Re: Teaching at Home (was re: [tips] Teaching Abroad

[Carol DeVolder]

Mike, having helped construct a classroom in southern India, I can tell you
that drywall was never a consideration. The building was bricks that were
made down the road. In the cities, the buildings were made from concrete
with steel support beams. Again, no drywall on the inside. Thus, tacks
don't work, not even in "modern construction", which by Indian standards is
a far cry from anything that might be constructed in Manhattan. Thus I
think the term "modern construction" is a rather geocentric term. Or some
type of centric.

Carol


On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Mike Palij  wrote:

> A few points:
>
> (1) Regarding robins:  Whenever I cover Eleanor Rosch's work
> on the structure of categories, I emphasize that the prototype is
> the most representative example of a category or the modal
> instance of the category (i.e., the instance that one has experienced
> most often) and THAT depends upon one's experience. The
> degree to which different people will have the prototype or not
> will depend upon how similar or different their developmental
> histories and environments have been.  One readily finds that
> US regional differences readily produce systematic differences
> in prototype (e.g., ask what is prototypical soft drink or, as
> we say in the northeast "soda").  If you have students from the
> Caribbean or Latin America, you'll see systematic differences
> in prototypes as well.  One does not have to go India to
> discover this nor use "European-American Centrism" as an
> explanation.
>
> For the category of birds, I take pains to point out that "Robin"
> was found because that was a commonly experience bird of
> Rosch's SAMPLE.  I go on to point out that since I grew up in
> NYC and if ever saw a robin, it might have a stuff one in the
> Museum of Natural History, thus, my prototype is a pigeon.
> Similarly, for other categories, one's experience will define
> what the prototype or exemplar might be (e.g., I believe in the
> U.S., bananas appear to be a reported prototype but, of course,
> if one grew up in situation where one never had experience
> with bananas, the banana would not be their prototype, instead,
> it would be whatever their most commonly experienced instance
> of a fruit was -- ask people who grew up in apple growing areas
> what their fruit prototype is).
> .
> The main point I want to make is that using a robin for an
> example of a prototype  is hardly a "European-American
> centrism" but a developmental-experiential one.  Clearly,
> since my prototype for a bird is not a robin but a pigeon,
> this can't be due to "European-American" centrism, instead
> it can be characterized either as a "urban vs suburban or
> rural" distinction.  With respect to Rosch's theory, the point
> is not that everyone has the SAME prototype but that one
> develops a prototype from experience.  I think bringing
> European-American centrism as a concept, along with all
> of its baggage, distracts from the main issue which is
> understanding Rosch's theory.
>
> (2) I think you confuse things in the Duncker candle problem.
> First, modern construction does NOT use concrete in all walls --
> that is why God created drywall.  The current method of putting
> up a "modern" building (usually >= 6 floors) is to pour concrete
> for the floors and pillars and leave the rest of the area clear
> except for the few supporting walls.  When the main construction
> is done, aluminum studs are put into place and drywall is screwed
> into the studs (a remarkable number of such building are going
> up in my area of Manhattan, including a dormitory for the Cooper
> Union college).  Anyone who has experience with drywall knows
> that it is easy to penetrate and damage -- sticking pushpins into
> it should not be too difficult.  Now, if your students live in low level
> building made out of cinder blocks, (a) that is hardly a modern
> construction (indeed, it substitutes cinderblocks for bricks,
> a technique that goes back thousands of years when "bricks
> were made of mud, straw, and other materials), and (b) given
> that Duncker did the research back in the 1930s, isn't the
> real problem your students have is "presentism", that is,
> thinking and interpreting past situations in terms of current day
> terms?  Perhaps having the students read Duncker's article
> (translated into English for the non-German reading hordes)
> might be good for them; see:
>
> Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving (L. S. Lees, Trans.).
> Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093599
>
> A look at the Wikipedia entry wouldn't hurt; see:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candle_problem
> As well as the research published by Sam Glucksberg (mentioned
> in the Wiki entry, easily located in PsycInfo) might also be useful.
>
> Finally, I suggest the following:
> German, T. P., & Barrett, H. C.. (2005). Functional Fixedness in a
> Technologically Sparse Culture. Psychological Science, 16(1), 1-5.
>
> 

RE: Teaching at Home (was re: [tips] Teaching Abroad

[Jim Clark]

Hi

-Original Message-
From: Mike Palij [mailto:m...@nyu.edu] 
(1) Regarding robins:  Whenever I cover Eleanor Rosch's work on the structure 
of categories, I emphasize that the prototype is the most representative 
example of a category or the modal instance of the 
category (i.e., the instance that one has experienced most often) and THAT 
depends upon one's experience. The degree to which different people will have 
the prototype or not will depend upon how 

JC: I very much agree with Mike here. If you compare category generation norms 
from different regions of North America, you will find different exemplars 
represented.

