On 29 October Paul Smith wrote: >In just the last couple of weeks we've had plenty of >skepticism about Freud, attachment theory, extra credit, >birth order effects, "language police", and the relationship >between Prozac and suicide.
The only posting on attachment theory that I recall recently that might be interpreted as expressing skepticism is mine, reading as follows > On 22 October Rob Weisskirch wrote: > >Third, how does one teach about the ever-popular > >Attachment theory without developing an understanding > >of psychoanalytic theories? > > I must admit that I am not up-to-date with current Attachment Theory (to > put it mildly), but I know that the founder of the theoretical foundations > of the discipline, John Bowlby, announced in Chapter 1 of his magnum opus > *Attachment and Loss* that the starting point of attachment theory differs > radically from that of psychoanalysis. Whereas "most of the concepts that > psychoanalysts have about early childhood have been arrived at by a > process of historical reconstruction derived from older subjects, [...] > the point of view from which this work [i.e., his book] starts is > different" -- the data drawn on are those obtained from "the behaviour of > children in real-life situations". In other words, Bowlby is saying that > attachment theory bases its conceptual schema on an empirical approach > that is the complete opposite of that of classical psychoanalysis. > > I'd be interested to hear from Rob what psychoanalytic theories he is > alluding to in the sentence quoted at the top of this posting, and how > they fit in with Bowlby's arguing that basic concepts in attachment theory > and in classical psychoanalysis are derived in very different ways. I fear my query may have been misunderstood (I can't think why!). I'm genuinely interested to know the answer. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------- Fri, 29 Oct 2004 Author: Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Spiritual beliefs help mental illness? > jim guinee wrote: > > > The alternative explanations for studies on spiritual beliefs and mental > > health are plausible, but seem typically reflexive. > > > > It's as if some of you want to believe it's anything BUT > > spirituality and/or religiousness. > > > > Just how it looks from my side of the world > > Jim, surely you've noticed the general tone of skepticism on this list. > In just the last couple of weeks we've had plenty of skepticism about > Freud, attachment theory, extra credit, birth order effects, "language > police", and the relationship between Prozac and suicide. > > I don't really think that an objective look at TIPS discussions would > suggest that people here believe "anything BUT spirituality and/or > religiousness". Sure, this flurry of alternative explanations is > "reflexive", but it's a "reflex" that comes in response to a LOT of > different types of claims, and certainly not just those involving > religion and spirituality. I think it's a pretty good "reflex" for > psychology teachers to have. > > Paul Smith > Alverno College > Milwaukee --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
