[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] "I'm sorry, that's just what my brain thinks!" - Neuroscience, Scientism, Neuroism, Neuromyths



Jerry,

The attachment didn't make it this far, and the link gets me to the abstract but not the PDF. Can you send it again (or to me personally)?

thanks

Martin

On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Jerry Balzano wrote:

Former UCSD denizen Brian Keeley has written a very interesting review of Mistaken Identity for the (now defunct (!)) journal Brain and Mind that is as good or better than anything I'd be able to do; here's the link: http://www.springerlink.com/index/T1553031775156U6.pdf (I'm also attaching the pdf if people can't get to the review itself through this link). As for the corruption(s) of language, the main one I was referring to was the one where we make the little sacred object in our heads the Subject of the sentence, the Agent of the action, as in my subject line, as in when we say things like "our brains don't like it when ..." and other linguistic constructions that replace references to whole persons with references to organs.

Jerry




On Sep 16, 2009, at 7:56 PM, mike cole wrote:

Hit and expand, Jerry.
Are there any summaries/reviews of *Mistaken Identity: The Mind-Brain
Problem Reconsidered*? Could you do one for xmca/mca??
mike


On Sep 16, 2009, at 9:54 PM, Duvall, Emily wrote:

Hi Jerry,
      No need to run on my account. So called 'brain-based learning'
is one of the banes of my existence... :-) And it's good to keep a wary
eye...
However, I did wonder when you said, "We see a corruption of our
language, ...."
I'm not sure what you mean by corruption or 'our language'?
~em

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Jerry Balzano <gjbalzano@ucsd.edu> wrote:

I just wanted to insert an opinionated and possibly inflammatory view, that the influence of neuroscience -- not just on "the learning sciences" -- but on a much wider gamut of practicing scientists, teachers, laypersons, and even that ghostly creature known as the Zeitgeist, has not been altogether benign - in fact, far from it. We see a corruption of our language, wherein we increasingly find otherwise intelligent people take agency away from persons (not to mention groups) and hand it over to brains. I've called this tendency "brain chauvinism" in my classes; I've also seen it called "brainism", and in a recent book by Leslie Brothers with the lovely title Mistaken Identity: The Mind-Brain Problem Reconsidered, the author refers to it as "neuroism". It shows itself in particularly egregious form in the
"Brain-Based Learning" literature (promotional and 'academic'), a
scientistic attempt to dress up previously unassuming theories, ideas, and findings in the flashy garb of the physiological and thereby make it look like something that has instantly earned more of your attention and respect,
when in fact it has actually earned less.

Hitting and running,
JerryB

- "No supposition seems to me more natural than that there is no process in
the brain correlated with associating or with thinking."
- "Note also how sure people are that to the ability to add or to multiply or to say a poem by heart, etc., there must correspond a peculiar state of the person's brain, although on the other hand they know next to nothing
about such psycho-physiological correspondences."
- "It is thus perfectly possible that certain psychological phenomena cannot be investigated physiologically, because physiologically nothing
corresponds to them."
- “Thinking in terms of physiological processes is extremely dangerous in connection with the clarification of conceptual problems in psychology.”
                     (L. WIttgenstein, various places)


On Sep 16, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Monica Hansen wrote:

I think this plug is well placed because methodology is really central to
this discussion. How do we know what we know in any field? The tools and resources that are available and shared in common are the tools that can
be
used for communication. An old tool maybe used until a new one, a better
one
is invented. The idea of a computational theory of mind--when this was simplistic, based on a more simple computational machine--input, function, output. One of the best things that happened because of this model was
that
researchers had to test it. The human brain is not a simple, computational machine! We know this now. Now, one of the words I see most often in discussions of the brain function is "complex". Computational models are evolving to accommodate this. Those who used to think of the development
of
the human as an individual unit are also realizing that the individual exists within and is a part of a larger system and that must be accounted for in models as well. It is fascinating to see how old ideas re- circulate
and feed new work.

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu ] On
Behalf Of Martin Packer
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:47 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Neuroscience connections to learning and relearning

Perhaps this is just a plug for phenomenology, but I can't resist
pointing out that Maurice Merleau-Ponty was able to use
neurophysiological literature concerning brain-damaged patients (by
Head and others) as evidence *against* both a computational theory of mind and biological reductionism. Old habits of thinking certainly die
hard, but they *are. habits, not necessary paths for thought.

