User talk:Jean Mercer/archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jean Mercer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Rad!
And another little drink won't do us any harm! Fainites barley 20:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Maternal Deprivation, Fanities, Complaint
I an seeking to make an official complaint regarding Fanities, Barley Is there anything you would like to add to the contributions you have already made?
22:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not that sure what Kips complaint is about are you? I think he's saying he was misrepresented about his video clip - but its not in the article. I don't really know what else he's complaining about. He seemed to accused me of falsley attributing a quote to Bowlby but since then has asked what book it was from so he can go and borrow it and look it up! His allegations of bad faith are quite extreme. I don't know what his complaint is about you at all other than the edits you made to maternal deprivation but in what way they're supposed to be wrong, let alone in bad faith I don't know. I have referred him to WP:DR but he seems to want to go straight to arbitration and not discuss anything. Oh well. I suppose it will eventually become clear. Plus ca change.....Fainites barley 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No, i don't really know, unless it's another case of "don't say 'ain't' when I say 'is'." Actually, if he's blaming anyone for pushing maternal importance, it should be Ferenczi, Winnicott, and Balint, not Bowlby.Jean Mercer (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well look at his spat with Mvain68 on Attachment in children and Attachment measures. Actually I was looking at Rutter today and he says Bowlby was misinterpreted by WHO - but this was all back in the 50's. Do you have an original 1969 version of Bowlby by the way? I'm sure I can get one but its a bit of a bind. Fainites barley 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
My, my, plain talk! I see that Mvain68 was not above mentioning some points that I avoided as too brutal to mention in a public forum.
I don't have the 1969 book at hand-- I am looking at the 1965 Penguin edition of "Child care and the growth of love", though. In this, an appendix by Ainsworth states "... in many instances... where the term 'maternal deprivation' has been used...the term 'parental deprivation' would have been more accurate" (p. 193).
In any case, once again, we have to look at Bowlby's views in the light of his period in history. For example, look at the family in Robertson's film "Nine Days in a Residential Nursery". The toddler is placed in residential care while his mother goes into the hospital to have a new baby-- the father is obviously healthy and part of the family, but he does not care for the toddler at home. When he comes to visit, he seems awkward and unaccustomed to dealing with the little boy, although he is friendly and approachable. The mother, when she finally comes out of the hospital and comes to get the child, is passionately engaged with him and very disturbed at his distressed turning away from her. This role differentiation (we all know this) was common in middle-class life and was the norm to which Bowlby compared the life of the institutionalized child.
I would point out that not only did Bowlby generally omit to discuss families where the father is the primary attachment figure, he completely omitted to discuss same-sex partners and their relationships with their children. Such parents would have had every reason to avoid anyone's notice in Bowlby's day, but we now have good evidence that they do an excellent job as mothers, fathers, fothers, or mathers. The fact that Bowlby did not mention such families is no evidence that he would have considered the "two-mother" child greatly blessed, and the "two-father"child similarly deprived.Jean Mercer (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually Bowlby does describe fathers as primary attachment figures in various places - its just that they were rare for social reasons which he fully recognised. In one chapter he's talking about the intensity of engagement as opposed to mere time spent with an infant in the context of a weird mother who did not engage with her infant socially all day whereas the father coming home in the evening engaged very intensly and thus was the main attachment figure. Its absolutely obvious when you read Bowlby that Mothers as primary attachment figures resulted from mothers as main carers rather than anything to do with sex as such. Fainites barley 21:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
He also discusses the use of housekeeping aides to keep the family together when the father is the sole caregiver-- there really is no question about this issue! Jean Mercer (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you ever read JG Ballards autobiography? He had 3 small children in the 50's and his wife unexpectedly died. He decided to look after them himself and everybody thought he was completely mad, that it was totally unsuitable, inappropriate etc etc. He was supposed to carry on working and hand them over to someone female to care for them. He was put under a lot of pressure from family and friends but resisted. It simply wasn't considered to be a mans role. Its obvious from many autobiographies from 50 to 150 years ago. A man who undertook any form of womens work would lose cast amongst his fellows. Fathers left with children on their hands would pass them on to female family members to care for if they couldn't afford to employ a