Okami Study Guide: Chapter 4 1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Brain, Psyche, and Self: a Dialectic Between Analytical Psychology and Neuroscience
BRAIN, PSYCHE, AND SELF: A DIALECTIC BETWEEN ANALYTICAL PSYCHOLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE A dissertation submitted by KESSTAN C. BLANDIN to PACIFICA GRADUATE INSTITUTE in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in DEPTH PSYCHOLOGY This dissertation has been accepted for the faculty of Pacifica Graduate Institute by: •ennis P. Slattery, Chair Jennifer L.~Selig, Reader (/tyjz Susan E. Mehrtens, PhD External Reader UMI Number: 3519792 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. DiygrMution UMI 3519792 Published by ProQuest LLC 2012. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ii JANUARY 25, 2011 Copyright by KESSTAN C. BLANDIN 2011 iii ABSTRACT Brain, Psyche, and Self: A Dialectic Between Analytical Psychology and Neuroscience by Kesstan Blandin Although much of C. G. Jung's work is not compatible with neuroscientific methods or perspectives, his ideas on the structure of the psyche and self overlap with attempts to understand the phenomenon of a self in consciousness through mapping correlates with brain functions and processes. They are therefore appropriate to engage in dialogue with neuroscience. Through these dialogues we can further understand the construction of the self and identity in light of current findings in neuroscience and the theories of C. -
Personality Disorders from an Attachment Perspective (002).Pdf
UNDERSTANDING AND WORKING W I T H PERSONALITY DISORDERS FROM AN ATTACHMENT PERSPECTIVE JONATHAN HARROP, LMFT AAMFT APPROVED SUPERVISOR O W N E R – EAST VALLEY FAMILY THERAPY AZ ARMY NATIONAL GUARD CHAPLAIN • Understand the Attachment function of the learned behaviors in clients with Personality Disorders • Understand the Attachment Dilemmas those with PD’s are faced with that can make them complicated clients to work with. • Obtain skills and suggestions to help us de-pathologize those with PD’s and increase our effectiveness in working with them to G O A L S O F manage their behaviors, navigate their attachment dilemmas, and TRAINING begin healing their attachment traumas. • Any other hopes from the group? ATTACHMENT THEORY • John Bowlby – Father of Modern Attachment Theory • Mary Ainsworth – Strange Situation • Harry Harlow – Baby Monkey experiment • Sue Johnson – Adult Romantic Attachment ATTACHMENT STYLES IN CHILDREN • Ambivalent attachment: These children become very distressed when a parent leaves. Ambivalent attachment style is considered uncommon, affecting an estimated 7–15% of U.S. children. As a result of poor parental availability, these children cannot depend on their primary caregiver to be there when they need them. • Avoidant attachment: Children with an avoidant attachment tend to avoid parents or caregivers, showing no preference between a caregiver and a complete stranger. This attachment style might be a result of abusive or neglectful caregivers. Children who are punished for relying on a caregiver will learn to avoid seeking help in the future. • Disorganized attachment: These children display a confusing mix of behavior, seeming disoriented, dazed, or confused. They may avoid or resist the parent. -
Do Parents Matter? Judith Rich Harris and Child Development by Malcolm Gladwell
August 17, 1998 The New Yorker ANNALS OF BEHAVIOR Do Parents Matter? Judith Rich Harris and child development by Malcolm Gladwell 1. The idea that will make Judith Rich Harris famous came to her, unbidden, on the afternoon of January 20, 1994. At the time, Harris was a textbook writer, with no doctorate or academic affiliation, working from her home in suburban New Jersey. Because of a lupus-like illness, she doesn’t have the strength to leave the house, and she’d spent that morning in bed. By early afternoon, though, she was at her desk, glancing through a paper by a prominent psychologist about juvenile delinquency, and for some reason a couple of unremarkable sentences struck her as odd: “Delinquency must be a social behavior that allows access to some desirable resource. I suggest that the resource is mature status, with its consequent power and privilege.” It is an observation consistent with our ideas about what it means to grow up. Teen-agers rebel