User talk:Jean Mercer

Archives
I've finally worked out how to do these. Would you like me to archive bits of your talkpage for you? Possibly in sections. One on the early stuff, one on Attachment therapy for example. Fainites barley 10:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be very nice of you-- yes, please. Jean Mercer (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've put everything up to the end of the RAD FA in one archive. I left your stiff drink just in case you need it. If the attachment theory/maternal deprivation hooha is over for good I can then archive that aswell. Fainites barley 20:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Better leave my drink,you never know-- you can have a sip or two. Thank you kindly. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review
Casliber has volunteered to do a peer review for attachment theory - link above, other wise click on the request at the top of the talk page. Fainites barley 16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Jean can you sort out ref 57 please on Attachment theory. I think its one of yours. It seems to have two separate authors but only one title. Fainites barley 22:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's correct-- bizarre though it seems! The author is De Saussure, and he translated and published with commentary a piece by Descuret. Jean Mercer (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Weird! How am I going to fit that into a template! I'll put De Sausage as author and Descuret as editor. Fainites barley 19:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, M. Saucisse is the author, and the title is whatever it says about Descuret-- who is not the editor. It's like having an article about John Bowlby, with his name as the title,and including a lot of quotations from his work.Jean Mercer (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Fainites barley 16:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Next Question - is it a book or a journal? Fainites barley 18:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry-- i see the problem now-- it's that the title has gone into italics when it should not. The author is deSaussure. The title of the article is the name, "J.B. Descuret", which is italicized and ought not to be. The journal title is Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, followed by the volume number and pages. Jean Mercer (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. Fainites barley 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

EBP
This could be quite handy. Fainites barley 18:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the EBMH part doesn't seem to work.

I think there is a need for articles on both EBM and EBP. With EBP on mental health problems, there's no point asking for double-blind studies because they can't be done. Also, finetuning nonrandomized studies is much more important than in medicine.Jean Mercer (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Should there be one on EBP which acts as a portal for EBP (MH) and so on? Fainites barley 19:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted the compiler about his site. Fainites barley 19:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the portal business. The thing is, the term EBP is used by lots of mental and behavioral health people of different stripes-- nursing, social work, OT, as well as psychology. They often are stressing behavior change rather than specific MH concerns, or at least this is true in the U.S. EBP seems broader than EBMH. In my opinion, behavioral and MH research has many aspects that aren't shared with EBM. The site you indicated seems to stress commonalities of medical and MH research, though. Maybe this part of the issue is just too complex for Wiki, or maybe I just don't recognize concerns that are stressed by British writers (although I pay a lot of attention to Cochrane, and included the Khan et al. protocol).

Another point is that maybe I'm not sure what your question means!

Links to Cochrane and to Campbell would be good. Jean Mercer (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

All I mean is - if the term evidence based practice is used by a variety of disciplines then the article can't deal with just MH - or does behaviour cover the rest?. Fainites barley 22:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why I wrote a new intro para referring to behavioral problems, which could include all kinds of things-- post-stroke rehab, smoking cessation, etc. And of course there's some overlap with medical problems as well.

Heres a link to the Oxford Centre for evidence based whatever and a link to a toolbox that, hopefully, works. . Fainites barley 22:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's probably useful, but the toolbox dates back to Sackett in 2001, and there has been a lot since then. If you can find something that's less medical that would be good-- e.g. the NREPP site? Jean Mercer (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory
Delldot doesn't like the turkish mother and baby. Says its too dark and you can't see there is a baby. How about this one? Makes you smile back. Fainites barley 21:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's adorable, but wouldn't you say that's a child nurse, not a mother? I don't suppose it makes a lot of difference with respect to attachment, of course. Jean Mercer (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Its the mother! The full title is "Makhuwa mother and child in Nampula, Mozambique". Anyway - the baby looks like her.Fainites barley 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Jean - can you look at Delldots last point in the peer review (now on the talkpage). What do you think? Fainites barley 20:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have taken so long-- You mean about the size of the cells? I think it would be deceptive to make them the same size for child and for adult, because the focus is really on the child's behavior.Jean Mercer (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually no it was a point long before that. It was the one about the lead saying criticism was 'sporadic' and 'considerable' which delldot thought sounded a bit incompatable.Fainites barley 13:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive
I archived another chunk - if thats OK. All the complaints and mediation nonsense. I can undo it if you'd rather.Fainites barley 21:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! don't undo it. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Help!
There's a GA review on Attachment therapy including complaints about my grammar. You know how crippled I am in this area! Please have a look. Fainites barley 22:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, you poor little comprehensive school product (maybe).

Series is singular, so "was" is correct. Agreement is with series, not with whatever things it was a series of (I forget).

"...part of mainstream psychology or based on attachment theory" maybe? This still isn't parallel construction but is not as clunky.

