A Look at Dynamic Systems Development

I've recently encountered an interesting account of development called 'Dynamic Systems Theory'. I found it reading Linda Smith and Esther Thelen's 2003 publication of 'Development as a dynamic system' 1 Its a very fascinating explanation at the age-old developmental question (no pun intended), how does something as incredible and complex as the human mind emerge from what seems to be a helpless, unformed infant? To put in another way, what allows something as intricate as the human psyche emerge from something as ostensibly rudimentary as the mind of an infant.

Its really a harder question to answer than one might assume. I myself have taken this fundamental phenomenon for granted in my observation of development. I have understood development to be a process where biologically predetermined capacities, such as capacities for language, for speaking, etc., emerge in a sequential fashion according during our lifespan. This perspective makes sense, it accounts for the emergence of incredibly complex traits as well as answers the question as to why so many universal human qualities exist; because they are genetically endowed upon our species. I have almost taken this account without question, but he problem with this perspective is that is undermines, and entirely removes the influence of experience; it categorizes development as an unstoppable force not to be altered or halted for any reason, in this case, experience. It may seem obvious that humans do not exist in a small bubble, that is human have experiences, but it is a relatively unheard-of proposal to say that specific experiences actually change our development. In fact, much of developmental psychology and medicine insists that our development is entirely maturation, with our biologically determined bodies moving in an interactive environment.

This is the subject of this paper, and of much of the debate in developmental psychology: What part of our developmental is due to biological maturation, aka the emergence of predisposed dispositions, and what part of our development should be attributed to the influence of experience; the take on the classic nature versus nurture debate. Although much of our development seems uniform across individuals, there is a large amount between humans that seems to vary. For instance, levels of nourishment seem to make a difference, varying socioeconomic statuses seem to make a difference in cognitive capabilities, and so on. The authors of this article propose that the developmental similarities across individuals globally, although robust, seems to be more complicated and less determined when one gets down to the intricacies of human qualities. For this reason, Smith and Thelen propose that development is characterized best as a complex system, composed of many subsystems, embedded within, and interacting with a dynamic environment. Their answer to the nature nurture question is that although phylogenic, biological constraints seem to guide development, they do not exist as predetermined structures simply emerging as one ages; instead many complex systems within the human interact with one another, as well as with the environment, in sometimes predictable and unpredictable ways to produce emergent capacities. In this way, Thelen and Smith hope to account for the perceived similarities within the human race, as well as its seemingly obvious variation.

Let me explain that the issue is not simply a nurture versus nature argument, and that my ability to properly describe it is insufficient. I have not spent enough time with this literature to really understand the intricacies of the debate. But perhaps with my explanation of this theory, and future explanations of opposing and facilitating theories, a better explanation will emerge. I am still on my way to understanding the big question driving developmental theory. I will again emphasize that my understanding in this area is limited, but I will do my best to present in a comprehensible fashion. Anyway, back to dynamic systems theory.

The theory that Thelan and Smith present is known as dynamic systems theory. As before mentioned, the dynamic systems that they are referring to are found in the body in the form of self-organizing skills and capacities, being dynamic in that they are ever-changing and always exposed to a changing environment. I will explain the implications of the view of development by explaining the two major tenets of their theory: first that developmental processes are not causally set in stone, the concept of Multicausality, and second that the many systems that we are composed of exist in varying speeds, a concept they call Nested Timescales. After explaining these core concepts of the theory a better picture of dynamic systems will emerge.

