OVERVIEW

Practice Quiz on Infancy coming January 21st

SYLLABUS

This Guide:

Introduces the Symbolic Interaction perspective. Largely associated with Sociology, the SI perspective introduces concepts widely used in Developmental Psychology today, such as "role", "framing" and "the self". We will reference several SI constructs throughout the semester.

Continues a discussion of "nature-nurture" issues, again prevalent throughout Lifespan discussions.

Summarizes some of the physical research on infancy.

Summarizes social and cognitive research on infancy.
 

What's Symbolic Interactionism and why should I know about it for this course?  A very short "crash course" follows.

Symbolic Interactionism originated in social philosophy lectures about a century ago, mostly at the University of Chicago . The early 1900s were heady times for the social and behavioral sciences: Ivan Pavlov and John Watson were creating a new "science" of learning based on stimulus-response-reinforcement connections. Freud was generating propositions about the human psyche, especially among children, that held revolutionary implications for our views about humanity. Darwin's Theory of Evolution suggested that insights into human behavior might be helped by studying vertebrates.

There'll be more on Symbolic Interactionism throughout the semester because its conceptual framework can help us understand stability and change over the lifespan, and the applications of its principles begin early. I hope this introductory "taste" gives you an idea about why this perspective is so important for those who want to understand human development. The concepts of "SI" become important both in terms of language and pre-linguistic stages. Our concept of self is shaped from within (we observe ourselves, see below) and without, through feedback that others give us. Early interaction with caregivers helps create our expectations for interaction with others and how we view ourselves.

Symbolic interactionists believe that it is not just "veridical reality" that counts but how people interpret the meaning of that reality, i.e., constructed reality. Constructed reality is created by interaction among people who trade shared symbols. One of the most important set of shared symbols is spoken and otherwise encoded language. "SI"ers believe that it is language and other abilities to manipulate symbols that make human beings unique.

Virtually everyone in the social and behavioral sciences now endorses language as critical in human development. Not only are we biologically uniquely primed to learn and use language to communicate with others, but we also use the symbols of language to communicate with ourselves. It is symbolic language that allows us to view ourselves and others in a relatively objective manner. It is language that helps us internalize the strictures of society, such as "proper clothing" or a suitable demeanor. We talk to ourselves to decide on courses of action, to debate what is morally right, to observe ourselves and applaud or correct our own behavior. In early childhood, we actually do this aloud in what Lev Vygotsky called "private speech" then later we do so privately in "our own heads." (Vygotsky died in Soviet Russia too young to know about SI but his approach is very consistent with those theories.)

Symbolic interactionists such as Charles Horton Cooley's concept of the "looking glass" self or George Herbert Mead's "social mind" remind us that the self is both an actor (the "I", similar in some respects to a merging of Freud's "id" and "ego") that creates and embarks upon courses of action and an object of our own reflection (the "me" which really has no counterpart in classic psychological personality theory). It is easy to make jokes about your "I" looking at your "me", but anyone who has closely scrutinized themselves in a mirror, accidently overheard someone else doing an amateur "personality analysis" on them, asked their beloved "but WHY do you really love me?" or even moaned the next morning "oh, did I make a fool out of myself last night" or "why did I ever do that?" is well aware that each of us has a "me" that can be examined almost as though it were another person.

Mead was convinced that self perception developed through learning to perceive others. That is, by observing others, the individual gradually becomes aware that they, too, are a separate entity that also can be observed and monitored. This "outside in" approach shares a perspective with the work of Lev Vygotsky, who was independently working in Russia at a slightly later date.

In addition, Mead felt that role playing and role taking increase both our awareness of others, the development of empathy, and our awareness of ourselves. Children's games are a "serious business." SI theorists take the importance of children's games, especially those played in groups and teams with differentiated roles, a step further. By playing different positions in a game (first mother or father, then child, in a game of "house" or different bases in baseball) children learn to not only take on new roles with associated behaviors, but they learn to "take the role of the other," i.e., to put themselves in the shoes of another person, thereby developing what we now call "empathy" with others. Mead believed that from empathy came the development of self-awareness.

