# James Fowler's Faith Development Theory



## heretic888 (Feb 7, 2006)

In today's religiously polarized world, I thought this would be an interesting topic to bring to The Study....

In 1981, psychologist Dr. James Fowler published a book entitled Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning. While there is still some debate about the validity of his Faith Development Theory (FDT) among the psychological community, empirical research has generally supported Dr. Fowler's ideas and it has demonstrated success in psychotherapuetic applications. In essence, FTD concerns the development of an individual's "faith" over the course of his or her lifetime through a series of six invariant, sequential, hierarchical stages (comparable to the cognitive development theory of Jean Piaget, the moral development theory of Lawrence Kohlberg, or the ego development theory of Jane Loevinger). 

"Faith", in this context, is not necessarily religious in content (although it often is), but concerns how an individual makes sense of life and where he or she places a concern for ultimacy (whatever that may be). Fowler's "faith" is similar in many respects to the "existential intelligence" that Dr. Howard Gardner has suggested in his recent update to Multiple Intelligences Theory.

The following is a brief summarization of Fowler's stages of faith:

*1) Intuitive-Projective Faith:* Typical of children between 2 and 7 years of age; characterized by emotional narcissism and a domination by one's impulses; fantasy and reality are poorly distinguished; one's faith is a projection of oneself and one's intuitions; drawn to imaginative stories involving fantastical beings.

*2) Mythic-Literal Faith:* Typical of children between 7 to 12 years of age; sees the world in a very orderly and dependable way; able to reason inductively and deductively; can begin to take the perspectives of others; has a very literal outlook and interprets reality in a very literal way; adopts a reciprocal view of morality ("eye for an eye", reward & punishment).

*3) Synthetic-Conventional Faith:* Typically found at age 12 and beyond; individual defines oneself on the basis of his or her relationships with others (parents, peers, teachers, etc.); a strongly sociocentric outlook on life; individual identifies exclusively with one group as opposed to others; adopts the morals and norms of the in-group; this is the "unexamined" faith.

*4) Individuative-Reflective Faith:* Typically found in the early 20's and beyond; one begins to move beyond the group identity and adopt individual views; a "de-mythologizing" stage of faith; translates the symbols and images of one's tradition into personal concepts and ideas; beginning of post-conventional morality.

*5) Conjunctive Faith:* Typically found at midlife and beyond; begin to distinguish between what is true and what one believes; realizes the stories, symbols, and teachings of one's tradition are inherently partial and incomplete; seeks truth/wisdom from a multitude of sources (i.e., other traditions) in order to complement and/or correct one's own; characterized by a "radical openness" to other viewpoints, acceptance of pluralistic views, and use of paradox for understanding; deepening of post-conventional morality.

*6) Universalizing Faith:* Extremely rare; concepts of "relevent irrelevance" and "decentration of self" become important; have a detached but passionate view of life; identify with the whole of humanity, regardless of tradition or in-group; selfless compassion for all others; characterized by a unitive experience with being. 

So, then, any thoughts???


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 7, 2006)

I can see how the last one would be very rare.  I can also see how lots of very religious people would be offended by the fact that their faith lands them on stage two or three on this scale.  Of course, they would further label themselves by calling it a bunch of liberal crap and move on.  Oh the irony...


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 9, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I can see how the last one would be very rare. I can also see how lots of very religious people would be offended by the fact that their faith lands them on stage two or three on this scale. Of course, they would further label themselves by calling it a bunch of liberal crap and move on. Oh the irony...



In all honesty, it's a very common reaction.

I am suddenly reminded of the traditional trinity of critiques against Kohlberg's moral development theory --- that it is biased against women, non-Westerners, and conservatives --- and how pervasive these accusations have been in psychological literature over the past few decades. People rarely look at the data or attempt to refute the theory with their own studies. Instead, they just disagree with the theorist's conclusions in an _a priori_ fashion and move on from there.

Of course, enough data and subsequent study has been conducted on moral reasoning to demonstrate that Kohlberg was reasonably accurate in his theoretical formulations. We are finding a similar case Fowler's FTD, as well. It seems that appealing to ideology can only take you so far in peer-reviewed environments. Science requires something more substantial than philosophical preferences....


