This is about a scientist who vindicated the common-sense approach that mothers had always taken to babies, by showing that a monkey prefered a soft mother-doll to a mother-doll with milk. And also unexpectedly discovering that monkeys raised that way could not function as normal monkeys. All of this was a corrective to psychologists of the day who preferred to work wiht rats and who thought that new-born babies were better off isolated from their mothers.
There's a fascinating small tale about an early monkey-baby who was given a mother-doll with no face. When later they later tried to give it a face, the baby was horrified. This matches the earlier observations about how British children evacuated from cities to safe homes in ... Read More:
>>More Details
For the most part I think this books is interesting. It readable presents and explores results concerning the differences between the male and female brain. However, there is a strong bias on the author's part toward the notion that humans are evolving to be more and more monogamous as if this is the ideal state or that evolution is somehow directed. Also, throughout the book the author always seems to be vaguely deriding male versus female qualities.
>>More Details
I enjoyed the book (a journalists history of psychical research in the late 19th century) because the principal characters (Blavatsky, Hume, Myers, William James, Hodgson, Gurney, Mrs Piper, etc) and the area written about interest me greatly.
But, the book lacks the care of presentation I hoped for (eg the footnotes and bibliography too casual). And I wasn't impressed by the writing style or book plan/layout. Frankly prose is not the greatest accomplshment of North American education, and it shows. The role of William James is overstated, perhaps because the book is written by a North American observer. I am surprised that the "cross-correspondences" (involving Myers, Gurney, Mrs Piper etc) were not explained more carefully and, ... Read More:
>>More Details
This is about a scientist who vindicated the common-sense approach that mothers had always taken to babies, by showing that a monkey prefered a soft mother-doll to a mother-doll with milk. And also unexpectedly discovering that monkeys raised that way could not function as normal monkeys. All of this was a corrective to psychologists of the day who preferred to work wiht rats and who thought that new-born babies were better off isolated from their mothers.
There's a fascinating small tale about an early monkey-baby who was given a mother-doll with no face. When later they later tried to give it a face, the baby was horrified. This matches the earlier observations about how British children evacuated from cities to safe homes in the country ... Read More:
>>More Details
This is about a scientist who vindicated the common-sense approach that mothers had always taken to babies, by showing that a monkey prefered a soft mother-doll to a mother-doll with milk. And also unexpectedly discovering that monkeys raised that way could not function as normal monkeys. All of this was a corrective to psychologists of the day who preferred to work wiht rats and who thought that new-born babies were better off isolated from their mothers.
There's a fascinating small tale about an early monkey-baby who was given a mother-doll with no face. When later they later tried to give it a face, the baby was horrified. This matches the earlier observations about how British children evacuated from cities to safe homes in the country ... Read More:
>>More Details
This is about a scientist who vindicated the common-sense approach that mothers had always taken to babies, by showing that a monkey prefered a soft mother-doll to a mother-doll with milk. And also unexpectedly discovering that monkeys raised that way could not function as normal monkeys. All of this was a corrective to psychologists of the day who preferred to work wiht rats and who thought that new-born babies were better off isolated from their mothers.
There's a fascinating small tale about an early monkey-baby who was given a mother-doll with no face. When later they later tried to give it a face, the baby was horrified. This matches the earlier observations about how British children evacuated from cities to safe homes in the country ... Read More:
>>More Details
This is about a scientist who vindicated the common-sense approach that mothers had always taken to babies, by showing that a monkey prefered a soft mother-doll to a mother-doll with milk. And also unexpectedly discovering that monkeys raised that way could not function as normal monkeys. All of this was a corrective to psychologists of the day who preferred to work wiht rats and who thought that new-born babies were better off isolated from their mothers.
There's a fascinating small tale about an early monkey-baby who was given a mother-doll with no face. When later they later tried to give it a face, the baby was horrified. This matches the earlier observations about how British children evacuated from cities to safe homes in the country ... Read More:
>>More Details
For the most part I think this books is interesting. It readable presents and explores results concerning the differences between the male and female brain. However, there is a strong bias on the author's part toward the notion that humans are evolving to be more and more monogamous as if this is the ideal state or that evolution is somehow directed. Also, throughout the book the author always seems to be vaguely deriding male versus female qualities.
>>More Details
For the most part I think this books is interesting. It readable presents and explores results concerning the differences between the male and female brain. However, there is a strong bias on the author's part toward the notion that humans are evolving to be more and more monogamous as if this is the ideal state or that evolution is somehow directed. Also, throughout the book the author always seems to be vaguely deriding male versus female qualities.
>>More Details