I think it is extremely important that it be seen that (and how) social development HINGES on individual developments which have occurred or are occurring, Without this part, psychology (of any sort) has lost the true unit of analysis: the individual (the biological unit).
Do you do this?
There is a tremendous tendency to confer nearly magical influences on/to social interaction, when/where other important things that are likely going on are ignored (and knowledge from direct observation and knowledge from discovery is never sought for these factors).
"Embodiment processes": since there is no good directly observable evidence of any such things past infancy or very early childhood (NONE), such things are seen as poor, bad, useless and even destructive (wrong) explanations. This has been well peer-reviewed: Article The poverty of embodied cognition
Thus, there are actually (commonly), in such approaches as yours, 2 magical fictions: (1) the over-importance (and PRESUMED ubiquitousness) of social interactions (with basically fictional quick effectiveness -- some cited, which I suspect, sometimes DO NOT occur at all in the early lives of some individuals) and (2) extrapolation (BY ANALOGY ONLY) from Piaget's great findings on sensori-motor development and cognitive development in infancy TO the general idea of "embodiment". The real reason for this elaboration just-by-analogy (and for the "powers" of "social learning") is because of common unfounded, baseless, unjustified, and likely false "assumptions"/presumptions in psychology (which CAN be replaced with much more likely true assumptions): these false "assumptions" limit possibilities considered in HUGE ways. These wrongful 'assumptions'/presumptions include: all notable innate "stuff" being present already in infancy; and no significant emerging innate guidance during later stages of ontogeny; AND that "the more learning, the less innate guidance" -- thinking this true in absolutely all ways (w/r to all behaviors).
Along with common "social learning" problems, it is no benefit to understanding to take your "embodiment" position. BOTH are mainly just a result of the unfounded (and likely false) 'assumptions'/presumptions, which basically keep all your thought and imagination from going other useful, likely "places" for the explanation of behavior (like innately guided "perceptual shifts" being the likely beginning of new ways of representing, yielding new ways of thinking, _RATHER_ than some fictional, or fictionally-powerful "social learning" and "embodiment" ; this "perceptual; shifts" perspective assumes innately guided development important at all stages of ontogeny (child development), and it relies on the nature of our Memories and the nature of memory development to maintain changes. (Thus, NO key internal embodiments (or any of the "social" magic).)
[ It is not just happenstantial that NONE of these modern theories are even mentioned in basic textbooks on General Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Cognitive Science, Personality, or Memory (only the same classic theories, present for decades, are presented). ]
Social problems dominate the society of people, because this is the only community of living beings on Earth that is capable of both destroying and promoting the development of all other communities of living beings on Earth. For example, the history of mankind has shown how important an odious personality is in the development of wars.
The social context is one of the most important influencers of human being's existence. When social issues are addressed very well in every society, it engineers its citizens and equip them to function better as biological units. Best regards
Dickson
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Developmental Psychology