The Tories and the disabled
- This topic has 49 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A very interesting post, Tim! Don’t worry about work keeping you away from the forum; we all struggle to juggle various demands on our time.I did qualify my post at the start by saying “I am no expert on attachment theory”. As I said, I have only come across it with regard to outdated explanations for autism. As you have now expanded my knowledge of “Kim Jong Un” Bettleheim – that he wasn’t an attachment theorist and a thoroughly nasty individual into the bargain – that can only be a good thing (for my understanding, I mean). 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. Perhaps it is not, at least according to the view of this blogger: “I’d be remiss if I did not point out that John Bowlby (in his trilogy on attachment theory) held a dim view of both Skinner’s behaviorism and Blank Slate learning theories because they did tend to negate the importance of innate behavioral systems like attachment.” http://fhlfound.securesites.net/wordpress/2012/08/14/dont-be-found-dumb-over-moral-attachment-dumbfounding-part-i/.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; for example:“The heritability of human behavioral traits is now well established, due in large measure to classical twin studies. We see little need for further studies of the heritability of individual traits in behavioral science, but the twin study is far from having outlived its usefulness. ……..”“Classic twin studies carried out by literally hundreds of researchers have provided an abundance of evidence for this. Throughout the world, perhaps 800,000 pairs of twins have been collected into more than 50 different study samples……”“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. The omnipresence of genetic influences does not demonstrate that behavior is “less psychological” or “more biologically determined” than had originally been thought; rather it shows that behavior arises from factors intrinsic as well as extrinsic to the individual.”http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2899491/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?
Quote:Once we accept that basically everything—not only schizophrenia and intelligence, but also marital status and television watching—is heritable ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2899491/If you accept that marital status and television watching are heritable you'll accept anything.
I'm still 'addicted' to watching Coronation St, ALB, from sitting at my mammy's feet watching it from episode 1…Maybe that is what is meant.
But that's the point. Your addiction to watching Coronation St is self-evidently learned and nothing to do with your or your mother's genes. How could it not be learned since Coronation St is a product of culture not biology. But, I agree, mockery is the only way to deal with the prosperous claim that television watching is inherited genetically.
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.
**************A definition before I start: If I mention “biology” or “heredity”, what I mean is always “genes+the environment”. It is impossible for genes to exist in a vacuum, without the environment. By environment I do not just mean whether your dad was overly protective in his child-rearing habits or you mum always scolded you, I mean the way the environment interacts with a fertilised cell from the word go; the food a mother eats, the air she breathes, whether she is subject to privations or whether she has a good life. It is impossible to separate the effects of the two, genes and the environment; they are intimately conjoined from the very beginning. Go back and read this definition if you are ever in doubt about what I mean by “biology” or “heredity”, in this or in any other post.**************ALB wrote:“If you accept that marital status and television watching are heritable you'll accept anything.”Alan wrote:“I'm still 'addicted' to watching Coronation St, ALB, from sitting at my mammy's feet watching it from episode 1…Maybe that is what is meant. “As soon as I saw the sentence “Once we accept that basically everything—not only schizophrenia and intelligence, but also marital status and television watching—is heritable” in the link I provided, I knew it would elicit a response, and I was not wrong! That’s why I decided to make it part of my extract from the link.Right, television watching:It’s so obviously stupid, isn’t it, absurd, that anyone could link heredity to a preference for television programmes! As if a gene comes with the attachment “Coronation Street watcher”, or “would enjoy Attenborough’s Blue Planet”! Preposterous!Except that this is a reduction of what this scientific article is saying to a childlike level. It cannot be what was meant. I do not know exactly what the author of this paper had in mind, but the following example is my take on it. Men and women, in general, show a preference for very different television programmes – and films. Men tend to like speed, excitement, explosions; car chases and sports programmes more than women. Women tend to like programmes that focus on the relationships between people more than men, such as soaps and costume dramas. Note my use of words like “in general”, “tend to” and “on average”. It is not a case that “all women”, or “all men”, like these programmes.You may tell me about your uncle Jo who has seen “Pride and Prejudice” several times and has read the book at least three times, or your nice cousin Anne who could not wait for the next release of Terminator, but these are exceptions – perhaps not to the rule, but to the general observation that men, on average, enjoy certain television programmes more than women – and vice versa.Now, marriage:Again, to think that a gene would come with an attachment saying “to be married” or “not to be married”! How incredibly imbecile!It would be, if this was what is meant. It cannot be, and the following is again my interpretation.Who are more likely to get married or to end up with a long term partner? People whose “biological packages” are closer to the norm; for example, a 7 foot tall woman, or a 4 and a half foot tall man, are less likely to get married than someone within the normal height range. You could think of other deviations from the physical norm where the same thing would apply. The same goes for neurological deviations, to take autism again as an example. People with this neurological condition are much more likely to stay single, for the simple reason that they have a problem forming relationships and with understanding other people. It is not impossible for a 7 foot woman to get married, and some people with autism do marry. But it decreases the likelihood of this happening.Biology is NOT destiny, but it can certainly decrease or increase the likelihood of – yes, marriage, or even a liking for certain kinds of television programmes. It is a case of statistical probabilities, rather than an either/or situation.By the way, by jumping at this sound bite, you missed the many interesting observations in the link provided, such as· The heritability of human behavioral traits is now well established, due in large measure to classical twin studies.