(2) I think you confuse things in the Duncker candle problem.
First, modern construction does NOT use concrete in all walls -- that is why 
God created drywall.  The current method of putting up a "modern" building 
(usually >= 6 floors) is to pour concrete for the floors and pillars and leave 
the rest of the area clear except for the few supporting walls.  When the main 
construction is done, aluminum studs are put into place and drywall is screwed 
into the studs (a remarkable number of such building are going up in my area of 
Manhattan, including a dormitory for the Cooper Union college).  Anyone who has 
experience with drywall knows that it is easy to penetrate and damage -- 
sticking pushpins into it should not be too difficult.  Now, if your students 
live in low level building made out of cinder blocks, (a) that is hardly a 
modern construction (indeed, it substitutes cinderblocks for bricks, a 
technique that goes back thousands of years when "bricks were made of mud, 
straw, and other materials), and (b) given that Duncker did the research back 
in the 1930s, isn't the real problem your students have is "presentism", that 
is, thinking and interpreting past situations in terms of current day terms?  
Perhaps having the students read Duncker's article (translated into English for 
the non-German reading hordes) might be good for them; see:

JC: Here I have to disagree being very familiar with modern building techniques 
in Greece (and perhaps same holds in India?). Cement columns are filled in with 
bricks that are directly plastered over. Tracks are actually chiseled into the 
bricks for wiring etc. So no studs and dry wall involved. To hang a picture or 
other object, one needs to drill into the plaster/brick. Made me quite nervous 
the first few times I did it. Same might actually apply to a certain degree in 
some buildings in NA. Our condo in Winnipeg (one of the top 20 places in the 
world to visit according to National Geographic), for example, has one long 
wall of brick because it is a renovated warehouse.

But what I would have thought people in many parts of the world would be 
familiar with are cork boards for announcements etc., to which thumb tacks 
could be applied. And of course if people were not familiar with some such use 
for them, then they would probably not know what thumb tacks are.

There is also a literature on the culture-specificity of some logical tasks. 
Failure in some cultures to perform well at certain tasks used in the 
literature in the west became success when more familiar but logically 
equivalent tasks were developed for the culture. 

Like Mike, I'm not sure that Eurocentrism or equivalent terms is the 
appropriate way to label these phenomena. 

And as a footnote I have to disagree with NG's inclusion of Winnipeg in the top 
20, but don't let that stop you from visiting. I would just wait 6 months or so 
unless you want to skate (or even drive) on a frozen river, ice fish, or 
something like that.

Take care
Jim

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5=T=tips=47428
or send a blank email to 
leave-47428-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Teaching at Home (was re: [tips] Teaching Abroad

[Mike Palij]

A few points:

(1) Regarding robins:  Whenever I cover Eleanor Rosch's work
on the structure of categories, I emphasize that the prototype is
the most representative example of a category or the modal
instance of the category (i.e., the instance that one has experienced
most often) and THAT depends upon one's experience. The
degree to which different people will have the prototype or not
will depend upon how similar or different their developmental
histories and environments have been.  One readily finds that
US regional differences readily produce systematic differences
in prototype (e.g., ask what is prototypical soft drink or, as
we say in the northeast "soda").  If you have students from the
Caribbean or Latin America, you'll see systematic differences
in prototypes as well.  One does not have to go India to
discover this nor use "European-American Centrism" as an
explanation.

For the category of birds, I take pains to point out that "Robin"
was found because that was a commonly experience bird of
Rosch's SAMPLE.  I go on to point out that since I grew up in
NYC and if ever saw a robin, it might have a stuff one in the
Museum of Natural History, thus, my prototype is a pigeon.
Similarly, for other categories, one's experience will define
what the prototype or exemplar might be (e.g., I believe in the
U.S., bananas appear to be a reported prototype but, of course,
if one grew up in situation where one never had experience
with bananas, the banana would not be their prototype, instead,
it would be whatever their most commonly experienced instance
of a fruit was -- ask people who grew up in apple growing areas
what their fruit prototype is).
.
The main point I want to make is that using a robin for an
example of a prototype  is hardly a "European-American
centrism" but a developmental-experiential one.  Clearly,
since my prototype for a bird is not a robin but a pigeon,
this can't be due to "European-American" centrism, instead
it can be characterized either as a "urban vs suburban or
rural" distinction.  With respect to Rosch's theory, the point
is not that everyone has the SAME prototype but that one
develops a prototype from experience.  I think bringing
European-American centrism as a concept, along with all
of its baggage, distracts from the main issue which is
understanding Rosch's theory.

