Chatting to young Ruben about how the Japanese don't go in for casual social touching, unlike the Italians, but (in my experience of working with them) do tend to come up behind co-workers and give unbidden shoulder and neck massage.
Conversation moved on to how all humans need physical contact, and I remembered various bits of TV I've seen on the importance of touch. The first one I recall was in black and white, so it goes back a way. Over the years I've seen various bits and pieces that I recall confirming this, so I believe as a matter of course that humans (and primates) need physical contact to flourish.
However my recollection of the research is vague to say the least. I have no idea how rigorous it was, where it was carried out, what the specific findings were and what more has happened on it. The only thing I can say is that the research found contact is necessary for neural and social development.
Now, following the thinking of Alan Steven's VAK blog supposing I decided to firm up my knowledge of the subject. Thanks to the Internet I could spend a few hours researching the subject, hoping that relevant research has been done and published and is accessible. To do the job properly I would have to look hard at all the papers and not just the abstract and discussion (tip from the Prof at UCLA). I would have to make up my mind whether they designed and conducted the research properly and whether they reported it accurately. Then I would have to find out if any research has been done that comes up with different results, and duly evaluate that.
I could go on to read more widely on the subject, carefully selecting reputable and reliable sources rather than "write-a-quick-book" repackagers of others' materials.
Having come to some well-founded conclusion about "physical contact is good", I would then need to write it up with key names and findings - otherwise I would be back to my original vague belief in a few months.
I would then be in good shape to have a crack at other beliefs that I have picked up as "scientifically proven" facts along the way, e.g.
- abilities in maths and music are often correlated,
- bullets fired into the air in celebration come back to earth at the same speed they went up
- more people in the world are bilingual than monolingual
- tannin (e.g. tea) prevents the full absorption of fats in the diet
- the brain continues to be "plastic" throughout adulthood
- children grow during their sleep, so plenty of sleep => better growth
- if what we see contradicts what we here, vision wins
And that's just for starters.
I realise that an awful lot of what I think I know is actually vague "bottom line" impressions leading to a conclusion and an opinion on a subject.
Epistemology, anyone?
Conversation moved on to how all humans need physical contact, and I remembered various bits of TV I've seen on the importance of touch. The first one I recall was in black and white, so it goes back a way. Over the years I've seen various bits and pieces that I recall confirming this, so I believe as a matter of course that humans (and primates) need physical contact to flourish.
However my recollection of the research is vague to say the least. I have no idea how rigorous it was, where it was carried out, what the specific findings were and what more has happened on it. The only thing I can say is that the research found contact is necessary for neural and social development.
Now, following the thinking of Alan Steven's VAK blog supposing I decided to firm up my knowledge of the subject. Thanks to the Internet I could spend a few hours researching the subject, hoping that relevant research has been done and published and is accessible. To do the job properly I would have to look hard at all the papers and not just the abstract and discussion (tip from the Prof at UCLA). I would have to make up my mind whether they designed and conducted the research properly and whether they reported it accurately. Then I would have to find out if any research has been done that comes up with different results, and duly evaluate that.
I could go on to read more widely on the subject, carefully selecting reputable and reliable sources rather than "write-a-quick-book" repackagers of others' materials.
Having come to some well-founded conclusion about "physical contact is good", I would then need to write it up with key names and findings - otherwise I would be back to my original vague belief in a few months.
I would then be in good shape to have a crack at other beliefs that I have picked up as "scientifically proven" facts along the way, e.g.
- abilities in maths and music are often correlated,
- bullets fired into the air in celebration come back to earth at the same speed they went up
- more people in the world are bilingual than monolingual
- tannin (e.g. tea) prevents the full absorption of fats in the diet
- the brain continues to be "plastic" throughout adulthood
- children grow during their sleep, so plenty of sleep => better growth
- if what we see contradicts what we here, vision wins
And that's just for starters.
I realise that an awful lot of what I think I know is actually vague "bottom line" impressions leading to a conclusion and an opinion on a subject.
Epistemology, anyone?
