These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
But Jenna, isn't that a large part of the point? The fact that we commonly assume that what we see in the young child is related to what adults do shows how infants can, without really trying, 'draw out' the adults around them into interaction, far from it being the other way around. Better put, it's not one way around or the other, but a complex interaction from the get-go to which both partners contribute, having been prepared to do so by many millenia of evolution.
Martin
On Apr 27, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jenna McWilliams wrote:
But then again, I wonder how commonly we assume a child's behavior that looks like something we recognize in adult behavior is identical to that behavior. For all we know, this child could be trying to figure out why a strange non-mother person is looking at him OR why his leg is cold OR where the strange sounds are coming from OR why nobody has given him his breakfast--OR that could simply be the expression of a child whose rear end suddenly got all warm and squishy. Right?
-jenna
~~
Jenna McWilliams
Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
~
http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com
http://remediatingassessment.blogspot.com
~
jenmcwil@indiana.edu
jennamcjenna@gmail.com
On Apr 27, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Martin Packer wrote:
Andy,
Thanks for the Levontin, which I will read with pleasure. But on this issue I'm drawing more on my own experience than what I read in books. After I finished my undergraduate degree I didn't want to get a PhD, so I looked for work around London and managed to get a research job that involved conducting observations of neonatal behavior at birth and an assessment (designed by pediatrician Berry Brazelton) of their capabilities during the first weeks of life (we repeated it at intervals from about 3 hours to 6 weeks of age). I am attaching a photo I took of one of our research participants to illustrate why I think it's not quite right to say that children must 'acquire' the tendency to engage in interaction. To talk of the child being 'summoned' to interaction works better for me, and obviously children need to be drawn out (but 'trained'? Not so sure about that!). I forget the exact age of this child, but he was about 3 days old. My students are always surprised to see h