| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Bio Evolution Forum » Evolved Human Growth Periods...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Tom Hendricks... |
 Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 7:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
More and more I think that there are certain 'windows
of opportunity' in human infant development that set
the pattern for the rest of that person's life.
There is a short window to learn our native language.
Adults can never learn a foreign language as well as
infants going through that language window.
There is also a 'window of opportunity' IMO connected
with the end of breast feeding and the switch to hard
food. I suggest that this period near the end of
breast feeding is key in setting up a major pattern in
human development. This major pattern has two possible
aspects.
1. The infant feels overfed. He feels he is forced
fed. That sets up a pattern of overcompensation. The
child from then on, blocks out more food than normal
infants. This leads to low weight problems. There is
also a pattern of overcompensation for a perceived
problem of being overly fed - overly stimulated. This
would suggest that thin adults feel over fed - overly
stimulated and seek people and situations where there
is reduced stimulation. There problem is one of being
forced fed in both physical and psychological ways.
They would most likely have problems of being too
independent and separated from others.
2. The infant feels underfed. He feels he is always
hungry. That sets up a pattern of overcompensation.
The child from then on, seeks out more food than
normal infants. This leads to over weight problems.
There is also a pattern of overcompensation for a
perceived problem of being under fed - under
stimulated. This would suggest that overweight adults
feel under fed - under stimulated and seek people and
situations where there is added stimulation. There
problem is one of being underfed in both physical and
psychological ways. They would most likely have
problems of being too dependent on others.
I would also suggest that changing this pattern is
extremely difficult and as yet no one has devised a
safe sure way to do it. Though I have a possible
solution. I would also suggest that this pattern is
one that subconsciously drives the person throughout
his life. And that this pattern of food-in, connected
with a 2nd pattern of waste-out, may well be the two
most important patterns set up in childhood. And these
two may effect virtually every aspect of an adults
life.
Comment? I would ask if those that are thin agree with
the 'thin' pattern. And those overweight readers agree
with the 'overweight' pattern.
Tom Hendricks
(see wikipedia entry) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| JohnGW... |
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 3:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 9, 10:10 am, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
Quote: More and more I think that there are certain 'windows
of opportunity' in human infant development that set
the pattern for the rest of that person's life.
There is a short window to learn our native language.
Adults can never learn a foreign language as well as
infants going through that language window.
Tom Hendricks
(see wikipedia entry)
True probably of math too, which is just a collection of languages
with extreme abbreviations and very rigid syntax.
For the overweight/underweight,- be nice to have some evidence.
For many people around the world, the lactase gene is blocked,
around three or four, or some such age, so weaning occurs naturally.
Regards
John GW |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Entertained by my own EIMC... |
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 3:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom Hendricks wrote:
Quote: More and more I think that there are certain 'windows
of opportunity' in human infant development that set
the pattern for the rest of that person's life.
There is a short window to learn our native language.
Adults can never learn a foreign language as well as
infants going through that language window.
There is also a 'window of opportunity' IMO connected
with the end of breast feeding and the switch to hard
food. I suggest that this period near the end of
breast feeding is key in setting up a major pattern in
human development. This major pattern has two possible
aspects.
1. The infant feels overfed. He feels he is forced
fed. That sets up a pattern of overcompensation. The
child from then on, blocks out more food than normal
infants. This leads to low weight problems. There is
also a pattern of overcompensation for a perceived
problem of being overly fed - overly stimulated. This
would suggest that thin adults feel over fed - overly
stimulated and seek people and situations where there
is reduced stimulation. There problem is one of being
forced fed in both physical and psychological ways.
They would most likely have problems of being too
independent and separated from others.
2. The infant feels underfed. He feels he is always
hungry. That sets up a pattern of overcompensation.
The child from then on, seeks out more food than
normal infants. This leads to over weight problems.
There is also a pattern of overcompensation for a
perceived problem of being under fed - under
stimulated. This would suggest that overweight adults
feel under fed - under stimulated and seek people and
situations where there is added stimulation. There
problem is one of being underfed in both physical and
psychological ways. They would most likely have
problems of being too dependent on others.
I would also suggest that changing this pattern is
extremely difficult and as yet no one has devised a
safe sure way to do it. Though I have a possible
solution. I would also suggest that this pattern is
one that subconsciously drives the person throughout
his life. And that this pattern of food-in, connected
with a 2nd pattern of waste-out, may well be the two
most important patterns set up in childhood. And these
two may effect virtually every aspect of an adults
life.
Comment? I would ask if those that are thin agree with
the 'thin' pattern. And those overweight readers agree
with the 'overweight' pattern.
Tom Hendricks
(see wikipedia entry)
Too much of any perceived or sensorially registered environmental
presence of what an individual needs or doesn't need, and/or too little
of any absence of what it needs, threatens its individual and/or
reproductive survival (given that the individual had a potential to
procreate).
When the character of any such adverse stimulation is such that it is
not physically avoidable or escapable, then the only conceivable
adaptive mechanism is, in principle, one that internally stops the
stimulation from resulting in some self-defeating focus/paying of
actention.
For those cases where a means of "stopping" (blocking) of such
potentially actention motivating neural messages (which may also be
generated by states conditioned-in by such adversity) is combined with
(likewise neural) means of taking simultaneously environmentally
available procreation promoting opportunities (means that may of course
also be acquired through learning) it is far from inEPT to call this
(i.e., this 'kind of combination of functures that make an individual
capable of handling such adversity whilst also allowing it to take such
opportunities) an "ambiadvantageous" adaptation.
%] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lorentz... |
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 8:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 9, 1:10 pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
Quote: More and more I think that there are certain 'windows
of opportunity' in human infant development that set
the pattern for the rest of that person's life.
Have you looked into the work of Piaget? Piaget did some very
interesting work on the stages of cognitive development in human
beings.
His biological model was rather flawed. He explained his results
in terms of the Haekel model (i.e., ontology recapitulates phylogeny).
Maybe that is why you don't mention it.
However, I propose his observations on ontology are correct. That
is, I don't think human history follows the stages of development he
describes. However, I conjecture that children really go through these
"windows of opportunity" for learning certain things.
Furthermore, I propose the ontology that he describes could be fit
into an evo-devo model. For example, it seems likely to me that the
"concrete" and "formal" stages of human development may be associated
with certain regulatory genes being switched on.
I wonder if there are any experiments that can associate the
switching on and off of genes with the ontology of cognitive
development. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tom Hendricks... |
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 12, 1:05 am, Lorentz <drosen0... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: On May 9, 1:10 pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:> More and more I think that there are certain 'windows
of opportunity' in human infant development that set
the pattern for the rest of that person's life.
Have you looked into the work of Piaget? Piaget did some very
interesting work on the stages of cognitive development in human
beings.
His biological model was rather flawed. He explained his results
in terms of the Haekel model (i.e., ontology recapitulates phylogeny).
Maybe that is why you don't mention it.
However, I propose his observations on ontology are correct. That
is, I don't think human history follows the stages of development he
describes. However, I conjecture that children really go through these
"windows of opportunity" for learning certain things.
Furthermore, I propose the ontology that he describes could be fit
into an evo-devo model. For example, it seems likely to me that the
"concrete" and "formal" stages of human development may be associated
with certain regulatory genes being switched on.
I wonder if there are any experiments that can associate the
switching on and off of genes with the ontology of cognitive
development.
I'm not familiar with Piaget's work. I agree that there has to be
some concrete gene aspect to these windows if they prove to be true.
More and more I'm thinking that this expands ways people learn
behavior.
We don't seem to change behavior easily. Once it's set it is set
solidly.
We are born with some learned behaviors, we learn some through these
window's of opportunity, we learn through repetition - example tying a
shoe
over and over, and we learn through trauma - a major event or incident
seems
to imprint new behavior.
Almost all of these are subconscious behaviors Conscious reasoning
should
change behavior, but it doesn't seem to be as strong as the ones
listed.
If it were no one would smoke, eat too much, or drink too much, etc.
That's why therapy - that deals with conscious reasoning with the
patient,
has had some, but limited results.
Comment? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Perplexed in Peoria... |
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 11:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Lorentz" <drosen0000 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message news:g08mn2$2aia$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
Quote: I wonder if there are any experiments that can associate the
switching on and off of genes with the ontology of cognitive
development.
AIUI, the current technology for detecting the switching on and off of genes
requires an autopsy or at least biopsy of brain tissue. So, I'm not sure that
human cognitive development can yet be studied in this way. Maybe it
could be done with lab rats. The technology is the stuff they used in that
recent human-genome set of papers which was publicized as demonstrating
large scale transcription of parts of the genome which are not annotated
as part of standard transcription units. So the technology is relatively
automated and cheap. In principle it seems that quite a lot could be
learned about (rat) brain development with this kind of experiment. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:05 pm
|
|
