Children See Children Do ((video))
DarkStar
Posts: 734
[url]mms://cs11.core-streaming.com/napcan/napcan-95-second.wmv[/url] (copy and paste URL into Windows Media Player if the direct link doesn't work)
someone gets it! people know. i'm moved. thank you australia.
ds
http://childfriendly.org.au/childrenseechildrendo.htm
someone gets it! people know. i'm moved. thank you australia.
ds
http://childfriendly.org.au/childrenseechildrendo.htm
And no one sings me lullabyes
And no one makes me close my eyes
So I throw the windows wide
And call to you across the sky....
And no one makes me close my eyes
So I throw the windows wide
And call to you across the sky....
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
thanks for watching. i hope more people watch.
ds
And no one makes me close my eyes
So I throw the windows wide
And call to you across the sky....
Me too, except some people will still think of Children as individuals with free-will, or some kind of executive decision making as an adult. :(
Children are not adults. They don't have the maturity to know better in most situations. (note how I said "in most situations")
True, that's why we need to set good examples, teach them well, and allow them room to make good decisions. I'm sorry that Ahnimus has convinced himself that he has no will, but for the rest of us, it is important to help kids make smart choices.
Amen to that
Well, I have a really complete and detailed understanding of human development and I feel that the similarity between adult and child human being ends with both being inefficient. Essentially we are all stupid in some manner and also stupidity is relative to whatever we individually think is intelligent.
But certainly in the case of children lacking frontal lobe development and the ability to make decisions with long-term consequences in mind, is a major disadvantage to them. If nothing else we should recognize that all human beings below the age of 20, which may change for the individual, are not as developed mentally and physically as an adult above that age.
I mean, when we talk about development, we are talking about not just experience, but also brain development. However, in terms of both and especially experience an adult may not be as developed as his/her peers and therefor may be considered "stupid" or "childish". In which case, I wouldn't hold them any more responsible than an actual child that shares the same level of development.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
"Psychoanalytical theory" is Freud's theory and hardly ecnompasses the "world" of Psychology.
I'd say it's a pretty damn complete study, I mean some things required inference, add neuroscience and you get a pretty complete understanding.
But, I know you are just picking on my viewpoint, because it's positive.
Is that what you've been telling yourself? Sometimes you're right, and that's when you don't hear from me. Do you honestly think science has discovered all there is to know about human development? And do you honestly think you've learned all what is known about human development because you picked up a few books at a bookstore?
I'm not really concerned about whether your message or positive or negative. I just think you try to use your limited knowledge of psychology to help you come across as the authority on all matters psychological. You want psychology to have all the answers instead of wanting psychology to be a tool to find more answers.
You do a lot of "spray and pray" in your posts. You spray out a whole bunch of convoluted psychobabble and pray that there's no one out there who knows better. I apologize if you think I'm picking on you, but that's really what you do quite often.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
psychoanalysis is the bastard child of psychology now...catch up...there are better and more intelligent things...freud couldn't get his nose out of a mound of coke long enough to really do anything spectacular. the only good thing he did was screw it up so other scientists/psychologists got it right...and continue to push the boundaries of the field...
from my window to yours
you do need to set a good example...
i wonder if this is in relation to the spanking vs. "talking to your child" debate...
from my window to yours
Ahnimus wasn't touting freud. He was pointing out my incorrect use of the word "psychoanalytical" to sum up the world of psychology.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I lean further to Piaget's work than Freud's, as Sponger stated, I was simply pointing out his incorrect use of the term Psychoanalytical.
If you must know I have a holistic view of psychology that encompasses Freud, Piaget and others, including the neuroscience community with works such as Benjamin Libet.
Sponger, I don't claim that psychology has all the answers, but it comes a lot closer to understanding the human condition than your average dude.
Actually the best thing Freud did was give rise to modern Psychology. When you consider Freud was really the first of his field, he is the father of psychology, even though his theories were almost completely wrong.
"Complete and detailed" means all the answers.
And, again, you mention that psychology provides more insight than can be provided by the average Joe. Perhaps the insight is greater, but it is not complete and far from it. And if you think that the average Joe does not have insight into the state of the human mind in spite of having no training in psychology, then I would have to say that you are dead wrong.
It's every day that psychologists take cues from common sense to formulate hypotheses. The human personality is, after all, common sense. Do you really appreciate the idea of someone telling you that he is 100% sure of what is right and wrong about human nature just because he has some degree in some field from some university?
Do you not agree with the notion that science gets turned on its ass every couple of years? Doesn't that alone inspire you exercise caution in every point that you make? At least to the extent that you refrain from saying things like "complete and detailed" as though people came with manuals?
Like I said, if you had it your way, everything that is known now would be all that there is to know from henceforth because you want to relish being in the position of "authority" on matters. It's like the catholic church with their stupid holy book, which offers a "complete and detailed" reference for how people should behave and why.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Thanks for the post. Very good video. And very true.
It only takes a few seconds of thought to realize that the average joe has his head up his own ass and still can't smell his own shit. It only takes 3 ounces of brain matter to realize that we all work on a system that allows for "common sense". Given that there is a system, there is the possibility of understanding it. The alternate line of thought is based in no logic, as angleca calls it alogical, which is illogical. We are born driven to logic as it's the nature of things. We study animals and refer to their behavioral patterns a lot. Psychology is the same study of humans, particularly behaviorism.
More now than I've ever given them credit for. But I'm still cautious. I don't read every headline or news article and believe the study to be true. I investigate.
No actually, I disagree. If you are referring to Freud's work. He pioneered psychology. A lot of what he said was true to a degree, but Freud believed that everyone was solely driven by sex and social status. Many people disagreed with him. I don't however. I just think he oversimplified people with that statement and people became defensive. Just as they are with the notion of free will. So, as for my concern, Science doesn't "get turned on it's ass" it evolves from what it already knows.
"Complete and Detailed" may not have been the best line for the critics on this forum. What I meant to imply may be difficult to understand. Knowing how the brain develops from conception to adulthood. How infants, children, teenagers and adults behave due to certain stimuli. And how the aging process affects hormones. All attribute to the "Complete and Detailed" understanding. I have to say that a person understanding of neuroplasticity, neurogenesis, reflex actions and so on, would know a lot more than the average joe. Joe thinks that he is the master of his life, that he makes all of his decisions because he chooses, first of all, to create those options, and also which option he chooses. Unknown to Joe he likes chocolate because the chemical gives his brain a rush, he likes peas because he was attuned to eating them as a child. Joe doesn't like corn because those tastebuds were never stimulated enough to register a pattern in his brain. So, Joe chooses to buy peas and passes on the corn. Everything Joe likes or dislikes is due to past and present stimulation and the engrams in his brain. He bases all of his decisions on this. His choices are then determined by what he's sensed throughout his life. Monkey see, monkey do.
I don't think we know all there is to know. But we shouldn't simply discard what we've learned, or we won't learn something new. We didn't develop treatment for Rett's without Evolution. Biological sciences are based in the theory of Evolution. If we just chucked it out because some people don't like it, then we would know nothing about genetics. Some theories work, and some theories do not. Tried, tested and failed, that's what free will is.
naděje umírá poslední
to Ahnimus, respectfully: i have no doubt that freud's work was pioneering...and while i see merit in some of his concepts, he remains a theorist in respect to his psychosexual development concept...which is what most folks liken to freud and think about when he is brought up. you may possibly disagree with me, but i don't see how you (Ahnimus) are equating freud's work as science.
ds
And no one makes me close my eyes
So I throw the windows wide
And call to you across the sky....
Freud's work didn't follow the modern scientific method of psychology and thus why it was flawed.
But, I'm not trying to tout Freud. I'm illustrating the fact that the psychology, even when coupled with the scientific aspects of neuroscience, is still just a psuedo-science.
What leads some people to mistakenly refer to modern psychology as having used "modern scientific methods" is the use of statistical analysis and a standardized use of controls and variables in experiments.
However, read just about any study and you'll always see that room for error. It is impossible to account for the infinite number of external and even internal factors that can affect the validity of a determination.
One thing to consider is that it is believed that people have an infinite number of variations in their emotions. The theory is that the mind's ability to remember things is based on its ability to organize its own thoughts, and that the organizational structure for these thoughts is built upon an infinitely diverse spectrum of emotions.
So, for instance, a commonly recognized emotion such as sadness has more variations than can be imagined. And each variation is used to categorize our thoughts and allow for their retrieval.
With that said, how it can be reasonably assumed that we know even a fraction of who we are? How can we be so ready to discard the common wisdom of the layman? I just don't see it is as reasonable to think that this propensity for uniqueness amongst every individual can be accounted for even by all of the world's psychology textbooks put together.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
NO KIDDING...that's what i said!
from my window to yours