[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[xmca] intersubjectivity = Piaget, mentalisation = LSV

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 

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 

xmca mailing list