Abstract
My purpose in devoting this chapter to 9-year-old Timothy’s reasons for rejecting reading and 7-year-old Annie’s reasons for rejecting math is to show that similar psychological processes were at work to explain their learning problems and their treatment progress. Both children were brilliant and exercised what Elkind (1987) calls a “structural imperative” in conflict-free subject areas but were nonetheless underachieving in one particular subject. Tim often appeared alexic or dyslexic, whereas Annie appeared to suffer from acalculia. With psychotherapeutic treatment, the two children overcame their learning problems and sometimes even excelled in the subjects they had avoided before. Their progress in therapy reveals how partial understanding — “transitional” thought — creates the necessity to reject school learning but permits especially the brilliant child in psychotherapy to surpass the confusion that contributes to his or her thinking process.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1991 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zelan, K. (1991). Ambivalence about Knowing. In: The Risks of Knowing. Perspectives in Developmental Psychology. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0612-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0612-0_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-0614-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-0612-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive