Samir’s Selection 05/13/2013 (p.m.)

  • The monkeys showed us that when push comes to shove, we don’t love our mothers just because they feed us. We love them because they cuddle us.

    Harry Harlow 

    John Bowlby: Bowlby determined that our attachment to parental figures (in particular, he argued, to mothers) plays a huge, critical role in our ability to learn, grow, and develop healthy adult relationships. Without a strong attachment, we are destined to be deeply disturbed.

    Mary Ainsworth 

    Ainsworth soon discovered that there are three main types of attachment styles: Secure, Avoidant, and Anxious…. These attachment styles are presumed to arise from different “parenting” behaviors, mostly revolving around emotional availability and responsiveness…

    What else does a secure attachment look like? The three most important features of a secure attachment are that the infant will proximity seek (wanting to be close to the mother), use the mother as a safe haven (cling to her when upset or scared), and use her as a secure base (use the knowledge that she is there as a “safety net” to gain the necessary courage to explore the surrounding environment and try new, interesting things without being too scared)…

    What is truly fascinating is that these attachment patterns can end up influencing how we approach relationships for the rest of our lives! The general idea is that our relationships with our parents create “working models” (or mental representations) of what a relationship “should” look like. Our parents’ levels of emotional responsiveness, availability, and dependability lead us to create mental models that form our concepts of what to expect in relationships throughout our lives…

    Even into adulthood, our attachments with parents continue to play a huge role, and the models they provide for us about how we should expect other people to respond to us within close relationships can shape what we look for in romantic partners, friends, and colleagues.

    tags: parenting love attachmenttheory motherhood fatherhood psychology security avoidant anxiety relationship primate research biology

  • Alex Pang, a Stanford University technologist…
     
    Such are the annoying ironies of work and play in the 21st century: more and more of us are “knowledge workers”, doing jobs that require deep concentration, yet we do so on machines that seem deliberately designed to interrupt us all the time and to keep us on edge. Then, in the evenings, we try to relax using similar machines, which all too often whip us up into a state that isn’t relaxing at all… 

    The problem is not that we’ve suddenly started depending on technology, but that the technology we’re depending on is poorly designed, too often focused on making money for its creators at its users’ expense. Undoubtedly, we’ll one day figure out how to handle cellphones and status updates without the accompanying distraction and compulsion. But that doesn’t mean the distraction and compulsion aren’t a problem right now – or that it might not be wise to find ways of adapting more rapidly. After all, distraction – as the Australian philosopher Damon Young points out in his book of that name – isn’t just a minor irritant. It’s a serious philosophical problem: what you focus on, hour by hour, day after day, ends up comprising your whole life. “To be diverted isn’t simply to have too many stimuli but to be confused about what to attend to and why,” Young writes. “Distraction is the very opposite of emancipation: failing to see what is worthwhile in life, and lacking the wherewithal to seek it.”

    tags: focus attention distraction addiction mind internet computing email socialmedia tools

  • The correlation between unemployment and suicide has been observed since the 19th century. People looking for work are about twice as likely to end their lives as those who have jobs… 
    OUR research suggests that investing $1 in public health programs can yield as much as $3 in economic growth…
    One need not be an economic ideologue — we certainly aren’t — to recognize that the price of austerity can be calculated in human lives. We are not exonerating poor policy decisions of the past or calling for universal debt forgiveness. It’s up to policy makers in America and Europe to figure out the right mix of fiscal and monetary policy. What we have found is that austerity — severe, immediate, indiscriminate cuts to social and health spending — is not only self-defeating, but fatal.

    David Stuckler, a senior research leader in sociology at Oxford, and Sanjay Basu, an assistant professor of medicine and an epidemiologist in the Prevention Research Center at Stanford, are the authors of “The Body Economic: Why Austerity Kills.”

    tags: austerity publicpolicy macroeconomics epidemiology evidence casestudy Italy Greece Iceland Germany USSR USeconomics Thailand Indonesia Malaysia crisis crisismanagement

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s