One "branch" of symbolic interactionism has been called the "dramaturgical approach", originally developed by the late Erving Goffman. The colorful vocabulary of this approach, with "roles", "scripts" and "backstage regions" provides new dimensions for the study of socialization, learning roles and scripts that guide the routine rounds of everyday life. Role disjunctures can be critical in the development of the self--some are routinized in society (e.g., puberty rites of various kinds) and some, less ideally approved by society (e.g., divorce) provide other rites of passage. Role socialization and anticipation, whether for an occupation, childbirth, or widowhood, occur across the entire lifespan.
 

A FEW MORE CONTROVERSIES ON NATURE-NURTURE AND THE TALE OF "Cc" Something to consider as we contemplate infants And revisiting the controversies.

The phrase "biology is destiny" has been used several ways. One of the most popular among laypersons has been to imply that entities in our genetic makeup determine many personal characteristics, making us "honest," or "self confident" or "shy". The flip side of the "destiny" argument is that "who we are" is almost totally determined by our environments, and, in particular, the various reinforcements in our immediate environment. Research, of course, indicates that the truth is somewhere inbetween, incorporating both.

The parents and other friends and relatives of a new infant delight in pointing out her similarities to other family members. She has Daddy's eyes and Mommy's chin. When he yells, he sounds just like Uncle John. However, most developmentalists do not view biology as "destiny". Rather, biology sets approximate age norms for experiences that are universal for nearly all of us (especially for the very early years), with the important conditioner of biological sex. For example, nearly all of us walk upright and we do so typically by the age of 14 months. We are primed to speak a language. And again, we tend to show phenomenal growth in our language skills starting at about age 10 months. Starting at around age 10 (and in recent years perhaps even younger) young girls begin to assume the shapes and hormones of adult women. Boys begin this physical maturation process of adolescence about two years later. These near-universal experiences (although the exact ages may vary) have relatively little to say about our individual "personalities" or our stratification life destinies. Physical development that is either highly advanced or behind, however, may be a signal to parents, guardians, or medical personnel to check one's physical condition more closely.

What's the role of the environment here? Generally, environment (according to developmental stage theorists) doesn't alter the sequence of stages (nearly all infants crawl before they walk) but can "speed things up" or "slow things down," i.e., alter the time of progression through each stage. For example, societies and subsocieties that enjoy good nutrition or medical care typically have children who mature slightly earlier. High stress levels, and the typically higher cortisol levels that correspond to stress can delay maturation.

Part of what we think of as "personality" is the term that psychologist Jerome Kagan has coined: "temperament." Temperament probably has a biological base. Psychologists have noted for decades that "introversion" or "extroversion" as a general style is probably biologically based. Some folks "run at a higher speed" or are more energetic than others, some are shier than average, some have more musical talent than others. John Watson, a pivotal figure 100 years ago in early behaviorism theory, was wrong when he viewed the infant as a "tabula rosa" or "blank slate" to be written upon through experience and reinforcement schedules: while we can probably make anyone a decent musician with sufficient training and practice, we still don't know how to create a musical genius. Attributes such as excitability thresholds probably are influenced by our genetics. As we learn more and more about genetics and DNA, we know that tendencies toward alcoholism or certain types of mental illness have a biological underpinning.

We're careful, of course, in how to interpret the concept of temperament. Professionals in the field DO NOT mean biology is destiny. Far from it. It is unlikely that your predispositions create a major portion of your life (and some talented musicians become math teachers). However, temperament tends to be stable over time, although it can be altered by social trauma that, for example, raises cortisol levels and other stress hormones, or by pregnancy, or by disease (e.g., thyroid problems). Because you "feel" the same physically over time, temperament lends stability to one's sense of self. We will see a video created by Jerome Kagan very shortly.

Indeed, increasingly, recent neuroscience research on "brain plasticity" indicates that experiences can literally change brain structure and function. Thus, experience can also be "destiny"--and why it is important to do early diagnostics with developmental issues such as autism.

Aspects of temperament begin early in infancy (the "fussy" or placid child); because an infant's temperament influences how caregivers can respond to him or her, it is important from the beginning. 

One's temperament may easily align with or clash with one's environment and the results when temperament clashes with setting may aggrevate strains and the development of identity (see BB, Chapter 6 for further development of this theme). For example, in many societies, including the United States, research indicates that relatively valued behavioral attributes in boys include a moderate level of assertion, relatively high activity levels, prowess in sports and other physical activities, and initiating social or group activities. Relatively valued behavioral characteristics in girls include fine manual dexterity, "warmth" of expression, and physical comfort activities (e.g., a hug). What happens to the girls and boys who don't well fit these social stereotypes?