carer. It was only really in the upper classes that this also applied to mothers who's first role was the being a wife rather than a mother therefore they undertook virtually no child-caring role either. Bowlby had to work with the material he got - but its plain from his work that he saw infants as becoming attached to carers who were socially responsive to them - whoever they were. Fainites barley 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned the spat with Mvain because on reading through it one can see that as soon as Mvain disgreed with him, Kip accused him of bad faith - ie having a vested interest. I referred him to AGF at the time I think - but obviously to little effect. Fainites barley 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm waiting for some books and papers to arrive but in the meantime it looks as if Bowlby's take on it all was that he had been misrepresented if it was thought he meant either only natural mothers or just women could be attachment figures and it looks as if he made this clear in his 1969 publication. I'll check this out when more papers arrive but if thats right then the whole thing is really just a minor historical footnote. Its of some historical interest because according to Rutter, WHO misrepresented Bowlby and this may have been used for political purposes to get women out of the jobs market - but I dare say there were plenty of pressures to this end anyway and Bowlby's contribution would only have been one of many. Certainly the issue has been a dead duck as far as attachment theory is concerned for decades now. That would explain why nobody does in fact use the concept of maternal deprivation. Fainites barley 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
On reflection I think the mistake Kips been making is to believe that the controversy about Bowlby was about whether it had to be mothers or fathers whereas in fact the whole of his theory - that inconsistant and inadequate child care in terms of relationships with particular caregivers had important psychological consequences - created a hooha. Fainites barley 11:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
AT
Somebodys put a link to a 'Survivors' website at the bottom of Attachment therapy. I had a look and it seems quite recent. I was surprised that such a thing didn't exist already but on reflection thats probably to do with timing. I mean if AT's heyday was the 80's and even more so the 90's and early 2000's then alot of the children who had it won't be long grown up.Fainites barley 08:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Kips complaint
Jean I just saw this on your user page - I assume this was an error so I've put it here. I've asked Kip to number his points for ease of reply. Fainites barley 22:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I've put Kips complaint in a collapsed text box for you as it ought really be on wherever he's complaining to and its very long. Fainites barley 07:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
| Kips complaint |
|---|
| This is a formal complaint against the Wikipedia editor known as 'Fainites barley' and the contributor Jean Mercer made by Kingsley Miller and to be decided by arbitration according to the policies and procedures of Wikipedia
I wish to make a formal complaint against the editor known as Fainites barley for using Wikipedia to wage an 'editing war' against my contributions regarding the role of fathers as parents through the following pages, (1) The Maternal Deprivation controversy in 'John Bowlby', (2) The 'Maternal Deprivation' theory, (3) the Critique of The Strange Situation Protocol in 'Attachment in children' and the (4) Critique of the Strange Situation in 'Attachment measures'. In July 2004 I was given the right by Lord Justice Thorpe, Vice President of the Family Division, in the Court of Appeal in the UK to publish the County Court judgments from the family proceedings in my own case because of my, "History of responsible campaigning and writing on issues relating to family relationships". By contrast in these pages Fainites barley has shown 'bad faith' which is defined by Wikipedia as (1) deliberate disruption just to prove a point, (2) playing games with policies, and (3) vandalism. It should be remembered that whilst I am a contributor to Wikipedia, Fainites barley is an Editor and that lately he has dismissed my contributions with sarcasm and rudeness, so much so, that I have felt that I have no alternative but to make this formal complaint. Under the heading of 'disruption to prove a point' on the discussion page for 'Maternal deprivation', Fainites barley has taken a phrase out of context to misrepresent my point of view. In the first instance he stated that I believed the theory of 'Maternal deprivation' and the 'Attachment theory' are the same when a cursory look at the bottom of the Wikipedia pages on 'Maternal deprivation' and 'Michael Rutter' will tell you that the opposite is true. 'Fainites barley' has taken a single phrase from a ten minute video clip to deliberately cause disruption to these pages.. On the second occasion 'Fainites barley' states, "You've put this in the intro. Kip. 'The notion that fathers are necessarily less competent ....' Where does Bowlby say this?" Fainites barley 09:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC) To which I responded, "Please do not make any further such comments until after ARBITRATION as they bring Wik into disrepute". KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Fainites barley still goes on, "Kip - this is silly. You have asked for my sources and I have given them. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for sources - and there are several requests for you to provide yours. Everything in an article should be sourced. As for arbitration - I suggest you read WP:DR first. Fainites barley" 10:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC) To which I reply, "The source is cited and the reference is given. Once again you have taken a phrase out of context and as an editor you are bringing Wik into disrepute". KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Fainites barley has again deliberately caused disruption to try to prove a point but instead of correcting himself - goes on to try to find something else to complain about. Again I should stress the point that I am only a contributor to Wikipedia and Fainites barley is the Editor. I wish to cite two further examples of Fainites barley 'bad faith' so that the Wikipedia arbiter can be clear about this aspect of the complaint. I am concerned about the way Fainites barley has sought to remove the video clips I have published on YouTube from the pages of Wikipedia. In the discussion page on Wikipedia called 'Attachment measures' Fainites barley states, "Also like you I find some YouTube videos really useful but I have been told that we are not supposed to link to them. Its a real pity as there are two really good ones of attachment therapy in action that would say more than a thousand words on the att. therapy page, here[1] and here, [2]". Fainites barley 15:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC) But I state, "Who has told you not to link to YouTube? Wikipedia policy states the opposite. Please see my User Discussion page. KingsleyMiller (talk)" 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Fainites barley replies, "Well its fantastic if you can! Where is the policy that says this?" Fainites barley 21:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC) I again repeat my question, "Who told you there was a blanket ban on connecting to YouTube?" KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Fainites barley replies, "I can't remember now who told me about the YouTube. I'll have a search". Fainites barley 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC) As a result of this search Fainites barley states without reference to myself, "I have removed the videos as they were not, as I originally assumed, videos of the Strange Situation Procedure or similar but YouTube videos made by Kip expressing Kips personal views on attachment theory and the SSP. I'm sorry Kip but Wiki works on notable sources. I don't think you count as a notable source. (No insult intended. Neither do most Wiki editors, including me)". Fainites barley 15:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC) These video clips are objective and informative. From the beginning Fainites barley knew they were produced by myself and I cite this as another example of Fainites barley 'playing games with policies'. Similarly I made a contribution to the content page on 'Attachment in children' to the effect that far reaching claims are made on behalf of the Strange Situation Protocol. Fainites barley removed these comments because he said they were 'weasel words' again without reference to myself.(# (cur) (last) 15:31, 23 February 2008 Fainites (Talk | contribs) (34,773 bytes) (?Critique of The Strange Situation: Weasel words - who makes far reaching claims? Its always been primarily a research tool) (undo)). In defence for my contribution I should like to state people believe that it is possible to predict how a child's personality will develop into adulthood based on the Strange Situation Procedure. I describe those who profit from such an idea as 'mountebanks' because as the video clip explains there are serious concerns about the validity of the procedure. These are not 'weasel words' and these reservations should to be voiced not simply for the benefit of parents who participate in this procedure but also their children. I have included these last two examples of Fainites barley's 'bad faith' because they go to the heart of my concern. I do not believe Fainites barley wants to allow me a 'voice' in these pages on Child Psychology because he has his own ideas about fathers as parents. This can be seen in the way he has edited other Wikipedia pages. for example before my contribution there was no mention of the 'Maternal Deprivation controversy' on the John Bowlby Wikipedia page. This is an incredible oversight because nobody is more associated with this theory than John Bowlby. So how can such a theory be missing? One explanation is because the pages in Wikipedia on Child Psychology are dominated by feminists who do not believe fathers can make good parents. John Bowlby believed that mothers were far more important than fathers to their children but any examination of the research on the theory of 'Maternal Deprivation' will show that this is not the case. This is an inconvenient truth. However Fainites barley editing has made it appear as though John Bowlby never really believed in the theory at all, or if he did it was, at most, only as a passing inclination and he has removed the word 'controversy' from the heading. The revised contibution reads, "The first volume of Bowlby's trilogy "Attachment", started in 1956 and published in 1969 made it clear that he was not saying that attachment was confined to natural mothers as was popularly supposed, or indeed to women, and that "almost from the first many children have more than one attachment figure towards whom they direct attachment behaviour; these figures are not treated alike; the role of the child's principal attachment figure can be filled by others than the natural mother...It is evident that whom a child selects as his principal attachment figure and to how many other figures he becomes attached, turn in large part on who cares for him and on the composition of the household in which he is living."