The first concept of Multicausality deals with the multiple ways in which organisms create coherent behavior and novelty. As the name implies, the idea of multicausality is the idea that many coherent structures that we perceive in humans (e.g. language use) do not emerge from a single causal system. The tenet proposes that these structure can emerge in a multitude of ways. This is stated because dynamic systems theory views organisms as being comprised of a multitude of different parts and systems constantly rearranging themselves into coherent, and most of the time incoherent, manners. Development then can be classified as a process that constantly producing behaviors and processes that will vary in the level stability, making some last longer and remain more constant than others, the stable formations, and some emergent qualities shorter, the less stable. This is how they account for the emergence of all different behaviors and qualities found in development. This explanation is in contrast to the explanation the development consists of predetermined biological structures emerging as one matures in a predictable linear fashion. Smith and Thelan's theory gives a much less deterministic account of development than the traditional maturational viewpoint, emphasizing the non-linear nature of development. I find this view fascinating and holding much truth, that we exist as a collaborations of numerous complex systems, but the question of how humans end up being so similar is still looming. The next tenet of the theory attempts to answer this question more fully.

The second tenet of dynamic systems theory is that behavioral change occurs over different timescales nested within each other. I've been throwing around the jargon 'nested timescales' for a little bit now and would like to apologize for its ambiguity–I will explain what I mean by in this context right now. Developmental systems (speaking of jargon) refer to any process or classification of development. For instance, a system could be learning development, it could be motorical development, it could be neural. All of these systems are comprised of subsystems and function is accordance and interaction to all other systems as well. The terminology of nested timescales alludes to the fact that many of these system vary in their times of action, for instance, neural action can take milliseconds, whereas other systems of development, such as learning, take years. The core message is that these systems do not function separately, but instead interact with one another, 'nesting' into all other timescales. It is lengthy, but Smith and Thelan in an eloquent fashion, beautifully depict this fundamental concept:

Traditionally, psychologists have considered action, learning, development

and evolution as distinct processes. But for the organism (and its

descendants), time is unified and coherent, as are the collaborating elements

of the system. Every neural event is the initial condition for the next

slice of time. Every cell division sets the stage for the next. The coherence

of time and levels of the complex system mean that the dynamics of one

time-scale (e.g. neural activity) must be continuous with and nested within the

dynamics of all other time-scales (e.g. growth, learning and development).

Thus, in the study of development, we must be concerned with how

different timescales interact. (344)

All processes, from the most minute cellular process, to the most complex behavioral patterns and rules are all interconnected and influenced by one another. All processes depend on the infinite multitude of other processes that also exist in the larger system. The interaction between dynamic systems is actually specified by the author as a process categorized by circular causality. The microscopic properties of an organism set the stage for that organism's behavior and macroscopic interactions, they provide the necessary backdrop for an organism to exist in an environment. On the flip side, the macroscopic behavioral interactions that the organism is having, according to the authors, also has an influence–they set the conditions for the functioning microscopic processes. In this way all processes are the product of behaviors effecting biological development and biological development effect behavioral. An example of this interaction could be in the emotional response that we so often go through. To pull apart the experience, you are having millisecond biological responses in the form of chemical adjustments and muscular variations during the response, as well as the feeling of the 'actual' emotion you are feeling. These two interacting domains allow the organism to constantly 'reorganize' its behavioral systems. make sense? cool right?

At first this may seem obvious: of course all processes in the body interact with one another during development, after all, they do literally all exist in a singular entity. But at the same time, to make the connection between the smallest of infinite biological processes and the most complex psychological is, to me, mind boggling. It seems to crystallize the notion that development is indeed infinitely complex.

In their article the next step that they take is to examine the classic developmental task, 'A not B', and see if the results seem to correlate with their proposed dynamic systems approach. To quickly sum and not bore you with great detail and care that they take in their assessment, I will report the important findings. To review, the 'A not B' task involves showing the baby a toy. The toy is then put underneath one of two boxes, A or B. The experimenter puts the toy repeatedly under box A and then has the baby repeatedly locate the toy under box A. The critical trial of the procedure involves the experimenter placing the toy underneath box B, then asking the infant to locate the toy. Well, it ends up that there are certain times when the baby will choose the first box, and certain times when the baby will choose the second box, the box where the toy is now hidden.

