re. _The Nurture Assumption_

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Tue Oct 20 23:10:39 EST 1998


I taped the PBS segment (HURRAH! for "Africans in America" on PBS), but
was working so I didn't get the author's name. It's a book. The premise
is that peer influences are greater than Maternal influences.

It happened that, when I was in the Library the other day, one of the
issues of _Science_ that I took off the top of the pile had an article
in the "Research News" section, "Probing the Biology of Emotion", by R.
A. Kerr, 15May98, p1005.

I was a little disappointed to find that the reporter had been misled by
some of those who provided him with information... he was told, and
reported, that stuff was "new" when it's all rather old... it's just
that, "in the olden days", one had to cross-correlate data from hundreds
of research reports... but everything needed to sort out the amygdala,
for instance, was in the stacks more than a decade ago. I'll can
demonstrate this.

And the hypothesis in the sidebar, "Unmasking the Emotional
Unconscious", ibid, p1006, is just wrong. It's all "just" "simple" TD
E/I... what's believed to be "unmasked" is due only to the fact that one
trial has relatively-more ongoing activation inherent within it than
does the other... multiple stimuli, vs. single stimuli... the former
"just" elevate TD E/I more, and the affect resulting is all in accord
with what's described in the "Automation of Knowing..." ms. (AoK)...
just thought I'd set this straight.

[To all who write in Neuroscience, if you want to get things like this
straight, before publishing, get in touch with me, and I'll work up
complete reviews of the proposed work for you, including copies of all
of the necessary research reports. It "hurts" big-time to see the same
old stuff being passed off as "new" by Professionals.]

But that's not why I'm posting this. The article includes an excellent
discussion of "good mothering", as verified experimentally, including
long-term ramifications, and it's really worth a read.

The hypothesis of the book in question, is Incorrect because it,
apparently, misses this sort of Proven stuff with respect to the
ramifications of good and bad Maternal care. K. P. Collins




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list