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 9, 2006)

John,

As an Unitarian-Universalist, I think you might find the following links to be of some interest. They concern the relation of your faith in the context of Fowler's theories.

Developmentally Challenged: Understanding Unitarian Universalism's Lack of Mass Appeal

James Fowler's Stages of Faith & The Stages of Faith: A Stage Five Church

Additionally, the following is a good table for summarizing Fowler's stages and comparing them to other stage-development theories: 

Stages Table

Laterz.


----------



## Ray (Feb 9, 2006)

I haven't read the book.  The description of the FDT is interesting, but does not particularly describe the stages that I went through in my own faith development; but that doesn't mean that it doesn't describe what most people (or most people that Fowler studied) go through.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 9, 2006)

Heretic888

Thanks for the resources.  They are excellent.

One question that popped up when I read more about Fowler's theory is that it seems to imply that certain faith traditions could *impede* someones faith development.  If a tradition appealed to people in stage two or three and people started to grow out of those stages, one would find themselves struggling with that faith.  Also, this phenomenon would explain why so many faith traditions have rules that actively attempt to retard someones faith development.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 9, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> I haven't read the book. The description of the FDT is interesting, but does not particularly describe the stages that I went through in my own faith development; but that doesn't mean that it doesn't describe what most people (or most people that Fowler studied) go through.


 
Well, a few points should be made here. 

The following applies to stage-developmental theories in general (i.e., Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan, Kegan, Loevinger, Selman, Cook-Greuter, Wilber, etc.), not just Fowler's model specifically.

One, individuals rarely (if ever) consciously recognize themselves as having progressed through a series of 'stages' or 'levels' in their own development. For the most part, individuals tend to unconsciously 'reconstruct' their memories and experiences in the context of the newly-formed schema. This is readily evident in studies of Piagetian cognitive development. Children at, say, concrete-operations that are shown earlier videos of themselves from previous years (at, say, pre-operations/representative thinking) will resolutely claim that the footage is doctored or is of someone else. They will often add comments to the effect of, "That can't be me! Nobody is that stupid!!"

As such, stage-developmental hierarchies like Piaget's or Fowler's tend to only be identifiable through in-depth hermeneutic comparisons from longitudinal studies. The stages or levels in a given developmental hierarchy are rarely self-evident from a mere phenomenological examination. In essence, the researcher will compare your responses today to your responses from, say, five years ago and then make note of the differences. He will do this with a large number of people (sometimes numbering in the hundreds), then make note of any definitive trends in people's responses over time. Again, none of this is necessarily going to be self-evident (altough it may be, who knows?) from merely scanning your own memories of life-events.

Two, people don't just progress inevitably in an upward direction. Regressions can and will happen, especially if the environment that supported a given level is changed to being more conducive to an earlier level. This seems to happen quite often, for example, when people leave the intellectually-stimulating environment of college, or when their socioeconomic status drops (in general, a higher SES correlates with intellectual and social complexity).

Three, as hinted at in my second point, certain stages of development tend to be optimized within certain environments. You probably won't develop beyond your given level if it is not necessitated by an correlating intellectual and interpersonal complexity within your environment. Stereotypically, such environments are provided by with higher educational institutions (i.e., people in college tend to score higher on, say, Loevinger's ego-development scale than the normal population) and are also highly correlated with socioeconomic status (i.e., people in higher-paying, college-educated jobs tend to be more stimulated by intellectual and social complexity than people in lower-paying, GED-educated jobs). In other words, if you are in the same environment over a long course of time, it is _highly unlikely_ that you will either progress or regress from a given stage.

In summation, these three variables (schema/memory reconstruction, regression, and stage/environment interaction) could all account for why one would not experience a hierarchical progression in exactly the same way that Fowler describes in this theory.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 9, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Heretic888
> 
> Thanks for the resources. They are excellent.



No problem.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One question that popped up when I read more about Fowler's theory is that it seems to imply that certain faith traditions could *impede* someones faith development. If a tradition appealed to people in stage two or three and people started to grow out of those stages, one would find themselves struggling with that faith. Also, this phenomenon would explain why so many faith traditions have rules that actively attempt to retard someones faith development.



