Well... I can probably write a whole book about it... but I'll summarize it...

I'll post it into pieces, so that it's not so long...

Summarizing...

Stages of Life
[list=1]
Unawareness (0-3)
Self-Centralism (3)
Experimentation (3-4)
Judgement (4- )
Perspective Formation (5- )
Web of Beliefs (6- )
[/list=1]

Psychological Reajustment
[list=1]
Becoming Aware
Breaking Beliefs
Breaking Habits
Discovering the Truth
[/list=1]


There will probably have a conclusion too...
My ideas might evolute from now... I might link things into one, or incorporating something else...

Comments and suggestions are welcomed... :)

Enjoy... :)

Hmmm....

Personally don't like "Unawareness". I think infants are very aware, just not in the sense most people think they are.

Self-Centralism seems to be true.

Experimentation happens across all points of life, heavily at birth.

The word "Truth" is a dirty word to me. I place truth on a relative scale rather than an absolute.

What you have is very interesting. You might want to look at Piaget's model of development, which parallels yours in some aspects. His is also discontinuous.

Makes me think what kind of developomental outling I'd make. Mine would firstly be continuous in nature. I'll have to think some more...

-Xenu

Yea, that was the 2000th post in the Human Science forum. Let's get this machine rolling.

Xenu,


Personally don't like "Unawareness". I think infants are very aware, just not in the sense most people think they are.
Not before the age of 3...


Experimentation happens across all points of life, heavily at birth.

Heavily at 3 years old. People that study children know that...
and mothers... :)


The word "Truth" is a dirty word to me. I place truth on a relative scale rather than an absolute.

We will get to this later.... when talking about perspective and non-judgment...

I will explain them all...

It's too late for that
I'll to go to bed...

Umm, why in the fuck is this not in pseudoscience? :rolleyes:


Not before the age of 3...

You're in science now, Nelson, not religion, not pseudo, so you know what you need?

EVIDENCE!!


Heavily at 3 years old. People that study children know that...
and mothers...

EVIDENCE!!


We will get to this later.... when talking about perspective and non-judgment..

How about we talk about legitimate science, instead of mysticism for once, mmkay Nelson?

Not before the age of 3...

There was an experiment done with Object permanence to try to "fine tune" the Piagetian model. Piaget claimed object permanence happened at 9 months, well this study claimed it to be as early as 3.5 months (possibly earlier, this is just what they tested). In object permanence, an infant has to be aware of an object; if hidden from sight the infant know the object is still there. Without object permanence the child gets the "out of sight, out of mind" state of being. If object permanence isn't awareness, then I don't know what is.

Here's reference to the study...

Baillergon (1987). Object Permanence in 3.5 and 4.5 month old infants. Developmental Psychology, 23, 655-664.

Many people take a self-centered approach (not directing this at you TruthSeeker) to awareness. They correlate awareness with language. "If the infant can't talk to me, it must not be aware of its environment."

Maybe, the awareness you are talking about is "Self-Awareness". You'd have more people backing you up there. But even then I'd try to make a case against it.

-Xenu

Heavily at 3 years old. People that study children know that... and mothers...

Yes mothers know that at this age are heavily experimenting with their language. The little brats are getting into everything. Mothers (and Experimenters?) fail to realize that, when children are infants, when they flail their limbs around, when they "gaa gaa" and "cooo", they aren't just being cute.

The limb flailing is the child trying to work their limbs. That's why it's a back and forth motion. It's like first trying to thread a needle, or how a torpedo operates. Overshoot, and correct. They're experimenting with those suckers.

When a baby makes those funny noises, they're experimenting with the phonological sounds they need to aquire the language that they are hearing around them. They're experimenting with their vocal cords.

If infants had the physical capabilities to trash the house, I'm sure they would do this to.

-Xenu

How about we talk about legitimate science, instead of mysticism for once, mmkay Nelson?

Xev, I understand where you come from, but Nelson hasn't had enough chance to explain/defend himself yet. Even if he doesn't have enough evidence right now, maybe we can help hammer and revise his theory so that it is more "scientifically acceptable".