[6] This is a strange form of citation because if Bowlby were 'clear' on this point there should be a definite date to which the quote maybe attributed. Fainites barley editing has made it appear as though he stated this point over many years but in reality it is written in this way to disguise the fact he does not know when Bowlby made this statement. Also to lessen the controversial impact of the claims made by Bowlby in 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' (1951) he has attributed publication of "Deprivation of maternal care. A reassessment of its effects" (1962) to Mary Ainsworth a colleague. Further research lead to the publication of "Deprivation of maternal care. A reassessment of its effects" (1962) by Mary Ainsworth - a notable researcher in the field of separation.[7]. But the "Deprivation of maternal care. A reassessment of its effects" has six more contributors not cited by Fainites barley, R G Andry, Robert G Harlow, S Lebovici, Margaret Mead, Dane G Pugh and Barbara Wootoon. The preface of, "Deprivation of maternal care. A reassessment of its effects" states, "Because of pressing commitments, Dr Bowlby was unable himself to contribute a paper giving his present views, but this gap has been ably filled by his colleague Dr Ainsworth, with whose paper Dr Bowlby is in full agreement". And goes on to state, "There can be little doubt that the balanced view Dr Ainsworth takes takes of the evidence and the cautious conclusions she reaches not only take the issue out of the area of controversy but also present the research worker with a series of fascinating questions whose solution in the future would go far towards settling the problem of maternal deprivation". Regarding the 'maternal deprivation' controversy the preface also states, "Some of the criticism is based on misinterpretations of his views, which have been widely publicized in often over-simplified, extreme, or distorted forms. Other criticism, however disputes the conclusions he has drawn from the evidence itself. Finally, in the ten years that have elapsed since his monograph was published, there has inevitably been further research into the problem of maternal deprivation, and the problem has come to be viewed in a wider perspective - Bowlby has himself incorporated ethological theories into his views of child development." Fainites barley editing of the section on 'Maternal Deprivation' from John Bowlby bears no relationship to the facts and it should be returned to the original version before his vandalism. The Wikipedia page on John Bowlby refers to the 'Maternal deprivation' main page. This page was originally entitled, 'The 'Maternal Deprivation' theory. As a result of Fainites barley editing the introduction to this page now reads, "It was Dr John Bowlby in Maternal Care and Mental Health (1951)[1] who argued that infants form a special relationship with caregivers, which is qualitatively different from the relationship which they form with less familiar people". But the essential element of this theory is that it referred to 'mothers' not 'caregivers' as in Fainites barley's version. Once 'mothers' is replaced with 'caregivers' the pages loses its meaning as far as the theory of 'maternal deprivation' it is supposed to describe and this must be the purpose of the edit. Similarly an edit made by another contributor and supporter of Fainites barley, Jean Mercer, has changed the generally accepted interpretation of the concept of 'monotropy' in the theory of 'maternal deprivation', which is that children have an innate link to just one person, to a 'small number of other people'. But this is not the theory of 'maternal deprivation'. The reason the theory proved so popular in the first place is because it was assumed that mothers and children had an indissoluble link. To change this concept to a 'small number of other people' makes the page sound ridiculous. It is for this reason these examples of vandalism should not be ignored and the page returned to its original form. There are extravagant claims made on behalf of John Bowlby. One such claim is that he is the, 'founder of the attachment theory'. This is not true because there were others at the time working in this area. In effect the edits have tried to nullify the controversial aspect of Bowlby's work so that his claims to this title may seem justified. To promote this idea the pages of Wikipedia have made it sound as though he never focussed attention on the relationship of a young child to the mother as an important determinant of mental health and that if he did, he did not really mean to do so, or that he quickly changed his mind. To this way of thinking Bowlby never said anything controversial and therefore should be given due credit for the 'attachment theory'. Therefore it is useful to read his actual words written towards the end of his career and published in 1986. This is taken from a publication called 'Citation Classics' in which authors are asked to write an abstract and a commentary about one of their own publications, emphasizing the human side of the research, how the project was initiated, whether any obstacles were encountered, and why the work was highly cited. Bowlby describes 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' as his Citation Classic. (CC/SOC BEHAV SCI (50): 18-18 DEC 15 1986 - Original Paper : Bowlby J. Maternal care and mental health: a report prepared on behalf of the World Health Organization as a contribution to the United Nations programme for the welfare of homeless children. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1951. 179 p. A1986F062900001) (You may see that Bowlby refers to Rutter as his 'erstwhile critic'. In both the Wikipedia pages on 'Maternal deprivation' and 'Michael Rutter' I have included at the bottom a section entitled, 'Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory'. Adapted from 'Clinical Implications of Attachment Concepts: Retrospect and Prospect', Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Volume. 36 No 4, p551, 1995 by Professor Sir Michael Rutter - You may also be interested to know that my booklet, 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' is subtitled - A critique of the principle of 'maternal deprivation' used by courts in the UK to justify contact orders between children and their parents - Rutter called this booklet an 'interesting and informative guide', 2002). Citation Classic 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' A1986F062900001 John Bowlby, Child and Family Department, Tavistock Clinic, London NW3 5BA, England, September 7, 1986 http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1986/A1986F063100001.pdf Working as a child psychiatrist before the Second World War, I was struck by the high incidence of seriously disrupted mother child relationships during the early years among delinquent and sociopathic children. This led me to make a study of the problem and to publish a monograph 1, 2. After the war, there was much concern about homeless children, which led the Social Commission of the United Nations to make a study of their needs. When the specialized agencies were approached for their suggestions, the World Health Organization offered to contribute a study of the mental health aspects, and, because of my known interests, the organization invited me to prepare a report. Engaged as a consultant for six months during 1950,1 Visited professionals dealing with homeless and/or disturbed children in Europe (Switzerland, France, The Netherlands, Sweden, and Britain) and the US. A proposal to visit Eastern Europe was not agreed to by the authorities there. At that date, there was little recognition in psychiatric or psychological circles that disrupted emotional relationships during early childhood could have an adverse effect on mental health, and those dealing only with adults were deeply sceptical of any such idea. Nevertheless, there was already published evidence additional to my own—e.g., from William Goldfarb 3 and René Spitz 4 —and the problem was well recognized by child psychiatric and child care agencies. In the first part of the report, I therefore reviewed the evidence pointing to a causal connection, and in the second, considered measures to prevent or ameliorate ill-effects, notably by supporting a child’s family to enable it to care for him or her and, if that was not possible, by arrangements such as adoption and fostering. For children in hospital, unrestricted visiting by parents was recommended. My report was accepted by the organization without change and published as a monograph the following spring. Reception was mixed. Those with practical experience of the problem, notably social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists dealing with children, were enthusiastic. Learning theorist psychologists were bitterly critical, pointing to the deficiencies of the data and the lack of theory to link alleged cause and effect (made good later in my work Attachment and Loss 5). To my surprise and disappointment, most of my psychoanalytic colleagues were also critical Freud had long since turned his back on childhood trauma as a cause of neurosis, and emphasis was now insistently on fantasy. Nevertheless, the report proved a best-seller, was translated into 12 languages, and appeared in an abridged English version 6’. I believe the monograph has become a Citation Classic because it focussed attention on the relationship of a young child to the mother as an important determinant of mental health, with far-reaching practical implications, and has given rise to widespread controversy and extensive research. For a recent evaluation in the field (by an erstwhile critic) see Rutter 7. For my work, I have received many honours, including appointment as a Commander of the Order of the British Empire and an honorary doctorate from Cambridge University. 1. Bowlby J. Forty-four juvenile thieves: their characters and home-life (I & IT). litt. I. Psycho-Anal. 25:19-53; 101-28, 1944. 2. Forty-four juvenile thieves: their characters and home-life. London: Baillitre. Tindall &Con, 1946. 56p. 3. Goldfarb W. The effects of early institutional care on adolescent personality. Child Develop. 14:213-23, 1943. 4. Spitz R. Hospitalism: an enquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood. Psychoanal. Stud. Child 1:53-74. 1945. (Cited 360 times.) 5. Bowlby J. Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books, 1969-1980. 3 vols. 6. Child Care and the Growth of Love. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. 1953. 190 p. (Cited 155 times.) 7. Rutter M. Maternal deprivation. 1972-l978: new findings, new concepts, new approaches. Child Develop. 50:283-305, 1979. (Cited 95 times.) Kingsley Miller, 10 March 2008 SEE complaint at;- http://eventoddlers.atspace.com/WikCOMPLAINT1.html}}
|
Complaint Re; Maternal Deprivation
Dear Jean,
Sorry I have not got back to you earlier regarding my complaint.
