I'm a member of the International Mind, Brain, Education Society (IMBES) because I'm interested in teaching and I think that brains are really cool. I've just finished reading a book on Architecture and Neuroscience (Brain Landscape) which I found generally underwhelming but which did force me to a thought. Namely, I'm, ultimately, more interested in minds than I am in brains. This book forced me to this because the connection between architecture and neuroscience seemed, ultimately, forced. The author kept saying that what neuroscience can do is help us understand why we respond to particular things in particular ways. What I don't understand is why this piece of information could be of interest to an architect qua architect.
At the last IMBES conference I went to there was a session the focused, if I'm remembering correctly, on the importance of neuroscience to education. I desperately want there to be connection but I fear that the direction is less from neuroscience to education than from education to neuroscience. That is, I think that things that we learn from practices in education can direct neuroscientists to ask questions that they may have not otherwise asked.
From my perspective I think that what I'm really interested in is psychology and what facilitates learning. What I'm most interested in, at the moment, is what effect a person's physical surroundings (classroom, campus, etc.) have on their ability to learn. I suspect that the intermediary is to look at what effect the physical surroundings have on one's emotional state and then to look at what emotional states are most conducive to learning. I'm not sure that understanding the mechanism by which the physical surroundings cause the emotional state is one that's particularly important to know...at least for my purposes. Not that this will stop me from reading about the brain (I'm part way through Reading in the Brain: The Science and Evolution of Human Invention and it's unbelievably interesting. I'm just not sure that understanding the mechanism of the brain helps us to be better teachers. I guess the question is whether understanding the mechanism of the brain helps us to better understand how we learn or, rather, how we learn at a macro enough level that teachers can intervene. Of course, understanding how the brain works helps us understand how learning happens, but is it at such a micro level as to be, largely, irrelevant to the teacher?
I suppose the question I could be asking is what kind of information about the brain could possibly be useful for me as a teacher. At this particular moment, I can't think of anything. I can see that having neuroscientific facts that support psychological claims will make the psychological claims more persuasive and, for that reason, are politically useful. But is there anything beyond that??
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Updating
Wow, it's only been a month since my last posting?
I suppose lots has happened on the scholarship front. I've given one presentation at a conference (which generally boosted my ego and confidence regarding my ability to give presentations at conferences), I've submitted 4 proposals for 2 conferences for presentations (see previous parenthetical comment for the reason this was possible), I've written 2 papers (found the call for papers about 1 1/2 weeks before the due date) for yet another conference (accepted papers will be published in journal) -- of course found out, after pounding out 2 papers in a ridiculous period of time, that they only allow one submission per person (a piece of information well hidden -- about three links from the main cfp -- on the webpage). I also submitted a proposal to comment on a 'target' article in a journal, the proposal was accepted and the commentary has been written and submitted and, unless I've completely misunderstood the concept, said commentary will be published.
Not a good deal of reading going on but some productive time nonetheless. It terms of actual observable validation from my 'peers' -- all that really matters in academia -- two things out in the universe that have been or will be viewed by more than an editor or reviewer.
On the downside, the article, that I actually continue to feel really good about despite being rejected at every turn, has been rejected, yet again, and, yet again, for the same reason "content and issues raised...were not appropriate for publication in our journal" and then an explanation that given this reason for not publishing no constructive comments would be forthcoming.
Response #1: It took 2 months to reach this conclusion? Other journals of at least equal prestige have given me exactly the same response with literally days. That's 2 months I could have spent getting this article rejected from other journals. Geez.
Response #2: What exactly does it mean to say that the 'content...was not appropriate for publication in our journal'? I've been taking the high self-esteem road and assuming that this meant the topic, but given just a teeny bit of neuroses on my part I realize that this very phrase could be referrring to the presentation of the topic. "Content" is remarkably vague.
