The point is simply that what we, in the wake of behaviorism, see as the
"normal" meaning for "learning" is a historical construction that would
have stuck others, before the advent of behaviorism and its immediate
precursors as (to use Danziger's word) as "prepostrous." In short, the
meaning of the term "learning" had to change farily profoundly before
behaviorism was possible. Danziger shows the course of that change, now
forgotten but all by historians of the field. I don't think there's any
"dismissal" involved, really. What there is, is a "problematization" --
an act of making the familiar (to us) appear strange by setting it in
its historical context. Non-historians often tend to mistake this for
rejection (thus all the right-wing criticism of science studies, and the
like these days). Instead, it is a techinique for attempting examine
current usage from a perspective that is not wholly infused with common
current assumptions.
Regards,
--
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.yorku.ca/christo
Office: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164
Fax: 416-736-5814
=======================
Mike Palij wrote:
I've just read through Chap 6 of "Naming the Mind" and I am
somewhat puzzled by it. Perhaps you can clarify a couple of points?
It seems to me that Danziger is dismissing both "behavior" and
"learning" as essential components of psychology, at least as
American psychologists conceived and used these terms (in
contrast to continental/European psychologists) in the early
20th century -- "pre-Watsonian behaviorists", if one could
characterize them that way. Is this a correct reading of the text?
Implicit in Danziger's chapter is a theory of mind as well as
what "learning" may be but it seems to me that he does not
define either "mind" or "learning" in this chapter. Is this
correct? Presumably, he does define it elsewhere, if so,
where?
In the Chap 6, Danziger contrasts the German psychologist
Ernst Meumann with E.L. Thorndike. Danziger describes
Meumann's work as focusing as "memorizing symbol material"
(p106) while describing Thorndike's work as focusing on
trans-species learning processes or regularities. Am I correct
in viewing Danziger as providing a somewhat negative
evaluation of Thorndike's work? I am confused by Danziger's
writing -- is he saying that there are no trans-species learning
processes?
-Mike Palij
New York University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
