These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.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.
Thanks, Larry. I believe that a discussion of "quasi motives" would also be useful. I can contribute two thoughts, for what they are worth. 1. I think it is interesting to think of the words "inscribed" and "culturally mediated" into the term, MARKED, in your comments. 2. Am I correct that he developmental process you are describing emerges from the co-incidence of developmental change occuring in two, seemingly distantly related, developmental domains ; cognition and movement? If so, this, and a number of other such examples form the core of the account given in *The Psychology of Children, *which my wife and I published in 1989. We called such convergence points, "bio-social-behavioral shifts" that occur in culturally organized activity. I ascribe that idea to the work of Emde and colleagues and German-Genetic Field Theory,,, of which Lewin as a major contributor. To me it makes sense. mike On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote: > I have been reflecting on Martin's article sent months ago on Lewin and > field theory and Martin's critique of the concept of "nested" contexts. > Therefore I'm curious about others reflections on the "Dynamic Systems > model > as articulated by Linda Smith and Esther Thelen. > > Earlier I mentioned the centrality of the notion of MARKED INTERSUBJECTIVE > attuned activity for the emergence of a sense of agency. Fonagy's > extension > of Bowlby's Attachment theory is the best articulation of MARKED activity. > [Fonagy is critical of Bowlby's notion of early attachment as a TEMPLATE > that determines future development. Fonagy instead discusses the > intersubjective exchanges of MARKED attunement as central to development. > > Smith and Thelan's article [attached] highlights some empirical evidence > for > the centrality of MARKED activity for development. Refer especially to > page > 346 where 10 month old infants do the A not B task and the activity that > becomes MARKED is a shift in posture from a sitting to a standing position. > This marked shift in posture allows the infant to be in a ZPD that allows > the infant to be successful on a task that is thought of as being a later > developing capacity. Marked intersubjective activity is usually implicit > but can become explicit. > > Martin, what are your thoughts on "time" being "nested" in Smith and > Thelen's model? > > The multiplicity of causal factors in the Dynamic Systems model AND the > notion of MARKED INTERSUBJECTIVE ATTUNED activity in an EMERGENT model of > development seems to show promise. > > What do others think? > > Larry > > __________________________________________ > _____ > 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