But, I think I'll stick with #1 if for no other reason that the commentary I wrote was in response to an article for the journal in question and the article is radically unlike what I wrote and I'd say both less interesting and less well-written. But I think this is indicative of the fact that the journal's audience is, again, a less academic audience. I'm beginning to understand that when journals claim that they are 'interdisciplinary' they don't mean the same thing by that word as I do. I think of the different academic disciplines. I think they mean different career disciplines. So, while I've written something that is not exclusively philosophical - drawing, as it does, on social science and more rhetoric oriented philosophy (Mark Johnson's work), it is very academic and probably not all that accessible to the average healthcare worker.
Nonetheless, I'm getting very frustrated with just trying to find the right venue for this article. I've gotten no helpful feedback on it to actually make it a better article given it's audience. My suspicion is that this article is really something that ought to be expanded upon and turned into a book (should the idea warrant expansion). There is a good deal going on in the article and so that's what I should really be doing. BUT, doing this would get me off the track of focusing on reading and writing about teaching and making my foray into philosophy of education. So, I what I may end up doing is working on the education stuff until May and then spending next summer turning this article into multiple articles and/or a book proposal. Who knows
On the education front, I'm excited. I have a box - literally there's a box downstairs next to my desk - filled with books that focus from a variety of approaches the impact of physical environment on our ways of thinking. The big challenge I have now is which book to read first. I've gone through and selected the 6 or 7 that look the most interesting and now am likely to read them starting with that which was written the earliest and then move toward the present. The only problem with this is that the one book on architecture and neuroscience was published either this year or last year and I don't know if I'll be able to put this one off. My hunch is that I'll be reading that one simultaneously with The Poetics of Space.
There we go. Much sharing. Little of interest to anyone. Oh, and then there's this little religion article that I have started and have to get out of my system. I have no idea where to send this to get published (assuming that what I'm saying wasn't already said 1500 years ago).
I suppose lots has happened on the scholarship front. I've given one presentation at a conference (which generally boosted my ego and confidence regarding my ability to give presentations at conferences), I've submitted 4 proposals for 2 conferences for presentations (see previous parenthetical comment for the reason this was possible), I've written 2 papers (found the call for papers about 1 1/2 weeks before the due date) for yet another conference (accepted papers will be published in journal) -- of course found out, after pounding out 2 papers in a ridiculous period of time, that they only allow one submission per person (a piece of information well hidden -- about three links from the main cfp -- on the webpage). I also submitted a proposal to comment on a 'target' article in a journal, the proposal was accepted and the commentary has been written and submitted and, unless I've completely misunderstood the concept, said commentary will be published.
Not a good deal of reading going on but some productive time nonetheless. It terms of actual observable validation from my 'peers' -- all that really matters in academia -- two things out in the universe that have been or will be viewed by more than an editor or reviewer.
On the downside, the article, that I actually continue to feel really good about despite being rejected at every turn, has been rejected, yet again, and, yet again, for the same reason "content and issues raised...were not appropriate for publication in our journal" and then an explanation that given this reason for not publishing no constructive comments would be forthcoming.
Response #1: It took 2 months to reach this conclusion? Other journals of at least equal prestige have given me exactly the same response with literally days. That's 2 months I could have spent getting this article rejected from other journals. Geez.
Response #2: What exactly does it mean to say that the 'content...was not appropriate for publication in our journal'? I've been taking the high self-esteem road and assuming that this meant the topic, but given just a teeny bit of neuroses on my part I realize that this very phrase could be referrring to the presentation of the topic. "Content" is remarkably vague.
But, I think I'll stick with #1 if for no other reason that the commentary I wrote was in response to an article for the journal in question and the article is radically unlike what I wrote and I'd say both less interesting and less well-written. But I think this is indicative of the fact that the journal's audience is, again, a less academic audience. I'm beginning to understand that when journals claim that they are 'interdisciplinary' they don't mean the same thing by that word as I do. I think of the different academic disciplines. I think they mean different career disciplines. So, while I've written something that is not exclusively philosophical - drawing, as it does, on social science and more rhetoric oriented philosophy (Mark Johnson's work), it is very academic and probably not all that accessible to the average healthcare worker.
Nonetheless, I'm getting very frustrated with just trying to find the right venue for this article. I've gotten no helpful feedback on it to actually make it a better article given it's audience. My suspicion is that this article is really something that ought to be expanded upon and turned into a book (should the idea warrant expansion). There is a good deal going on in the article and so that's what I should really be doing. BUT, doing this would get me off the track of focusing on reading and writing about teaching and making my foray into philosophy of education. So, I what I may end up doing is working on the education stuff until May and then spending next summer turning this article into multiple articles and/or a book proposal. Who knows
On the education front, I'm excited. I have a box - literally there's a box downstairs next to my desk - filled with books that focus from a variety of approaches the impact of physical environment on our ways of thinking. The big challenge I have now is which book to read first. I've gone through and selected the 6 or 7 that look the most interesting and now am likely to read them starting with that which was written the earliest and then move toward the present. The only problem with this is that the one book on architecture and neuroscience was published either this year or last year and I don't know if I'll be able to put this one off. My hunch is that I'll be reading that one simultaneously with The Poetics of Space.
There we go. Much sharing. Little of interest to anyone. Oh, and then there's this little religion article that I have started and have to get out of my system. I have no idea where to send this to get published (assuming that what I'm saying wasn't already said 1500 years ago).
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Catching Up
I haven't posted in a long time, but I have been reading. No good reason to list what I've read, but I have been reading.
So, here's a question that I'm thinking of pursuing: what happens when we think of autonomy as a skill to be developed instead of a quality or characteristic that an individual has or doesn't have?
Of course there's about a zillion books on autonomy and I don't have the time to read all of them. However, the question of autonomy does come up in philosophy of education as the question of whether autonomy should be the goal of education. I'm thinking that maybe I can interject something half way inteligible into that conversation.
I'm running into the problem I always do when I try to get into a conversation. Namely, I am so behind in a conversation that is already on-going that I feel entirely ill-equipped to jump in and participate. Of course, reading everything that's been written up to this point on a topic, while potentially necessary, is not going to be conducive to me actually getting anything written and into the conversation. And while I'm perfectly happy to just read and learn, there's an expectation that I publish and some of my professional goals require that I meet this expectation. But the question is always when have I read enough to be able to foray into the fray?
All I know at the moment is, not yet.
So, here's a question that I'm thinking of pursuing: what happens when we think of autonomy as a skill to be developed instead of a quality or characteristic that an individual has or doesn't have?
Of course there's about a zillion books on autonomy and I don't have the time to read all of them. However, the question of autonomy does come up in philosophy of education as the question of whether autonomy should be the goal of education. I'm thinking that maybe I can interject something half way inteligible into that conversation.
I'm running into the problem I always do when I try to get into a conversation. Namely, I am so behind in a conversation that is already on-going that I feel entirely ill-equipped to jump in and participate. Of course, reading everything that's been written up to this point on a topic, while potentially necessary, is not going to be conducive to me actually getting anything written and into the conversation. And while I'm perfectly happy to just read and learn, there's an expectation that I publish and some of my professional goals require that I meet this expectation. But the question is always when have I read enough to be able to foray into the fray?
All I know at the moment is, not yet.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Citations
I continue to read The Morality of Freedom and I submitted my article to another journal which, hopefully, is a more appropriate venue. Raz' work continues to be interesting and dense. There isn't much of coherence I can say beyond that except if I have any skill it's recognizing when someone else is doing something interesting and important - as I think Raz is. I say that I have this skill because others apparently have reached the same conclusion (others in the know) and I reached mine without relying on them.
My big accomplishment in this area (and why there is no place on a cv for this sort of accomplishment, I do not know) is with Karen Warren's "The Power and Promise of Ecofeminism." I found this article when it had just been published for the first time in a journal. I had heard the term ecofeminism and wanted to find something for my Intro to Women's Studies class. I found Warren's article, loved it and thought it significant. This article has now ended up being anthologized all over the place and is widely viewed as one of the defining articles of the movement....and I recognized its importance on my own. If anyone can figure out how to put this on a cv or otherwise make it possible for me to take advantage of this little skill of mine, please feel free to share.
But, "citations." As I read through Raz' work, I realize that the likelihood that I will ever write such a book is, at best, miniscule. It isn't quite literally inconceivable but it's quite close to being practically inconceivable. Not a big deal for me or, I suspect, a huge loss to the world (though we'll never really know, will we?). Anyway, you can tell a big deal philosopher (and I'm realizing I have a tiered conception of philosophers with me being onthe 3rd tier) when their writing makes virtually no reference to anyone else's work. All they're doing is articulating their position and the reasons for it. Of course they bring up possible objections and then respond, but the need for citations is minimal given the fact that what they are doing is not derivative at all on someone else's work. Now, I think I could fairly easily write such a work but the likelihood that anyone would either (a) take me seriously or (b) need to take me seriously is rather low. Further, even if such a work were brilliant, the likelihood that some no name out of no where is going to get something like that published seems, to me, rather low. But perhaps I underestimate both myself and the publishing world. Who knows.
Anyway, my tiering system. On the top is the 'royalty.' These folks are putting forth original work, are at the center of the conversation and not paying a huge amount of attention to anyone but the other royalty (I'm going to generously assume that this is for lack of time not because of any character flaw). Then there are the folks who are wanna-be royalty. They spend their time looking for theoretical implications, inconsistencies, etc. One might say that they are the scholars of the royalty. They spend their time discussing the work of the royalty and may, at some point, move up to being royalty. Again, they are paying attention mainly to the royalty and each other (again, lack of time, not character flaws). Then there's folks like me. I have little desire to be royalty (not that I'd refuse the honor if bestowed upon me, but I'm not really actively pursuing it - not for lack of time but lack of self-esteem & interest) but I am interested in what the real world implications are for non-academics of what the work done by those 'above' me in the hierarchy. So, I spend my time, when writing, trying to connect ideas to each other and make them accessible and relevant to folks who don't have the time or inclination to read this stuff.
Of course, I do think that some of my stuff is mildly original and worth looking at by those higher up, but, in all honesty, I wonder how original it really is -- I mean, seriously, there's thousands of years of thinking and I've barely read any of it; what's the likelihood that I've arrived at some conclusion that's never been reached before? Statistically remote, at best.
I suppose this puts me in the position of being a perpetual student and translator for those who are not students (perpetual or otherwise). It all works out okay because I really like what I do.
My big accomplishment in this area (and why there is no place on a cv for this sort of accomplishment, I do not know) is with Karen Warren's "The Power and Promise of Ecofeminism." I found this article when it had just been published for the first time in a journal. I had heard the term ecofeminism and wanted to find something for my Intro to Women's Studies class. I found Warren's article, loved it and thought it significant. This article has now ended up being anthologized all over the place and is widely viewed as one of the defining articles of the movement....and I recognized its importance on my own. If anyone can figure out how to put this on a cv or otherwise make it possible for me to take advantage of this little skill of mine, please feel free to share.
But, "citations." As I read through Raz' work, I realize that the likelihood that I will ever write such a book is, at best, miniscule. It isn't quite literally inconceivable but it's quite close to being practically inconceivable. Not a big deal for me or, I suspect, a huge loss to the world (though we'll never really know, will we?). Anyway, you can tell a big deal philosopher (and I'm realizing I have a tiered conception of philosophers with me being onthe 3rd tier) when their writing makes virtually no reference to anyone else's work. All they're doing is articulating their position and the reasons for it. Of course they bring up possible objections and then respond, but the need for citations is minimal given the fact that what they are doing is not derivative at all on someone else's work. Now, I think I could fairly easily write such a work but the likelihood that anyone would either (a) take me seriously or (b) need to take me seriously is rather low. Further, even if such a work were brilliant, the likelihood that some no name out of no where is going to get something like that published seems, to me, rather low. But perhaps I underestimate both myself and the publishing world. Who knows.
