These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
Andy I am not sure that I agree with you about there being no innate drive. There is psychological data to show that orphan children, who are simply dumped in a cot and has no interaction with a caregiver (except for getting a bottle) either grow up impoverished socially, or worse, die. Luckily, since we know that, crèches are a bit more caring. Carol On 26 April 2010 16:52, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: > Eric, I think it quite possible to hold at the same time different > positions on intersubjectivity and on the question of innate/acquired. There > is no doubt that there are social animals whose sociality is innate and who > can therefore acquire new skills socially. But I believe CHAT is a current > of thought which holds that becoming human is possible only through > interaction with other people using culturally acquired artefacts (i.e., > intersubjectivity plus artefacts), but even the tendency to engage in > interaction is acquired only because other human beings around the child > "summon" the child to interaction. There is no innate drive to sociality in > human beings. A. I. Meshcheryakov's book is definitive on this question I > believe. > > Does that answer your question, Eric? I wasn't sure I got your meaning > exactly. > > Andy > > > ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote: > >> ....didn't realize equating Piaget with intersubjectivity would create a >> conflaguration of misunderstanding. >> >> Am I incorrect in my understanding of intersubjectivity? I believe it to >> be based on innate abilities rather than appropriated skills. Perhaps >> Bahktin did not write on this, I must admit I am shallow in my understanding >> of Bahktin. >> >> Initially in my study of LSV and the CHAT tradition I was a person who >> prioritized innate abilities but as I have studied and practiced teaching I >> have come to realize that being human IS developed via interactions and >> attachments. Biological genetics must play into it but I have a hard time >> believing that intersubjectivity is biological in nature. >> >> Am I talking in circles or drowing in misunderstanding? >> >> eric >> _______________________________________________ >> xmca mailing list >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca >> >> >> > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>+61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden > An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity: http://www.brill.nl/scss > > > > _______________________________________________ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > -- 6 Andover Road Westdene Johannesburg 2092 011 673 9265 082 562 1050 _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca