Do modern developmental psychology theories reflect the possible richness of the 'environment' OR the rich, often subtle, behavioral response patterns?
[ I have 'environment' in quotes because this is, of course, the present physical environment AND also how that is richly contextualized by our Memories -- the latter being as much part of the environment. ]
My answer to the question is: "No." And the reason is simple: The first task of a science is to properly embrace (and represent) ALL of the relevant phenomenology it addresses. Modern psychology theories all clearly fail at this, and especially theories of child development (ontogeny) -- which is a main core of the failings of the other theories (e.g. personality theories, learning theories, etc., etc. ).
[ Example of the Problems: In my view: When we start to really come to know 'learning', we no doubt will know it is actually 'learnings" (qualitatively different at each level/stage). With this knowledge we will come to see that IN THIS INFANT SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGY WE MOST OFTEN (IN THE MAIN) DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE SPEAK IN TERMS OF "LEARNING". ]
The main reason for the major failure is: inability to properly represent covert behavior ("cognition") AND provide ANY sufficient (or ANY) good empirical foundation for it -- in my view, no doubt these are highly-related matters. Basically in today's theories, even the neo-Piagetian theories, major qualitative changes "JUST HAPPEN" -- in Piaget's theory these are the major stage changes Piaget never explained and just basically said are "due to maturation" (aka equilibration type 2) (and that's all). He, like others then and now, then looked for elaborate WAYS of thought-processing (largely "in itself") which (supposedly) yield the full range of human processing and analysis abilities (representation, thinking, and understanding). Such accounts are of "things" VERY, VERY unlikely OR impossible, given the good knowledge we have of the Memories and given the universality of cognitive abilities. But, just as important: these accounts are UNINTELLIGIBLE, because of a lack of key-point directly observable proximate causes (
Effect of enriched environment is already tested on rats. Their cortex grow thicker in an enriched environment. If you enrich your observation of colors and visual element your eye's connections of your Müller cells or retina or visual system grow thicker and better and so on. In other words you can enhance the receptors of your senses. I enriched my children's breast-feeding experience by listening to operas at the same time and suprise suprise they love operas.
Dear Béatrice Marianne Ewalds-Kvist
The richness of the environment-and-behavior I was talking about is the FULL relevant phenomenology which must be included in a true and thorough science of psychology. I believe (as I must) that some of this phenomenon, now neglected, includes key foundational empirical things (for example: the behavioral-and-environmental context needed in searching for the empirical foundations of developmental levels/stages). We have some strong clues that psychology is falling short from the lack of a biologically-congruent vocabulary, for example (again): NOT seeing, and NOT speaking in terms of, BEHAVIOR PATTERNS.
In short, I am not talking about much that is very specialized, but rather, "looking large".
I do not think in terms of a researcher providing what she/he thinks is "enrichment", even if successful results in some sense are obtained (e.g. p
Dear Brad Jesness,
As I am not familiar with this line of thinking in psychology I cannot contribute in a fruitful way to the discussion and abstain.
With all good wishes,
Béatrice M. Ewalds-Kvist
Richness-pattern leads to connect work productivity to area related when perceived stress take place in a burnout manner. Mathematically that would be explained as dynamic workflow
I send you a copy
Kind regards
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Mental Processes
- Learning