What the researchers emphasize in their unique take on this classic test is the multitude of ways in which performance can be facilitated. The experimenters use a mechanism that lets them assess the neural activity of the baby as well as cameras that detect the eye movement of the baby, to combine with data on the actual choice that the infant makes. The results that they found were presented in a manner that allowed them to compare the neural flux's relation to the choices that the infants' made. They found this to be a valuable comparison because it would allow them to have a converging set of data that suggests how the baby is attending to the task at hand (fyi infant attention is a huge topic in this lab and in the field of development psychology that I will be discussing at length in the future). Having multiple methods of assessing infant attention provided researchers with a better ability to try and pick apart what the infant was actually thinking during the choosing process, a difficult question to answer, but a crucial one in understanding the differences in performance for failing infants and successful infants in the 'A not B' examination.

What the researchers found was that there were a multitude of factors that influenced the performance of the baby, not the just its conditioned response to the A box. Behavioralism, the psychology of the 20th century, predicted that the only changing variable during the experiment was the the level of conditioning that the baby encountered. The researcher accounted for this variable by recording the number of initial 'hides' under box A before the critical phase moving the toy under box B. The number of times the box was initially hidden under A did end up making a significant difference, but surprisingly so did many other factors. They found that changing the delay between hiding the toy under box B and asking the infant to locate it also made a difference. Through measuring the neural activity of the infant they were able to see peaking interest in their attention of Box B (a rough estimate of attention) and found that the infant focused on the box, but only for a short time. They found that there was a duration of time after hiding the toy under box B where if they asked the infant to locate the toy they would do it correctly. They also found that this time period, where the infant would be successful at locating the toy, was influenced by the number of times that the toy had been placed under box A. The strength of the cue towards box B rapidly diminished as the number of times the boy had been placed under box A increased, but, their always remained a period where the infant could understand that the toy was under B. They also found that success at the task was also influenced by the attention-grabbing properties of the of the boxes and the hiding event, as well as the posture/physical condition of the infant (the importance of this physical adjustment is a focus of the lab that I'm working in and I will discuss it later). These taken together make the explanation that the only occurring process is one of conditioning seem too simple.

Finding these multiple causes for success at the 'A not B' experiment supports the author's hypothesis that all developmental processes are complicated involved a wide range of systems. Observing the many factors that seem to be at work suggests the complexity of any tasks that we do, a main point that the authors of this article are trying to make. They wanted to expose the concept that tasks are not singular developments, but are the emerging product of many interacting systems. Thinking of development in this way makes the primary question in the 'A not B' experiment switch from, "what do 10-month olds who are successful at the task know that infants who are unable to successfully complete task do not?" This has been the manner in which the 'A not B' experiment has been approached, but Smith and Thelan want to stress that a more complex approach should be taken.

Smith and Thelan's Dynamic Systems Theory moves the approach not from trying to understand static abilities at any one point in time during development to understanding the multitude of dynamic systems involved in development. Their concept of multicausality changes the notion of knowledge from single emergent quality to a set of contributing dynamic systems varying in their stability throughout development. So, instead of trying to understand when infants gain a knowledge of the a not b task, instead we should be trying to understand the task's multicausal nature. In this way the author's believe that a better picture of what is actually occurring during development will result. The dynamic systems theoretical approach then aims to understand the multitude of processes existing in varying timescales embedded with one dynamic, constantly reorganizing organism.

Looking at this theory has been valuable for me and my conception of development. Although after talking to one of the graduate students in the lab informed me that this particular take on development is not the one with which the lab entirely works under, it is close, and many of the concepts of reorganization and embedded systems development are very important to understand entering the world of infant psychology. This was good to hear, and daunting. The emphasis of the lab I am working in is the interaction of these complex systems with the environment and how specific experiences impact the complex systems in the organism. So, I'm glad I stumbled upon this article, and hope my explanation of it is intelligible. I will elaborate on the specifics of the lab that I am working in in the future, although understanding the 'systems approach' will be important in my further journey into what this lab is actually dealing with. I'm excited.

1. Smith, L.B., Thelen, E. (2003). Development as a dynamic system. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 343-378.