Indeed, as I mentioned in my response to Ray, there seems to be a stage/environment interaction that warrants further research and study.

This is readily apparent in studies involving Kohlberg's moral reasoning or Loevinger's ego development scales. In general, we find that both educational level and socioeconomic status (SES) correlate significantly with one's stage of development. I would expect a similar trend in regards to Fowler's stages of faith. The general explanation for this is that increasingly complex intellectual/social environments are very conducive to increasingly complex levels of development. This is why the higher stages are practically non-existent (although not impossible) in many preindustrial societies.

This may also account for the correlation between poverty and criminal/antisocial behavior that we observe in industrial societies.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2006)

Another thought on this is that scores on this 1-5 scale are normally distributed.  Perhaps the reason why so many faith tradtions fall into the 2-3 range is because most people locked developmentally into that stage.


----------



## Brother John (Feb 10, 2006)

I own a copy of that book, and I couldn't recomend it MORE!!
Seriously, try it out and keep an open mind. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

also: if that book and FDT appeals to you, check out the landmark work by Psychiastrist Victor E. Frankyl  "Man's Search for Ultimate Meaning". VERY VERY profound I think. Many of Dr. Frankyl's points and themes run a good paralel, if not being an absolute SUPPORT, to Dr. Fowlers own points and themes in "Stages of Faith"!!!!  (ALSO: I'd highly recomend reading Dr. Frankyl's autobiography. VERY interesting how this Jewish Psychiatrist surived a Nazi concentration camp...with not only his sanity, but a Very powerful and enlightened outlook on life and how we use our minds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  It's inspirational!)

Good topic heretic!!!  (OK...in the context of THIS thread, your handle there kinda gives me the giggles.....)

Your Brother
John


----------



## Ray (Feb 10, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> One, individuals rarely (if ever) consciously recognize themselves as having progressed through a series of 'stages' or 'levels' in their own development. For the most part, individuals tend to unconsciously 'reconstruct' their memories and experiences in the context of the newly-formed schema.


How convenient for the theory constructors.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> In summation, these three variables (schema/memory reconstruction, regression, and stage/environment interaction) could all account for why one would not experience a hierarchical progression in exactly the same way that Fowler describes in this theory.


Mooja vu.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 11, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> How convenient for the theory constructors.


 
It's not a matter of convenience, it's a matter of evidence.

The simple fact of the matter is that people's memories are not as reliable as they think they are. It is very well-established in the cognitive literature that our memories are largely reconstructions based on information we have gained from multiple sources. The Piagetian schema-reconstruction is just part of a larger cognitive pattern.

In any event, a big difference between first-person memories and the data accumulated by researchers like Dr. Fowler is that the former is anecdotal, while the latter is empirical.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Mooja vu.


 
Ummm..... ok. :idunno: 

Laterz.


----------



## Ray (Feb 11, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> It's not a matter of convenience, it's a matter of evidence.
> 
> The simple fact of the matter is that people's memories are not as reliable as they think they are.


Perhaps it is the researchers who have the memory or cognitive reliablity issue?


			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Mooja vu





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ummm..... ok. :idunno:


 
Mooja vu is like Daja vu: The uncanny feeling that you've heard this bull before.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 11, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> Perhaps it is the researchers who have the memory or cognitive reliablity issue?
> 
> 
> 
> Mooja vu is like Daja vu: The uncanny feeling that you've heard this bull before.


 
So, you're in phase 1?


----------



## Carol (Feb 11, 2006)

This has been criticized as being biased AGAINST non-Westerners?  That is a surprise to me, because a lot of what I am reading seems to fit in well with what I see my faith.  I"m a Westerner, yes...but Sikhism, the faith I follow, isn't a Western faith.


----------



## stephen (Feb 12, 2006)

Great post.

It's amazing how well this describes some of the major differences of opinion/styles/type of people in the Bujinkan. 

...I have a feeling that was your point...


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 12, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> Perhaps it is the researchers who have the memory or cognitive reliablity issue?
> 
> Mooja vu is like Daja vu: The uncanny feeling that you've heard this bull before.


 
In other words, you're just going to make an _a priori_ rejection of the theory (and associated theories), without reviewing the methodology or the data, solely on the basis the researchers in question say things you don't like.

