[Xmca-l] Re: ZPD and DST!

Thu Mar 30 22:21:44 PDT 2017

Thanks a lot for sharing the article, Michael. And yes, considering those copy-distribution issues is important in a forum like this. Is nice to be able to check with you/us authors on how to best share our work.

On the issue of Theorizing with/out mediators, Huw, in the article we do recognize the viability of the option you suggest: not dismissing but pursuing an 'adequate' (or 'more developed'  that may mean) understanding of the concept. Still, we recommend the other route, and this is part of my view.

I think the problem concerns a confusion between treating mediation as a sort of universal premise that 'applies' to everything or as an analytical concept that 'explains' everything. For example, David K. in his post treats the phrase that 'if mediation explains everything then it explains nothing' as being analog to the sentence 'if perception applies to all visible phenomena then it applies to none of them.' 'Applies' and 'Explain', however, seem two very different words to me. You may want to say that mediation applies to all and every human action/relation. But then this is not to say that you are explaining any of them. As I view it, mediation should not be thought of as an analytical unit in the same sense that perezhivanie is, for it is not a concrete unit. In fact, following on David's example, *perception* can indeed be accounted for if you develop and further understand the category perezhivanie. And still, you will not want to use perezhivanie to account for every and any aspect of human existence. Nor every instance of 'human(ing)' will be perezhivanie (unless you reserve the term 'human' to a very specific set of all the things we human-looking animals do.).

Alfredo 

________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
Sent: 31 March 2017 02:38
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ZPD and DST!

Thanks Michael.
Establishing fair use in the xmca community seems an important task.

Your solution works given current uncertainties.

mike

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mike, all,
> Because I don't know what big companies can do to us if we violate signed
> copyright release, I am more than hesitant to send the type-set version
> they published. However, I am appending the final version of the manuscript
> that prior to acceptance.
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
> Applied Cognitive Science
> MacLaurin Building A567
> University of Victoria
> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>
> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
> mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:09 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> > Michael --
> >
> > XMCA has been operating as an educational collective among whom relevant
> > written materials are circulated as they are needed for the the members'
> > education.
> >
> > Would it incur Springer's wrath to make the paper directly available?
> >
> > mike
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all, I did not realize that my reference wasn't updated. The paper
> is
> > > here:
> > > https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-016-9376-0
> > >
> > > and by personal request Alfredo or I will mail a copy to those not
> > > operating at a uni with access to Springer Link.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --------------------
> > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
> > > Applied Cognitive Science
> > > MacLaurin Building A567
> > > University of Victoria
> > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
> > >
> > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> > > <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
> > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi David, you will disagree even more with this one:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Roth, W.-M., & Jornet, A. (in press). Theorizing with/out
> "mediators."
> > > > Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science.
> > > >
> > > > But people like Feliks Mikhailov, and also Ekaterina Zavershneva
> > indicate
> > > > that toward the end of his life, Vygotsy was moving away from
> > mediation.
> > > We
> > > > give an extended argument for theorizing without mediators in the
> > > article.
> > > >
> > > > But I hope you understand that I am not out to interpret and find out
> > > what
> > > > Vygotsky really said even if he did not say it. I think you are well
> > > > positioned to do THAT kind of research. I want to move on. And,
> > frankly,
> > > I
> > > > have no clue what people are saying when they write that something is
> > > > mediated. It seems to me that they are hiding or refraining from
> going
> > > > after what I am interested in. I am not interested in knowing that a
> > tool
> > > > mediates something. I am interested in what the tool actually does,
> > what
> > > > are the events in which tools participate, shape people and get
> shaped
> > by
> > > > them.
> > > >
> > > > In the end, all this is about finding suitable discourses, and
> > > > descriptions, for doing the kinds of things we want to do.
> > > >
> > > > m
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --------------------
> > > > Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
> > > > Applied Cognitive Science
> > > > MacLaurin Building A567
> > > > University of Victoria
> > > > Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> > > > http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
> > > >
> > > > New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> > > > <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> > > directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
> > > mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:22 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I think the Roth article I would recommend isn't the editorial, but
> > > rather
> > > >> this one:
> > > >>
> > > >> Roth, W-M. 2007. On Mediation: Towards a Cultural Historical
> > > >> Understanding.
> > > >> Theory and Psychology 17 (5): 655-680.
> > > >>
> > > >> There's a lot I disagree with in this paper (e.g. I disagree with
> the
> > > idea
> > > >> that if mediation "explains" everything then it explains nothing--it
> > is
> > > >> like saying that if perception applies to all visible phenomena then
> > it
> > > >> applies to none of them). But here's why I prefer it to Saeed's
> paper:
> > > >>
> > > >> a) Roth gets to concrete examples from direct experience almost
> > > >> immediately
> > > >> (fish feeding, on p. 656). This gives me something to go back to
> when
> > I
> > > >> get
> > > >> lost in abstraction, and I need it.
> > > >>
> > > >> b) Instead of using Theory A to illuminate Theory B, Roth goes back
> > into
> > > >> the historical origins of Theory A and discovers, immanently, Theory
> > B,
> > > C,
> > > >> etc.. This has two advantages: it avoids chalk-and-cheese
> eclecticism,
> > > and
> > > >> it helps me understand how Theory A was formed in the first place.
> > With
> > > >> Saeed's paper, I find myself missing: 1) an account of the CRITICAL
> > > >> DISTINCTIONS between the two theories, 2) an explanation of how each
> > > MAKES
> > > >> UP for what the other lacks, and 3) some argument for long term
> > > >> COMPATABILITY, some explication of why the emulsion will not
> > > re-separate,
> > > >> like vinegar and oil.
> > > >>
> > > >> c) For Vygotsky--no, for mediation more generally--the key problem
> is
> > > >> volition, free will, choice. Vygotsky once said that the most
> > > interesting
> > > >> problem in the whole of psychology, bar none, is what a human being
> > > would
> > > >> really do in the situation of Buridan's donkey (that is a situation
> of
> > > >> volition, of free will, of choice where the outcomes were either
> > > >> apparently
> > > >> equal or equally unknown). This isn't true of DST, which has, as
> Saeed
> > > >> admits, an "emergentist" account of volition (to put it
> uncharitably,
> > > >> handwaving and magic). At the very least, choice is late emerging
> in a
> > > DST
> > > >> account, and that makes, for example, the child's early and
> > > >> successful acquisition of speech very hard to explain.
> > > >>
> > > >> That said, Saeed--I DID appreciate the part on p. 86 where you
> remind
> > us
> > > >> that learning and development are distinct but linked. As
> > Wolff-Michael
> > > >> says, the point has been made before, but I think that we've got to
> > keep
> > > >> saying this, until people really see that mixing up "microgenesis"
> and
> > > >> ontogenesis is, in our own time, the same kind of error that mixing
> up
> > > >> ontogenesis and phylogenesis was in Vygotsky's. If I read one more
> > > article
> > > >> which invokes the ZPD for some trivial incident of learning, I'm
> > > getting a
> > > >> tattoo that says: "Look here, mate, just because it didn't kill ya
> > > doesn't
> > > >> mean it made ya any stronger".
> > > >>
> > > >> David Kellogg
> > > >> Macquarie University
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>