The Summer is Escalating in Proportion!

Today was quite a bit different than yesterday. I didn't have any commitments, of any kind, all day. Interesting. I woke up, ate, and then got to simply read all day. It was excellent.

I spent my day wrestling with an article outlining the general aspects of the 'Dynamic Systems Theory' of Development. After figuring out how the library system works on campus, it having over 25 libraries rivaling in size the library of Congress, I got to finding my article. I found the article while reading over some information on the 'A not B' experiment dealing with object permanence and perseverance error in infants. The study was called 'Development as a Dynamic System' written by Smith and Thelen in 2003, published in the journal 'Trends in Cognitive Sciences'. The article dealt with the following problem of 'A not B'.

Understanding the A not B experiment is important for the research I will be doing, so I will explain it. The A and B are referring to 2 different boxes that you present an infant with. In the experiment the researcher will show the infant a fun toy to play with and place that toy obviously under box A. The researcher will then see where the baby tries to find the toy. For this part the infant will most likely look under box A, the box you showed the toy going under, and successfully locate the toy. The researcher will continue to repeat this process of showing the toy, hiding the toy, and having the infant uncover the toy under box A. Now, the critical part of the experiment comes when the researcher takes the toy and shows the baby that instead of going under box A, the toy is going under box B. The researcher then sees where the baby looks to find the toy. Does it look under box B where the researcher had just placed the toy, or does it look under box A, where the toy has been frequently located.

During this critical phase of the experiment something special occurs. If the infant is 10 months old, it is likely that it will choose box A as the box containing the toy, even though the toy was just shown to them to be located under box B. This error is referred to as 'perseverance error', or the 'A not B error', that is, failing to understand that an object has moved. Interestingly, if the infant is 12 months old, it is likely to look under box B for the toy. For some reason in those two months the infant acquired the ability to understand that the toy had moved from its frequent location under box A to its new location under box B. The question is what caused this change to occur?

There are a few different answers to this question. As these answers are complex and numerous, I will write about them in my next post. As a quick preview, according to the dynamic systems approach to development the change in the infant from being able to succeed in the 'A not B' test involves numerous independent systems continually interacting with one another incessantly creating varyingly stable states. These states are the emergent product of the ever-changing environment in which the infant is interacting with and the changing biological states from which it exists which influence each other in a circular manner. From this process of circular causality the infant develops the ability to succeed in the 'A not B' task. Now I am not even going to pretend to have a comprehensive grasp on this field of study, but I will do my best to further explain this theory and its implications in the next post. NEEDLESS TO SAY, it is fascinating stuff! For right now, let me just say its taking lots of time and energy to figure out.

Now, after deciding that I was too tired and hungry to continue reading in the library, I decided to make my way over to a coffee shop nearby. I go in, order a cup of coffee and some quiche, and go to sit down and read with my newly obtained coffee. After I sit down I notice my research coordinator also drinking some coffee. I step over to say hi and we ended up having an important conversation. She told me that she had been planning on scheduling an extensive meeting with me some time next week to go over my research goals for this summer. She explained to me that students visiting from other universities doing research in the lab generally have funding to do another independent research project accompanying the research assisting they will already be doing. For instance, the other student working in the lab from Stanford is doing a program with which she presents a paper and poster at the end of the summer about the research she is doing. Performing this extra research is what allowed her to receive funding from an outside organization. Apparently there are numerous organizations that will fund undergraduate research work over the summer. Applying and receiving these types of grants are what for the most part fund people's trip out to do research at the university.

