Cognitive and Linguistic Development in Sociocultural Context
From this week's readings I was intrigued by the concept of parental control on infant activities. I have never thought of the redirection of an infant's attention as a negative or harmful habit until it was associated with disrupting "the child's perseverance and ability to concentrate" (Elkind, 92). If a baby is playing with string and a parent gives her a doll for a few minutes and then blocks, what habits is the parent, perhaps unintentionally, instilling in their child? This makes me curious as to if the parents who have these types of tendencies continue them throughout their child's growth. Have there been studies to correlate distracted babies with children who have a hard time focusing? Or children with ADD or ADHD?
I found it interesting when David Elkind's article "The Power of Play" focused on children who are normally singled out as the unfocused and easily distractible, suggesting that they are not at fault but are only a product of a society that does not value individual passions and motivations. As a child I surely came to this barrier, as all my peers most likely did. But as many of them I was told that challenging such a one minded program was not an option and that I had to follow as did everyone who wanted to succeed in the system.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Mirror Neurons
Week #3
Like usual, this week's readings and class discussions stimulated much self-reflection, but also caused me to feel defensive. The topic was on infant attachment patterns and requirements and what longterm behaviors can be caused by different types of attachment to the primary caregiver (mother). Firstly, as I attempted to categorize myself I couldn't find a place in which I applied easily, which caused me to critique the over-simplification of initial parent/child relations and their longterm affects. Without doubt these first months and year are crucial, however how can we accurately consider all the complexities involved in the relations between an infant and primary caregivers? For example, if a mother is very present and kind but an absent father communicates confusing signals to the child, which parent will influence the child to be in one category or another, or will their experience only create an aversion to men that is not qualified here? If the child then frequents a sub-standard daycare with rotating caretakers but then a grandfather is very dependable and caring, into which category will the child fit and will this reverse any mistrust of men instilled by the absent father? From my own experiences these categories fail to consider vast differences of the communities we are brought up in. It seems too simple but I am interested to see if future classes on adult psychology will further back up this theory.
I also think these categories and readings put too much weight on the negative effects in adulthood, assuming that these differences in personal interactions are only negative and should be avoided because they don't make the extroverted leaders our society demands for success. This variety only contribute further to the differences between all of us. We all have challenged from our past that we must overcome.
Today in class we covered mirror neurons and their role in concreting certain behaviors and reactions in young children. These behaviors can be either positive or negative and utilize certain parts of the brain, while allowing other parts to be "trimmed away". It is in this stage of life that compassion is most important to show and be cultivated and set into a person, remaining with them as a personality trait the rest of their life. When treated with kindness and compassion, the brain responds by absorbing or mirroring those active sections of the brain, teaching young infants how to use these neurons and practice compassion and kindness themselves. It was fascinating to me to see the importance of these "sponge neurons" explained in terms of the expansion of our connection over our history. Since empathy is learned through the realization that we have all experienced pain and that we will again in the future, we sympathize with those in our community because we understand how similar we all are. As explained in the RSA Animate video "The Empathetic Civilization", "empathy is grounded in the acknowledgement of death, the celebration of life and rooting for each other to flourish and be". I am fascinated by this idea and think I agree. This is why it is so intriguing to acknowledge how the group we empathize toward has grown exponentially with the increase in global visibility. This restored my belief that we aren't doing so bad as a global community and that empathy won't die out. I am excited to continue learning of the extent to which mirror neurons work, especially how observed violent and abusive behaviors resurface as adolescents and adults. How much does awareness combat the likelihood and what behaviors can be instilled in a young child that will later help them fight against the urge to move from "the abused to the abuser"? How influential are behaviors that are learned later on in life, even as an older child? If you have a healthy relationship with adults as an infant but then are subject to an unhealthy relationship later in your childhood, can those initial healthy ones overcome?