No offense, but this is the logical equivalent of shouting, "You're a big, fat doody-head, so there!" on the school courtyard and storming off in illusory triumph.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 13, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> This has been criticized as being biased AGAINST non-Westerners? That is a surprise to me, because a lot of what I am reading seems to fit in well with what I see my faith. I"m a Westerner, yes...but Sikhism, the faith I follow, isn't a Western faith.


 
Well, this really gets into Kohlberg's research moreso than Fowler's, but the traditional "cultural" critiques of these theories have typically taken two general forms:

1) The ideal of post-conventional morality's emphasis of transcending the norms and values of one's social in-group to identify with universal principles of humanity is thought to privilege individualist (as opposed to collectivist) values typical in the West.

2) Individuals in non-industrial cultures typically score lower than those in industrial cultures on tests of moral reasoning and the like. However, there are also significant differences among individuals _within_ industrialized cultures on the basis of education and socioeconomic status, so this seems less to do with "culture" and more to do with the complexity of an individual/environment interaction.

As I said, a lot of research seems to indicate that much of these "cultural" critiques are unfounded. At best, they seem to be an oversimplification of rather complex data. At worst, it's sheer social ideology at work.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 13, 2006)

stephen said:
			
		

> Great post.
> 
> It's amazing how well this describes some of the major differences of opinion/styles/type of people in the Bujinkan.
> 
> ...I have a feeling that was your point...


 
Actually, the internal politics of the Bujinkan had nothing to do with my discussion of Fowler's theories. I thought it was significant due to the religiously polarized climate we often find ourselves in today, that's all.

Laterz.


----------



## stephen (Feb 13, 2006)

Oh, for some reason I thought this was posted in the ninjutsu section. 

Must'of been those lines of metsubushi I've been sniffin'. 

I do however, find it interesting that there are several groups withing the Bujinkan (and probably every other group out there) which make sense out of Soke's teachings using the filter of one of these stages.

I often noticed the different ways that people view their training; I never really thought to correlate it with their approach to their religious views.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 13, 2006)

stephen said:
			
		

> I do however, find it interesting that there are several groups withing the Bujinkan (and probably every other group out there) which make sense out of Soke's teachings using the filter of one of these stages.
> 
> I often noticed the different ways that people view their training; I never really thought to correlate it with their approach to their religious views.


 
Strictly speaking, Fowler differentiates between "faith" and religious beliefs in his theory. What he is describing is very similar to the "existential intelligence" that Howard Gardner suggested in his recent _Intelligence Reframed_ (published in 1999).

"Faith", within the context of Faith Development Theory (FTD), has more to do with where an individual places their "ultimate concern" (to paraphrase Christian existentialist Paul Tillich). Since everybody has an "ultimate concern" of some kind, this isn't something unique to religious people, but instead seems to be a developmental inheritance common to all human beings.

In essence, FTD is just an explanatory framework for detailing how people's responses to questions like "who really counts?", "what is really important?", and "what is your role in life?" tend to develop and mature over the course of their lifespan. As such, it could hypothetically be applied to a number of meaningful activities, including both religion and the martial arts.

I should also add that just because a given individual is at one of the lower stages of faith does not mean they are "bad" or "wrong". Because, if that's the position we're going to take, then we're _all_ wrong, since there is _always_ a higher stage than where we are to show how partial and incomplete our way of looking at things is. Rather, it would perhaps be a more comprehensive viewpoint to see that each stage is completely appropriate and natural for individuals based on the circumstances of their life interacting with their own internal dispositions.

Laterz.


----------



## Ray (Feb 13, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> No offense, but this is the logical equivalent of shouting, "You're a big, fat doody-head, so there!" on the school courtyard and storming off in illusory triumph.





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> "Faith", within the context of Faith Development Theory (FTD), has more to do with where an individual places their "ultimate concern" ...Since everybody has an "ultimate concern" of some kind, this isn't something unique to religious people, but instead seems to be a developmental inheritance common to all human beings


Well now, when you put that way it kind of makes me want to go back and read your first post and perhaps eat crow...

Yes sir, I just re-read the first post in light of "faith" as you define it above and if I were a more noble person I would definately apologize.