I have contacted a Wikipedia 'Clerk' known as 'Thatcher' who has informed me that, "There is no difference between 'contributors' and 'editors'. You and Fainites have the same authority and ability to edit articles". As you are aware I made a point of clarifying this issue with Fainites on several occasions and he led me to believe that he was working for Wikipedia as an editor. Why he should seek to confuse the issue I do not know and I can only assume that Fainities is some sort of fantasist who enjoys the power Wikipedia gives him. For example he has stated that Mary Ainsworth wrote 'The Deprivation of Maternal Care - A Reassessment of its effects', in the Wikipedia page on John Bowlby, but this is not so and I should be very grateful if you could clarify whether you still support him?
Many thanks,
Kingsley Miller
PS I have just completed a new video clip on YouTube, 'John Bowlby and Maternal Deprivation' at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx5kRNb5ILs
Please can you state any criticisms you may have about the inaccuracy of the piece. I am seeking to do an updated version of 'Wikipedia Mistake: A case study of the work of Dr.John Bowlby' on YouTube. I already have the comments made by Fainites and your contribution would be greatly appreciated.
- There is no difference between "contributors" and "editors." You and Fainites have the same authority and ability to edit articles. He probably is more familiar with procedures, style, content guidelines and such, which may give him more de facto input, but he does not have more authority de jure. [[User
talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 78.149.143.239 (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Kip,
I've always thought contributors and editors were the same thing on Wiki, but I'm much more interested in content than in style, so i could well be wrong.
I'm embarrassed to say that I can't help with the video, because I don't know what I did with our speakers. I don't normally listen to things with the computer. If you could give me a transcript of the voice-over, I could look at it, but other than rooting through the closet I'm not sure what else to do.
Now, to get down to the "reassessment" I think the issue here may have to do with the particular volume you consult. I have a Penguin edition that includes assessment chapters by Ainsworth. But I also have the Schocken edition (1966). This is called "two volumes in one" and begins with Bowlby's "Maternal care and mental health." The second volume is "Deprivation of maternal care: A reassessment of its effects." There are papers in this volume in the following order: Prugh & Harlow, Andry, Mead, Wootton, Lebovici, Ainsworth. However, on the cover, these authors are listed alphabetically, and Ainsworth therefore appears to be listed as senior author. Ainsworth's paper is entitled "The effects of maternal deprivation: A review of findings and controversy in the context of research strategy." So, in this somewhat confusing situation of reprints and republications,I don't think we need to attribute differences to deliberate efforts to mislead.
You would probably find the Andry paper of interest, as he examines a number of issues about paternal deprivation, but he seems to think JB was a Kleinian, so i don't know what that was about. Lady Barbara Wootton gives it all(attachment theory) a brisk send-off as nonsense, and provides some interesting evidence to support her view.