Martin


On Sep 16, 2009, at 9:31 AM, Monica Hansen wrote:

Steve:
I like the way you pose the last question: At the same time, some of
the
dominant trends in
contemporary neuroeducational theory seem to revolve around time- worn biological reductionist ideas - almost with a vengeance. New bottles,
but some of the same old wine.

Because the method of the tradition of academic inquiry in the natural
sciences is a strong contributor to work in this area (physiology,
biology,
chemistry, etc) we would expect to see this. What is so great with
this
recent tide of research in neuroscience, is that we are finding more
"evidence" that cannot be explained by the traditional models. Not
the same
old wine--a different wine that needs new packaging; it's just the
production facility only has bottles, labels, the same old equipment.

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of Steve Gabosch
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:29 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Neuroscience connections to learning and
relearning

What interesting books, Emily.  Thank you.

Virginia Berninger and Todd Richards, who are at the UW Seattle in my neck of the US woods, say (as revealed by Amazon Books Look Inside) in
the Introduction to this textbook that they rely on Luria:

"In Parts I and II we lay the groundwork for the complexities of
systems of brains and minds at work and in doing so draw on the work of a Russian neuropsychologist, A.R. Luria (1973), who introduced the notion of functional systems of a brain at work. However, Luria based his conclusions on study of individuals with brain damage, whereas we base ours on study of normally developing individuals with and without
learning differences and not on those with brain damage.  Although
Luria did not study the processes of teaching and learning academic subjects in the same depth or setting as contemporary researchers in many disciplines do, we credit Luria with the fundamental insight that multiple brain structures may be involved in one function and that the
same brain structures can participate in more than one functional
system."
p8,  Brain Literacy for Educators and Psychologists (2002)

Great to see Luria given this credit. Question: Where does Luria's The Working Brain: An Introduction to Neuropsychology (1973) fit in to this kind of study? Is his book accessible, is it too out of date,
etc.?

Thanks much for the attachments.  (I keep getting the same Howard-
Jones article out of the first two attachments, btw).

Next AERA conference I go to, I will pay some serious attention to
what the people in neuroeducation are doing - there really does appear
to be something burgeoning there.  My take so far ... see what you
think ... is that one can expect all the current major trends in the
general social, life and natural sciences to reappear in this new
interdisciplinary field - but on a new level, reflecting some of the
advances of recent decades, such as an increased awareness of the
central role of cultural experience ... just as, for example,
cognitive science in its developmental years absorbed some of the
newer ideas of its time (computer science, game theory, general
systems theory, etc. etc.). Neuroeducation seems to be consolidating
the surge in knowledge from research in cognition and learning in
recent decades - and especially, finding ways to theorize about and apply the vast new research insights that brain imaging technology is
making possible.  At the same time, some of the dominant trends in
contemporary neuroeducational theory seem to revolve around time- worn biological reductionist ideas - almost with a vengeance. New bottles,
but some of the same old wine.  Am I in the ballpark?

- Steve


On Sep 15, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Duvall, Emily wrote:

Glad you found it interesting, Steve!

To start, I guess it depends on how much you want to know, but
generally
I find it important to work with diagrams and video, some kind of
visual
support (I've started to include brain drawings as an assignment in
my
class) as well as articles.  The Berninger & Richards text works
well in
conjunction with the Brain Coloring Book to get you going. You don't have to memorize everything, but it's helpful to understand the macro and microstructures from a systems perspective in order to begin to
bridge the discourse.

Others may have different favorites, but I suggest The Jossey- Bass Reader on the Brain and Learning... and (brand new, I haven't read my copy): The Educated Brain: Essays in Neuroeducation. Meanwhile, I've attached a couple of general articles by Howard-Jones and one of the
more interesting pieces on VAK by Sharp et al.

As to where this discussion is taking place? I am still relatively
new
and don't have any peeps other than those I am cultivating in my
classes
and several open minded folks on the neuroscience faculty with
UIdaho.

~em





-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of Steve Gabosch
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:16 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Neuroscience connections to learning and
relearning

Emily, I much appreciated your links to the Science Daily articles
and
the Usha Goswami article. I learned a lot. Thanks much, and please keep links like this coming! These are areas I know I would like to learn much more about. A) On astrocytes etc.: If you had to put
together a crash course for CHAT-oriented researchers on
neuroscience,
what authors, books, articles etc. come to mind that you would draw
from?  B) As for the overview Goswami offers in her 2006 article
regarding 1) what neuroscience actually is discovering about learning
processes and how they might apply to the classroom and 2) what
neuromyths are emerging along with perhaps other hazards of the
commercialization of neuroeducation knowledge ... where is more of
this kind of discussion taking place these days?

- Steve




On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Mike Cole wrote:

Thanks Em-- And I googled Goswami neuromyths. Also very
enlightening.
Goswami did early work with Ann Brown, former collaborator with us
at LCHC.

Now if we go back a step and look at the people who created the
label of
learning sciences, and their backgrounds, the shift from
"developmental
psychology" to developmental sciences, the appearance recently of
the
handbook of cultural developmental science, ......... what a
tempest! Must
be a teapot in there somewhere. Simultaneous, fractilated paradigm
shifts?

Does anyone have the luxury of being able to organize a science
studies
interrogation of these movements? Seems really worthwhile.
mike

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Duvall, Emily <emily@uidaho.edu >
wrote:

Thanks Mike... :-)
In general I like Goswami's work; I find her discussion of
neuromyths compelling and have had my grad students do additional research on some of them. I am also particularly interested in ways
to
try to negotiate across different fields. I've attached my favorite
Goswami and a nice intro to neuroeducation.
As a side note: Monica (Hansen, who frequently shows up on the
list serve and is one of my doc students) and I took a neuroscience
journal club/ seminar last spring and found ourselves trying to
make
sense of the work that is done with regard to education. We are
taking
another seminar right now and some of the folks who were in last
year's
class are presenting journal articles in their field, but are
trying to
make the links to human experience, particularly education. It's
been
interesting to discover how open minded the students and faculty
are...
one of the computational neuroscience faculty has taken up some
Vygotsky
reading as well as neuroeducation... of course Luria's work is a
door
opener and a point of mutual interest.
~em

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of Mike Cole
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 9:41 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Neuroscience connections to learning and
relearning

No one picked up on your interest in neuroeducation, Emily. A lot
of
what I
read in this area strikes me as almost entirely without any
appreciation
of
education, or human experience, as a culturally mediated, co-
constructed
process. Do you have a favorite general ref you could point us to
that
you
resonate to??
mike

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Duvall, Emily <emily@uidaho.edu >
wrote:

I thought some of you might one or both of these article summaries
interesting. The first really speaks to the new field of

neuroeducation

with regard to cellular learning... the nice thing about the
summary

is

it gives you an overview of learning at the cellular basis... very

clear

and easy to understand. Plus an introduction to astrocytes... :-)

The second piece actually discusses re-learning, which has been a

topic

lately.

What I personally find so interesting is the role of experience in learning and relearning... I found myself thinking back to Shirley

Brice

Heath's work... it would be fun to go back to her work and look at
her
study through a neuroeducation lens.

1. Star-shaped Cells In Brain Help With Learning
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090911132907.htm

Every movement and every thought requires the passing of specific information between networks of nerve cells. To improve a skill or
to
learn something new entails more efficient or a greater number of
cell
contacts. Scientists can now show that certain cells in the brain
--

the

astrocytes -- actively influence this information exchange.

2. Forgotten But Not Gone: How The Brain Re-learns
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117110834.htm

Thanks to our ability to learn and to remember, we can perform
tasks
that other living things can not even dream of. However, we are
only
just beginning to get the gist of what really goes on in the brain

when

it learns or forgets something. What we do know is that changes in
the
contacts between nerve cells play an important role. But can these structural changes account for that well-known phenomenon that it
is
much easier to re-learn something that was forgotten than to learn
something completely new?


~em


Emily Duvall, PhD
Assistant Professor Curriculum & Instruction
University of Idaho, Coeur d'Alene
1000 W. Hubbard Suite 242 | Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
T 208 292 2512 | F 208 667 5275 emily@uidaho.edu |
www.cda.uidaho.edu

He only earns his freedom and his life, who takes them every day
by
storm.
-- Johann Wolfgang Goethe




_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
<howard-
jones
.pdf


<
neuroeducation
.pdf

< sharp_et_al_2 .pdf>_______________________________________________

xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca