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 concepts in
|human semantic memory.
In the above study they don't use the candle problem but equivalent
situations. Now, it is possible that your student's experience makes
the classic Duncker problem harder for them to understand,
both in terms of what is going on and its theoretical significance.
But that hardly has to do with "European-American centrism"
as the German & Barrett study shows.
-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected]
------ Original Message ------
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 04:06:06 -0800, Annette Taylor wrote:
Several people have asked me backchannel to post a bit about teaching in
India.
I have not gotten around to it because basically I am always too
overwhelmed by
just about everything to get around to posting something.
So I thought I'd post a bit about Euro/American-centrism in teaching and
textbooks.
First of all, all of my students are fluent in English--most consider
themselves native English speakers as they spoke English at home growing
up and
as they tell me, "we think in English!" it is NOT a second language! And
they
speak with that wonderfully melodic Indian English :) But, of course,
they are
all equally fluent in Hindi.
Because I'm always a bit rushed (I'd like to take a walk in that short
window
of time each day between dusk and dark, hot and chilly, too
smoky/polluted and
sort of OK to at least walk in) this will be brief.
Two things that stuck out this week in my cognitive class:
(1) talking about semantic networks--hierarchical and networks models:
my
textbook, an American textbook as they are no Indian cognitive
psychology
textbooks that are quite as comprehensive as the US ones, used a common
US
example: the robin. A robin is a bird. A robin has a red breast. A robin
lays
small blue eggs, etc. The students had no clue what a robin is. They had
no
idea if it was true or false that it has a red breast or lays small blue
eggs.
We defaulted to crows and pigeons in our discussions. My exam item I
just wrote
is about crows :)
(2) Problem solving: Duncker's candle problem. I have a text-associated
image
of a box of matches, a box of candles, a box of tacks, scotch tape, a
thimble.
I put it up and asked "What can we toss aside?" Of course the thimble
and the
tacks! HUH? you might say? Well, their only experience with modern
construction
is that the walls are all made of solid concrete. How are you going to
stick a
tack into solid concrete? The tape will have to do, even if it keeps
coming
away from the weight of the candle. (Heard among students exiting,
"stupid
problem these people came with!".....)
And that, boys and girls, is but a teensy weensy glimpse into the
Euro/American
centric world of textbook publishing and teaching :)
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=47426
or send a blank email to
leave-47426-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
