| Revision as of 21:30, 26 February 2008 editFainites (talk | contribs)20,907 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:42, 26 February 2008 edit undoFainites (talk | contribs)20,907 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Kingsley Miller | Kingsley Miller | ||
| I don't think its right to say Bowlby developed his theory further because of a 'body of criticism', particularly when much of the 'body of criticism' you cite postdates his main works. Secondly I think you do the likes of Bowlby a disservice by assuming they behave as if their theories are set in stone, that they have to get absolutely everything right all at once and that any subsequent development somehow proves them wrong. This is not how science works. You have also missed out the rather important stuff about the ''hierearchy'' of attachments which seems to indicate that although infants develop a number of attachments they tend to have a ''primary'', preferred one - and then others in a descending hierarchy. Where you are on the hierarchy would depend not on whether you had a willy or not but on the extent to which you were the primary carer. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC) | I don't think its right to say Bowlby developed his theory further because of a 'body of criticism', particularly when much of the 'body of criticism' you cite postdates his main works. Secondly I think you do the likes of Bowlby a disservice by assuming they behave as if their theories are set in stone, that they have to get absolutely everything right all at once and that any subsequent development somehow proves them wrong. This is not how science works. You have also missed out the rather important stuff about the ''hierearchy'' of attachments which seems to indicate that although infants can develop a number of attachments (precise number unknown) they tend to have a ''primary'', preferred one - and then others in a descending hierarchy. Where you are on the hierarchy would depend not on whether you had a willy or not but on the extent to which you were the primary carer. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:42, 26 February 2008
All,
Any comments?
Kingsley Miller
I don't think its right to say Bowlby developed his theory further because of a 'body of criticism', particularly when much of the 'body of criticism' you cite postdates his main works. Secondly I think you do the likes of Bowlby a disservice by assuming they behave as if their theories are set in stone, that they have to get absolutely everything right all at once and that any subsequent development somehow proves them wrong. This is not how science works. You have also missed out the rather important stuff about the hierearchy of attachments which seems to indicate that although infants can develop a number of attachments (precise number unknown) they tend to have a primary, preferred one - and then others in a descending hierarchy. Where you are on the hierarchy would depend not on whether you had a willy or not but on the extent to which you were the primary carer. Fainites 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)