(2) I think you confuse things in the Duncker candle problem.
First, modern construction does NOT use concrete in all walls --
that is why God created drywall.  The current method of putting
up a "modern" building (usually >= 6 floors) is to pour concrete
for the floors and pillars and leave the rest of the area clear
except for the few supporting walls.  When the main construction
is done, aluminum studs are put into place and drywall is screwed
into the studs (a remarkable number of such building are going
up in my area of Manhattan, including a dormitory for the Cooper
Union college).  Anyone who has experience with drywall knows
that it is easy to penetrate and damage -- sticking pushpins into
it should not be too difficult.  Now, if your students live in low level
building made out of cinder blocks, (a) that is hardly a modern
construction (indeed, it substitutes cinderblocks for bricks,
a technique that goes back thousands of years when "bricks
were made of mud, straw, and other materials), and (b) given
that Duncker did the research back in the 1930s, isn't the
real problem your students have is "presentism", that is,
thinking and interpreting past situations in terms of current day
terms?  Perhaps having the students read Duncker's article
(translated into English for the non-German reading hordes)
might be good for them; see:

Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving (L. S. Lees, Trans.).
Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i-113. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093599


A look at the Wikipedia entry wouldn't hurt; see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candle_problem
As well as the research published by Sam Glucksberg (mentioned
in the Wiki entry, easily located in PsycInfo) might also be useful.

Finally, I suggest the following:
German, T. P., & Barrett, H. C.. (2005). Functional Fixedness in a
Technologically Sparse Culture. Psychological Science, 16(1), 1-5.

Here is the abstract:
|ABSTRACT: Problem solving can be inefficient when the
|solution requires subjects to generate an atypical function
|for an object and the object's typical function has been
|primed. Subjects become "fixed" on the design function of
|the object, and problem solving suffers relative to control
|conditions in which the object's function is not demonstrated.
|In the current study, such functional fixedness
|was demonstrated in a sample of adolescents (mean age of
|16 years) among the Shuar of Ecuadorian Amazonia,
|whose technologically sparse culture provides limited access
|to large numbers of artifacts with highly specialized
|functions. This result suggests that design function may
|universally be the core property of artifact 

RE: Teaching at Home (was re: [tips] Teaching Abroad

[Mike Palij]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 08:13:24 -0800,  Jim Clark wrote:

Hi


Howdy

-Original Message-
[snip]
JC: Here I have to disagree being very familiar with modern building 
techniques
in Greece (and perhaps same holds in India?). Cement columns are filled 
in with
bricks that are directly plastered over. Tracks are actually chiseled 
into the
bricks for wiring etc. So no studs and dry wall involved. To hang a 
picture or
other object, one needs to drill into the plaster/brick. Made me quite 
nervous
the first few times I did it. Same might actually apply to a certain 
degree in
some buildings in NA. Our condo in Winnipeg (one of the top 20 places 
in the
world to visit according to National Geographic), for example, has one 
long

wall of brick because it is a renovated warehouse.


The type of building I am referring to is represented in this article:
http://www.understandconstruction.com/concrete-frame-structures.html

It sounds like the type of buildings you and Carol DeVolder refer to
are similar to the following:
http://www.understandconstruction.com/load-bearing-masonry-construction.html

The benefits of concrete frame over "load Bearing masonry" are pretty
obvious which is why concrete frame is so commonly used.  Now, local
customs might dictate what kinds of materials to use in buildings but,
to Carol DeVolder's points of buildings in India, it sounds like they 
making

buildings like the Monadnock building described in the second link above
and in the following Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadnock_Building

If memory serves, the Bauhaus movement in architecture eschewed the
"load bearing masonry" approach for using an all steel beam construction
which allowed one to put up any type of exterior to the building -- from
glass curtains to more traditional brick and glass.  But pure steel 
frame

building have the drawback of expense (steel has not always been cheap)
and the fact that steel loses its strength in fires (see the following:
http://www.understandconstruction.com/steel-frame-structures.html ;
the steel structures in the World Trade Towers weakened because
of the heat of the fires and was a major cause of their collapse).
Concrete frame overcomes the problems associated with steel and
steel reinforced concrete  with rebar rods) provides good
support.  However, making all walls in a residential building concrete
sounds really odd to me because of the cost associated with so much
concrete and the amount of weight bearing down on the lower floor for
tall buildings, a problem that existed with "load bearing masonry" type
buildings which required ground floors to have walls a foot or more
thick to support the weight of the masonry on upper floors.

In any event, the architecture of Indian buildings draw upon a large
number of influences which determine what materials and designs
to use.  One source for this is Jon Lang's "A Concise History of
Modern Architecture in India" which is available in preview form on
Google Books; see:
https://books.google.com/books?id=gxyGbhlKQXQC=PA7=PA7=%22architecture+in+india%22+modern=bl=ihL4M18IXe=_IyFlXqzOWfLxGsdHQiZu3j3CVg=en=X=0ahUKEwjF24unwJ_JAhUFbiYKHSI5DawQ6AEIUDAK#v=onepage=A%20Concise%20History%20of%20Modern%20Architecture%20in%20India%20=false


-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5=T=tips=47431
or send a blank email to 
leave-47431-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu