Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Just to add a little clarification, not all pre-birth "mental conditions" are necessarily genetic. For example Down's Syndrome (where maternal age is a risk factor) is Chromosomal (although the chromosomes contain the genes), as is Fragile X syndrome. Similarly Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, lack of nutrients, maternal over exposure to stress, etc. are not genetic, but may have profound impacts on the developing foetus, however they are not genetic. At present 65% of Congenital Birth Defects have no currently identifiable cause and even factors such as the father's age may have a significant impact on heart disease.I think part of the difficulty is the over simplification of the issue to the reductionist "There's a gene for it" approach. Going back to what was discussed earlier, my own view is that taking account the hereditary nature of personality which to an extent sets the scene, the biggest and most significant factor in the development of personality is the attachment the individual experienced during their infancy and early childhood.
moderator1 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:I also find it quite surprising that a member of the NERB was censured on the grounds of the hostility clause for retweeting a tweet from the Labour Party, yet we are proposing to give space in our Journal to writers who are not members of our Party.This in fact is not what occurred if by "censured" you mean suspended. What actually occurred was a party member informed a member of NERB that the twitter account they owned contained a retweet from Labour and they should take action to delete it – otherwise it was in breach of the hostility clause.The NERB member took umbridge at this information and responded with an insult which resulted in an indefenite suspension.
That wasn't what I meant, what I meant by censured was they were told they should take action to delete it. The point I am trying to make is that re tweeting something that makes a similar point to ours Although from the labout Party) is not a million miles away from inviting a non Socialist to write in the Standard. I don't think either re-tweeting the Labour Party or getting non Socialist writers in the standard is something we should be doing. I am willing to accept that this might not be a majority opinion of those members of the party registered on this forum.As to the term momentous, I do think that it is a momentous decision to have a change in editorial policy where we regularly invite non party members to contribute, you may not, but that's your prerogative.
Sorry for the delay in getting back. Work and family commitments. I would be happy to do what modding (is there such a word?) as I can, however, as stated my input would be sporadic.As to the points about current use of the rules, I am more than happy to put together a few proposals, however my view (and I accept that this is only my view) is that the whole issue of the use of the internet (How it fits into the democratic processes of the party, where it fits into the administration of the party, how it is effectively administered, where it fits into the party's rules on publishing materials, etc) is a really huge area.I also think it is one that is going to require us to look at all of these areas in great depth if it is not going to cause us great problems in the future. I have started putting some ideas/proposals together, which members of our Branch have indicated they feel is necessary for an Item for Discussion for ADM and think it is a better idea to examine the whole thing, rather than make adjustments to a system that I think needs overhauling.
Don't want to be seen as being overly critical, however I do have a number of real difficulties with this proposal:1. Is it the role of our Official Journal to put forward the views of non-party members?2. Is this forum the correct place to take a decision about whether or not to make a change in the way we fill our Official Journal this forum?In terms of the first point, whilst I accept that guest writers might (and at present there is no way of proving this) increase interest in the standard, does this mean necessarily it is the right thing to do. No doubt an article about the personal life of Cheryl Cole (or whatever her name is now) would increase interest in the standard, but I don't think that would be the correct way forward either. As to the point of writers being "(relatively)socialist thinkers", is this not a bit like being "relatively pregnant". Again is it our role to be "inclusive", I think not. We are a Socialist Party, an EXCLUSIVELY Socialist Party, what next "a broad church approach". I also find it quite surprising that a member of the NERB was censured on the grounds of the hostility clause for retweeting a tweet from the Labour Party, yet we are proposing to give space in our Journal to writers who are not members of our Party.the second, and in my mind possible more important point, is that any decision of this nature should be addressed through the democratic organs of our party, The EC, Conference and ultimately the Party as a whole, not just the very small minority of Party members who are active on this forum. I do think this is a vitally important point, this forum is not the Party, it is not representative of the Party any more than a dozen party members in the pub having a chat when they're full of ale.I've got to say that I find it astounding that without the slightest reference to the democratic organs of the party to agree to this in my view momentous change in editorial policy, you are already inviting suggestions, as if it is a done deal.I really don't mean to be negative, however I do think this should be thoroughly discussed by the whole Party beforer any decision is made!
Apologies for length of time between comments.Re taking up Moderation work, I would be happy to contribute what I can however, as my contributions in the last week or so have shown, I am currently working around 55 hours a week if not more, and my input would be sporadic at best.Re the difficulties outlined about what to moderate and what to not, whilst I understand your difficulties, surely it is the rule against off topic posting, not going off topic that is the problem. If the rules are applied in some cases and not in others, then it appears (and I fully understand the need to moderate some of the posts) that they are being picked on unfairly. if the issue is " when posters use *every* thread as a platform for there current bugbear / obsession / singular interest." the rules should address this, rather than going off topic. Again as Mod 1 says "I only take any action on off-topic posts when its blatantly obvious that some posts are deliberately going off-topic by their lack of serious discussion." this is to an extent a subjective judgement, which can appear to be picking on some posters unfairly as what is serious to one person might lack seriousness to another, and the rules state off topic, rather than lack of seriousness, so in effect someone being less than serious about a topic may, with some justification claim that they hadn't breached any rule.The point I am trying to make is that going off topic is not actually the problem that we face, however the off topic rule is being used to deal with other issues. Surely we should make the rules to suit the difficulties, and I don't see going off topic as being the main issue.
You might find this programme very interestinghttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b071skp5My own view is that Oliver James is well worth listening too, although he does sometimes go a little too far on the anit genetics and although he has railed against selfish capitalism, he has sadly come to the conclusion that what we need is unselfish captialism!.A quote from his book, "Not In Your Genes":"Professor Robert Plomin, the world’s leading geneticist, said in 2014 of his search for genes that explain differences in our psychology: ‘I have been looking for these genes for fifteen years. I don’t have any’.
moderator1 wrote:Just a small nudge to keep this thread on-topic http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/graeme-ellis-tory-campaigner-quits-party-and-sabotages-website-over-disability-cuts-a6935371.htmlApologies for straying.Miiddle aged men meandering into a discussion about football terrraces and throwing stones no surprise really, perhaps I shouldn't apologise, perhaps our behaviour was genetically determined.
Fully agree with you about the Facebook generation and the threat it brings. At the John Bowlby memorial lecture this year, Bowlby's son identified mobile phones and computers as the biggest threat to the development of attachments (parents constantly on their mobiles and computers used as electronic child pacifiers) Far, far better to be out and about learning about muck and nettles. With the reference to LFC in the days of terracing I now understand how you could hope that Socialism could have echoes of the terraces. Unfortunately standing on the Leazes and then the Gallowgate ends is more closely related to maschistic neurosis!
If I can go through a few of the points made in previous posts. Meel you query why I made the point about "specific estimates of heritability" (which if you think about it it is an oxymoron) the reason I think this is a vital concept is that if you accept that "behaviour is partly heritable" then it follows that it is partly non heritable and therefore, by implication, environmentally linked. This is the reason I pointed out the jump from "partly heritable" to "is heritable". If you accept that there are proportions of each then the relative contribution of each would, to my mind, be a very important factor.With regards to the concept of the heritability of marriage for people with autism spectrum presentation, if you take the idea that people with this presentation struggle with relationships and therefore are less likely to have intimate relationships, then it would follow that heritability of a gene which carries this behaviour in a very straightforward way is unlikely as reproduction is the key to heritability and intimacy is the key to reproduction! Interestingly some recent studies have shown an increase in the occurance of asd in the general population that doesn't appear to be explained by better levels of diagnosis/assessment. It has been suggested that you are 2x more likely to be diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome if your father was an engineer and that the rates of diagnosis are considerably higher in Eindhoven, where the main Phillip's plant has been based for many years. Just to emphasise the point if all behaviour was heritable then the only behaviour possible would be that which we inherit. If that was the case human behaviour could not have changed since the development of homo sapien sapien, which is clearly not the case.My own view on the point ALB makes is that it isn't nature v nurture but rather nature + nurture. Nature does dictate many things about our scope for behaviour, for instance whether or not you were born a dolphin or a giraffe is likely to have a rather big influence on how you live your life. However whether you were born in Buckingham Palace or Byker is also likely to influence how you live your life as well. It is also important to make the distinction between behaviour and personality. Behaviour is only one part of personality. Other factors include level of vocabulary, perception cognition, etc. My own view is that attachment is one of the major factors in the development of personality. The provision of a secure, warm, predictable environment, especially in the very early years of life allow for the development of language, imagination, physical growth, memory, sociabilty, etc. For those children brought up without comfort, warmth, predictabilty, etc. then the need to manage their own safety, in whatever way they can, become paramount and the impact of that physiologically, socially, intellectually, etc. Can be profound.Regarding the comments made by Dave B, I think the work of Fromm and Horney is quite inciteful and certainly builds on some of the less wacky elements of Freud's thought. Interesting that we began by talking about authoritarian style personality and flexibility of thought, I would say Freud had both to a fairly large degree! Although I understand the labelling of them as Marxist, I've always thought there was room for a more coherent Marxist input into psychology and psychotherapy, have you read any of Claude Steiner's work? I also think it is important to differentiate between Attachment Theory and over protection and stunting of children. There has been a tendency to use Attachment Theory to justify what I would say is over the top, over indulgent parenting. Secure attachment allows the growing child to play, explore, develop resilience, develop peer group friendships, etc. but also have a secure base to turn to if they have difficulties. Like you from about 4 years old I was out of the house, blowing up cow pats with bangers, making rafts, throwing stones at rats, etc. The security came from knowing that I had a accepting and available parents when I needed them and that there was probably a meal on the table and someone for me and my siblings to tell about our adventures. That has more to do with attachment than force feeding kids Mozart, telling them they are the centre of the universe, but not finding time to play football with them down the park.