Oh what the heck, I apologize.


----------



## still learning (Feb 13, 2006)

Hello, You can put me in group 5 .......Aloha


----------



## stephen (Feb 14, 2006)

still learning said:
			
		

> Hello, You can put me in group 5 .......Aloha



I'm a 7. I win!


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 14, 2006)

James Fowler gives a very good description of the distinction between "faith", "religion", and "beliefs" in _Religion and the Clinical Practice of Psychology_ (ed. Edward Shafranske, 1996, pp. 168-169):

"Faith-development theory and research have focused on a multidimensional construct for faith that sees it as foundation to social relations, to personal identity, and to the making of personal and cultural meanings (Fowler, 1980, 1981, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1991). My claim is that faith is a generic feature of human beings. To make this claim credible, I must take some care to distinguish faith from two related patterns of human action that are often treated as synonymous with faith; belief and religion. Belief, in the modern period, has come increasingly mean the giving of intellectual assent to propositional statements that codify the doctrines or ideological claims of a particular tradition or group. Although belief may be an aspect of a person's or a group's faith, it is only a part. Faith includes unconscious dynamics as well as conscious awareness. It includes deep-seated emotional dimensions as well as cognitive operations and content. Faith is both more personal and more existentially defining than belief, understood in this modern sense.

Religion, as distinguished from faith, may be thought of as a cumulative tradition composed from the myriad beliefs and practices that have expressed and formed the faith of individuals in the past and present. The components of a cumulative tradition can include art and architecture; symbols, rituals, narrative, and myth; scriptures, doctrines, ethical teachings, and music; practices of justice and mercy; and much more. Elements from a cumulative tradition can be the souce of awakening and forming for the faith consciousness of individuals in the present. A current generation's drawing on and being formed by elements from a cumulative tradition make for a reciprocity of mutual vitalization and commitment. In the long evolution of humankind, the tie between faith and religion has generally been inextricable. It is only in the modern period, where many people have separated themselves from religious communities and religious faith, that religious faith needs to be distinguished from faith in a more generic and universal sense.

*Faith, understood in this more inclusive sense, may be characterized as an integral, centering process, underlying the formation of the beliefs, values, and meanings, that (a) gives coherence and direction to people's lives; (b) links them in shared trusts and loyalties with others; (c) grounds their personal stances and communal loyalties in a sense of relatedness to a larger frame of reference; and (d) enables them to face and deal with the limit conditions of human life, relying on that which has the quality of ultimacy in their lives.*

The foregoing characterization of faith is meant to be as formal as possible. It aims to include descriptions of religious faith as well as the explicit faith orientations of individuals and groups who can be described as secular or eclectic in their belief and value orientations. The non-content-specific characterizations of faith correlates with the formal intent of the descriptions of the stages of faith. The stages aim to describe patterned operations of knowing and valuing that underlie consciousness. The varying stages of faith can be differentiated in relation to the degrees of complexity, of comprehensiveness, of internal differentiation, and of moral inclusiveness that their operations of knowing and valuing manifest. In continuity with the constructive developmental tradition, faith stages are held to be invariant, sequential, and hierarchical."

The bold coding was added for emphasis. I hope this helps to clarify what it is that Faith Development Theory is actually aiming to describe in individuals and groups.

Laterz.


----------



## Last Fearner (Apr 7, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> "Faith", within the context of Faith Development Theory (*FTD*)...
> 
> In essence, *FTD* is just an explanatory framework...





heretic888 said:


> In essence, *FTD* concerns the development of an individual's "faith"...


 
Shouldn't that be "FDT" ?   




heretic888 said:


> I should also add that just because a given individual is at one of the lower stages of faith does not mean they are "bad" or "wrong". Because, if that's the position we're going to take, then we're _all_ wrong...


 
I'm sure glad you added this!  Insights such as this are key to understanding and accepting research that tends to place things in "static categories" and label people based on limited perspective.

Without going into detail, yet, I find nothing inherently wrong with the observations he has made, although I do find it to be excessive in its presentation, and lacking of the simplest base root (the smallest breakdown without over categorizing), and yet it is missing some important elements.