As I've recently noticed, I have unintentionally collected many of my parents' traits, both the good and the bad ones. I think this is a natural realization for a young adult recently away from her parents and it is an interesting one. I often try to pinpoint exactly the behavior or interaction I've had with a parent that caused a certain behavior to fall unto me and wonder if they're at all reversible. Some I desperately want to be rid of and I am interested in exploring different ways to do so or if it is at all possible. After addressing the unwanted habitual conduct, what is the best way to reverse it?
Week #3
Like usual, this week's readings and class discussions stimulated much self-reflection, but also caused me to feel defensive. The topic was on infant attachment patterns and requirements and what longterm behaviors can be caused by different types of attachment to the primary caregiver (mother). Firstly, as I attempted to categorize myself I couldn't find a place in which I applied easily, which caused me to critique the over-simplification of initial parent/child relations and their longterm affects. Without doubt these first months and year are crucial, however how can we accurately consider all the complexities involved in the relations between an infant and primary caregivers? For example, if a mother is very present and kind but an absent father communicates confusing signals to the child, which parent will influence the child to be in one category or another, or will their experience only create an aversion to men that is not qualified here? If the child then frequents a sub-standard daycare with rotating caretakers but then a grandfather is very dependable and caring, into which category will the child fit and will this reverse any mistrust of men instilled by the absent father? From my own experiences these categories fail to consider vast differences of the communities we are brought up in. It seems too simple but I am interested to see if future classes on adult psychology will further back up this theory.
I also think these categories and readings put too much weight on the negative effects in adulthood, assuming that these differences in personal interactions are only negative and should be avoided because they don't make the extroverted leaders our society demands for success. This variety only contribute further to the differences between all of us. We all have challenged from our past that we must overcome.
Today in class we covered mirror neurons and their role in concreting certain behaviors and reactions in young children. These behaviors can be either positive or negative and utilize certain parts of the brain, while allowing other parts to be "trimmed away". It is in this stage of life that compassion is most important to show and be cultivated and set into a person, remaining with them as a personality trait the rest of their life. When treated with kindness and compassion, the brain responds by absorbing or mirroring those active sections of the brain, teaching young infants how to use these neurons and practice compassion and kindness themselves. It was fascinating to me to see the importance of these "sponge neurons" explained in terms of the expansion of our connection over our history. Since empathy is learned through the realization that we have all experienced pain and that we will again in the future, we sympathize with those in our community because we understand how similar we all are. As explained in the RSA Animate video "The Empathetic Civilization", "empathy is grounded in the acknowledgement of death, the celebration of life and rooting for each other to flourish and be". I am fascinated by this idea and think I agree. This is why it is so intriguing to acknowledge how the group we empathize toward has grown exponentially with the increase in global visibility. This restored my belief that we aren't doing so bad as a global community and that empathy won't die out. I am excited to continue learning of the extent to which mirror neurons work, especially how observed violent and abusive behaviors resurface as adolescents and adults. How much does awareness combat the likelihood and what behaviors can be instilled in a young child that will later help them fight against the urge to move from "the abused to the abuser"? How influential are behaviors that are learned later on in life, even as an older child? If you have a healthy relationship with adults as an infant but then are subject to an unhealthy relationship later in your childhood, can those initial healthy ones overcome?
As I've recently noticed, I have unintentionally collected many of my parents' traits, both the good and the bad ones. I think this is a natural realization for a young adult recently away from her parents and it is an interesting one. I often try to pinpoint exactly the behavior or interaction I've had with a parent that caused a certain behavior to fall unto me and wonder if they're at all reversible. Some I desperately want to be rid of and I am interested in exploring different ways to do so or if it is at all possible. After addressing the unwanted habitual conduct, what is the best way to reverse it?