A lot depends on their immediate environment, how much their parents endorse gender stereotypes, value gender conformity, and how adjustable parents are to their child's behaviors. The active girl, who interrupts conversations, and who is happier climbing on top of the play house than holding a tea party inside of it, will have a relatively miserable childhood if her parents, her playmates, her siblings, or her culture constantly criticize or even punish her for her "failure" to live up to the "feminine ideal." So will the relatively quiet boy who likes to read and is poor at sports if his parents believe he must conform more to the "masculine stereotype." On the other hand, parents who are less concerned about "proper" gender behavior in their offspring are more likely to accept the child's particular interests and activities, regardless of how well or how poorly these conform to societal stereotypes and the child will obviously feel more at ease and more confident. Interestingly, research consistently indicates that we are generally more concerned that boys adhere to masculine stereotypes than we are that girls conform to feminine ones. (Why do you think this occurs?) There are many implications of these differences in sex-stereotypes that can affect children as they grow--and way beyond childhood. For example, we have been quicker to accept women's marketplace achievement than we have enodrsed men's contributions to household labor. As a result, women in marriages and partnerships generally more often feel overloaded and pressed for time with a "dual job" of housework and paid employment than men are--a discrepancy that probably hurts male-female relationships. 

WHO IS "Cc"?

Rainbow, left, nuzzles the ear of her clone "Cc", for "carbon copy", on a table at Texas A&M University. Rainbow the cat is a typical calico with splotches of brown, tan and gold on white. Cc, her clone, has a striped gray coat over white. Rainbow is reserved. Cc is curious and playful. Rainbow is chunky. Cc is sleek...Sure, with enough money or science connections you can clone your favorite cat. But the copy will not necessarily act or even look like the original.

"Cc" is short for "Copy Cat" (or "carbon copy") and, to our knowledge, she is the first cloned cat, "born" by C-section in late 2001. Cc is an exact genetic copy of her mother; her origin was extracted from one of her mother's cells and she was "planted" in a surogate mother's uterus for gestation. But what is interesting under these circumstances is that Cc doesn't look like her mother (except they are both cats)--Cc's fur is a different color from her calico mother, and her fur colors show different patterns. When you see Cc and her genetic mother side by side, they don't even really look strongly related, let alone sharing identical genes. Although you may be interested in cloning your favorite pet at some point, don't expect genetic DNA to be the major determinant of what the clone will look like or act like. Cc and her mother don't even seem to behave the same way.

One important reason Cc is described here is to remind us about the limits of "nature", even when the DNA is identical.

One of the most famous studies and registrars of twins is The University of Minnesota's ongoing   "Minnesota Twins" study, begun in 1983. Researchers continue to follow identical (one blastocyte--split during pregnancy, thus identical basic genetic code) twins and fraternal (two separate blastocytes, separately fertilized eggs) twins over time, and add new twins to its roster. Do measured traits such as "IQ" or the results of personality inventories show the effects of genetic inheritance? Absolutely. How strong are the cross-personal correlations? Very as social and behavior sciences go. BUT, fraternal twins reared in the same household, and, indeed, other siblings ALSO show strong similarities, reminding us that nature is a strong factor that makes us "us" but it is only ONE of the factors that has a strong influence upon us.

NOW, given these asides on issues, let's turn more fully now to physical development in infancy.
 

INFANCY AND PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT: ISSUES IN SOCIALIZATION

During the first two years of life, human beings experience a series of the most rapid physical and mental changes that will occur during a lifetime. Even the growth spurts and changes of adolescence, or pregnancy and childbirth, while discontinuous and important, don't come close. Yes, your infant really can grow an inch in just 24 hours. Many of the growth periods in infancy, and infant development, are literally spurts, rather than gradual linear changes. At the same time, newborn human babies are relatively helpless--at first they can't even lift their heads, let alone feed themselves or sit up. They can cry in a variety of ways in a wail nearly guaranteed to attract adult attention, and they have well developed grasp and sucking reflexes.