Speaking of pseudo-science. I'd probably have to call most of psychology a "pseudo-science", just because most psychological experiments are what is called "pseudo-experiments". These are experiment without a truly randomized sample. Does this mean that they aren't evidence, no. Even when you have "true" experiments, they should be taken as a grain of salt and not be made dogma.

Xenu,


Maybe, the awareness you are talking about is "Self-Awareness". You'd have more people backing you up there.
Yes.

Xev,


EVIDENCE!!

There are lots if you are a mother...

Nelson:

There are lots if you are a mother...

Are you?

I hope not. Last I checked, males could not bear children.

So we'll need somthing better than this. Such as citations from child development texts, or Xenu noted Piaget, or scientific papers.....

You want a scientific theory, you adhere to the rules of science.

Xenu:

Xev, I understand where you come from, but Nelson hasn't had enough chance to explain/defend himself yet. Even if he doesn't have enough evidence right now, maybe we can help hammer and revise his theory so that it is more "scientifically acceptable".

You're right Xenu. I'm just a twee bit over-sensitive to Nelson's antics.

Let's se what we can do.


Speaking of pseudo-science. I'd probably have to call most of psychology a "pseudo-science", just because most psychological experiments are what is called "pseudo-experiments". These are experiment without a truly randomized sample. Does this mean that they aren't evidence, no. Even when you have "true" experiments, they should be taken as a grain of salt and not be made dogma.

AYE! Or they have no control group, or they have a ridiculously small sample, or are not double blind....or.....

Glad somone else agrees.

Xeny,


Even when you have "true" experiments, they should be taken as a grain of salt and not be made dogma.

Good... :)


Xev,

Let's not discuss my knowledge about children, please... :D:o

Sure, Nelson, you seem inexperienced enough in dealing with the little monsters.

Unfortunatly, I make such my occupation.

So, like, you know, evidence.....?

If you want to talk children, then come on up. I have a 15 year old son, who's very aware. I worked for three years at a day care centre (must say these very young children are fully aware in what mood you are, for they are especially difficult to handle when you have a bad day, for instance) and I teached dancing classes at a lot of 10 - 17 year old "children". Believe me, it is an experience on its own to work with, most, girls that age who just start to explore their bodies and are giggling one moment and when you turn around they are upset about the slightest thing, happened to them. Like a remark from one of the others.

Do I need proof for this? Don't think so. It is common fact, as in psychological fact that young people, both male and female, go through this progress. Whether they have all the answers to call it truth is a different case. They sure have the ability and enthousiasm to find their truth, through life.

Self Centralism is a high good in these years.
Judgement, over others, is another.
Through experimentation they come to their main beliefs, if not already formed by their parents for a big part. Which has to be placed in perspective in the teen years and combined or changed with the own beliefs, which form over the years, through life experiences with other people and so on...

As people grow older, you may suspect they get wiser and less self centered. This does not always work out so good and than people find themselves back bumping against the same brick walls all the time. That's the result if you refuse to look at others with understanding and respect for their beliefs and looking at the "world".

It's all so simple when people just learn in time that there is more in life to worry about than just your simple self.

So, let's go from here and give me your replies. Then I will broaden it out for you. In case it is to difficult to comprehend without a website to proof...

Xenu,

Mothers (and Experimenters?) fail to realize that, when children are infants, when they flail their limbs around, when they "gaa gaa" and "cooo", they aren't just being cute.
Mothers maybe, but I do not know any psychologist who makes that mistake. ... and I know quite a few psychologists.

And what is this thing whith double blind experimentation?
In psychology there are not many studies compararble to clinical studies on the effects of medicines!
Have you ever heard of a double blind experiment at CERN?
The format of the experiment has to fit the object of study.
True,in socuial psychology there is a problem with randomisation of questionaires. Usually it isn't done. But there is a reason for that, and I know you can figure out what it is by yourself. :)

What sets pseudoscience and science apart is not the type of experimentation, but therebeing experimentation at all. Pseudoscience is built on pre-scientific knowledge (ie guesswork, intuition and the like).


