week 5 dq 2

culture

The most difficult aspect of trying to understand Psychology is the function and structure of how each operates eg rules of order.

I remember watching a tv show episode “Judging Amy”. Where the main character was an east coast judge in child court. In one episode she had a very loving family come to her with a “problem child”. The problem child was showing all the signs imaginable of abuse but the parents seemed to be the definition of loving. However, upon further examination, the parents were outgoing athletic and gregarious. Their friends and other children were equally as “outgoing”, this child on the other hand was a violent introvert. Being at the bottom of a “dog pile” for the rest was the definition of fun and enjoyable, for the “problem”. Being at the bottom of a dog pile was close to the definition of torture. The kid only wanted a quiet corner somewhere in an attic or similar to just read or be quiet by themselves. The family could not understand the want to be quiet and isolated, so they kept forcing the “problem” into “family activities”. The more force the more the kid hated everything and everyone. The parents simply could not grasp their kid was an introvert, that their child wanted nothing more than to live a life in books and with few if any real social interaction.

The previous “food” based assumptions regarding attachment have little if any real base in reality regarding people who do not respond with glee at food. Personally, I cannot stand food, I am allergic to most of it, so most food makes me sick.

The normal culture which produce children and adults with seemingly normal lists of needs, allows for “correct” attachment parameters on both sides. However the outlier people in a culture which have needs as a child which most of the “adults” in the area/culture have no idea how to provide. My family for example had little idea how to interact with deal with me. I had needs which to this minute decades after I am no longer a child they still have no idea what I need. I have no idea how to inform them in a way they can understand. Neuro typical versus Neuro-A-typical.

Bowlby produced an attachment theory which is in some ways still considered in part the gold standard. However this theories do not take into account the species, but do take into account most people born in western culture. Attachment theory in short and brief states that a child will form an attachment to some authority figure in order to ensure that their needs will be met. which in some cases is not all that accurate. The child has to based on instinct decide if what each care givers “priorities are”. If they can function with said lists of “I will provide” or not. Some children have needs which the caregiver has little if any real ability to give. Which makes the next stages and steps a struggle with attachment on both sides.

Ainsworth on the other hand figured out quickly in her research that not all infants have the same parameters for needs. The most basic is some need more cuddling then others. Strange Situation Classification (SSC) is what developed. Although in infants which have a-typical reactions, the essence of HUP has to be applied first. Since the infant is obviously keenly more aware of what their needs are and is seeking in harder/wider ways for those around to fulfill said needs. The act of observation for a typical child means little if anything. For an a-typical child, being observed is all part of the structure.

Ainsworth expariments equation

Proximity and contacting seeking

Contact maintaining

Avoidance of proximity and contact

Resistance to contact and comforting