· We see little need for further studies of the heritability of individual traits in behavioral science, but the twin study is far from having outlived its usefulness. · Ironically, once we acknowledge the presence of genetic influences on behavior, the value of twin studies shifts from their ability to demonstrate genetic influences to their ability to illuminate causal environmental influences.· By now we have a fundamental understanding that genetic influences are involved in all aspects of psychology and behavior.· When there are both genetic and environmental differences, most of the mechanisms through which genes exert their causal influences on behavior are not the straightforward one gene–one (bit of) trait association one learns about in high-school biology. Instead, much gene expression is contingent on the presence of other gene products, environmental circumstances, and prior levels of gene expression, sometimes even in prior generations.And no, ALB, I would not believe anything, only what is rational, factual, supported by evidence or that I can see with my own eyes.
Tim wrote:“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.”I agree with the first point in bold; if you have “partially heritable” in one place, it would be logical to have “partially heritable” in the next sentence as well.As for the next bolded sentence, "specific estimates of heritability are not very important." – I am still pondering this,I have the feeling there is something I’m not quite grasping – will need to re-read the article.Another very interesting post from you – I cannot find anything to strongly disagree with!
I don't disagree that there is a statistical correlation between the types of tv programmes men and women like to watch (you won't catch me watching Georgian costume "dramas") or between you getting divorced if you're parents were. That is not at issue. What is is what causes the "personality trait" behind this behaviour. Is it something inherited via the genes? Or is it something formed and largely fixed in the early years of life (may even since conception)? I think the evidence suggests the second is the more plausible, as in the discussion here about attachment theory which starts from this basis. It even applies to other animals.The other view has all sorts of difficulties, not least which genes would be responsible and how they would work to directly influence behaviour since what genes determine is the anatomical and phtsiological development of the individual, not their actual behaviour.Genes do determine anatomical and physiological defects or abnormalities in some individuals which will influence (limit in some cases) what the individual affected can do as well as the attitude of society towards them. In fact it is significant that it is only genes determining such defects and abnormalities that have been identified. None determining behaviour such as "marriage status and television watching" have been and never will be since genes don't determine such obviously culturally-determined social behaviour patterns such as these..And of course the claim that they do is also culturally, even politically, determined. Or is voting Tory also heritable?
I take a sort neo Freudian Karen Horney/ Erich Fromm type perspective as part of the Freudian Marxist school of thought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Horney I think human beings have an instinct to ‘want’ to fit in and be appreciated. Love; is probably a bit too strong a word for it but there is probably a need in the English language for more words to cover the spectrum that it is supposed to cover. People are either for or against behavioural instincts without thinking about how we as thinking animals would experience them; if we had them. If you believe it as Darwindid of humans. You would expect them to appear as urges or drives resulting in stress or unhappiness or whatever when frustrated and satisfaction when fulfilled. As thinking animals you would also expect possibly some sort of possibly rational recognition or understanding of that. Children under the age of three probably have a de-intellectualised and probably extremely strong, for that, instinct or need to be appreciated. And made that much more imperative based on helplessness and dependence. I think it should be fairly obvious that any adult – child dependent relationships are going to be what any infant is going to be instinctually focussed on. I suspect that children come pre-programmed with a suite of capacities to recognise that things are going OK; or not. Eg a smile, prolonged eye contact, tone of voice, being gobbly-gooked talked too and pointless physical contact etc etc. [This was generally very controversial until recently. They now believe that new born infants come with ready made precepts of even how the physical universe operates. They have realised that by showing almost new born children sets of images, some of which are paradoxical, and monitoring their eye movements and how long they look at things etc. They spend significantly more time looking at absurdities that otherwise could only be absurd given a learned familiarity with the subject matter.] As they get a bit older I think most of them up to the age of about 5 are excellent instinctive psychoanalysts.When I have observed them they seem to have an unerring ability, call it innocence, to quickly pick out the neurotic and fake from the genuine. I think they can even see past patronisation and being bought with gifts etc better than most adults even if they ‘cynically’ play along with game for what its worth. And I think they react appropriately to living in a mad house of a dysfunctional family. I suppose when it comes to TV and the media, and as growing adolescent adults, we understand that there is a bigger and another world out there and other reassuring mutually supportive and understanding social groups that we can be part of. 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. Capitalism and the commercialisation of football and seated stadiums has helped enormously; for which I am grateful for cold turkey. And I have foregone the opiate chasing the dragon rush of standing on the terraces in ecstatic solidarity; in a do or die nothing else matters football match. I still think though that is what communism would feel like; without the negation. Afterwards, watching bourgeoisie tennis and golf is never the same. On ‘attachment’ theory I suspect too much of it, which is often the case, can cramp the child’s independence and capacity to learn with a sense of achievement and courage blah de blah etc. There seems to have been a paradigm shift on this over the last 20 years. When I was a kid our mother used to kick us out of the house at 3, 5 & 8 years to roam around on the streets, greenbelt woods and sewage works plant that was nearby with a hole in the fence and a death trap for the like of us; but all the more interesting for it.