Do I need proof for this? Don't think so.
Banshee, I am really happy for you that you have a wonderful child, and that you have had the privilage to work at a day care centre and with "bakvissen" (that's Dutch for a type of teen-age girls). However, you will need proof of it all. otherwise I request you to GO BACK TO PSEUDOSCIENSE!!!! this is supposed to be a section on human sciences. Not human gut-feeling.
Don't you understand the difference?

If you want to do some speculation, that is finne, but then you have to present it like speculation and suggest a way to test it all! Have you no idea of why sciences are the way they are?
And if you don't like the ways of science, let go of your car, cd-player, tv set, computer, telephone, bike, rain-coat, toilet and drain, musical instrument .... without sound experimentation we would still be using rocks and sticks to survive!

However, it started with a summary of Truthseekers work. (looks more like an index page, I must say).
Being a scientist, I must always give others a chance. So,...
let's have it!

merlijn

So for every sentence written down here, there has to be a website? Man, get real!

Do you know how much garbage websites there are floating on the internet?

I speak out of experience, I think that is just as important as your everlasting websites. You really think it is all that bliss working with people, young or older?

Yes! I know very well the world of science, I am not world strange!

Who are you to tell me where I can and can not post anyway...?

Nobody wants to get this party started? Well here's some basic stuff on Piaget and Vygotsky. Tear them apart!

Piaget

http://www.massey.ac.nz/~i75202/2001/assign2/SW/Stages.htm

Vygotsky

basic:

http://chd.gse.gmu.edu/immersion/knowledgebase/theorists/constructivism/vygotsky.htm

huge archive:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/index.htm

Xenu,

I'll write something about it soon... after some people stop criticizing me for nothing... and after the Provincial Exams...

PS: the first link is more phisiological... here is more psychological... ;)

PS: the first link is more phisiological... here is more psychological...

When you take a discontinuous (concrete stages that follow one another in a specific order) development theory stance, which you have, you are automatically inferring physiological causes. Does this make sense?

For example, your theory above says that, everyone, regardless of culture, will follow through these stages, maybe roughly and in their own ways, and at slightly different times, but they will experience these stages in some form or another. This infers physiology at work. If this is not your stance than please say otherwise, because this is what it is currently inferring to me.

The first link is Piaget, who also takes a discontinuous stance and parallells your theory (his centration is like your self-centralism, your experimentation is like his sensory-motor, etc.). This is why I posted it.

I've also posted Vygotsky who takes an opposite, continuous stance. His theory revolves around social learning rather than physiology.

-Xenu

Mine is completly sociological and experimental. It focus not only the environment the child is risen in, but also the inner aspects of the development.

Mine is completly sociological and experimental. It focus not only the environment the child is risen in, but also the inner aspects of the development.

Will your theory be based on scientific evidence, hours of research, painstaking detailed experimentation...

...or will it be similar to your other theories, based on a dream you had last night ? :)

Originally posted by Banshee
So for every sentence written down here, there has to be a website? Man, get real!

Do you know how much garbage websites there are floating on the internet?

Erm.. no, no websites. But when asked for, one should be able to provide with some form of replicatable evidence. Your own personal insights do not matter. nor do mine.


I speak out of experience, I think that is just as important as your everlasting websites. You really think it is all that bliss working with people, young or older?

My websites are not at all everlasting. I upgraded mine just an hour ago.


Yes! I know very well the world of science, I am not world strange!

Who are you to tell me where I can and can not post anyway...?
I am Merlijn. I only request you to take non-science and pre-scientific observations out of the science lab.

To be honest: I have grown a bit tired of sciforums.com. I am considering quitting. And the reason is that I was looking for a place where I could have discussions free of non-scientific gut-feelings all over the place. I have that enough alreday in real life.
AGAIN: if you don't have evidence (yet) for an opinion make clear that it is speculation! As if you are writing the Discussion section of an article (and I don't mean an article in the Marie Claire, Paravision, Celebs, ... or something)

Truthseeker,

I would personally like to see your theory. Like I said this should be a growing process. I'll (and invite everyone else) supply what knowledge I have to help you refine it.