"Tantruming" is used as a verb in many descriptions of early behavior, but if it's too strange, you could begin "In spite of the child's screams and tantrums..." and go on from there.

But i hope you won't ever give in on "whilst".Jean Mercer (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Aah - I thought 'was' was correct but lacked the confidence to say so. Fainites barley 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the "passive/active" edits Jean. I'm not quite sure why the passive voice is so frowned upon - particularly when removing it means using more of phrases like "some authors" and so on - which a different reviewer will probably complain about! Fainites barley 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC) (aka CissyFuss)

Actually, there is evidence that it's more difficult to understand-- certainly comes later in development than the active. And it can be used to evade responsibility for a statement.

Sorry i did the wrong one, though! I mean, the wrong one was done by me.Jean Mercer (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

AT
Look at the last few edits. Someone who knows Cline personally made some changes. Some weren't anything to do with Cline so I reverted those - but on the Cline ones I've tried to incorporate the concerns and used ACT as a source rather than skepticreport. Fainites barley scribs 21:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Familiar?
Fainites barley scribs 00:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory
Hi Jean. Can you look at the request for page numbers on the FAC page. Some of them were bits you added - eg Fildes, Suttie, Goldberg etc. Thanks.Fainites barley scribs 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I put your name up for SuggestBot. It's very funny. It does an automated analysis of your edits and suggests new articles you might like to edit. Last time it suggested I edit Die attachment, Bonesetter and Pick's disease.Fainites barley scribs 22:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually Pick's disease would be interesting.

Did i ever provide those page numbers? It's all a blur. Jean Mercer (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you did - or I managed to get hold of an old copy of Bowlby. One or the other.Fainites barley scribs 21:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Theraplay
Hi. This has been merged with play therapy. I've discussed it with the merger on their talk page. What do you think? Fainites barley scribs 10:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, didn't see this for a long time. Let me look. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sriking self on brow: oh, I did actually answer you before. Has any progress been made? Jean Mercer (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I unmerged it again. The rational for merging seemed to be that the article wasn't very good. When I queried this as a rationale and proposed unmerging, the Merger seemd to think that merging without discussion was appropriate if it encouraged other editors to work on the article to improve it. Not the Merger though although they did add a source that had been left on the talkpage. Fainites barley scribs 00:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Attachment theory
I saw your comment and recognized your name. For many years I puzzled over what I understood Bowlby to be saying and others' presentation of it. In the last month I've been grappling with it very directly over the WP article, and finally realized the need to write something much more formal. I've now posted it on the discussion page titled A Grave Misunderstanding. Would you take a look at it? This is a first draft, but I've been thinking off and on about it for years. I'd appreciate your feedback. I'm a right-brained wholistic thinker and see Bowlby as a major interdisciplinary thinker--which is sometimes hard to follow. He mentions many things on the fly, but doesn't always establish a clear connection between them. In any case, he was just forming the theory, considering many things without having come to firm conclusions about all of them. I hear him puzzling over how to explain attachment in human infants as contrasted to primates and other mammals. But there's a basic logic that attachment behavioral systems are genetically determined (but must be activated)and that early attachment behaviors (in humans) reach a threshold after 6 months after which they become easy to observe. This does not preclude the existence of early attachment behaviors, what he provisionally classified as pre-attachment behaviors. P.S. Please note I've left all of this to the discussion page except for some minor edits to the article. No sense arguing until these things have been clarified. Margaret9mary (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Development of attachment system
Hello Jean--I read the Santiago Declaration as you suggested and would like to get a copy of your article on Attachment theory in the Feb. Theory and Psychology; I've printed out what SUNY has of articles of historic importance on Attachment. Meanwhile--

On Jan 30th on the Attachment theory page you said "...if you want to get into events before 6 months that help to shape the later receptiveness to attachment....non-depressed caregivers are doing things that help babies become more capable of attachment relationships." This is of crucial importance. The behavior of a non-attached mother, or emotionally unavailable one (due to drugs or alcohol as well as depression or mental illness)starting after birth shapes to a great degree how the infant will become attached. I would say that by 6+ months the infant reaches a threshold of development in which attachment behavior becomes clearly manifested. But the attachment behavior system already exists at birth--ready to be activated and developed. And is in the process of developing during that early period. The evidence that this is true is that the following behavior begins when the child begins to walk. (My mother came from a wealthy well-educated family in which nannies raised the children and for at least 3 generations the mothers were unattached-- "I saw my mother for prayers before bed"-- was how my grandmother put it. My mother was the first to raise her own children and only because of the unusual circumstances of my sister and my infancy that we were able to form a peer attachment. And I watchedmy mother raise my baby brother.  So I have seen this up close and in a "longitudinal study")  The moment my brother began to walk he started following my father.

