Answer:
Initiative versus guilt.
Explanation:
<u>Erik Erickson proposed a theory of psychological development in which he categorized development from infant to adulthood, into eight stages. </u>
Kristi's behavior in the question can be categorized in the third stage of Erik's psychological development i.e., "Initiative versus guilt".
In this stage of Erik's theory, which spans from 3-5 years, the child begins to take initiative. when children's take initiative they began to develop an interpersonal skill. But if parents squelched at their children during this stage they will develop a sense of guilt which will stop children from taking initiative and will restrict themselves.
So, the correct answer is "Initiative versus guilt.
There is no passage and answer choices, so it is impossible to answer this question. I apologise.
Answer:
Answer is B
Explanation:
Say it out loud, it really does help a lot. Pls mark brainliest
I'll just post the text where the statement "note an irony in my argument" is found.
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
Use Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner cartoon as an example and explain why it may give some children the impression that they are immortal because a show made it seem like that is true, its a false analogy. Which is why so many people died when the Pokemon Go app thing came to me. It was mainly kids and they weren’t scared for a reason.