I've seen many people attacking the theorist in these forums recently, when they should be attacking the theory. This comes from many people that maintain that objectivity should be held. Such emotional expressions aren't bad, but naturally human.

I'd also like to add that all hypothesis are subjective. It's an experimenters job to show that they are "true". Even when you complete an experiment you have to make a subjective leap to infer it to the environment.

-Xenu

Merlijn:

To be honest: I have grown a bit tired of sciforums.com. I am considering quitting. And the reason is that I was looking for a place where I could have discussions free of non-scientific gut-feelings all over the place. I have that enough alreday in real life.

I understand and feel your frustration. Physics and Math is overrun by crackpots. Earth science is deluged with "is global warming real?" topics which would be fine, but seem to devolve into Gaii crap. Biology is empty.

I hardly post in our science topics any longer. Between Nelson's refusal to justify his bizzare theories, Banshee's inability to comprehend the difference between science and pseudoscience, and the crackpots, it seems that more time is spent debunking than actually discussing.

Of course, if you leave, the problem worsens. Please stick around.

Merlijn

I'll not post the Latin version:

Don't let the bastards get you down. ;)

Rationale and Reason will prevail.

Nolo te bastardes carbundum.

If I remember the inscription from "The Handmaid's Tale".

Please, for the love of [insert mythical guy-in-the-sky], please stay.

Thanks!
Maybe the "if you can't join them, beat them" is the best thing to do.

Just got here... I feel your pain Merlijn, as well. I've been on a quest for intelligent conversation on the net for a long time myself. For one thing, most people can't type very well, and they don't know how to discourse on a subject without devolving into wisecracks and thinking that typing things like ROTFLMAO is actually communicable information. (Of course, I have no evidence to prove this...) And when somebody's views are challenged, you are usually replied with the ugliest, most irrational bile (there's an interesting psychological phenomenon). Recently someone spat up their digestive tract all over me for suggesting that science (the science that I've read so far) does not support that humans evolved from a vegan origin, and that we need some essential fatty acids, etc. that come from animal sources. I cited a website that collects scientific studies to this effect. They said something like(I love this:) "Well, you can use all kinds of science to support any point of view. I took my daughter to the doctor, and when he told me that a vegan diet for her is not advisable, I asked him if he took any courses in nutrition in college. 'No,' he said. I asked him to run tests on the child, and he came back and said she is the healthiest child he sees in his practice." As you may guess, I wasted my breath on a reply pointing out the various fallacies here. I love the rejection of authority followed with confirmation of belief based on the same authority.

While I am not a scientist in real life, I play one on the net. I am currently in college as a 30something working adult, heading into an education of science (not engineering). I read many lay-oriented science books and publications (currently Hobson's The Chemistry of Conscious States, and Deutsch's The Fabric of Reality), and look forward to engaging in conversation about various topics with any mature folk.

John Le Coq

Q, Merlijn, Xev, le coq,

I want you all to try and understand how I feel right now.

I am trying to organize a discussion on development theory, one that Truthseeker had started off, and you all just fill the thread up with your whinings.

In this thread, what Truthseeker initially posted was scientific. It was a hypothesis. What you guys have posted so far has not - it's just been people bashing and massaging your own egos.

Also note, you can never prove a hypothesis to be true (only more likely), you can only prove it to be false. So if you think his hypothesis is false, show how it is.

I know you guys have a lot of emotional unfinished business, but please make a new thread of it and post it there. I know Xev and Mallory did this earlier, and it seemed to be therapeutic. Although I think Mallory has turned his tail, haven't seen him.

So let's keep this on topic, huh. Also, if you have a theory of your own (hypotheses), post them. Create something instead of trying to tear everything apart all the time.

Xenu,

...:)
That was nice... :)

Xenu,
You're right, it's off topic. Can happen, still I apologize. But I have not attacked Seeker's theory. I only made clear that Banshee should know her place.

There is absolutely no need to lecture me on Popper!

Yes, theer is unsolved emotional business... maybe you should wonder how that came about. ... maybe starting a thread about it is therapeutic. But what was the saying again about preventing and curing?

Now I am going to quote myself

However, it started with a summary of Truthseekers work. (looks more like an index page, I must say).
Being a scientist, I must always give others a chance. So,...
let's have it!

After that I was attacked . I merely defended, and thanked those supporting me.

Merlijn,

I'm sorry if you felt everything I said was directed towards you, I was trying to address the situation as a whole; you just happened to be apart of that whole. I've PM'd Porfiry to see if it would be ok to open up a thread or forum to express unfinished emotional business.

That aside, let's get back to the topic at hand.

-Xenu

In this thread, what Truthseeker initially posted was scientific.

You are as deluded as Truthseeker if you think whatever he has posted has anything to do with science.

So if you think his hypothesis is false, show how it is.

Do you wish us to debate gibberish with more gibberish ?

Create something instead of trying to tear everything apart all the time.

Thanks, but unlike Truthseeker, I'd rather keep my fantasies to myself.

Xenu, Truthseeker aka Nelson has repeatedly and explicitly stated his disdain for reason, (it leads to unhappiness), his disdain for thinking and his disdain for science, which he confuses with athiesm and claims that it "starts wars".

Quotes upon request.

How dare you accuse me of whining? When I try to warn you? When I try to encourage a poster to stay?

That is whining?

Whatever. You and Nelson can discuss the implications of cattle mutilation and how zero = infinity and how America and athiests have killed millions of people to your heart's content. Simply don't expect to have the resultant gibberish taken seriously by scientists.

There was no call for the attack, and if that is how you would like to behave when confronted with a little skepticism, you'd be advised to steer clear of skeptics.

Note to self:

Watch Xenu like a hawk. If he transcends from the topic in any thread, post tongue-lashing and immediately send complaint to administration. ;)

And when somebody's views are challenged, you are usually replied with the ugliest, most irrational bile (there's an interesting psychological phenomenon).

I apologize if I got off topic. I suppose I was thinking in a usenet manner, in which you can reply directly to someone's post in a subthread without it being a reply to a main thread. I think a forum on net culture, rather than therapy (which would most likely be used as a suggestion for another person that one doesn't like, as in "Why don't you go to the 'I got unsolved emotional problems here people, can I get a witness?' forum") would be interesting.

You're right. I massaged my ego a little bit back there, and man, did it feel good. I was making a point about net culture, however.

All I saw in truthseeker's original post was something like an outline, not what I would call a "summary". Truthseeker asked us to extrapolate a theory from a table of contents. So perhaps people's replies were warranted to some extent. I would urge everyone, when frustrated, to refrain from ad hominem comment. If you do not like someone's post, instead of spinning it by using words such as as "whining," make a mature suggestion to correct the situation.

Truthseeker, how about a couple paragraphs now on your ideas?

John Le Coq

All I saw in truthseeker's original post was something like an outline, not what I would call a "summary". Truthseeker asked us to extrapolate a theory from a table of contents. So perhaps people's replies were warranted to some extent.

It sounds that you aren't satisfied with Truthseeker's outline/summary. You have to ask your self if you are not satisfied with the actual outline, or the lack of detail in it so far, or both. What kind of details would you add or get rid of, or if you wanted to scrap the whole thing, how would you start?

I'm trying to lead this into a learning process, and building on ideas, rather than have Truthseeker post something and then have everyone tear it down. Theories are never stable, they have weak points. They are just models.

Originally posted by Xenu:

I'm trying to lead this into a learning process, and building on ideas, rather than have Truthseeker post something and then have everyone tear it down. Theories are never stable, they have weak points. They are just models.

That's why I didn't post anything yet. People attack me before I even start talking. Imagine when I start talking... :bugeye:

Besides that, people attack me instead of attacking my theories. This clearly shows the lack of maturity of some posters. Not talking about the feeling of lack of safety when I start to talk. When I argue against the basis of their lifes, they naturally defend themselves by attacking me. That surely agrees with my other post on Pscychology... the Obscessive Compulsive Rationalists...