Imagine

I have been spending many cold mornings hitting the books these days. I have been studying a lot of the premiere theorists and philosophies of child development specifically pertaining to language development and the acquisition of language from about 25 weeks of gestation through about the age of five. Many of the theorist are the same folks that I studied in my Masters program 7 years ago. But this time around, other questions and thoughts started popping up in my mind. Questions that didn't necessarily pertain to a specific idea, concept, or theory, but more to the concept of learning itself and its broader scope.

Chomsky, Vygotsky, Skinner, and Piaget. These are some of the bigger names that most people would recognize in the realm of child/human/language development. They each come with their perspective of Nature vs. Nurture. Is the process of learning and/or language development due to the way the brain is wired; a cognitive development process, or is it something more environmental, more responsive? From these theories are additional expansions or strings of thought and theories that are built from the original idea. Once you begin to open the box, you find mountains of research that either confirm or reject some of these original ideas, or even come up with new, different ideas. This research is based on years, decades, even centuries of repeated quantitative and qualitative research, measurable facts and data. Studies after studies done to learn and gain knowledge to better understand a basic human function; the ability to acquire and develop speech and language.

I guess one may ask where I am going with all of this. As most things go with me, I am always challenging myself to try and understand the bigger picture. I ask the "why" questions and search to find answers to those questions, although there is never just the one black and white answer to most any question. As they say, there are always two sides to every story, or maybe three, four, hundreds or thousands. Yet, as a human I am always drawn to ask the question knowing that there will be no definable, easy answer. So as I read and study, notice the differences and the similarities in the research and theories, I begin to ask myself, "why is it okay to have a multitude of ideas about this aspect of human life, one which we not only enjoy the continued expanse of knowledge we gain from trial and error, but actually expect it, yet we still seem so stuck in the "one way" view of God." Yep, as I said, I was looking at the bigger picture, and with me that ends up at the meaning behind all things.

How is it that one can ask the questions to the most basic aspects of the human experience (language development), study it in depth, analyze, adjust, analyze again, come up with new knowledge, reconfirm old, and still have no true, one and only "fits all," answer for every person. Yet we must have a one idea, one philosophy, one concept of God? Something so complex, so intangible, but yet we fight over it because "we have it right and everyone else has it wrong." This I find incredible. We aren't even 100% sure why an infant at 4 days old begins to prefer his mother's voice over other voices, but we know what God's motivations were/are? We know this one view is more exact than all the others that came before it, or after it? How and why? Maybe to some this may seem trite and simplified, and maybe it is, but then doesn't that make these questions more intriguing? If it is more complex, then why shouldn't we treat as such rather than a cookie cutter answer for everyone?

Maybe someone reading this might think I am speaking from an Atheistic perspective, but I am not. I have beliefs of my own and find myself constantly asking questions and craving to learn more, but I find myself bumping into folks that don't understand why I would ask questions, to be uncertain, to explore, to keep myself open to new (and old) ideas and knowledge. How is it acceptable to continue to question our humanity and the human condition in every way except the soul and the meaning behind our lives?

To end this brain picking session, as of 2004, most researchers have reached a consensus that language development is 50% Nature 50% Nurture. Not a huge shock if even a bit rational, but research continues on in the attempt to learn more. Now if only religion could come to a similar agreement. Imagine what a peaceful world that would be.