[Xmca-l] Re: Bill's query

[Wolff-Michael Roth]

Huw,
I checked on some of the French texts I have, and he does write about the
child's current state in negative terms, as where the child is not yet.
>From "La psychologie de l'enfant":

1. où NE s'observe PAS encore une intelligence proprement dite (p.12)
2. au sein duquel il N'existe PAS ENCORE, dn point de vue du sujet, de
différenciation (p.11)
3. mais NE parvient simplement PAS à résoudre le problème (p.15)

And so on...
Michael




On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>