Nearly all human newborns (neonates) are under two feet long and weigh less than 10 pounds. In fact, exceptionally heavy babies typically lead physicans to check the mother for gestational diabetes. But even the very largest of babies will seem small to adults. Simultaneously, neonates are both more developed than we traditionally gave them credit for, but also more fragile than we may realize. Mortality rates among infants are higher than they will be again until the newborn baby becomes a teenager, where accidents, homicides and suicides take their toll. Although more male babies are conceived, and more male than female babies are born (about 105 males per 100 females in the USA), infant mortality rates and miscarriages are also more common among males. Much of infant mortality in the United States is attributable to problems existing before birth (e.g., measles infection damage), some is SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), and some is probably due to "complications of poverty."

Due to advances in technology and study methodology, we now know that infants generally hear well, have a relatively well-developed sense of smell, and newborns have much better eyesight than we once thought. Initially their eyesight is geared "toward the edges" of things, so infants are attracted to moving objects and objects with contrasting light and dark colors. During the first three months of my son's life, he gazed far more often at ceiling fans ("tracking") and overhead lights than he did at mom or dad. I will always remember that chill November day in the car--I was in the back seat next to the car seat while my husband bought gas. My son looked at me and I could tell by the alert expression in his eyes and on his face that he really saw me and his entire face crinkled in an enormous grin, also known as "the social smile." Of course I grinned back and for about three minutes, we just grinned back and forth at each other. For the next month, he grinned at everyone and everything that crossed his path, including dogs and the TV. That same month, I discussed this grin with a colleague in child development who told me that infants aren't really "geared physically" for social interaction until 3-4 months or so. And bonding as John Bowlby defined it probably doesn't develop until after age 3 months.

I find the implications of this one to be sobering. In recent years, many physicians and psychologists urge parents, especially mothers, to immediately "bond" with their newborns. For example, here's one site among the many that extoll the glory of immediate bonding. Two pediatricians in the 1970s, Klaus and Kennell, apparently started this as a conjecture. But what if, physically, infants don't quite yet differentiate between others (food, warmth, secure holding) and the self as separate entities? That infants "know their mothers' smell" or voice (as apparently they do) or can fixate on their mothers' face does NOT mean infants see their mothers (or parents) as separate social entities to interact with or "love". Faced with the infant who seems to prefer ceiling fans to mommy, anxious (especially first time) parents may decide either there's something wrong with their child or something wrong with them--otherwise wouldn't the child be "bonding"?

Coordination and muscular development appear to develop from "the neck down". Somewhere around six months, you may be surprised to discover that your infant is as likely to suck her toe (or even stick his entire foot in his mouth) as her thumb. By 13-14 months, most infants are at least taking tentative steps, their sleeping time is down from "most of the time" to under half the time, and life as the parents once knew it is irrevokably changed! Once awakened, the infant is almost staggeringly energetic, exploring everywhere, sticking everything in her mouth, and approximately at the same time, developing language skills.

Human being are physically "primed" to speak a language, virtually any language. After the first few months, infants add a variety of sounds to "the wail"--cooing, babbled syllables, vocal clicks that don't have a counterpart in English but do in other languages (e.g., Amharic in Ethiopia). What's fascinating when you listen to infant vocalizations is that it does sound like you are hearing sentences; the inflections are there, the vocal stops and pauses are there. As the vocal cords, mouth, and other tissues and muscles develop, the infant is more able to mimic and match the speech he hears in his environment; the sounds that are not part of her native tongue disappear from her repertoire. (And by the way, the initial "m" sound as in "mama" is more difficult for infants than "dada" so don't be surprised if "dada" is spoken first.)

The physical begins to merge with the cognitive and social as we examine speech in infants and children. It seems, in a way, that all the theorists we will encounter this semester are "right." Behaviorist B.F. Skinner believed that reinforced sounds would appear more frequently in the infant's vocabulary, and so they appear to do. On the other hand, Chomsky believed that what infants learn in "generative grammar" or "syntactical rules," how words and phrases fit together. Chomsky pointed out that a large gap in Skinner's reinforcement theory was that we almost never say the same sentence twice, in the same way. When we see infants begin to put together two or even three word sentences we do see the grammatical regularities they learn through interaction with their parents and other caregivers.