This was all new news for me. I had no idea that part of the research experience coming out here involved previously applying for a grant to do another project while I was here. Well, she explained to me that she had been looking into different programs that I could apply for for funding, if it is not too late to do so. These programs would ask me to do a research project individually with professor Campos and write something formal about it (I don't know if they will be asking for publishable work, or just a research report). Professor Campos had this type of project in mind for me to be working on while I was out there, in particular, focusing on the moving wall experiment. What I now had to do was figure out something to do. I have about two weeks before Professor Campos returns to campus, and in this time I need to become extremely well-acquainted with the developmental literature associated with the lab, specifically, on the literature surrounding the moving wall experiment. My research coordinator told me that Dr. Campos would be more than likely more than willing to aid me in such a project, I just had to come up with an idea. She then told me that if I was lucky I may be able to receive some sort of outside funding to complete the project.

This was great news, the possibility of funding, but what was even more exciting was the possibility of doing independent research with someone as established in the field of developmental psychology as Professor Campos. I'm realizing that I may be soon presented with the opportunity to present original research to Dr. Campos regarding his own research and possibly conduct the research with his help. Wow.

So here is the task. I need to figure out everything that one could possibly know (well, maybe not everything, but at least as much as I can at this point in my education) about the moving room experiment and Dr. Campos's lab. Then, I need to find something that bugs me, a question that needs answering, and is worth spending the time to answer. Then, I need to design an experiment which could be feasibly conducted over the course of this summer in which I attempt to answer, or at least partially answer, the question that I have uncovered. Seems simple enough. In the words of Sarumon, "We have work to do." Although I'm scared of what I am going to have to accomplish in the next few days, I am incredibly excited for the potential that this summer could have. In a few weeks I could be presenting original research to Dr. Joseph Campos at Berkeley University to be conducting with him on a one-on-one level. Boom!

So, here goes nothing. Time to figure out this whole 'development' thing. I will keep you posted.

On a separate note, I went to my first farmer's market today! With this, it also means that I cooked my own real food today! Here are a few pictures of what the market was like:

I now have real food and can cook a real meal. Perfect for studying.

My First Taste of the Lab

Today I finally got to see the lab in which I will be working this summer, the same lab that I have been looking forward to seeing for many months. I've been watching youtube videos (here is a good one if you are interested http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyxMq11xWzM&feature=related ) , looking at pictures, and reading about it anxiously awaiting my arrival. Well, needless to say, it did not disappoint. After taking a beautiful 15 minute walk down my street I made it to Tolman Hall. Tolman Hall is quite the place housing both the education and psychology departments, as well as the education-psychology library. Here are a few pictures of the building:

The education department is on the left and the psychology department is on the right. Underneath is a little breezeway. Here is a better look at the part of the building I will be working in.

The area that I will be working on is actually called The Institute for Human Development. It is here that Professor Campos runs his lab. Walking into the building it seemed pretty normal. The building itself seemed to have been built in the 70's with a very cubical design, so, walking in it did not seem initially intimidating. With only a small sign telling me that I had entered the portion of the building designated for the institute, it seemed I was almost entering an office building, not the formidable lab which I knew I was entering. Then I saw the directory and immediately realized where I stumbled into. Looking at the names of the professors and the high-powered labs that they were running in this ostensibly docile wing made me feel butterflies in my stomach. I was standing on hallowed ground. After deciding to walk away from the impressive directory and towards the room I had a meeting in, I noticed as I was about to get the room I needed to be in that I saw the name of a familiar scholar on the door. I looked at the name tag on the door and saw that I was standing in front of Dr. Allison Gopnik's office! Dr. Gopnik is the author of my most recently purchased book 'The Scientist in the Crib', as well as another book I have looked at 'The Philosophical Baby'. She is also the former President of the Psychology and Philosophy Society. Most excellent. I made a pact with myself that I would, before the end of the summer, get the nerves to knock on her door, introduce myself, and then ask an outstanding question. I moved on and found Dr. Campos's Office right next door.

Although Dr. Campos's door was locked, the room next door had a graduate student who looked like he knew what he was doing. I introduced myself and he informed me that he was one of Dr. Campos's graduate students working on a study dealing with an infant's ability to recognize genuine emotions. Neato. I joined him sitting in another chair in the computer room we were meeting. I looked at the desk and saw a picture of a squirrel. 'That's strange,' I thought, 'I really only know one person who's really into squirrels, enough so to put a picture of one on their desk.' Then it occurred to me that perhaps I was sitting at the desk of Luther graduate Brian Meyer. No way! I leaned back and took a breathe of anticipation realizing where I had actually ended up spending my summer.

