[Frans Plooij (951119.1600)]
I would like to react to the following remark made by Bill Leach in the
discussion about reorganisation:
maybe we can here first hand some genuine reorganization
type research results from two people that are interested in serious
research (Frans Plooij & Hedwig Van De Rijt-Plooij).
Bill Powers (1973, p. 180) defined reorganisation as a change in the
properties or even the number of components. Let's limit the discussion to
the number of components for the sake of simplicity. Our research concerns
human infant development. In the first year of life the volume of the infant
brain more or less doubles. So we may safely assume that many components are
added and a lot of reorganisation takes place. The way we searched for these
reorganisations was based on the notion that the organism is out of balance,
or disorganised, when reorganisation takes place. This is mentioned many
times in the literature. It was such that we found the ten regression
periods in the first 20 months of life (sensorimotor period). At quite
specific ages (if not born too early or too late) babies appear to be
irritable, cry more, eat less, sleep less well, etc. (Van de Rijt-Plooij &
Plooij, 1992, 1993: Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, and
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, respectively). Taking this as
the starting point, the next question is: "If this is a sign of
reorganisation taking place, are any components added to the brain?" Luckily
there is quite some literature that confirms this. A nice review is
presented by Fischer and Rose (1994; in Dawson, G. & Fischer, K.W. (Eds.),
Human behavior and the developing brain, New York, The Guilford Press). Six
of the ten periods found by us go together with sudden changes of the brain
such as changes in ERP, EEC, protein metabolism, and simple head
circumference. The latter is direct evidence for components being added. The
head circumference does not increase gradually but in leaps: the leaps occur
just before or simultaneously with the beginning of the regression periods
we found. Since such research on human infants is very difficult to do, I am
quite optimistic that one will find evidence for more periods now that we
know where to look. The regression periods we found serve as "lighthouses"
for neuroscientists.
We hypothesize that with each sudden addition of brain components the next,
new type of perception emerges such that at the end of the sensorimotor
period the ten orders of perception and control are in place. This
hypothesis is based on the observations that clusters of new concrete skill
are observed shortly after the onset of regression periods. Such new skills
are the outcome of a new type of perception coming into action, forcing the
organism to reorganise the already extisting hierarchy. This is in line with
the enormous individual differences that are found in developmental
psychology in the age at which a new skill is first observed: what actual
skills a baby develops after having gotten a new type of perception at its
disposal depends on the circumstances and these vary enormously. In our
research we try to 'catch the reorganising system in the act', as Bill
Powers (1973, p. 202) quoted John Platt, by observing individual babies from
two months before the onset of a regression period to two months thereafter
and see what new skills they master and how.
Another line of our research is stress. Some of the intrinsic quantities
that are changed when reorganisation takes place may have to do with stress.
In developmental psychobiology new, nonintrusive ways of measuring stress
have been developed over the last two decades, such as measuring cortisol in
saliva. We are planning to collect saliva samples frequently before, during
and after babies go through a regression period. One would expect a peak
surrounding the onset of a regression period.
This lengthy exposé is only meant to illustrate that it is very much
possible to study the questions concerning reorganisation in a solid,
scientific way.
Yes I agree that there may be only a few people studying reorganisation from
the perspective of PCT. There are two solutions to this:
1. Luckily there is quite some research done already that is useful to
answer questions concerning reorganisation but which was never used as such
because the researches did not use the PCT perspective. So we should search
and reinterpret the existing literature. Then we will find that there are
many more people who have said and published things that are relevant.
2. We should make sure that there are going to be more people studying
reorganisation.
This is what my wife Hetty and I have done to some extent. We started the
Intercultural Baby Project, where researchers in various countries and from
various disciplines take our original findings on regression periods and try
to replicate them in another country and culture. So far Sweden, Spain and
New Zealand are involved.
My question here and now is: Would those of you who are or want to be in the
business of studying babies and who are interested in joining the
INTERCULTURAL BABY PROJECT contact me?
Then they will receive further information on the project.
This is quite a lengthy story for someone who just joined the net, but then
I was asked to react. I'll promise to be shorter next time.
Frans X. Plooij
Dept. of Developmental and Experimental Clinical Psychology,
University of Groningen,
Grote Kruisstraat 2/1,
9712 TS Groningen,
THE NETHERLANDS.
Email: fxplooij@euronet.nl
FAX: +31 20 496 4197