And the symbolic interactionists are also on target that language and learning a language are inherently social and interactive processes as well as a reflection of physical development. Adults are both initiators, especially in "naming things," and in the process creating symbols, and adults are receivers, listening to infant speech and in a "call and response pattern" echoing back that speech in corrected form. So when the infant says "get ball," Daddy says back "oh, you want to get the ball." Further, as infants learn that "things" have "names", they are beginning to form symbols. By learning the names (symbols) for different entities, the infant begins to be able to recall objects at will, even when they are not present. So the infant can think about a ball or another toy, or even dinner when it is not present. It's a hop, skip and a jump to realize that the infant who can symbolize objects can, at some point in the developmental cognitive process, begin to symbolize oneself and realize that the self is an object (see the "mirror studies" in BB).
 

One theorist who emphasized the physical far more than others was Sigmund Freud, who built his developmental theories clearly around physical development. "The id," Freud's first emergence in personality, is based heavily upon physical desires and the wish for physical gratifications--and those as quickly as possible. Freud termed his first stage "oral" because babies appear fixated with their mouths. Not only do infants suck to take nourishment, their mouths are also early exploratory "tools." Crawling infants are likely to take anything they find on their travels and stick it in their mouths. In their bed, infants will stick their feet in their mouths and suck on their toes (and their fingers...and...and). All kinds of mammal babies, in fact, use their mouth as exploratory tools, as the "parents" of kittens and puppies quickly discover.

For Freud, the mouth and the oral stage symbolized attachments, typically first and most intensely to parents and other caretakers. A corollary to feeding, of course, is also weening, and the introduction to various kinds of solid foods. Too much gratification (and yes, a few mothers still breast fed three year olds) or too little (the parent who fails to respond to the hungry child's cry, who "pushes" the child first to feed quickly, then pushes the child away) may result in a Freudian-termed "fixation" in the oral stage, and problems progressing through later development. Such a child may be a thumb sucker or a nail biter. (Be careful about extending this to smoking behavior, as some therapists did in the mid-twentieth century: nicotine is VERY addictive, and we now know that cigarette companies "spiked" cigarettes with nicotine to keep the nicotine level in them consistent, thereby enabling physical addiction.)
 

INFANCY AND COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

ANOTHER CONTROVERSY?

This one doesn't go under the header of a theoretical controversy, but nevertheless, what I am about to describe is another consideration that cross-cuts chronological age boundaries in development. This is the short-sighted tendency to neglect consideration of the later (often years later) consequences of a particular set of events or a decision at an earlier age. One example is "holding back" a student in the early grades who appears socially immature or who may be slightly behind their classmates in academic prowess. According to anectdotal Internet postings, in fact, some parents even start their child "late" in kindergarten, figuring this will boost the child's achievements in comparison with his or her peers. This practice of holding back seems relatively innocuous--even beneficial--to everyone when the child is in elementary school. However, by middle school, the "held back" child is probably a year ahead of their classmates in physical development. In many cases by this time, it will be painfully obvious that the child is older--and the most likely conjecture is that (usually) he or she failed at least one grade. Jeylan Mortimer's research indicates that early puberty is highly detrimental to an adolescent's academic career. Further,  the age discrepancy practically advertises a potentially embarassing situation to teachers and classmates. We know that held back kids less often complete high school and typically attribute this to academic reasons--but physical discrepancies and embarassment also probably play a part.

Well-meaning parents who read popular "how-to" books may decide their infants must learn how to read, even though the infant's speech development at that stage is very limited. The frustration engendered by parental disappointment that their child, who may not even have the concept for "word" yet laid down, is not an infant scholar, may survive this period later into childhood and adolescence, and unrealistic expectations about what their child "should" be able to do. It won't hurt the infant to be unable to read at age six months, but his parents' frustration or even anger at the infant's "failure" could certainly be damaging.

Staying with the case of infants, higher mortality among male babies has social consequences that can take a couple of decades to appear. In most societies, women marry men somewhat older than they are. In the United States, the gap at first marriage is about two years and has remained steady for most of a century. The gap at second marriage is about eight years. Higher mortality among males, as babies, and later (at age 15, male mortality is THREE TIMES that of females) means fewer men for women to marry at marriageable ages, assuming that practices such as infanticide are not operating. The more lopsided the sex ratios, the greater the social consequences later on.

