someone expand on this adolescent egocentrism ---david elkind
That's an odd question. Hopefully I'm not doing your homework for you.
Elkind is a Piagetian that has extended and elaborated on Piaget's original model regarding cognitive development.
According to Piaget (pronounced pee-ah-shjay), adolescents enter the
formal operational stage of cognitive development. This is the stage at which the capacity for abstract and logical thought begins to form. According to Elkind adolescents are not particular good at this formal operational thought (because they have just acquired it and their neurology is still forming). Specifically, the adolescent commences meta-cognition i.e.
thinking about thinking and becomes pre-occupied with this process. Consistent with the Piagetian tradition of generating neologisms, Elkind terms this phenomenon
centration. This pre-occuptaion -- according to Elkind -- restricts the adolescence perspective, causing him/her to fail to appreciate that their thoughts are just that i.e. their thoughts. Centration in turn produces the
egocentrism you referred to. Elkind explains the adolescent belief in invincicbility/immortality using centration and egocentrism. He also explains adolescent self-consciousness via these mechanisms. In Piagetian terms, Elkind argues that adolsecents develop egocentrism within -- and as a consequnce of -- their nascent formal operational stage of cognitive development.
Atop this theorising, Elkind adds more: his core concepts of
imaginary audience and
personal fables.
<Opinion>
I don't like the type of psychology practiced by Piaget and continued by his disciples. It is redolent of the pre-scientific, pre-experimental era of psychology when armchair speculation and building huge theoretical edifices was psychology
par excellence. We have learnt heaps about adolescent cognition from rigorous experimentation and neuroscience, there is no need for this sort of continental armchair pontificating. As far as meta-theories go evolutionary psychology is superior to all others.
</Opinion>