A few more students looking to be of my age seeped into the room for our 12:00 meeting. There were seven of us total working in the lab over the summer: five of whom were Berkeley students, one of whom was a student from Stanford, and a one more, well, myself. Eventually, at about 12:15, Dr. Campos's research coordinator came in to give a tour of the facilities. We walked around the floor into various rooms housing the apparatus for the experiments that the lab was currently working on. The picture that I saw of the lab online were coming to life finally seeing the equipment for all the experiments I had been reading about. I saw the moving room box, a running platform, and the famous visual cliff apparatus. It was all cooler than the pictures could possibly make them.

After wandering around the floor for a bit, we all met in a little room full of toys and miniature tables and chairs. We sat down and our research coordinator Paula began explaining to us what it would mean to work in the lab. For the next three weeks we would be reading article published by the lab as well as relevant ones from other universities, we would be learning the in's and out's of research such as coding, collecting participants, etc., as well as training in how to actually use the apparatus for the experiments we would be working on. It sounded like an exciting couple of weeks ahead. After this brief meeting we had some down time before another graduate student from UC San Francisco would be coming in to explain the specific project that we would be working on. I then suggested that we go find a 'tasty eatery' from which to retrieve some food. Testing the waters and seeing confusion, I clarified, a 'food receptacle'. After once again receiving confused looks, and the feeling that I may be overusing the fact that I was a foreigner a little too much too soon, I suggested that we all get something to eat. This notion received much more positive reviews than my previous suggestions. The Berkeley students took the group down to the famous 'Asian Ghetto' a little alleyway filled with generally asian food. Most importantly, it was filled with very cheap generally asian food.

After collectively returning five minutes late to our 1:30 appointment we again all waited inside a cramped little room. We then were informed by Paula of 'Berkeley Time'. Professor generally arrive around 10-15 minutes late to their classes to compensate for the time it takes their students to arrive. This apparently was an accepted practice at the campus with time slots for classes accommodating for this additional time. Soon later, as expected, our graduate student came. She then began to explain to us the project that we would be soon working on.

We found out that we were going to be working with infants who had the genetic disorder Spina bifida, and examining their development of self-propelled locomotion. Spina bifida is a genetic disorder in which some of vertebrae do not develop leaving the spinal chord exposed and unfused. Because of this, fluid from the spine gathers in the head of the infant resulting in what is referred to as Hydrocephalus, or, 'water in brain'. In a very horrifying way, before the disease was understood the suffering infant's head simply expanded with this spinal fluid to a gigantic size and the infant was allowed to expire. Fortunately in the 80's it was discovered that this problem could be fixed with the insertion of a draining tube in the brain to release the unnecessary spinal fluid buildup in the brain preventing the hydrocephalus. Another problem that infants with Spina bifida have is the inability to control their lower extremities. This came at no surprise considering that they are missing part of their spinal chord. This meant that the children had no control over their bladder movements or legs. This posed a huge problem, but with the invention of catheters, doctors gave these individuals a way for their bodies to dispose of waste in a way that kidneys would. Now having solved the two largest medical needs of the disease, hydrocephalus and absent kidney function, the question of psychological ramifications was considered.

The interest of the laboratory is to see what the effects of not having control of lower extremities are on the development of infants. For our visiting graduate students, the practical concern was determining if it was better to wait for infants to develop the ability to move on their own, or if it was better to wait. That is, when babies are learning to move, should people attempt to propel their development, or, should they wait. It was this focus of her study that lead her to Joe Campos's lab. The lab we were working in has done extensive work on the effects of self-propelled locomotion of the psychological development of infants. Now, the reason that infants with Spina bifida were included in her study was because of their incapability to develop self-propelled locomotion. This allowed researchers to ask the question of whether or not the delay of other psychological features, such as object permanence and social referencing, occur because of an infants environmental stimulation, or because of actual self-propelled locomotion. Let me say, this is what I think the study consists of so far. I would not be surprised if my conception of the research drastically changes after spending three weeks nose deep in the literature.

