These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Eric You mention infants HAVE EMOTIONS based upon attachment. You also mention intersubjectivity is the process of seeing other persons point of view. I want to open dialogue and think out loud as I RESPOND. When we say that infants HAVE emotions, [subjective phenomenology] I struggle with the notion of emotions as HAVING A RELATIONSHIP that moves us in a process of recognition and response. This movement or e-motion emphasizes SYMMETRICAL ENGAGEMENT through ATTUNEMENT. Intersubjectivity theory can also be understood NOT as SEEING the other person's point of view [theory of mind] but rather as attunement and engagement [PERCEIVED and EXPERIENCED communication BETWEEN self and other Larry ----- Original Message ----- From: ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org Date: Thursday, April 22, 2010 6:49 am Subject: [xmca] intersubjectivity = Piaget, mentalisation = LSV To: lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> > Hello all: > > Following the recent conversation on XMCA has provided great > food for > thought and it has encouraged me to reread both chapter 6 in > Thought and > Language as well as the Fonadgy et al. article pertaining to the > parent/child diad. What I have taken away from this is > something I would > like to share in infant form and perhaps other will see the > correlation as > well. > > For me Chapter six is not necessarily a formulated theory > pertaining to > how children form scientific concepts but rather an argument > that pertains > to Piaget being wrong in his theory of development. Over > and over LSV > states that instruction should lead development but what he > doesn't say is > at what time and for how long and pertaining to what subject but > rather > insists that by leading development eventually something will > click in the > child and the concept shall be formed. This is different > than Piaget who > lays out innate levels that are achieved and then built upon. > > In the Fonagy et al. article he refutes the intersubjectivity > theory based > upon the idea that it assumes that humans have an innate ability > to see > from other's point of view and replaces with a mentalisation > theory that > states humans formulate an ability to 'mentalize' how others > have emotions > based upon the attachment that person has as they are > developing. In this > essence Fonagy is extremely similar to LSV that Fonagy does not > state a > specific amount of interactions but rather states there is a > window of > opportunity for the child to develop this mentalisation and for > some it > will take a certain level of interactions and for others it will > be > different. LSV and Fonagy both theororize that instruction > leads > development and innateness is not the answer. > > hoping for more rainfall up north here so the morel > picking will be > bountiful > > eric > _______________________________________________ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca