[Xmca-l] Re: Bill's query

[Huw Lloyd]

On 16 April 2018 at 16:06, Wolff-Michael Roth <wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Here again with WMR in front of what I am saying.
>
> 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)
> WMR: (von Glasersfeld said this iin the text where he also discusses
> Piaget, if I remember well)
>

Generally, the account is "organisationally closed and informationally
open" which pertains to a process which produces itself. It is necessary to
recognise that "information" means to in-form, which means to change the
structure of. That is, the organ-as-process changes its own organisation.
Note that this reference to *self*-reproduction need not pertain to the
"self" of the individual. It pertains to the organ that is
self-reproducing. The organ can be many things, including a joint
perspective!


> "In a constructivist account, she (Melissa) might be said to *incorrectly
> 'interpret'* the object ..." (51)
> WMR: (this is what you typically find in constructivist research, for only
> something in your mind exists for the person)
>
>
I think the attempt to treat things "outside" the observer as objective is
an historical trend across numerous (all?) disciplines. In the cybernetics
of the 60s it was recognised that the observer was part of the observed.
This is expressed in terms of eigneforms and other modes of expression.

For example, this is a extract from a paper by Gordon Pask (1984), who
references Piaget and others: "An observer or experimenter is on a par with
the participants who are not, as suggested by the denial of assumption a of
Section 1.2, regarded as it-referenced or, strictly, objective entities. It
follows, inci- dentally, that an observer cannot be com- pletely impartial
and that information about a conversation, since it is not strictly objec-
tive information, is not generally maximized, as it may be in a classical
exper- iment, by minimizing an experimenter's in- terference, by
controlling and replicating the conditions of the experiment."


> "As Piaget, modern day constructivists often characterize children's
> knowing
>  *negatively: as lack, deficit ... or deviance* ..." (52)
> WMR: (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)
>

Classifying according to what cannot (yet) be undertaken seems to me to be
reasonable when one is interested in achieving specialised skills
pertaining to competencies, such as learning how to solve a problem (and
not merely solving it on the basis of being shown in detail). This is the
same condition as explored through the vehicle of ability to imitate
(Vygotsky). Note that this does not enforce any conditions about the
individuality of the individual.

>
> "In the constructivist literature , we can frequently read that
> *misconceptions
> ... have to be eradicated* (53)
> WMR: (Yes, this you can find in the literature on misconceptions, with the
> very verb "eradicate")
>

So there is some bias concerning which skills are valued... The teacher
notes his students have certain habits that need to be "eradicated" in
order for them to provide "correct" answers...


>
> 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.
> WMR: (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...)
>

Generally, I have found Piaget's translations problematic.  The use of
accommodation and assimilation in different contexts combined with
circumambulation can make for a protracted exercise in which I think one
would inevitably end up going back to the French (and the historical
settings) in order to gain further clarity.

Here the point seems to be about the use of certain expressions indicating
an archaic mentality(?) I would say the point may be much simpler. Failure
and success can pertain to the a process, just as saying "in" or "out" can
pertain to circumstances pertaining to a container metaphor.


>
> I gather you haven't read Papert or Minsky. I feel their version,
> constructionism, contains many useful insights.
> WMR: (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.)
>

So there is some premise at play concerning individuality (or not) and
constructivism?

Hope this helps.

Best,
Huw


> ------------------
>
> Michael
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:59 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>