Dave B wrote:Which can be Goths, Rockers, Mods, heavy thrash metal, trousers with a split at the knees and all the temporary philosophical implications of that, or for the totally ideologically regressive, desperate and destitute; supporting Newcastle United. Actually I had a problem myself with that kind of “Newcastle United” thing in the past but I have overcome it now and can see it rationally from the other side.From the other side, my god you don't meanSunderland!
Meel wrote:If attachment theory is your field of expertise, I am more than willing to pick up new knowledge…………..I also added a favourable note about Donald Winnicott’s refined definition of attachment theory. What I was trying to get to was this; as long as babies are cared for in an “ordinarily devoted” (as per Winnicott) – i.e., we are not talking about “poor early years care” – then additional “greenhouse” parenting is not going to change the personality of the growing person much. In other words, I do not believe that a baby is “infinitely malleable”, an empty vessel just waiting to be filled by the parents or the carers. I do not know if this is your view – and I may have been wrong to suspect that it is the view of attachment theory…………. When you say that “there is a paucity of twin studies in this area”, do you mean paucity in relation to attachment theory? I think the twin studies referred to in the quoted link were about twin studies in relation to human behaviour in general, which, from what I understand, are numerous; ………….“The discovery that all behavior is partially heritable transformed psychology, but, ironically, it also transformed behavior genetics. Once we accept that basically everything—not only schizophrenia and intelligence, but also marital status and television watching—is heritable, it becomes clear that specific estimates of heritability are not very important.Also, to bring us back to where this conversation started, ALB asked the question if there is any evidence that authoritarians can be persuaded to support non-authoritarian solutions. What is your view?I have edited down your reply to what I think are the key points, apologies if I have been too drastic in my editing.1st Point, I wouldn't say Attachment Theory is my "area of expertise" my knowledge of attachment theory is based on practice and support rather than academic research, however I would guess i have a fair working knowledge of the theory and it's implications.2nd Point – strictly speaking Winnicott was more of an Object Relations theorist (psychodynamic) than an attachment theorist, although Bowlby was a classically trained Freudian Psychodynamic practitioner. I would agree with Winnicott about "an ordinarily devoted" parenting model, as I think Bowlby probably would have as well. Bowlby reckoned that about 2/3 of mothers (and he used the term mothers to mean main carers as he did a lot of his research in the 50s and 60s when mothers were the main carers) "do a pretty good job". Ainsworth's study through the "Strange Situation Test" have backed up these figures for generally secure attachments. One of the key points of Attachment Theory is understanding how the child regulates anxiety and anxiety provoking situations. Generally speaking a securely attached infant will learn to associate the presence a consistent and predictably caring main carer as a a situation that alleviates anxiety, from that they can develop an "internal working model" of themselves and the world with them being worthy of care and time and the care giver (and by inference the world) as being a safe and secure place to live. In contrast infants that do not experience this safety develop internal working models of themselves and the world that differ from this so that the world becomes more confusing, dangerous or unpredictable. They therefore need to spend more time and effort (psychologically) keeping themselves safe, and studies have shown that children with poor attachments have more highly active limbic systems (where the fight or flight responses are contained) and less active cerebral cortexes (language centres, logic, planning, memory etc.). I would argue that intensive Greenhouse parenting could have an impact on the child, however this might not be the one hoped for, as I would surmise that this kind of parenting would be more anxiety provoking for the child and may have a detrimental impact.With regards to the "empty vessel" analogy, although this would fit in with Skinner's view, it is definitely not the view of Attachment Theory. It may be a bowlderised version of attachment theory as presented by those who simplify it, however. Attachment Theory is based on the concept that attachment behaviours are an evolutionary instinct in all mammals. Mammals need to stay close to their main care givers for food and protection from predation, however, as stated above, they also need emotional regulation