Evidence from Child Development

This article is under construction, and will be completed at a later date. In the meantime see the reliable textbook The Developing Person, Berger (2003)

This is one of the more difficult sections to write, because there are so many subtle and small bits of evidence I picked up in my Child Development course that each seemed to slightly contradicted  primal theory.  To try to communicate all those bits of evidence is to risk someone saying “well that doesn’t disprove primal” or “why is that relevant?” to each part of the puzzle I present.  As a whole though, I got the impression that primal theory may be seriously wrong. 

According to primal theory you would predict that the kids that are given the most freedom of expression and movement will be the most psychologically healthy in adulthood. I still hold on to the idea that may be true to a degree, but the evidence from parenting styles apparently point to an authoritative style (teaching and guiding style) as being best, authoritarian (strict, inflexible) as being not good, and permissive as being the worse.  Be aware that these studies exist.  According to primal theory, wouldn’t permissive parenting be the best?  Why does it not turn out to be that way.  What is primal theory neglecting, and where may it be just flatly wrong?

theory of mind experiments

SES/all you need is love

imprinting experimental evidence

bonding/attachment evidence