I would never deny that activity influences personality in central
ways. My point was very simple: that activity cannot account for
everything about personality, which seemed to be implied by some of the
posts during this discussion. Peter
At 06:00 AM 11/3/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>Peter,
>
>I realize that - which is why I sought clarification. Partly also because I
>think Leontev points to broader definition of "social" than ususually
>carried by the word in everyday use. We tend to correlate verbal and social
>and if one has limited verbal abilities we make a generalization onto the
>social plane.
>
>I was in no way assuming you held the deficit view far from it - but rather
>to point out such things as chemical imbalances occur in specific activities
>which in turn develop ones personality. If person A did not have medication
>(and needed it) in a school or family activity it might very well be
>responded to in a moralizing fashion. The child lacked self regulation,
>overly agressive, and now even suspect to going on a shooting spree. Now it
>seems to me activity (not as a seperation from the brain's chemical
>processes) influences personality in central ways. What does seem to be
>ocurring with the medication for children is many who receive medication do
>not have chemical imbalances whereas many that do - do not receive the
>medication. A pragmatic question would be how do we hash these differences
>out and it seems to me a focus on activity would have some potential here.
>One where is it not only the properties of the individual but also the
>organization of work place, classroom etc. It seems to me the starting point
>is important - if one takes the individual, biological, chemical as primary
>a lot of factors are excluded and one ends up with kids (or adults) on
>medication (or not) for a variety of reasons.
>
>Nate
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Smagorinsky [mailto:smago@peachnet.campuscwix.net]
>Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 5:23 PM
>To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>Subject: RE: leont'ev: externalization/internalization etc
>
>
>My thoughts were never intended to imply that people with autism, etc. are
>not engaged in social action. Rather, my intention was to say that the
>belief that personality is entirely a function of activity overlooks the
>ways in which a disposition can have origins in one's makeup. This does not
>endorse a deficit view of people with atypical chemical makeups (several of
>whom are very dear to me) but to recognize that their personalities are at
>least in part a consequence of these makeups. Peter
>
>At 04:27 PM 11/2/00 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >Peter,
> >
> >Is it true a child with autism has limited social interaction? I would tend
> >to see that very much as a stereotype in how we seem to equate the social
> >with verbal. I too have dealt with many autistic children and while as a
> >mediational means the verbal is limited - I don't think its accurate to
>make
> >the jump to social interaction.
> >
> >One example, computers have been very central in my experience with
>autistic
> >children. Is that interaction social? I would argue very much so. In
> >addition in having worked with them one on one communicating physically
> >through non-verbal actions, gestures, etc seem very important forms of
> >social interaction.
> >
> >In regards to chemical imbalances do not we come to terms with those in
> >Activity we are engaged in. We must not forget that the countless children
> >with chemical imbalances (ADHD) rarely take their medication on the
>weekend.
> >And if they do or don't take their medication that is realized in concrete
> >ways within activity. They may be moralized, normalized, and many other
> >things in concrete ways in social activity that no doubt forms the
> >personality. Is not it activity where the child would come to terms with
> >this thing called chemical imbalances.
> >
> >For me the Activity category is useful in that it has the "potential" to
> >move away from classical biological / social dichotomies. In short, it is
>in
> >social activity where we come to terms with things like autism, chemical
> >imbalances etc. I mean the chemicals inside the head definately don't have
> >agency or at least not on the level of human personality. Especially with
> >chemical imbalances it seems they are more noticeable in some activities
> >than others and this no doubt influences ones personality.
> >
> >Nate
> >
> >----Original Message-----
> >From: Peter Smagorinsky [mailto:smago@peachnet.campuscwix.net]
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 5:07 PM
> >To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >Subject: RE: leont'ev: externalization/internalization etc
> >
> >
> >I think I might have sent this directly to Helena by mistake. Here's our
> >exchange:
> >
> >I regret that I haven't had time to read the Leont'ev text, though I've
> >save it for future reference/reading. In response to Helena's post: I must
> >wonder how radically we can attribute personality exclusively to social
> >activity. I speak as someone who knows people with chemical imbalances
> >whose personalities have changed dramatically through medical interventions
> >(e.g., Risperdal for psychotic episodes; Paxil and related medications for
> >high anxiety/depression; etc.). One could argue that these medications are
> >socially produced and that taking them is part of practical activity, and
> >that's true. But what of people who don't have access to the medications
> >and therapy and so have personalities that are shaped by their chemical
> >makeup? I also think of a couple of young kids I know who are autistic and
> >who have very limited social interaction. Surely their biochemistry has a
> >lot to do with their personalities.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 01 2000 - 01:00:52 PST