Best regards, JeanJean Mercer (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Jean,
Did you edit the page on Bowlby to show Ainsworth as author? kip78.149.164.211 (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so-- I haven't worked on that for a long time. J.Jean Mercer (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No that was me (if you mean the WHO 1962 publication). Simply cured by the inclusion of "et al" ! Fainites barley 14:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Note this.[1] It relates to that edit on his talkpage that an admin removed not realising it was Kip. It was also posted on your talkpage and an admins called Doug. [2] Fainites barley 00:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Style
I just saw this near the beginning of the psychoanalysis article. "Freud's psychodynamic theory is psychodynamic, but the psychodynamic theories of Jung aren't psychodynamic. So the two terms aren't synonymous". Perhaps this style of expression would assist in the clarification of attachment issues. Fainites barley 00:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This statement has my unbonded admiration.Jean Mercer (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Unbounded or unattached? Fainites barley 23:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What i said-- no special glues connect me with this particularly sticky wicket.
Don't people ever read what they've written, I wonder in my psychodynamic way? Jean Mercer (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought of editing it so it said "so the one term isn't synonymous" for added clarity. Fainites barley 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You can also add, "but one sin is coterminous". Can't say clearer than that... but i wonder what on earth they actually meant? We may never know. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Details of Complaint;-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 01:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
KingsleyMiller (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I really have no idea what's going on here. Who would ever say that Bowlby (or another thinker) was The Author of Attachment Theory (or any other well-known idea)? Theories rarely have a single identifiable author, and even if they do, it's a popular parlor game to try to make a list of everyone whose ideas influenced that person.
Can it be that the subject Kingsley Miller is writing an article about, is not the same as the subject being addressed by other people, even though the same term is being used to describe it? Maybe KM could help by defining the term "maternal deprivation" as he is using it. Then we might know where we are.
As for the comments of Michael Rutter-- well, I have a nice note from Oliver Sacks, but I don't think that makes me a neurologist.Jean Mercer (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well actually I said Bowlby is the 'author' of attachment theory as in "Attachment" which expounds his theory of attachment, in a reply to Kip as to whether he was the "author". But its not a novel. Perhaps I misunderstood what Kip was asking! This is not the same as inventing a concept or being the first to use a word or a description or have an idea about it. I meant - Bowlby's theory. It arose over the issue of Rutters description of developments in attachment theory between as set out by Bowlby in his 1969/82 version and subsequent changes after years of research. Interestingly enough the attachment article says "Attachment theory originated in the work of John Bowlby". Zeanah says "ethological attachment theory, as outlined by John Bowlby". How would you put it then Jean? Or is the lead of Attachment theory yours anyway?Fainites barley 22:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Curses, my lengthy and ever-so-erudite response vanished. It was much better than what I'm going to write now, honest.
I would say he was the author of publications ABOUT attachment theory. That attachment theory "originated in his work" is also good. But a) it doesn't sound right to me to say the author of a theory, and b) my fat dictionary says that author in that sense would mean the creator of something, not the person who worked on it together with other people and then presented what had developed.
I confess I'm really going on how it sounds, and i believe that if you take care of the sounds the sense will take care of itself, not the other way around. Does the way you wrote it actually sound right to you, or was it just a choice you made among possibilities? Jean Mercer (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Its not anything I've put in an article as far as I can recall. It was a response to an ongoing argument over several talkpages wherein it appeared to me that it was being said that Bowlby's theory was maternal deprivation but that attachment theory was just something he latched onto rather than developed a unified, comprehensive theory about, himself - albeit using other peoples work and input etc. My understanding is that he specifically set out to formulate a theory that would encompass the nature, mechanism, purpose and effect of the development of early relationships. "Author" is probably not really the right word in an article to describe it. "Developed" or "originated in his work..." is better. He is the "author" of "Attachment" which contains attachment theory as developed by him, at that particular point in time. Bretherton talks about "Bowlby’s first formal statement of attachment theory,..." referring to the 1959 paper. Whatever. Fainites barley 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Again it's conflicted out-- but i don't see anything anyone else said. "Whatever" sums it up, though.Jean Mercer (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it that its always your greatest bon mots are the ones we never get to see and we get left with the dross? Fainites barley 23:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I thought of an analogy. You would say "Einsteins theory of relativity" in the same way people say "Bowlby's attachment theory' but you probably wouldn't say that Einstein was the author of the theory of relativity. But both 'originated' the theory if there's such a word. Fainites barley 23:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this section from Kips appeal helps to clarify or confuse matters about where the issue about 'author' comes from:
- "Fainites has only recently stated for the first time that he or she believes John Bowlby is the 'author' of the Attachment Theory.] This is a minority view. Most would accept that through 'Maternal Deprivation' he contributed greatly to our understanding of 'attachment' but he did not invent the theory. I accept that Jean Mercer may have become inadvertently involved in this complaint but I should like the arbiters to consider whether Fainites is an 'Edit Warrior' on behalf of Bowlby and the theory of 'Maternal Deprivation'..."
