But Kanner, Freud and Bowlby are all in the same camp.

I learned it in childhood education too back in 1990 at college. [I took three/four child psych/development courses myself. I was going to be a child psychologist for a short time].

I know they’re not the same. But Attachment theory, which I studied as well, was de-emphasized when I learned it – and that was 25 years ago.

Maybe the USA teaches psychology differently: more in the positive psychology camp.

But Kanner, Freud and Bowlby are all in the same camp. It’s not rocket science to figure it out and it’s not my invention.

It’s not that it’s *discarded* per se, but its very old fashioned thinking.


Granted, DNA is “the trend” now and environmental psychology is de-emphasized, which is part of the reason why attachment theory and the like are less popular… and it’s not that it’s invalid per se… it’s just that a lot of the reasoning and consequences of it are just… well… old-fashioned thinking.

It’s like the word “concept”. We use the word concept for idea.

But “concept” is a holdover from 17th century science, where they believed that the shape of the brain being similar to a baby in the womb meant that ideas were literally “born” in the mind, hence, concept, conception, etc.

It’s in the popular lingo today still, although we forgot its roots.

But it doesn’t mean that their scientific theory was valid, just because we’re still using the terms.


I know some people use masculinity as a substitute for machismo.

In my mind, I think of masculinity as what you find in the mythopoetic men’s movement of the 80s/90s, men sitting half-naked around campfires recapturing their boyhoods through menthology (men mythology) and song.

But no, I have no idea what it’s supposed to mean or rather, I don’t know what other ppl think it is.


I don’t buy into the all-DNA arguments either, mind you. I tend to believe more in the environmental causes for some things that have DNA stuck on them here in my own country.

But there’s a lot of idiocy that I remember seeing in 1950s bugs bunny cartoons that you’re talking about today and it just sounds weird to my ears.


Big claims there. Believe as you wish, but the “it’s the mom’s fault” has some limited truths to it, but the broadness you give it is excessive. Sorry.


When that stuff shows up here in the USA, it shows up in pop psychology books for the common consumer and when it’s taught in academia, there’s biological attachment (patterning or whatever it’s called from the Skinner family of thinking with the ducklings and the string mops), but to the level of affecting a boy’s masculinity? Nah.


Sorry Jay. You were all over the place. Sounded like a tasty salad but I didn’t recognize the ingredients.


I know all about the USA’s eugenics programs, believe me. We’re a mini Nazi germany in the making and always have been.


Speaking for _myself_, the kind of psychology that attracted me was more in the positive psychology camp. This book for example, which I found on the bookshelves and was taking classes, I’d read through several times back then and it involves conflict management. http://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Kids-Will-Listen/dp/1451663889
So a DNA-chaser I’m not.
At the same time, the environment-only arguments for childhood development go too far in the other direction from the Eugenics side.


Ah ok. Well, my answer would be a general polarization of cultures in general, away from the idealistic notions of the 80s of “let’s come together – tear-down-that-wall” stuff, and back towards “us/them” polarization.


Absolutely. Even ours. Here. As we speak. Communication. I use the role playing analogy. What role are you trying to play right now? Are you my teacher? Am I your student? Are you my daddy? Are you my mommy?

Children roleplay from a very young age and absorb the roles from their environment and come up with their own concoctions of what’s appropriate and not.

So, it’s not that the attachment theory is entirely wrong. That’s not what I’m trying to say here.

But “blame the mom” is short thinking. Maybe in a lab-style environment where mothers and boys are entirely isolated from the societies they find themselves in, but that’s not reality.

Cliche as “takes a village”, it’s true. TV, uncles, aunts, all play a role in forming the internalizing of roles children absorb and develop.

Ain’t just momma.


We don’t have a high rate of serial killers, silly Dean. The USA has 318 million people. UK’s got 64 million. Even basic statistics, you’ll have fewer.


The error I see from your end is this:
You see me as polar opposite of you.
But I am not.


Mental illness has gone up tremendously. Part of it is better diagnosis. Also, we’ve invented a few extra illnesses that DIDN’T exist in 1990, and some categories were broadened.

So, statistical analysis would have to take that stuff into account, but yes, generally speaking, mental illness seems to have gone up.


Consider: Why are we here? On the internet?
Why aren’t we hanging out together somewhere in our respective areas of the world?

The social structures AREN’T THERE for us.



Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eight + = 16

Leave a Reply