against being teen-agers, against the restrictions imposed on them by adults. They smoke because only adults are supposed to smoke. They steal cars because they are too young to have cars. But Harris was suddenly convinced that the paper had it backward. “Adolescents aren’t trying to be like adults--they are trying to contrast themselves with adults,” she explains. “And it was as if a light had gone on in the sky. It was one of the most exciting things that have ever happened to me. In a minute or two, I had the germ of the theory, and in ten minutes I had enough of it to see that it was important.” If adolescents didn’t want to be like adults, it was because they wanted to be like other adolescents. -
Barnes Et Al
DEMONSTRATING THE VALIDITY OF TWIN RESEARCH IN CRIMINOLOGY∗ J. C. BARNES,1 JOHN PAUL WRIGHT,1,6 BRIAN B. BOUTWELL,2 JOSEPH A. SCHWARTZ,3 ERIC J. CONNOLLY,4 JOSEPH L. NEDELEC,1 and KEVIN M. BEAVER5,6 1School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati 2School of Social Work, Saint Louis University 3School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha 4Criminal Justice Department, Pennsylvania State University, Abington 5College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University 6Center for Social and Humanities Research, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia KEYWORDS: assumptions, behavior genetics, biosocial, empirical, quantitative, twins In a recent article published in Criminology, Burt and Simons (2014) claimed that the statistical violations of the classical twin design render heritability studies useless. Claiming quantitative genetics is “fatally flawed” and describing the results generated from these models as “preposterous,” Burt and Simons took the unprecedented step to call for abandoning heritability studies and their constituent findings. We show that their call for an “end to heritability studies” was premature, misleading, and entirely without merit. Specifically, we trace the history of behavioral genetics and show that 1) the Burt and Simons critique dates back 40 years and has been subject to a broad array of empirical investigations, 2) the violation of assumptions in twin models does not in- validate their results, and 3) Burt and Simons created a distorted and highly misleading portrait of behavioral genetics and those who use quantitative genetic approaches. “The flaws of twin studies are not fatal, but rather seem no worse (and may be better) than the flaws of the typical causal study that relies on observational data.” (Felson, 2012: ii) Behavioral genetic research has existed for more than 100 years (Maxson, 2007). -
CHILDREN DON't DO THINGS HALF WAY a Conversation with Judith Rich Harris [June 1999]
Summer Reading from the Archive CHILDREN DON'T DO THINGS HALF WAY A Conversation with Judith Rich Harris [June 1999] I'm prone to making statements like this one: how the parents rear the child has no long-term effects on the child's personality, intelligence, or mental health. I guess you could call that an extreme statement. But I prefer to think of myself as a defender of the null hypothesis. Introduction It was in the 1990s that I received a phone call from Steven Pinker who wanted to make the world aware of the work of Judith Rich Harris, an unheralded psychologist who was advocating a revolutionary idea which she discussed in her 1999 Edge interview, "Children don't do things half way: children don’t compromise," in which she said, "how the parents rear the child has no long-term effects on the child's personality, intelligence, or mental health." 1 From the very early days of Edge, Harris was the gift that kept giving. Beginning in 1998, with her response to "What Questions Are You Asking Yourself?" through "The Last Question" in 2016, she exemplified the role of the Third Culture intellectual: "those scientists and other thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are." Her subsequent Edge essays over the years focused on subjects as varied as natural selection, parenting styles, the effect of genes on human behavior, twin studies, the survival of friendship, beauty as truth, among others are evidence of a keen intellect and a fearless thinker determined to advance science-based thinking as well as her own controversial ideas. -
Do Parents Make a Difference in Children's Character Development?