I find the assertion that "through 'maternal deprivation' Bowlby contributed greatly" etc odd - as if he never wrote "Attachment". I don't really understand quite alot of this dispute. Kip effectively accused me of making up that section from "Attachment" which I posted and disputed the publication date of "Attachment". Fainites barley 23:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
As i said above, if Kip would define what he means by maternal deprivation, we might have some idea where we are. And what is the point about discrediting Bowlby? Is it to present Rutter as the source of attachment theory? Or... what? And is he trying to kick me out of his complaint? That's not fair. Jean Mercer (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
He gave you a [3] choice remember? Fainites barley 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
' ' ' ' ' ' ' Okay, I'm distanced.Jean Mercer (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Hmm, that didn't work exactly as planned-- thought it would give me vertical distance from you.
You want colons for that, or stars. I've posted a section of Rutter on the John Bowlby talkpage for consideration if you have a copy of the paper. Fainites barley 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah but look at it now! Fainites barley 21:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yow! But what a bizarre discussion to be having--- perhaps there's an article on the moon, where someone needs to produce sources that say it's not made of green cheese. Jean Mercer (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well quite - but would you mind putting your view on the Bowlby talkpage itself - unless you also think I'm making it all up. Are there any sources that say its not made of green cheese? One should teach the controversy you know. Fainites barley 22:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
OFFICIAL CLARIFICATION AT;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Clarifications_and_other_requests
KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The arbitration request for clarification is finished. All thrown out. The only comment of any note was the one earlier saying the only policy violation was Kip accusing me of bad faith. (Kip says he thinks it went very well. I wonder what going very badly would entail.) I'm not around much for the next few days but I'm sure the world of attachment will survive. Fainites barley 21:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Bowlby: Ethology and evolutionary concepts
I have added quotation marks and a page number to the abstract from the Attachment & Human Development article. Frakn (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Good-- thank you!Jean Mercer (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
An editor added a 'see also' to RAD. See discussion here [4]. I don't know if its relevent or not. What do you think? Fainites barley 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't think why it would be. It's about a retarded boy who has a treatment that makes him smart, but doesn't last, and examines his experience as he sees his intelligence slipping away from him. Sad, but not RAD, at least as i recall it. Jean Mercer (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Mediation (hollow laugh)
Ridiculous isn't it? A requests for mediation that are attack pages - on the same old crap! He never responds to quotations or sources on a talkpage - just starts the same arguments and makes the same allegations on a fresh page. But on a mediation page is really taking the biscuit! Hands up any mediators wanting to mediate this lot. Fainites barley 20:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Did you see he said it had taken 'weeks' for me to 'acknowledge the monotropy page'? He only wrote it 11 days ago! Fainites barley 21:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
By the time he notices, it WILL be weeks.
How many of these tempests in teapots are going on at any one time, do you suppose?Jean Mercer (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
There's another one here look. [5] I have pointed out on the case page that its basically one dispute on which there's already been a 3PO and a noticeboard opinion but KM "strongly disagrees" with this. Also - bizarrely - each one contains a full copy of Raj Persuads article. Fainites barley 21:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Jean, I noticed your work on Child development and value your wisdom and judgment. I recently created the page Child life specialist, and because I'm a relatively new user, I'm wondering if you could check out my page an possibly comment? I appreciate your help! Thanks! Carleyj (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)carleyj
Mediation
A cabalist has suggested that all three mediations be rolled into one as they cover broadly the same issues - that one being attachment theory. I've indicated my agreement on the attachment theory mediation page. I also set out in a collapsed text box my suggestions for the ambit of the mediation.[6] They're only suggestions so any further or better ideas on this point are welcome. Fainites barley 08:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jean Mercer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |