An
interesting summary of some core ideas in developmental psychology by Paul Bloom:
This aphorism is attributed to the biologist and classicist D'Arcy
Thompson, and it's an elegant summary of how Thompson sought to explain
the shapes of things, from jellyfish to sand dunes to elephant tusks....this insight applies to explanation more generally—all
sciences are, to at least some extent, historical sciences.
I think it's a perfect motto for my own field of developmental
psychology. Every adult mind has two histories. There is evolution. Few
would doubt that some of the most elegant and persuasive explanations in
psychology appeal to the constructive process of natural selection. And
there is development—how our minds unfold over time, the processes of
maturation and learning.
While evolutionary explanations work best for explaining what humans
share, development can sometimes capture how we differ. This can be
obvious: Nobody is surprised to hear that adults who are fluent in
Korean have usually been exposed to Korean when they were children or
that adults who practice Judaism have usually been raised as Jews. But
other developmental explanations are rather interesting.
There is evidence that an adult's inability to see in stereo is due to
poor vision during a critical period in childhood. Some have argued that
the self-confidence of adult males is influenced by how young they were
when they reached puberty (because of the boost in status caused by
being bigger, even if temporarily, than their peers). It's been claimed
that smarter adults are more likely to be firstborns (because later
children find themselves in environments that are, on average, less
intellectually sophisticated). Creative adults are more likely to be
later-borns (because they were forced to find their own distinctive
niches.) Romantic attachments in adults are influenced by their
relationships as children with their parents. A man's pain-sensitivity
later in life is influenced by whether or not he was circumcised as a
baby.
With the exception of the stereo-vision example, I don't know if any of
these explanations are true. But they are elegant and non-obvious, and
some of them verge on beautiful.
No comments:
Post a Comment