Thursday, January 16, 2014
January 16, 2014
Having been breast-fed myself, I have always been told of its benefits. I was told vaguely of its high nutritious value and its ability to support a healthy immune system, but was told nothing about the benefits to the mother or of the extensive list of lifelong perks to having been raised on the nipple. I was shocked and fascinated by the connections between breast-feeding and reproductive cancers, as explored in Elizabeth D. Whitaker's article, Ancient Bodies, Modern Customs, and Our Health. Here she produced convincing evidence to help us understand why we have such high rates of cancers, specifically here breast-cancer, in the Western world and how it is related to our lack of breast-feeding and small families. The female form initially perfected through evolution is now at odds with our Western and immobile society. Through easy access to food, immobile lifestyles, early maturation, a late menopause, and the industrial lifestyle that doesn't agree with breast-feeding patterns, the female body is reacting to unfamiliar hormone levels in dangerous ways. The likelihood for Western women to get reproductive cancer is at least 20 times more likely and as high as 100 times more likely than women from foraging communities who start bearing children only a few years after puberty and nurse their children for several years each.
I understand the concept of these connections, but I would like to comprehend what is going on on the biological level more thoroughly. Whitaker informs us that "the breast's susceptibility to carcinogenesis is directly related to the rate of epithelial cell proliferation" (47), which brings me to the portion of this article that I do not understand and which I would love to explore more.
As mentioned previously, I was breast-fed and I intend to do the same with my children (especially after reading this article), which makes me wonder how adults who were breast-fed compare to those who weren't. Is there an obvious difference in health and/or personality? This relates to my research topic on the effects of prenatal diets on children, a subject I might pursue further into infancy and the effects (benefits/challenges) of breast-feeding to young children and as they grown to be adults.
It isn't just the reproductive-cancer-combatting aspect of breast-feeding that fascinates me, but just how good it is for infants! Both the mother and child benefit from this intimate relationship and what really proves the power of the body's biological prioritization of nursing its child is that breast milk maintains a consistent quality despite the mother's diet or nutritional status. The magic of our bodies is incredible!
Having been breast-fed myself, I have always been told of its benefits. I was told vaguely of its high nutritious value and its ability to support a healthy immune system, but was told nothing about the benefits to the mother or of the extensive list of lifelong perks to having been raised on the nipple. I was shocked and fascinated by the connections between breast-feeding and reproductive cancers, as explored in Elizabeth D. Whitaker's article, Ancient Bodies, Modern Customs, and Our Health. Here she produced convincing evidence to help us understand why we have such high rates of cancers, specifically here breast-cancer, in the Western world and how it is related to our lack of breast-feeding and small families. The female form initially perfected through evolution is now at odds with our Western and immobile society. Through easy access to food, immobile lifestyles, early maturation, a late menopause, and the industrial lifestyle that doesn't agree with breast-feeding patterns, the female body is reacting to unfamiliar hormone levels in dangerous ways. The likelihood for Western women to get reproductive cancer is at least 20 times more likely and as high as 100 times more likely than women from foraging communities who start bearing children only a few years after puberty and nurse their children for several years each.
I understand the concept of these connections, but I would like to comprehend what is going on on the biological level more thoroughly. Whitaker informs us that "the breast's susceptibility to carcinogenesis is directly related to the rate of epithelial cell proliferation" (47), which brings me to the portion of this article that I do not understand and which I would love to explore more.
As mentioned previously, I was breast-fed and I intend to do the same with my children (especially after reading this article), which makes me wonder how adults who were breast-fed compare to those who weren't. Is there an obvious difference in health and/or personality? This relates to my research topic on the effects of prenatal diets on children, a subject I might pursue further into infancy and the effects (benefits/challenges) of breast-feeding to young children and as they grown to be adults.
It isn't just the reproductive-cancer-combatting aspect of breast-feeding that fascinates me, but just how good it is for infants! Both the mother and child benefit from this intimate relationship and what really proves the power of the body's biological prioritization of nursing its child is that breast milk maintains a consistent quality despite the mother's diet or nutritional status. The magic of our bodies is incredible!