In any event, there is not much here in the FDT that is not well documented and accepted in at least some of the various theories presented in studies of basic psychology, sociology, and criminology.  Most of these areas of study have a variety of "experts" and differing schools of thought that contain some similarities with some variants in interpretation, hypotheses and final theory.

It is not that difficult to take a cross-section of people, over a period of time, and observe their behavior based on certain criteria and external influences.  The difficulty comes in analyzing the data correctly, and drawing accurate conclusions that bear any relevance to real-life application.

In my opinion, FDT does not present any astounding revelations, yet there is more to the phenomenon of faith than what is presented in the six stages.  My commentary here might be a bit extemporaneous, to which you might ask me to elaborate, but I would be disinclined to acquiesce to your request presently.  :wink1: 

This is difficult to explain in a short answer, but I will attempt to find the time in the near future to explain further.

So, heretic888, are you currently studying this in college, or have you already attained a degree in a related field?




heretic888 said:


> The following is a brief summarization of Fowler's stages of faith:
> 
> *1) Intuitive-Projective Faith:* Typical of children between 2 and 7 years of age;
> 
> ...


 
Heretic888, seeing that you are 24 years old, in what stage do you consider yourself to be?  Are you "typical" or atypical?


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 10, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> Shouldn't that be "FDT" ?



Yes, it should. 



Last Fearner said:


> I'm sure glad you added this!  Insights such as this are key to understanding and accepting research that tends to place things in "static categories" and label people based on limited perspective.
> 
> Without going into detail, yet, I find nothing inherently wrong with the observations he has made, although I do find it to be excessive in its presentation, and lacking of the simplest base root (the smallest breakdown without over categorizing), and yet it is missing some important elements.
> 
> ...



Can't disagree with you here.



Last Fearner said:


> In my opinion, FDT does not present any astounding revelations, yet there is more to the phenomenon of faith than what is presented in the six stages.



Well, I think its important to keep in mind just what Dr. Fowler means when he says "faith". In his theory, this isn't the special property of the religious, but something that all human beings possess in varying degrees. It is comparable to Dr. Gardner's "existential intelligence". I went into more detail with this in an earlier post.  



Last Fearner said:


> This is difficult to explain in a short answer, but I will attempt to find the time in the near future to explain further.



Should be interesting. 



Last Fearner said:


> So, heretic888, are you currently studying this in college, or have you already attained a degree in a related field?



I'm a psychology major in college.



Last Fearner said:


> Heretic888, seeing that you are 24 years old, in what stage do you consider yourself to be?  Are you "typical" or atypical?



While there is inherent danger in diagnosing oneself, I would consider myself somewhere between Stages 4 and 5. In that regard, I suppose I'm pretty "typical" given my age and educational background.


----------



## Last Fearner (Apr 10, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> Well, I think its important to keep in mind just what Dr. Fowler means when he says "faith". In his theory, this isn't the special property of the religious, but something that all human beings possess in varying degrees. It is comparable to Dr. Gardner's "existential intelligence". I went into more detail with this in an earlier post.


 
Thanks for posting this.  I am going to spend a little more time (as time permits) to examine, cross-reference, and understand Dr. Fowler's and Dr. Gardner's points of views.  I think it will be beneficial for me to review what I learned years ago, and add to it.



heretic888 said:


> Should be interesting.


I hope so, and I look forward to your replies once I have posted my own assessment.  I am sure that your current pursuit of this knowledge is keeping you fresh and better informed of the latest theories.



heretic888 said:


> I'm a psychology major in college.


That's fascinating.  I hope you do well in your studies.  I have had a little psychology at college, and intend to return to it and add a degree in philosophy once I get back on track to further my college education (yes, even at my old age!).  My nephew is working towards his master's in psychology with a focus on Autism (lucky for me since I have a son who has mild autism).



heretic888 said:


> While there is inherent danger in diagnosing oneself, I would consider myself somewhere between Stages 4 and 5. In that regard, I suppose I'm pretty "typical" given my age and educational background.


:ultracool  Thanks for your honesty.  Self-evaluation is relevant to psychology (in my opinion) but can be biased.  I would be interested in getting to know you better (even though we disagree on some issues), since you seem like an interesting, and sharp minded individual (for such a young pup)!  

Last Fearner


----------