Anyway, my tiering system. On the top is the 'royalty.' These folks are putting forth original work, are at the center of the conversation and not paying a huge amount of attention to anyone but the other royalty (I'm going to generously assume that this is for lack of time not because of any character flaw). Then there are the folks who are wanna-be royalty. They spend their time looking for theoretical implications, inconsistencies, etc. One might say that they are the scholars of the royalty. They spend their time discussing the work of the royalty and may, at some point, move up to being royalty. Again, they are paying attention mainly to the royalty and each other (again, lack of time, not character flaws). Then there's folks like me. I have little desire to be royalty (not that I'd refuse the honor if bestowed upon me, but I'm not really actively pursuing it - not for lack of time but lack of self-esteem & interest) but I am interested in what the real world implications are for non-academics of what the work done by those 'above' me in the hierarchy. So, I spend my time, when writing, trying to connect ideas to each other and make them accessible and relevant to folks who don't have the time or inclination to read this stuff.
Of course, I do think that some of my stuff is mildly original and worth looking at by those higher up, but, in all honesty, I wonder how original it really is -- I mean, seriously, there's thousands of years of thinking and I've barely read any of it; what's the likelihood that I've arrived at some conclusion that's never been reached before? Statistically remote, at best.
I suppose this puts me in the position of being a perpetual student and translator for those who are not students (perpetual or otherwise). It all works out okay because I really like what I do.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Moving On
Well, first things first. I heard back about my article. And it's a good news/bad news kinda thing. Good news: The reviewer thought it was interesting and didn't appear to have any criticisms of what I wrote. Bad news: The reviewer thought that it wasn't a good fit with the journal. Kind news: The reviewer did suggest two journals that he thought were more appropriate. So, I have to figure out which of these two I want to try first and then send it along to them.
In terms of ego, good news. In terms of wanting to be done with this and move on, less good news. But, overall good.
Second, I'm reading through Raz' The Morality of Freedom. Wow. It's a really good book but dense. Very dense.
I only skimmed the first part of the book that has to do with the setting up of the problem (political authority and what limits it, theoretically) and plunged directly into his conception of rights and then will move onto his discussion of autonomy (my primary reason for reading this) and then well-being. I've given myself 3 weeks (which is now more like 2 1/2) to decide whether this idea about autonomy as a skill is one worth pursuing in an article and, in that vein, am not reading Raz as carefully as I would need to if I knew I was going to have to be proficient with his ideas. I'm just going for a general grasp, enough to know if I should go back later for a deeper understanding.
His conception of rights is an interesting one. Basing the idea of being a right-holder on (a) having benefits and (b) having well-being that is intrinsically valuable. He thinks that the inclusion of (b) makes his view compatible with those like Hart & Wellman who focus on a choice (as opposed to beneficiary) view of rights. Raz thinks that his concept of rights is, basically, neutral in terms of particular theory -- I'm not entirely sure he's correct on this point. Not that I have reason to disbelieve, but it's the sort of claim that I am hesitant to believe without really doing some hard-core grappling with his ideas. But said grappling will have to wait.
One of the things that I like about Raz is that he's a good ol' fashioned analytic philosopher by which I mean that he consistently is elucidating and making distinctions where distinctions haven't previously been made but which also tend to evaporate some disagreements. However, these distinctions take some time to fully grasp. (Hmmm, having a very Jacob wrestling with the angel morning with all these wrestling metaphors). One is his distinction between being intrinsically valuable and being ultimately valuable. I'm pretty sure that these descriptors refer to interests (as opposed to well-being which he's very clear to note has to be intrinsically valuable). Intrinsically valuable interests are less value than those that are ultimately valuable -- ultimately valuable are a subset within the intrinsically valuable. He also has referred to, and will be discussing later, different ways that something can be intrinsically valuable.
So, dense stuff. Good stuff. Wishing I was i grad school taking a class either about this guy or, better, with this guy.
In terms of ego, good news. In terms of wanting to be done with this and move on, less good news. But, overall good.
Second, I'm reading through Raz' The Morality of Freedom. Wow. It's a really good book but dense. Very dense.