What Bowlby was saying in using systems theory is that the infant has an attachment behavioral system but also that the mother-child relationship is an attachment behavioral system. And the mother maintains proximity until the child can do so. (see p. 244 of Attachment.Margaret9mary (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more likely that your grandmas were attached to their nannies? Why do you think they were unattached? Also,walking generally begins after the period when attachment is generally considered to get organized-- so how do you connect following with a system that exists earlier?

I'll look at your user page to see if you have an e-mail address and send you a copy of that article if you do. Jean Mercer (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)




 * John Bowlby is an example of a person who was warmly attached to his nanny. His acknowledged mourning when she left (was dismissed?) is one indication.  And in his 1958 pamphlet Can I Leave My Baby? he writes:  "If a mother hands over her baby completely to a nanny, she should realize that in her child's eyes Nanny will be the real mother-figure and not Mummy."  (available on the SUNY website).  There is a film clip interview of Bowlby in his last years in which he asks, "What if a child realizes his mother never loved him.  It hurts.  If it's true.. it's true.  But it hurts."  Very formal and proper, he gives us no hint of it being personal. But children of wealthy families often had "proper," purely formal relations with their parents that could be an indication of weakened attachment in the parents.


 * What if nurses and nannies are changed repeatedly, interrupting attachment, or nannies are expected to produce children who are abnormally well-behaved beyond their age appropriate capacities? Or family systems of abuse involve the nannies in the cover up?  Abuse and sexual molestation was(is?)not uncommon--maids were expected to acquiesce sexually, and/or sometimes molested their charges.  My grandmother visited her nanny every year on her trips to Europe.  But what relationship can there be between a patrician and a servant?  I can't know that, of course, but do know she hated her mother.  When I said unattached it was referring to the unfathomable indifference to their children's welfare that they displayed through 3 generations.


 * Children do amazing things to survive if they choose to survive emotionally. I have seen children as young as 3 or 4 in role reversal with mothers involved in daily drug and alcohol use, caring for their mothers--even caring for younger siblings. But they were forced to grow up way too early...  I'm thankful for the bond I formed with my sister that allowed us to break away from a very unhealthy family system.

Special:Contributions/205.167.120.201|205.167.120.201]] (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I sent the paper.... but on this "unattached" thing, I don't really understand.Do you mean the mothers weren't capable of caring for the children? Jean Mercer (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Vicissitudes

 * Dear Jean, Thank you for sending your article; I wanted to read it before answering your questions (above).  I found it a clarifying orientation on developments in attachment theory, and this will be of help in reading the Handbook.
 * However, some things still weren't entirely clear. Concerning Tenet #5--isn't this a rejection of evolution?
 * Evolution as a continuum builds new forms on old foundations, so understanding the old foundations helps understand the new. Humans are still vertebrate tetrapods with a brain stem, cerebellum and midbrain. The roots of our social behavior are found in mammals and primates.


 * Working on a paper, I spent two years reading on the transition between apes and humans (2005-7). A human baby is born with 1/3 of the brain they will have as an adult--with all of the neurons but only a primitive, elemental wiring.  In the first year the infant brain doubles in size--a time of very rapid growth--as if they grow another brain!  It's a time of building neurological connections and establishing the foundations of programs for life, and their brain continues to grow and reorganize. That would suggest the infant's first year begins in an elemental physical and preverbal state, and is less a time of cognition. (That compares with a chimp baby whose brain doubles in volume in 4-5 years).  So I wondered--what specialty do most researchers of attachment theory start in? Are they psychologists?


 * Ethology is a very different approach than psychology. It's zoology with a focus on animal behavior, "typically interested in a behavioral process rather than a particular animal group and often stud[ies] one type of behavior in a number of unrelated animal [species]" (from the WP article)--that is, its focus is comparative work.  It has a strong relation to "neuroanatomy, ecology and evolution".
 * Bowlby wrote as if his readers had a foundation in ethology--which they usually don't. David Bell, in Chapters 3 and 4 of Dynamics of Connection (2010) provides a good outline/primer of what behavioral systems needed to develop--with a starting point in reptiles--to end in human attachment.  How can human social behavior be fully understood independent of our physiology? Margaret9mary (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be so late responding here-- I do want to point out that Bowlby dropped his ethological view fairly soon. Like other people associated with the Tavistock Clinic and with the Independent Group, he was far more concerned with human psychology than with the admirable but not necessarily relevant insights of ethologists. You'll find that the outstanding attachment researchers like Ainsworth, Sroufe, Everett Waters, Bretherton, Rutter have been either psychologists or psychiatrists. Jean Mercer (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured article review for Attachment theory
I have nominated Attachment theory for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beland (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of New Jersey Association for Infant Mental Health


The article New Jersey Association for Infant Mental Health has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No sources provided. Seems to lack notability."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BriefEdits (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)