took in drugs, and she changed her whole life. That’s a perfect example of the dynamic-systems theory. Beginning events affected later events. Her development changed as she grew older.
A good way to study her “train wreck” behavior is to use the ecological-systems approach. According to Bronfenbrenner, there are three distinct levels that affect a person:
1. Microsystems (Immediate surroundings)
2. Exosystems (Local surroundings such as school, church, work)
3. Macrosystems (Large scale social setting such as politics, culture, values)
He also named two other systems, but I won’t go into detail about them. You can clearly see how each system is affected in Britney’s case. Her microsystem is in chaos. Her family and friends have all but abandoned her. Britney’s exosystem is in turmoil. Her work life is falling out beneath her and her party scene is all too familiar. Then finally, the macrosystem. The nation as a whole thinks she is a train wreck. No faith in her, no mercy. You can see how this would affect her other two systems. She isn’t a loss cause. She needs help, but can always change the direction she is headed in now. Dynamic-systems theory.

Like always, please leave comments and questions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientists have been trying to decode this mystery for decades. Does homosexuality stem from nature (genetic) or nurture (surroundings)? In my opinion, I don’t believe homosexuality would be a genetic trait. I could be wrong but I don’t think scientists have actually singled out a gene responsible.

On the flip side scientists have collected data from the children of homosexual parents. About the same proportion of children ended up being homosexual as compared with having heterosexual parents. That data pretty much suggests that nurture isn’t a main factor in determining a person’s sexual orientation.
What could it be? What do you the readers think? Drop in a comment or e-mail us about the matter.
Each theory on development has their own take: The Psychoanalytic theory said that homosexuality descended from having a weak father and very strong mother. The Sociocultural theory suggested that homosexuality come from our culture itself. For example, how strong a culture’s feelings toward homosexuality are. Then you look at behaviorism and that theory suggests that it is something learned or conditioned.
Most of which what was just said has been proved wrong or never proved right. We don’t really have a theory that can explain homosexuality and whether it links nature into the equation or nurture. Tell us what you think. Drop us a comment or e-mail!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------