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!
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.
I was going to mention the ‘over attachment’ and smothering theories but thought I was rambling a bit. A classic case was of course Adolph who suffered under the extremely harmful situation of a smothering mother and a tyrannical father. And became a text book stereotype case of a sadomasochist. The US CIA in 1941, or whatever it was then, asked the trick cyclists to profile Hitler as part of a data mining exercise I suppose to get some insight on how he and the Nazi regime might start to behave when things started to go wrong for them. They had his incidentally ‘Jewish’ family doctor from childhood apparently which helped; he seems to have had, then, two bollocks . It proved to be quite accurate; but these kind people can be quite predictable as stereotypical archetypes. I find it quite disturbing how the culture today demands that children should be wrapped up in cotton wool and it is now criminal, almost literally, to leave under 10 year olds home-alone kind of thing. Denying them to; ………..explore, develop resilience, develop peer group friendships…… I also think this face-book virtual friendship along with all the other crap that goes along with it, from the safety of the home, is more insidious and dangerous than the healthy hazards of playing on building sites and the kind of stuff I, and Tim, used to get up to. Neurotic ‘attachment’ would be considered or categorised in ‘neo Freudism’ as ‘masochistic’ tendency which isn’t I think a particularly illuminating term and was based on how it allegedly often expressed itself in sexual activity. [Apparently Hitler like to have women sit on his face an urinate on him; which was straight out of the play book for the US trick cyclists; and a bit too sophisticated a ‘Freudianism’ for the kind of interviewees they got it from.] Not my thing really. Freudian ‘masochism’ or ‘oral dependency’ is all about completely subsuming, abnegating or sacrificing the sense of self and your individuality to something that is supposedly greater than yourself; often enough represented or personified as an authoritarian figure or individual. Kind of? I think it actually plays on what would be otherwise a positive side ie a social instinct. It is no accident I think that it is often associated with what would be Jungian like concepts like ‘motherland’ and the ‘fatherland’. I think Fromm, as well as Reich, put the ‘German’ nation on the couch and diagnosed them then as collectively ‘masochistic’. The first person to do that kind of thing was Feuerbach who put the early Christians on the couch and diagnosed them as psychotic communists and ‘it’ as ‘projected’ religious- political anthropomorphism. Although Wilhelm Weitling probably started that off around the same time; been reading some of his stuff recently. Is there an English translation of Guarantees of harmony and freedom? It looks as if it might have been one of the first and seminal historical book on modern communism and seems to have shook up Karl and Fred at the time.
Actually I am a scouser and supported Liverpool in my youth. The Manc- Scouser thing like the Newcastle- Sunderland is a curious regionalism. There was a dark secret in my family- my grandfather was transferred to a Manchester regiment in the first world war- the East Lanchashire fusiliers. When I first went to ManchesterI went with some friends to the Stretford end to watch Liverpool play united.The bastards tried to get me talk whilst I played the deaf mute.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!
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.html
It is staggering how blatant the Tories have been, their cuts to Personal Living Allowance have directly paid for a swathe of tax cuts. they'll say raising the tax threashold to £11K will help poor workers, but at the expense of workers unable to find jobs, and of course, millionaires get that element of eprsonal tax allowance as well. This is the foullest redistribution of poverty imaginable, taking from the most vulnerable to give to the ones doing best out of the wages system.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.