Bare fingers,but no obvious influence of “prickly” Velcro! In the absence of parents’ encouragement,it is not clear that “sticky mittens” provide an advantage to the process of learning to reach

In their critique of our mittens study, Needham et al. (2015. Infant Behavior and Development) describe our findings as “surprising.” Further; they suggest that babies in our “sticky mittens” condition may have been discouraged from reaching because, in our study, infants may have touched “prickly” Velcro with their bare fingers. In this response, we present data analyses that do not support the interpretation that finger contact with our Velcroed toy surfaces was associated with poor reaching performance in our “sticky” mittens group. We also clarify that our toys were mainly covered with “non-prickly” Velcro. To explain discrepancies between studies, we restate the original intent of our study and reasons for our methodological modifications. We point to confounds and lack of critical control conditions in the Needham et al. studies, which prevent the making of firm inferences about the effectiveness of the “sticky mittens experience” on the learning to reach process. We also present additional analyses on our “sticky” mittens group showing that the increasing rate of finger touch on the toy leads to greater reaching performance while the rate of toy sticking to the mittens does not. We discuss the importance of sensory-motor experience on the development of learning to reach in infancy and conclude that our results are not surprising.     

WHAT MAKES A QUANTUM PHYSICS BELIEF BELIEVABLE? MANY-WORLDS AMONG SIX IMPOSSIBLE THINGS BEFORE BREAKFAST

An extraordinary, if circumscribed, positive shift has occurred since the mid-twentieth century in the perceived status of Hugh Everett III's 1956 theory of the universal wave function of quantum mechanics, now widely called the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI). Everett's starkly new interpretation denied the existence of a separate classical realm, contending that the experimental data can be seen as presenting a state vector for the whole universe. Since there is no state vector collapse, reality as a whole is strictly deterministic. Explained jointly by the dynamical variables and the state vector, “this reality is not the reality we customarily think of, but is a reality composed of many worlds,” wrote Everett's colleague Bryce DeWitt. In this essay, I account briefly for the change of status in conventional scientific terms, yet chiefly in extended terms of three sets of ideas that I argue can be understood to affect believability in both scientific and religious contexts, illuminating helpfully the MWI phenomenon, and its engagement with theology: orthodoxy and heresy, language and reference, and faith and agnosticism. One's orientation relative to the variable content of these dynamic, socially oriented categories helps to make belief in ideas as metaphysically challenging as Everettian Quantum Mechanics, or particular ideas about God, either more or less believable. The categories will have the same function in a theology engaging Everett's theory, and in any theology at all written in a society deeply marked by what I further argue is a subtle, powerful, and pervasive mode of quasi-scientific thinking we can call societal constructive agnosticism, of which anyone doing theology today must be aware.     

The experiences of person-centred counsellors working with suicidal clients online through the medium of text

ABSTRACT

In this study, we attempt to provide an understanding of the experiences of four UK-based person-centred counsellors working with suicidal clients online using text-based therapies and the impact of their clients’ suicidal ideation upon their “way of being”. The counsellors were selected purposively; each was working as a person-centred counsellor online, was encountering suicidal ideation in their clients, and was a member of a professional organisation. A narrative approach was taken, using unstructured interviews and a stanza format of representation. We found that participants had developed a way of being online that may be distinct from their in-person practice. Challenges included being more directive, lacking physical presence, lacking confidence in assessing risk and questions about empathic understanding. Working online with risk raises specific challenges for person-centred practitioners in line with what is indicated in the little relevant research currently already available.