I only skimmed the first part of the book that has to do with the setting up of the problem (political authority and what limits it, theoretically) and plunged directly into his conception of rights and then will move onto his discussion of autonomy (my primary reason for reading this) and then well-being. I've given myself 3 weeks (which is now more like 2 1/2) to decide whether this idea about autonomy as a skill is one worth pursuing in an article and, in that vein, am not reading Raz as carefully as I would need to if I knew I was going to have to be proficient with his ideas. I'm just going for a general grasp, enough to know if I should go back later for a deeper understanding.
His conception of rights is an interesting one. Basing the idea of being a right-holder on (a) having benefits and (b) having well-being that is intrinsically valuable. He thinks that the inclusion of (b) makes his view compatible with those like Hart & Wellman who focus on a choice (as opposed to beneficiary) view of rights. Raz thinks that his concept of rights is, basically, neutral in terms of particular theory -- I'm not entirely sure he's correct on this point. Not that I have reason to disbelieve, but it's the sort of claim that I am hesitant to believe without really doing some hard-core grappling with his ideas. But said grappling will have to wait.
One of the things that I like about Raz is that he's a good ol' fashioned analytic philosopher by which I mean that he consistently is elucidating and making distinctions where distinctions haven't previously been made but which also tend to evaporate some disagreements. However, these distinctions take some time to fully grasp. (Hmmm, having a very Jacob wrestling with the angel morning with all these wrestling metaphors). One is his distinction between being intrinsically valuable and being ultimately valuable. I'm pretty sure that these descriptors refer to interests (as opposed to well-being which he's very clear to note has to be intrinsically valuable). Intrinsically valuable interests are less value than those that are ultimately valuable -- ultimately valuable are a subset within the intrinsically valuable. He also has referred to, and will be discussing later, different ways that something can be intrinsically valuable.
So, dense stuff. Good stuff. Wishing I was i grad school taking a class either about this guy or, better, with this guy.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
End o' the book
So, finished The Philosophical Baby not much of huge excitement in the 2nd half of the book.
Okay, maybe not entirely fair.
Some interesting things on babies sense of self -- at a certain point, babies (again, under 3) will recognize themselves in a video shot just moments before seeing it, but won't get that the sticker put on their head moments ago in the video might still be on their head, while 4 year olds will immediately check their heads. There was some discussion, and I can't really remember all of it so it must not have made that much of an impression on me, of kids' sense of time - basically, they don't have a linear sense of time. This is in keeping with kids not being focused in on one thing but instead taking everything in. They take everything in both on a physical plane and then also on a temporal plane, not really distinguishing where or when in particulars.
Also, infants don't keep track of how they gained knowledge even when they can keep track of knowledge. When kids were told that the drawer had an egg in it and then were later asked (a) if the drawer had an egg (they'd answer 'yes') and then (b) how they knew, the answers they gave as to how they knew were largely unrelated to how they had really found out. Gopnik's theory (and it sounds plausible to me) is that babies' beliefs about the world are changing so rapidly that keeping track of where they got information is going to take up a good deal of time, energy, brain power and that reflecting upon source of knowledge as a way to determine authenticity of claim is something that only becomes useful once the majority of one's beliefs are fairly stable. Like I said, this makes sense.
Gopnik also makes the moderately mundane point that infants learn about love and relationships from their caregivers but then makes the more interesting point that the caregivers are also learning from the infants. That both caregivers and infants are teaching each other. This is an interesting way to think about the relationship being more reciprocal.
Lastly, and I think this is what irritated me, Gopnik makes a foray into ethics and, well, as someone who specializes in ethics, it wasn't terribly groundbreaking - and a bit historically inaccurate. Still, a few interesting points. Infants appear to be naturally inclined to help others and to want to stop the pain of others. Multiple studies back this up. Most of my students insist (with paucity of evidence) to claim that all humans fit Hobbes' misanthropic conception, but little evidence backs this up. Also, it appears that at a young age all but psychopaths make a distinction btwn the wrongness of breaking rules and the wrongness of hurting others (with latter being worse). Psychopaths, predictably, see no problem with harming others. In fact, psychopaths don't even recognize certain facial expresssions as indicative of pain whereas very young kids (younger than 3) do recognize such signs.