Thursday, January 9, 2014
January 9, 2014
Last night we read articles that covered topics such as the concept of 'Nature vs. Nurture', the physical and cognitive stages of development, cohorts within each generation, cultural influences on the self and theories behind our historical and current understandings of development. Coming to class prepared with notes and questions, we further explored the difference between our cohort to that of a few years younger and the prevalence of our culture in our character and the boundaries it creates with people from other cultures, either from another country or simply a different family. We dove deeper into specific questions offered to the larger group, where we were presented with the seemingly simple question, "how much control can we have over who we are?". I initially turned over different ideas in my head to explain how we do have a certain level of control until I suddenly came to a realization that was sparked by another classmate's comment. I don't believe we can consciously change any part of ourselves spontaneously without that choice already being ingrained in us by some other influence. In a way I think we seldom make conscious decisions to change who we are, while we often make subconscious decisions which come from and resonate with who we inherently are. The conscious decisions we do make often change our path and thus the experiences we will be exposed to in the future. What do you think? Do our conscious actions influence who we are and if they do to what degree?
At the end of class we were asked to brood over the Ecological Systems Model, which defines the levels and groups of external influences on the self. The model includes the 'self', the 'microsystem', the 'mesosystem', the 'exosystem' and the 'macrosystem'. This idea is similar to what I thought about while reading; the branching influences of each formal and informal relationship which stem from each individual. This is a reality we are each naturally a part of. Following the model, my own ideas and actions influence who I am ('self'), so do my parents and immediate family ('microsystem'). Both I and my parents are then influenced by our extended family, our conscious choice to not follow an organized religion, the schools we have and do go to and our jobs ('mesosystem'). The history, values and economy of my community influence these structures, my family and myself ('exosystem'), which in turn are all influenced by the macrosystem of global elements such as war, economy, technological trends and values. What specifics would be included in your Ecological System? I still intend to go further in depth into the factors in my life that have directly influenced who I am, something I might post later on.
I continue to question and wonder about what creates what we understand as our 'self', picking through previous understanding I've had about biological contributions and the influences of our environment. Why do we do the things we do? What factors influence who we are or can we have true spontaneity in our lives?
Last night we read articles that covered topics such as the concept of 'Nature vs. Nurture', the physical and cognitive stages of development, cohorts within each generation, cultural influences on the self and theories behind our historical and current understandings of development. Coming to class prepared with notes and questions, we further explored the difference between our cohort to that of a few years younger and the prevalence of our culture in our character and the boundaries it creates with people from other cultures, either from another country or simply a different family. We dove deeper into specific questions offered to the larger group, where we were presented with the seemingly simple question, "how much control can we have over who we are?". I initially turned over different ideas in my head to explain how we do have a certain level of control until I suddenly came to a realization that was sparked by another classmate's comment. I don't believe we can consciously change any part of ourselves spontaneously without that choice already being ingrained in us by some other influence. In a way I think we seldom make conscious decisions to change who we are, while we often make subconscious decisions which come from and resonate with who we inherently are. The conscious decisions we do make often change our path and thus the experiences we will be exposed to in the future. What do you think? Do our conscious actions influence who we are and if they do to what degree?
At the end of class we were asked to brood over the Ecological Systems Model, which defines the levels and groups of external influences on the self. The model includes the 'self', the 'microsystem', the 'mesosystem', the 'exosystem' and the 'macrosystem'. This idea is similar to what I thought about while reading; the branching influences of each formal and informal relationship which stem from each individual. This is a reality we are each naturally a part of. Following the model, my own ideas and actions influence who I am ('self'), so do my parents and immediate family ('microsystem'). Both I and my parents are then influenced by our extended family, our conscious choice to not follow an organized religion, the schools we have and do go to and our jobs ('mesosystem'). The history, values and economy of my community influence these structures, my family and myself ('exosystem'), which in turn are all influenced by the macrosystem of global elements such as war, economy, technological trends and values. What specifics would be included in your Ecological System? I still intend to go further in depth into the factors in my life that have directly influenced who I am, something I might post later on.
I continue to question and wonder about what creates what we understand as our 'self', picking through previous understanding I've had about biological contributions and the influences of our environment. Why do we do the things we do? What factors influence who we are or can we have true spontaneity in our lives?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)