[Xmca-l] Re: Bill's query

[Huw Lloyd]

No, only certain kinds of markups will be sent on through the listserve.
The lowest common denominator is ASCII. Indentation using ">" is one
preferred style on technical forums. However, here, it may be better to
prefix by initials.

Best,
Huw

On 16 April 2018 at 15:49, Wolff-Michael Roth <wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Huw, in the original, I am using the color red to add. I don't see the
> color in the quoted text that comes after your message. Michael
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It's not immediately clear to me who is saying what, in this email,
> > Michael, and whether you both have agreed upon a distinction of some
> > kind...
> >
> > Best,
> > Huw
> >
> >
> > On 16 April 2018 at 15:05, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Bill asked me to respond to some questions, but I could not find in my
> > > trash can the earlier strand. Here the issues he had raised:
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------
> > > Since I have bothered to read your book and quote directly from it I
> > think
> > > my comments deserve a public response. I'll repeat it again here:
> > >
> > > Specifically you say that constructivists argue that: (I've *bolded*
> the
> > > bits where your understanding of Piaget is different to mine)
> > > "the individual mind is ... *informationally closed* to the surrounding
> > > world" (51) (von Glasersfeld said this iin the text where he also
> > discusses
> > > Piaget, if I remember well)
> > > "In a constructivist account, she (Melissa) might be said to
> *incorrectly
> > > 'interpret'* the object ..." (51) (this is what you typically find in
> > > constructivist research, for only something in your mind exists for the
> > > person)
> > > "As Piaget, modern day constructivists often characterize children's
> > > knowing
> > >  *negatively: as lack, deficit ... or deviance* ..." (52) (I have
> pointed
> > > in the past to many places where Piaget writes what a child cannot yet
> > do,
> > > he always uses adult reasoning as (generally implicit) reference for
> > > characterizing the child. There was  a nice chapter in the 1980s:
> > > Meyer-Drawe,
> > > K. (1986). Zähmung eines wilden Denkens? [Taming of undomesticated
> > > thought?] In A. Métraux & B. Waldenfels (Eds.), Leibhaftige Vernunft:
> > > Spuren von Merleau-Pontys Denken (pp. 258–275). Munich, Germany:
> Wilhelm
> > > Fink. And in Merleau-Ponty's writing you can see the critique of a
> > Piaget,
> > > from whom children are lesser (adults)
> > > "In the constructivist literature , we can frequently read that
> > > *misconceptions
> > > ... have to be eradicated* (53) (Yes, this you can find in the
> literature
> > > on misconceptions, with the very verb "eradicate")
> > >
> > > Piaget's best known observation were about conservation, the tall and
> > wide
> > > glasses, and I've never heard children's responses described as
> > incorrect,
> > > deficit or misconception but always as a stage that children have to
> pass
> > > through. It always seemed me that Piaget respected and understood the
> > > child's different view of the world. (Well, I just did a quick check,
> and
> > > in *The Growth of Logical Thinking, *the verb/noun fail/failure appears
> > at
> > > least 50+ times, though one would have to check the sense; the verb
> > > *cannot* appears
> > > over 60 times, and so on...)
> > >
> > > I gather you haven't read Papert or Minsky. I feel their version,
> > > constructionism, contains many useful insights. (I have, in my
> > > constructivist days, and I have read many of the books coming from his
> > lab
> > > [Papert], and I know many of his students personally. And I referenced
> > > their work amply, until I saw no more benefit in that work.)
> > > ------------------
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> >
>