DO PARENTS MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN CHILDREN’S CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT? WHAT THE RESEARCH SHOWS Tom Lickona Center for the 4th and 5th Rs SUNY Cortland Fourth Annual Fall Character Education Seminar November 20, 1998 In its August 24, 1998 issue, Newsweek magazine devoted its cover story to a controversial new book, The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do by Judith Rich Harris. Ms. Harris does not claim to be a psychologist or expert in child development; she is a textbook writer. Nevertheless, she puts forth a startling thesis: Parents do not have much effect on how kids turn out. How kids turn out, Harris says, is mostly the result of genes and peers. Of course, we all know that heredity and peers play a part in kids' development. But is it true, as Harris says, that parents have little influence? If it's true that parents have little influence on their children, that's very bad news for schools, for schools would logically have even less influence. I'd like to argue that Harris is wrong and common sense is right: Parents do matter. Studies of childrearing reveal many things effective parents do that make a major impact on their children and especially on their character development. We should know this body of evidence for at least two reasons. First, so we can counter Harris's claim and communicate to parents what the research really shows, thereby bolstering their confidence that they do make a difference. A second reason is that good schools are like good families. -
Attachment Theory and Research: Overview with Suggested Applications to Child Custody
INVITED MONOGRAPH ATTACHMENT THEORY AND RESEARCH: OVERVIEW WITH SUGGESTED APPLICATIONS TO CHILD CUSTODY Mary Main, Erik Hesse, and Siegfried Hesse* The term “attachment” is now in common usage and, as the readers of this Special Issue are aware, is referenced in a rapidly increasing variety of contexts involving child custody (McIntosh & Chisholm, 2008). The aim of this article is to provide judges, lawyers, mediators and mental health professionals involved in custody assessment with an overview of the history of the field of attachment and its principal measures, together with a clear description of what the term “attachment” does—and does not—mean to attachment researchers and theoreticians. Implications for normative separations that do not involve custody- related assessment or the intervention of courts or mediators are also considered. With respect to contested custody cases, we consider the use of standardized attachment measures, and note that sufficient validation for most such measures in clinical contexts is still developing. We describe three measures taken from the research literature (the Strange Situation procedure, the Attachment Q-sort and theAdultAttachment Interview), each subjected to meta-analyses and widely regarded as “gold standard” methods in research.These three methods come closest at this point in time to meeting criteria for providing “scientific evidence” regarding an individual’s current attachment status. Limitations on widespread use include the need for substantiating meta-analyses on father-child relationships, and further validation across a wider spread of children’s ages. We are confident that these restrictions can be solved by new research. In the interim, we argue that increased familiarity with the above measures will assist custody evaluators both in standardizing their assessment procedures and their capacity to gain more from the observational data available to them. -
Concepts and Implications of Altruism Bias and Pathological Altruism
Concepts and implications of altruism bias and pathological altruism Barbara A. Oakley1 Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309 Edited by John C. Avise, University of California, Irvine, CA, and approved April 9, 2013 (received for review February 14, 2013) The profound benefits of altruism in modern society are self-evident. Pathological altruism can be conceived as behavior in which However, the potential hurtful aspects of altruism have gone largely attempts to promote the welfare of another, or others, results unrecognized in scientific inquiry. This is despite the fact that instead in harm that an external observer would conclude was virtually all forms of altruism are associated with tradeoffs—some reasonably foreseeable. More precisely, this paper defines path- of enormous importance and sensitivity—and notwithstanding that ological altruism as an observable behavior or personal tendency examples of pathologies of altruism abound. Presented here are the in which the explicit or implicit subjective motivation is in- mechanistic bases and potential ramifications of pathological altru- tentionally to promote the welfare of another, but instead of ism, that is, altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of overall beneficial outcomes the altruism instead has unreasonable others instead result in unanticipated harm. A basic conceptual ap- (from the relative perspective of an outside observer) negative proach toward the quantification of altruism bias is presented. consequences to the other or even to the self. This definition does Guardian systems and their over arching importance in the evolution not suggest that there are absolutes but instead suggests that, of cooperation are also discussed. -
Reactive Attachment Disorder: a Review
