First off, my apologies to Chris and anyone following this thread for having it "gone off the tracks" -- the thread orginated on the Psychteacher mailing list and when my submission was returned to me for lack of a "signature", I accidently sent it Tips. Fortunately, Chris Green is a member of both lists and he was able to respond to it here. Tipsters interested in the early part of this thread may be able to read earlier posts at the Psychteacher website: http://list.kennesaw.edu/archives/psychteacher.html However, one may have to register to get access.
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:51:53 -0700, Christopher Green wrote: >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." I have a problem with calling it a "historical construction" in contrast to a theoretical or paradigmatic development. If we consider behaviorism to be a paradigm, then it shouldn't surprise anyone that concepts within that paradigm might not be meaningful in earlier or other paradigms. Moreover, "learning" as defined by the behaviorists (e.g., classical conditioning, operant conditioning) continues to have meaning today and has, in part, redefined cognition because of the development of neural network models (which can instantiate classical and operant conditioning, regardless of the "prepostrousness" of such an idea). >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. He provides one "story" of what happened. I reserve the right to withhold judgment on its utility. >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. I think it would have been more helpful if you had directly addressed the questions I provided below. For example, it seems to me that Danziger is dismissing a "trans-species" view of learning processes when he reviews Thorndike's work -- the impression I got was that Danziger Thorndike was "overreaching" in attempting to develop such a broad theory of "learning". I am I wrong in this impression? -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Christopher D. Green >Department of Psychology >York University >Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 ======================= 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 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
