Dan Siegel, again

This is a passage that jumped out at me:

In 1988, Siegel heard one of the pioneers of attachment theory, Mary Main, give a talk about her work on what she called "coherent narrative." Main and her colleagues had devised an instrument called the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), in which parents were asked about their recollections of their own childhoods. What Main's research indicated was that the way these parents told their own stories-how they made sense of their past lives, or didn't-was the most powerful predictor (85 percent accuracy) of whether their own children would be securely attached to them.

If adults could create a reflective, coherent, and emotionally-rich narrative about their own childhoods, they were likely to form a good, secure relationship with their children-no matter how "insecurely attached" they themselves had been as children or how inadequate or even abusive their own parents were. It wasn't what happened to them as children, but how they came to make sense of what happened to them that predicted their emotional integration as adults and what kind of parents they'd be.

I think a key aspect here is "emotionally-rich". Many very unhappy people- rigid, judgmental, etc- have coherent narratives. Think of all the people we've known over the years who not only tell the same story of their lives, but with details emphasized the same way, as if the audience and context never changes. This is a lack of engagement, a lack of communication and mutuality, that really shrinks a person's social world.

Reflective speech can be learned: think "therapized". But "emotionally-rich" means the speaker is being generous to his or her listener. This empathy, or understanding of another, is a crucial frontal lobe function.

Our own coherent narratives- much like in traditional folk tales and post-modern fiction- is open ended. But not formless or sprawling. Each narrative loops back through the listener to the speaker, changing slightly, accommodating subtle social information. Irrelevant details are maintained in a low energy state, perhaps to be charged with significance at some later time.

In this way, the previous post regarding an older reader's slowing down over apparently irrelevant details points to another quality of the brain: each area seems to suppress other areas. Life changes such as injury, open up other possibilities. When we are telling our stories, we keep in reserve details for other situations and other audiences.

Perhaps older brains tell richer stories as well- less purposeful- but emotionally deeper. And maybe this is a quality we associate with wisdom.

Memory

from a NYT article:

In a 2003 study at Harvard, Dr. Carson and other researchers tested students’ ability to tune out irrelevant information when exposed to a barrage of stimuli. The more creative the students were thought to be, determined by a questionnaire on past achievements, the more trouble they had ignoring the unwanted data. A reduced ability to filter and set priorities, the scientists concluded, could contribute to original thinking.

This phenomenon, Dr. Carson said, is often linked to a decreased activity in the prefrontal cortex. Studies have found that people who suffered an injury or disease that lowered activity in that region became more interested in creative pursuits.

Here is the whole article

Interestingly, an overfocus on a singular interpretation of a text leads to a lessened ability to use certain details. This is why a technical article in a field one is familiar with, if read with a specific purpose, can be read quickly, whereas a poem- a good one, anyway- shouldn't be.

Every use of language has a multiplicity of interpretations and "purposes". The brain has evolved for a multiplicity of outcomes...

Server Down and Out

Our ancient and creaky server has been digieuthanized and is being replaced. Please contact us via the email above. Sorry about the inconvenience. The blog is unaffected.

The Year Ahead

One of our pet conundrums here at Tinicum Art and Science is striking a dynamic, but ultimately, balanced approach to our students' social and intellectual development. For instance, most of our students are coming off of highly stressful, if not traumatic, experiences at school. It is well established in the neuropsych literature that chronic, childhood stress is a major predictor for serious "at-risk" behavior.

What, then, is a logical way to reduce stress? Reduce the stress at school. We have found that. this, in turn, reduces the stress at home.

By reducing the social, academic, and intrapersonal stressors a student's relationships improve in quality and variety, giving rise to the (accurate) perception of a supportive social network, thus increasing resilience and further reducing stress. Such a student is much more likely to then take on social and intellectual challenges at school.

But what if that process takes a long time? Do measurable academic and intellectual skills lag behind, and if so, how big of a problem is it?

On the other hand, if we prematurely or overly emphasize intellectual development might this, in some students, short circuit the process described above?

Our tendency is towards the social, which we do very well. Yet, we are consistently trying to spiral up a more academic approach and better execution of higher level skills. Any thoughts?

Soon I will post a few summaries and comments regarding research being done in this area.