and care to ensure that their brains develop normally. So in that sense, we are not empty vessels, we are biologically pre programmed to form attachments, etc.3rd point with regard to twin studies I did mean that there is a lack of good quality twin studies with regards to attachment theory.4th Point if I can go through the quote I think I can point out what i think are the flaws in that statement "all behavior is partially heritable" Can't disagree with that "Once we accept that basically everything—not only schizophrenia and intelligence, but also marital status and television watching—is heritable" This is however a huge illogical leap from "partly heritable", to "is heritable", which then rules out the obvious question that if behaviour is partly heritable, it is therefore partly not heritable, which means that the statement "specific estimates of heritability are not very important." is also questionable, I would say that such estimates are vitally important. it is also a huge leap from behaviour is partially heritable, to personally is inherited, behaviour is only one aspect of personality.5th Point, I do not believe that there is a general authoritarian personality, there may be those who tend to favour authoritarian solutions, however they still have access to logic and cognition, they may find it more challenging to consider other alternatives, but that does not mean that they have some kind of predetermined authoritarianism in every aspect of their life, but rather that those with insecure attachments will tend to be more favourable to authoritarian solutions than those who have secure attachments.
Sorry for the delay on getting back to you, work getting in the way. The information on autism is to some extent correct, in as much the idea of the refrigerator parent was put forward by Bettelheim and also built on by Tinberger and Tinberger. However, and it is a big however, Bettelheim described himself as a lot of things in his life, many of which he wasn't, and he certainly wasn't an Attachment Theorist. Bettelheim and his work has largely been discredited. Although he arrived in the US claiming to be a psychologist, Bettelheim never had a psychology degree, it was in philosophy, specifically aesthetics. He wrote academic papers about artwork, not the human mind. Bettelheim essentially built an empire for himself based on lies. Many of his former patients have come forward since his death to give testimony that he abused them severely. I met him in Newcastle in the early 80s when he was giving a speaking tour and thought then he was an arrogant and unpleasant man. To use him to criticise attachment theory is a bit like using Kim Jong Un to have a go at the SPGB. Interestingly some of the modern research on autism seems to show there is a link to the function of the neuro-transmiter glutimate in people with autism.With regards to the criticisms of Attachment Parenting, mentioned in the article from Quodibeta, there are a couple of issues with the information they give. they talk of numerous twin studies, however the fact is there is a paucity of twin studies in this area. The mention the work of Judith Harris and are wrong on two counts, one they state she wasn't a psychologist, which must have come as a surprise to her as she got a masters in Psychology from Yale. Another is that they state that the study she used looked at twins that were separated at birth, where in fact the average age at separation was five months. In attachment terms five months is a very long time to be exposed to poor parenting. Additionally there is a huge difference between Attchment Theory and Attachment Parenting.You state "Obviously a human baby needs the company and physical closeness of caring adults, but how much this shapes the personality of the growing person is debateable – as long as the baby is not experiencing severe neglect (as the example of babies growing up in Romanian orphanages)." I would disagree with you strongly, I don't think there is much debate about it at all, countless studies have backed up the work of Bowlby, Ainsworth, Van Izerndoorn, Rutter, etc, etc. MRI scans of children's brains has shown very strongly the impact of poor early years care on the development of social skills, language, physical growth, mental well being, likelihood of on going mental health problems, etc. etc. . With regards to the Romanian babies, as can be seen from the work of Michael Rutter, there is a huge difference between the imapct of severe privation, as was the case in Romanian babies, where they suffered lack of care but not phsyical or sexual abuse or harm and the impact of physical, sexual and emotional abuse and depriviation (which differs from privation) on children in early life.
In terms is SWP style Democratic Centralism, in contrast to our system, as well as getting shafted metaphorically they also get shafted literally (allegedly)