Sadly and ironically, our sex stereotypes may contribute to higher male mortality  among infants and young children. Baby girls and boys on the average weigh approximately the same, are approximately the same length, and show similar Apgar scores for activity at birth (I think overall the research disagrees with BB here). However, parents persist in describing their male infants as bigger and stronger than the parents of female infants (who describe their daughters as more fragile and cuddly). Parents, especially fathers, are more likely to "rough house" with male than female infants. Parents expect boys to act more independently at early ages and are even more likely to give small boys potentially hazardous materials (e.g., scissors) at earlier ages than girls. The results of social treatment during infancy may thus contribute to lopsided sex ratios at physical maturity.

The moral of this story is that seemingly innocent treatment of infants or very young children may cause later problems that do not appear for a few years or even a couple of decades. Thus the causes of these problems can be tougher to track down.
 

Developmental theorists believe that early congitive development and social interaction can set the stage for a lifetime. This isn't as simple as language development, which can vary enormously across children. Early language development doesn't mean your child is a genius and later speech doesn't mean your child's academic prowess will be delayed. "Baby talk" away with your infant; it won't delay their speech and the higher pitched "sing-song" interaction is something that babies enjoy socially.

Most well-educated parents will "do the right thing" to facilitate their child's cognitive development: they will read to her, talk to her, sing to her,  and provide plenty of educational toys. Will they cuddle him, interact with him, and tell him that he is the very best baby in the entire world? Maybe. We don't really have evidence that, net of time constraints and logistics, that greater education or income produce more nurturing parents.

A considerable amount of nurturing that the baby perceives is through routine care. Does the parent talk to the baby while he is nursing or when a diaper is changed? Is the child simply plunked alone in front of the television for hours on end "to be entertained"? I can promise you that even with the best of "easy babies," there will be days in which the parent is exhausted (prepare to do more laundry than you have ever done in your life), irritable because of events that have nothing to do with parenting, or because babies, quite simply, are demanding by nature--and so they must be to survive. How does the parent react then? Unfortunately, a lot of parental violence occurs, not because the parents are mean or "bad," but because they have to be taught or have not learned a set of behavioral skills to cope with frustrating situations. Further, low income parents are at an acute disadvantage because their housing has less square footage and parents and baby are more likely to be crammed together.  When baby has a temper tantrum that nothing will soothe, the middle class parent can place baby in the crib and go to another room to breathe deeply, an option the working class parent may not have.
 
 

What would Piaget say? What would Erikson say?

Piaget, similar to many developmental theorists, saw biology as a large determinant of cognitive growth during infancy. Provided the child is born healthy (e.g., normal hearing), and is in a physically, cognitively and socially nourishing environment, cognitive development should unfold "normally". Through motor and sensory exploration and the presentation of toys and other environmental objects, infants learn about object permanence. In social relations. That famous parental game "peekaboo" teaches infants that mommy and daddy are there, even when the infant's eyes are covered. The infant develops schema for the names of objects, the meaning of objects, and the connections they have to other objects, even before they begin to speak sounds recognizable to adults. Once again, we see the baby as symbol creator and user, and the importance of symbols, this time for cognitive development.

For Erikson, this very early stage is "Trust versus Mistrust" and it can provide a basis for later social development. Does the baby have its needs met in a fairly short time? Do parents behave in relatively predictable and positive ways? Do the infant's grasp and achievements (raising its head, sitting up, cooing) meet with contingent parental approval? Is whatever "correction" applied to the point, tied to the baby's behavior, nonpunitive in nature, and clear? Under these circumstances, the baby begins to view life as positive and secure, their exploration a safe thing to do.
 
 

Another Methodological Issue

Longitudinal panel studies seem to provide us with useful data to assess development in the same individuals over time. And, normally, so it does. But one issue to watch out for is selective attrition. Suppose infant and child mortality is lower as you go up the parental income scale (and generally this is the case). As you study the remaining individuals, it seems that they just get "better and better"--smarter, more accomplished, even healthier, over time.

But look beyond the mean, median and modal scores to assess possible case loss. Is there any kind of systematic loss of cases? Are, for example, students with greater health problems dropping out of school before graduation? Are the children of better educated parents more likely to be accessible--staying in one place for a longer time period, or the parents are more likely to file change of address forms? At each stage of gathering data, make sure that you note who has remained in your sample and who has left. Perhaps selective weighting may correct at least some of the bias for the individuals who as "lost".
 
 
 

OVERVIEW

SYLLABUS

This page was built with Netscape Composer.
January 15 2014
Susan Carol Losh