So, in the end, good book or not? I'd say it's an interesting book for someone who isn't familiar with infant development and so would recommend it to folks who are either non-experts but interested or to give to folks who the giver want to get interested.
Now I move on to Raz' Morality of Freedom!!
Okay, maybe not entirely fair.
Some interesting things on babies sense of self -- at a certain point, babies (again, under 3) will recognize themselves in a video shot just moments before seeing it, but won't get that the sticker put on their head moments ago in the video might still be on their head, while 4 year olds will immediately check their heads. There was some discussion, and I can't really remember all of it so it must not have made that much of an impression on me, of kids' sense of time - basically, they don't have a linear sense of time. This is in keeping with kids not being focused in on one thing but instead taking everything in. They take everything in both on a physical plane and then also on a temporal plane, not really distinguishing where or when in particulars.
Also, infants don't keep track of how they gained knowledge even when they can keep track of knowledge. When kids were told that the drawer had an egg in it and then were later asked (a) if the drawer had an egg (they'd answer 'yes') and then (b) how they knew, the answers they gave as to how they knew were largely unrelated to how they had really found out. Gopnik's theory (and it sounds plausible to me) is that babies' beliefs about the world are changing so rapidly that keeping track of where they got information is going to take up a good deal of time, energy, brain power and that reflecting upon source of knowledge as a way to determine authenticity of claim is something that only becomes useful once the majority of one's beliefs are fairly stable. Like I said, this makes sense.
Gopnik also makes the moderately mundane point that infants learn about love and relationships from their caregivers but then makes the more interesting point that the caregivers are also learning from the infants. That both caregivers and infants are teaching each other. This is an interesting way to think about the relationship being more reciprocal.
Lastly, and I think this is what irritated me, Gopnik makes a foray into ethics and, well, as someone who specializes in ethics, it wasn't terribly groundbreaking - and a bit historically inaccurate. Still, a few interesting points. Infants appear to be naturally inclined to help others and to want to stop the pain of others. Multiple studies back this up. Most of my students insist (with paucity of evidence) to claim that all humans fit Hobbes' misanthropic conception, but little evidence backs this up. Also, it appears that at a young age all but psychopaths make a distinction btwn the wrongness of breaking rules and the wrongness of hurting others (with latter being worse). Psychopaths, predictably, see no problem with harming others. In fact, psychopaths don't even recognize certain facial expresssions as indicative of pain whereas very young kids (younger than 3) do recognize such signs.
So, in the end, good book or not? I'd say it's an interesting book for someone who isn't familiar with infant development and so would recommend it to folks who are either non-experts but interested or to give to folks who the giver want to get interested.
Now I move on to Raz' Morality of Freedom!!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
View of the World
After reading Temple Grandin's book Animal Translation (I think that's the name of it) I hypothesized that infants would be likely to perceive the world in the way that non-human animals do instead of as how adult humans do. Turns out that there's actually evidence in support of this. Take-away point: I was right :-)
Gopnik compares adult's capacity to 'pay attention' (a concept that is, actually, fraught with complication since paying attention is something that we do without thinking about it but when we do think about it we tend to think it's something it's not - but I digress) to a spotlight. When we pay attention to something, everything that we are not paying attention to fades away so that we can listen to someone in a noisy room and focus in only on what they are saying (which I think is evidence of a really amazing ability). Babies' attention she compares to a lantern - that is, babies don't discern and focus on one thing but are taking everything in. This makes evolutionary good sense, Gopnik says and I agree, because babies don't know what info is important and what isn't so taking in everything increases the chances of capturing that which is needed later. But, as evidenced by infants constant sleeping, doing this is amazingly taxing and ultimately takes up so much time that we'd all be reduced to infant dependence if we didn't move from this to learning what we need to be paying attention to and what we don't.
