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