Re: [xmca] intersubjectivity = Piaget, mentalisation = LSV

[ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org]

My apologies, especially to Peter Fonagy, I have no idea why I would write 
his name as Fogady.  Maybe it is the CCR fan in me.  BUt then again his 
name was Fogarty and not Fogady.

Anyway.  My reference was to Peter Fonagy

thank you,
eric




ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
04/22/2010 10:04 AM
Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"

 
        To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [xmca] intersubjectivity = Piaget, mentalisation = LSV


Larry: 

You misunderstood me.  Fogady et al state in their artilcle that infants 
develop (not have) understandings of emotions based upon their attachment 
to caregivers.  Piaget would believe that emotions are innate.  I agree 
with Fogady and believe emotions to develop within the infant based upon 
their interactions with caregivers.  I apologize for any miscommunication. 

 I wrote the post quickly (as I usually do) and perhaps it is easily 
misinterpreted.

My understanding of intersubjectivitly theory is that it preconceives 
humans with the innate ability of empathy whereas mentalization theory 
summizes that empathy is a developed "skill" via attachment with 
cargivers.  ala Valsiner I would go so far as to say that this development 

occurs in a goal directed activity (i.e. feeding, playing peek-a-boo, etc)

eric




Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
04/22/2010 09:21 AM
Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"

 
        To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [xmca] intersubjectivity = Piaget, 
mentalisation = LSV


Eric
You mention infants HAVE EMOTIONS based upon attachment. 
You also mention intersubjectivity is the process of seeing other persons 
point of view.

I want to open dialogue and think out loud as I RESPOND. 
When we say that infants HAVE emotions, [subjective phenomenology] I 
struggle with the notion of emotions as HAVING A RELATIONSHIP that moves 
us in a process of recognition and response. This movement or e-motion 
emphasizes SYMMETRICAL ENGAGEMENT through ATTUNEMENT.

Intersubjectivity theory can also be understood NOT as SEEING the other 
person's point of view [theory of mind] but rather as attunement and 
engagement [PERCEIVED and EXPERIENCED communication BETWEEN self and other

Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
Date: Thursday, April 22, 2010 6:49 am
Subject: [xmca] intersubjectivity = Piaget, mentalisation = LSV
To: lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" 
<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> Hello all:
> 
> Following the recent conversation on XMCA has provided great 
> food for 
> thought and it has encouraged me to reread both chapter 6 in 
> Thought and 
> Language as well as the Fonadgy et al. article pertaining to the 
> parent/child diad.  What I have taken away from this is 
> something I would 
> like to share in infant form and perhaps other will see the 
> correlation as 
> well.
> 
> For me Chapter six is not necessarily a formulated theory 
> pertaining to 
> how children form scientific concepts but rather an argument 
> that pertains 
> to Piaget being wrong in his theory of development.  Over 
> and over LSV 
> states that instruction should lead development but what he 
> doesn't say is 
> at what time and for how long and pertaining to what subject but 
> rather 
> insists that by leading development eventually something will 
> click in the 
> child and the concept shall be formed.  This is different 
> than Piaget who 
> lays out innate levels that are achieved and then built upon.
> 
> In the Fonagy et al. article he refutes the intersubjectivity 
> theory based 
> upon the idea that it assumes that humans have an innate ability 
> to see 
> from other's point of view and replaces with a mentalisation 
> theory that 
> states humans formulate an ability to 'mentalize' how others 
> have emotions 
> based upon the attachment that person has as they are 
> developing.  In this 
> essence Fonagy is extremely similar to LSV that Fonagy does not 
> state a 
> specific amount of interactions but rather states there is a 
> window of 
> opportunity for the child to develop this mentalisation and for 
> some it 
> will take a certain level of interactions and for others it will 
> be 
> different.  LSV and Fonagy both theororize that instruction 
> leads 
> development and innateness is not the answer.
> 
>  hoping for more rainfall up north here so the morel 
> picking will be 
> bountiful
> 
> eric
> _______________________________________________
> 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


_______________________________________________
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