Gopnik makes the point that babies are more aware/conscious than the rest of us (she notes that we don't quite know what consciousness is but if we say that anaesthesia is what dampens it, then infants have more consciousness because it takes more anaesthesia to put an infant out for surgery). The connection to Grandin is that Grandin (who has autism) argues that animals perceive the world more in particulars - that is, taking in details more than taking in the general picture. [she also makes the interesting hypothesis that there's a continuum of how animals perceive the world with more or less particulars as compared to general pictures and that folks with autism are on the continuum between adult non-autistic humans and other mammals]. So, infants are seeing more particulars than we are. Gopnik notes a study in which infants notice very small alterations in images that non-infants don't.
Overall, this stuff continues to be cool. Gopnik's on-going hypothesis is that by better understanding infants brains/minds we can better understand ours -- this is a standard neuroscience approach: better understanding of the person with the major anomaly (say, reporting an inability to see but still having the ability to walk without bumping into things, picking things up, reporting accurately what's in front of them) helps us to better understand how the majority of us without the anomaly function.
A concept that Gopnik floats is the idea that 'consciousness' isn't one thing to be understood, but, instead, that there are many things that we do with our 'mind' each of which has a separate explanation. Much in the same way that we don't understand the body as much as we understand the different components of the body and then how all of these work together. An interesting idea that I'm guessing has traction in the neuro- world and will gain traction in philosophy.
Okay, need to finish this book so I can move on to Raz. BUT I also have been thinking about Royce and his Philosophy of Loyalty and really want to get to that too. Discipline. Must read Raz first for this next article.
Gopnik compares adult's capacity to 'pay attention' (a concept that is, actually, fraught with complication since paying attention is something that we do without thinking about it but when we do think about it we tend to think it's something it's not - but I digress) to a spotlight. When we pay attention to something, everything that we are not paying attention to fades away so that we can listen to someone in a noisy room and focus in only on what they are saying (which I think is evidence of a really amazing ability). Babies' attention she compares to a lantern - that is, babies don't discern and focus on one thing but are taking everything in. This makes evolutionary good sense, Gopnik says and I agree, because babies don't know what info is important and what isn't so taking in everything increases the chances of capturing that which is needed later. But, as evidenced by infants constant sleeping, doing this is amazingly taxing and ultimately takes up so much time that we'd all be reduced to infant dependence if we didn't move from this to learning what we need to be paying attention to and what we don't.
Gopnik makes the point that babies are more aware/conscious than the rest of us (she notes that we don't quite know what consciousness is but if we say that anaesthesia is what dampens it, then infants have more consciousness because it takes more anaesthesia to put an infant out for surgery). The connection to Grandin is that Grandin (who has autism) argues that animals perceive the world more in particulars - that is, taking in details more than taking in the general picture. [she also makes the interesting hypothesis that there's a continuum of how animals perceive the world with more or less particulars as compared to general pictures and that folks with autism are on the continuum between adult non-autistic humans and other mammals]. So, infants are seeing more particulars than we are. Gopnik notes a study in which infants notice very small alterations in images that non-infants don't.
Overall, this stuff continues to be cool. Gopnik's on-going hypothesis is that by better understanding infants brains/minds we can better understand ours -- this is a standard neuroscience approach: better understanding of the person with the major anomaly (say, reporting an inability to see but still having the ability to walk without bumping into things, picking things up, reporting accurately what's in front of them) helps us to better understand how the majority of us without the anomaly function.
A concept that Gopnik floats is the idea that 'consciousness' isn't one thing to be understood, but, instead, that there are many things that we do with our 'mind' each of which has a separate explanation. Much in the same way that we don't understand the body as much as we understand the different components of the body and then how all of these work together. An interesting idea that I'm guessing has traction in the neuro- world and will gain traction in philosophy.
Okay, need to finish this book so I can move on to Raz. BUT I also have been thinking about Royce and his Philosophy of Loyalty and really want to get to that too. Discipline. Must read Raz first for this next article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
