Josh Soffer wrote:
But why should the pleasures of touch be linked so closely to such
crisis situations? Why is the joy of close body contact a 'diversion' ,
a word with negative connotations, implying escape, and relief?
Josh, I appreciate your raising this point directly!!!
In my recent post I objected to construing preparation for effort as
"negative." I try to view
preparation for effort as just that -- and then try to hold that
preparation for effort diminishes as
one (1) finds a cognitive structure which will integrate the stimulu, or
(2) eliminates the source of the
stimulus.
I contend that the inputs associated with preparation for effort
must be construed, as all input
must be construed. Then, I would claim that all kinds of social
constructions may be applied to
those inputs.
Parents, generally, when observing signs of preparation for effort
in their infants assume that the
child is experiencing "displeasure." Working with the social
constructions that have been passed on
through hundreds of generations, they construe the signs of preparation
for effort as an index of the
infant "experiencing pain," "being hungry," etc. -- that is, as
something that might be life threatening.
They then set about to bring about a cessation of the signs of
preparation for effort. (In doing so,
caregiovers often fail to note that they are addressing the discrepancy
situation.) If the infant is
trying to process input from the chemical (etc.) sensors that signal
lack of nutrients (inputs which
are discrepant from the steady state of 'satiation' experienced in the
months prior to birth) and the
parent supplies food (which is not delivered to the sensory apparatus
until the food is assimilated)
the parent also provides the "cover stimulation" of close body contact,
firm support, etc. while
delivering the food. The caregiver construes his/her action as
"reducing hunger." The main effect of
the behavior -- that is, the reduction of or the "covering" of the
discrepant input -- does not take
center stage.
In this way, and in many other ways, the infant is "informed" that
when one is presented with
preparation for effort, the object of action can be eliminate the input
from preparation for effort.
The inputs from preparation for effort may be eliminated in a
variety of ways -- drugs, etc., for
example. Then, of course, one can build a construct system that will
allow him/her to integrate the
once-discrepant inputs.
As I said in my elaborating post -- some people are fortunate in
having "learned" that they can
regulate the preparation for effort (and attendent inputs) while they
are working out a means of
construing the discrepant inputs.
Back in the old days when we talked about the inputs of preparation
for effort as anxiety, fear,
etc., we also talked about (in a highly moralistic manner) "delay of
gratification."
Also, I would not speak of "the pleasures of touch." I know many
people who dislike being touched!!!!
Touching and close holding provide inputs which are very readily
assimilable. After all, the fetus was surrounded by a very
constraining, 98 degree F temp, etc., for about four months after its
neural system had been rather intact. It has had plenty of opportunity
to build very complete constructs regarding close contact.
If, after birth, the infant is induced to build alternative
constructions of inputs concommitant to close holding, there is the
possibility that he/she will lean to construe those inputs in ways which
are aligned with the bad end of its bad-good construct.
I think that what I am doing is trying consistently to hold to the
position that ALL inputs MUST be construed before they have any effect
on the functioning of a person. I will refrain from attempting to say
that any input-construction systems are "hard wired." I refrain from
doing so on several grounds.... (1) I am going to work my
constructivist position to death, and (2) I see the use of the concept
of "hard-wiring" as the "slippery slope" - if we want to slide down that
slope, we can simply write off psychology and assume that all behavior
will eventually be explained when they neurologists find all the hard
wiring embedded in persons.
Jim Mancuso
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/soi
A website dedicated to information on Italian-
American history and heritage.
--------------CFF1DD9072E994770D54A2D9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Josh Soffer wrote:
But why should the pleasures of touch be linked so closely to such
crisis situations? Why is the joy of close body contact a 'diversion'
,
a word with negative connotations, implying escape, and relief?
Josh, I appreciate your raising this point
directly!!!
In my recent post I objected to construing preparation
for effort as "negative." I try to view
preparation for effort as just that -- and then try to hold that preparation
for effort diminishes as
one (1) finds a cognitive structure which will integrate the stimulu,
or (2) eliminates the source of the
stimulus.
I contend that the inputs associated with preparation
for effort must be construed, as all input
must be construed. Then, I would claim that all kinds of social
constructions may be applied to
those inputs.
Parents, generally, when observing signs of preparation
for effort in their infants assume that the
child is experiencing "displeasure." Working with the social
constructions that have been passed on
through hundreds of generations, they construe the signs of preparation
for effort as an index of the
infant "experiencing pain," "being hungry," etc. -- that is, as something
that might be life threatening.
They then set about to bring about a cessation of the signs of preparation
for effort. (In doing so,
caregiovers often fail to note that they are addressing the discrepancy
situation.) If the infant is
trying to process input from the chemical (etc.) sensors that signal
lack of nutrients (inputs which
are discrepant from the steady state of 'satiation' experienced in
the months prior to birth) and the
parent supplies food (which is not delivered to the sensory apparatus
until the food is assimilated)
the parent also provides the "cover stimulation" of close body contact,
firm support, etc. while
delivering the food. The caregiver construes his/her action as
"reducing hunger." The main effect of
the behavior -- that is, the reduction of or the "covering" of the
discrepant input -- does not take
center stage.
In this way, and in many other ways, the infant
is "informed" that when one is presented with
preparation for effort, the object of action can be eliminate the input
from preparation for effort.
The inputs from preparation for effort may be eliminated
in a variety of ways -- drugs, etc., for
example. Then, of course, one can build a construct system that
will allow him/her to integrate the
once-discrepant inputs.
As I said in my elaborating post -- some people
are fortunate in having "learned" that they can
regulate the preparation for effort (and attendent inputs) while they
are working out a means of
construing the discrepant inputs.
Back in the old days when we talked about the inputs
of preparation for effort as anxiety, fear,
etc., we also talked about (in a highly moralistic manner) "delay of
gratification."
Also, I would not speak of "the pleasures of
touch." I know many people who dislike being touched!!!!
Touching and close holding provide inputs which
are very readily assimilable. After all, the fetus was surrounded
by a very constraining, 98 degree F temp, etc., for about four months after
its neural system had been rather intact. It has had plenty of opportunity
to build very complete constructs regarding close contact.
If, after birth, the infant is induced to build
alternative constructions of inputs concommitant to close holding, there
is the possibility that he/she will lean to construe those inputs in ways
which are aligned with the bad end of its bad-good construct.
I think that what I am doing is trying consistently
to hold to the position that ALL inputs MUST be construed
before they have any effect on the functioning of a person. I will
refrain from attempting to say that any input-construction systems are
"hard wired." I refrain from doing so on several grounds....
(1) I am going to work my constructivist position to death, and (2) I see
the use of the concept of "hard-wiring" as the "slippery slope" - if we
want to slide down that slope, we can simply write off psychology and assume
that all behavior will eventually be explained when they neurologists find
all the hard wiring embedded in persons.
Jim Mancuso
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of
Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University
at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington
Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/soi
A website dedicated to information on Italian-
American history and heritage.
--------------CFF1DD9072E994770D54A2D9--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%