Reactive Disorder Reactive Attachment Disorder: A Review Malia C. King Lynchburg College Running head: Reactive Disorder Address correspondence to: Malia C. King 1026 New Hampshire Ave. Lynchburg, VA 24502 [email protected] Attachment is often defined along the same lines as love. It is an emotion or commitment that we feel for another person. Love and attachment begin to develop soon after birth and they continue throughout persons‟ lives (Maroney, 2001). Unfortunately, the dance between a child and parent can be disrupted and eventually lead to problems with attachment and ultimately love. Prevalence numbers for disorders relating to attachment are unclear. Attachment disorders are commonly misunderstood and under-diagnosed. Although the symptoms begin early, they often become pervasive throughout life. By the time they are recognized, the disorder may resemble many others (Sheperis, Renfro-Michel & Doggett, 2003). Although a substantial amount of research has been reported on attachment between parents and infants, few researchers have examined the disorder that results when the attachment process is disturbed. Using recent research, this paper will provide an overview of reactive attachment disorder, its symptoms, characteristics and causal factors, as well as assessment and treatment tools. It will conclude with a discussion of controversies relating to the present DSM-IV definition as well as attention to prevention considerations. Theories of Attachment In the 1920s there were many theories about the psychology of raising children. The prominent behavioral psychologist, John B. Watson, developed a theory that changed the way parents nurtured their children. He “contended that children were completely a product of their environment, and that too much spoiling by parents could be dangerous” (Maroney, 2001, p. -
Psychology Times, Fall 2007
FALL 2007 D E P A R T M E N T O F P SYCHO L OGY | UNIVERSITY O F Ill I N O I S A T U R B A N A - C H A MP A I G N FOCUS ON RESEA R CH The Legacy of Early Experience: Prospective and Psychological Retrospective Evidence for Enduring Effects Models of Language By Glenn I. Roisman Comprehension By Kara Federmeier One of the more Ironically, debates about the developmental controversial claims significance of early experience have, until Human brains are storehouses for vast in developmental recently, taken place in the relative absence amounts of information about things, psychology is that of much data from long-term, longitudinal people, places, and events. Remarkably, in early experiences studies, tracking cohorts of children from only hundreds of milliseconds the brain with caregivers leave infancy to maturity, that have used state- of an experienced language user can an enduring mark on of-the-art methods for studying the quality retrieve information from this storehouse in human development. of interpersonal relationships in the early response to a complex, often ambiguous, Although this is a very old idea, formalized in life course. Fortunately for me, it was as a perceptual signal—that is, a visual or theories that date back to the beginnings of graduate research assistant on one of the auditory word. Research conducted in the psychological science, no strong consensus few such investigations—Alan Sroufe, Byron University of Illinois Cognition and Brain has been built within the field or in society Egeland, and Andy at large about this issue. -
How to Succeed in Childhood
How to Succeed in Childhood by Judith Rich Harris very day, tell your children bad for kids. In those days, spanking was that you love them. Hug considered not just the parents’ right but them at least once every 24 their duty. hours. Never hit them. If they Partly as a result of the major retoolings Edo something wrong, don’t say, “You’re in the advice industry, child-rearing styles bad!” Say, “What you did was bad.” No, have changed drastically over the course of wait—even that might be too harsh. Say, this century. Although abusive parents instead, “What you did made me unhap- have always existed, run-of-the-mill par- py.” ents—the large majority of the popula- The people who are in the business of tion—administer more hugs and fewer giving out this sort of advice are very angry spankings than they used to. at me, and with good reason. I’m the Now ask yourself this: Are children turn- author of The Nurture Assumption—the ing out better? Are they happier and better book that allegedly claims that “parents adjusted than they were in the earlier part don’t matter.” Though that’s not what the of the century? Less aggressive? Less anx- book actually says, the advice givers are ious? Nicer? nonetheless justified in their anger. I don’t pull punches, and I’m not impressed by ² their air of benevolent omniscience. Their advice is based not on scientific evidence It was Sigmund Freud who gave us the but on prevailing cultural myths. -
TORT LIABILITY in the AGE of the HELICOPTER PARENT Elizabeth G. Porter∗ Discussions of Parental Liability by Courts and Legal
3 PORTER 533 – 587 (DO NOT DELETE) 2/1/2013 12:26 PM TORT LIABILITY IN THE AGE OF THE HELICOPTER PARENT Elizabeth G. Porter∗ ABSTRACT Discussions of parental liability by courts and legal scholars are often tinged with fear: fear that government interference will chill parental autonomy; fear that parents will be held liable for their children’s every misdeed; and, recently, fear that a new generation of so-called “helicopter parents” who hover over their children’s every move will establish unrealistically high legal standards for parenting. However, in the context of common law suits against parents, these fears are misguided. To the contrary, courts have consistently shielded wealthier parents—those most likely to be defendants in civil suits—from exposure to liability for conduct related to their parenting practices. This Article critically examines the common law of parental (non-) liability, both historically and in light of current cultural trends. Parental liability takes two forms: liability for parents’ harm to their children, and liability of parents for harms caused to others by their children. Individually these subjects have received remarkably little scholarly attention; together they have received none. Yet both types of parental liability are central to ongoing cultural debates about parenting, as well as to current controversies about the role of courts in establishing legal duty. A thorough reconsideration of parental liability is particularly timely in light of the new Restatement (Third) of Torts, which speaks directly to issues that are central to both forms of parental liability. This Article concludes that courts should hold parents to a standard of reasonable care.