Paul Smith Alverno College Milwaukee
Allen Esterson wrote:
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]
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