The work that I will be doing will involve examining the typical development of self-propelled locomotion longitudinally. Essentially, I will be asking the question, when I become self mobile, what is actually happening. What are the new things that a baby needs to learn and understand in order for this to happen. This is in contrast to a baby simply being pushed in a stroller, in which case they are obviously mobile, but in a different way. In what way, I do not know, but the answer is very important. For instance, this lab has done an experiment known as the 'Moving Room' experiment. In this study a baby was placed in a box in which all of the walls were covered with dots. Using the dots, the baby was able to perceived the movement of a wall in front of them controlled by an experimenter. This movement gave the appearance that the baby was actually moving forward and backward while sitting in the chair. The measured variable in the experiment was the movement by the baby while this was happening. The baby was sitting in a motion sensitive chair in which their movement could be measured. This movement, referred to as postural compensation, was seen as babies sat in this box. The question the researchers asked was why this movement was occurring. This was not the first time that infant had experienced motion, it probably came to the lab walked in a stroller in which it was able to perceive motion and mobility. Yet, while the baby was strolled to the lab, it did not move forward to compensate for the movement. Why is this? What is different about the experience that the baby is having in the moving box compared to the experience that it is having in its stroller? This, my friends, is part of the question.

Something extraordinary is happening when these infants are sitting inside of the moving wall apparatus, something that also seems to effect their psychological development. When I am referring to other psychological development I am referring to such phenomena as 'object permanence', 'social referencing', and others. For this study, changes in an infants ability to understand the permanence of objects in their environment (ipso facto object permanence) are of particular relevance. It's the classic baby experiment: you cover your face with your hands, wait a moment, and then uncover your face and surprise your child with the sounds of roaring laughter. At a young age it is likely that the infant will not understand that the face behind the hands is indeed still present even though it is only being covered by your hands. The same could be said about a toy being present with the baby and then covered up. At this same age the baby would presume that object to no longer exist because it is out of its visual perception. Another great example of object permanence in infants is with the timeless 'A not B' study. Well, for some reason infants move beyond this developmental barrier and acquire the ability to understand that objects do in fact exist continually, both when visually present and when visually hidden. The interesting part about the development of this psychological trait is that with the onset of self-propelled locomotion comes also an increased ability for the infant to understand the permanence of objects.

Something about moving themselves causes a baby to also understand the problem of object permanence. An important part about development in the minds of this lab is the concept of facility and dynamic systems development. That is, development is not linear, but comprised of many intricately woven psychological developments interacting with ever-changing environmental constraints and opportunities for learning. The point being, the relationship between an infant's understanding of object permanence and it's ability to move itself seems to suggest that these two capacities are related in some manner in an infant's development. The manner in which these capacities are related may be understood, but I do not understand yet (if I'm lucky, no one does, I just haven't gotten through the literature yet). All in all, Dr. Joseph Campos is convinced that something crucial is happening when babies begin to move, so, I need to start asking questions that can help answer what exactly these things are. I've got time to think about it fortunately, Dr. Campos will not be returning to the lab until around June 23rd from his vacation. I'm looking forward to learning about these questions in the next few weeks in preparation for talking with the big man himself.

On a final entireley unrelated note, as I was walking to the library to look up an article I needed to read I encountered a very strange sight. As I was walking to the library I noticed a huge crowd gathered outside of this huge building. Observe the following:

For some reason a large crowd had gathered outside of this building (on the right) blasting loud music and playing games. I was confused. As I approached I looked over at the building and it was the library that I was looking for, since I was new to campus I didn't know what the library looked like. Presuming that crowds don't just gather around big buildings to party for no reason, even though I was in Berkeley and who knows, I asked around and found out that I had stumbled into the celebration for the 09-10' staff appreciation festival.

So, what I had assumed would be a simple library visit ended up being a trip through a relatively big 'little' festival. In the process I found out not only that the University has receptacle located throughout campus for the free taking of used, but in still good condition, school supplies (which I was about ready to go out an purchase, score!), and that eating FREE California apricots taste the best.

I'm hoping that run-ins with festivals like this one can become more of a daily occurrence in the future.

So, a big day at the lab, lots to think about. Good start though, I'm excited to be encountering such gripping epistemological questions. I'll sleep on it. Night.

The Room

Devotees will remember that I had mentioned that I acquired a pretty awesome place to live. Well, here are some pictures of this house in Berkeley that I wasreferring to.

Now if you will look to your left you will see a picture of the outside of the house in which I live. It's on Euclid avenue near the corner of Cedar. The area that I am living is in on the first floor (note the awesome window).

On your right you will see the street on which I live. It's Euclid Avenue. Four blocks down and two blocks right is Tolman Hall, where I will be working. This house is far closer to this building than any of the other places i was looking to stay.

Also, this street has many different unique venders. As I was walking to campus this morning I went by a Tibetan Restaurant, multiple Indian restaurants, many coffee shops, a Brazilian coffee hut, and more.

Above is a picture of my door, and to your left is the view looking out onto the street from inside.

It just seems so pleasant and, what's the word?, ah yes, California.

Also of note, the person who used to live in my room kept a miniature herb and flower garden on the porch.

Walking inside the house you first hit the living room, beyond this is the 'dining'/doing homework in room and the bedrooms.

A little taste of home.

So there you have it, a detailed look at where I ended up living this summer. I hope you enjoyed the tour, there is 100% Ruby Red Grapefruit in the refrigerator for you on your way out.

Thanks for stopping by!

I Made It!

So here's what happened:

1. I needed to find an apartment.

2. I Looked on Craig's List for apartments.

3. I Found an Apartment.

4. I Signed a Sublet Agreement for a room in HOUSE.

5. I Stayed up late packing for trip night before I left

6. I Left Dubuque for California!

7. Are now in the house, have the room set up, and are going to bed.

That was easy.

Here's how I did on the whole 'finding a place to live' thing (I kept my own stats as I went)

I contacted 17 different possible living arrangements.

7 of these locations responded to my emails.

Of those 7, 4 had extended messaging with pictures and information.

Of those 4, 2 became likely possibilities.

Of those 2, 1 ended up being the one I signed up with (actually one of the first to respond to my messages)

It was interesting trying to find a place to live out here. I spent quite a great deal of time searching through the infinite pages of sfbay craig's list to find places to live. I stumbled across possible living arrangements varying from living in a dorm, to living in a vacant room in a house, to being asked to be a part of a 'house' devoted to sustainable living. The variety of places to live out here was astonishing. I myself got extremely lucky in my search, one of the first living arrangements to contact me back was a subleased room around six blocks from where I would be working. Considering that the average distance from where I would be living to where I would be working was one that made biking or public transportation almost a necessity, to have a place this close looked awesome. Also, once I received pictures of the house, I found out that it was very nice looking containing a living room, dining room, kitchen, and bathroom. Plus I would have a room to myself. Noting that my third choice to a room consisted of living in a used living room, having a room to myself made the offer even sweeter.

Well, needless to say, the nicer a place is, the more customers will be interested in it. This became frightening, not knowing whether or not another party had receieved this awesome room. There was a period of three or four days where I just waited for other people to also look at the room before the owners made a decision about who would stay there. About when my hopes for the room were diminished, I got a call telling me that the room was mine. Fortunately no other party purchased it before I could, and like that I had a place to stay.

And wah-lah! I am now living in a place out in California. Easy.

Well, I start tomorrow at noon, and it's getting pretty late.

Goodnight!