Re: [xmca] Re: understanding the process/outcome

Date: Wed Jan 24 2007 - 06:12:26 PST

Couldn't resist the urge on this one:

Geuss I have CHAT<->SCRAT fever!

enter guitar solo

eric : )

                      "Mike Cole"
                      <lchcmike who-is-at gmail. To: "" <>
                      com> cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <>
                      Sent by: Subject: [xmca] Re: understanding the process/outcome
                      xmca-bounces who-is-at web
                      01/23/2007 04:52
                      Please respond
                      to mcole; Please
                      respond to
                      "eXtended Mind,


One NEVER need apologize for asking questions, posing issues, commenting so
long as they are meant in the spirit of building common understanding. In
that message I was
reacting to the suggestion, or what I took to be the suggestion, that
research could forgo a study of the history of the people and institutional
setting in which the research was being conducted. I was saying that it was
my understanding of our common understanding that history matters.

Whether or not phylogenetic history can plausibly brought into the picture
depends a LOT
on the issue being addressed and the conditions under which it is being

The point made by several people including yourself that humans are still
evolving is an important one. Rapidly accumulating information about the
changes in brain function and structure that are brought about by
involvement in cultural practices to people living today
make this more than a theoretical issue.

On 1/23/07, <> wrote:
> Mike Cole wrote:
> "Those interested in the action/chat methodology discussion
> I do not understand how, if one believes that culture is constiutive of
> human development, one can ignore the history of the behaviors in
> that are the object of the research at the center of the discussion on
> this
> list for the past quarter of a century. This argument is made concretely
> in
> extenso in a variety of places and to start it de novo here I think that
> the
> onus is on those who wish to jettison genetic analysis. The organization
> of
> activity in any work place or in any classroom or at any family table and
> hence the organiztion of behvior, its subjective significance or
> participants, etc. ALL require such an
> analysis. That such analyses take time, and are inconvenient, expensive,
> difficulty, etc. is a separate issue. That microgenesis, which I engage
> routinely,
> is most accessible and close to the level of action research, is
> to note as a starting point. But to stop there would, in my view, be a
> shame."
> Being someone who spends his time practicing teaching/learning and
> articles by those who research I know this discussion about action
> research
> falls outside of my area of expertise.
> With that premise in mind please ignore the ignorance of this question
> mike, "are you stating your dissatisfaction with current literature
> quantum leaps in theory based upon assumptions of how microgenetic,
> ontogenetic, phylogenetic and historical development co-constructs or
> NOT co-construct environs/contexts?"
> If this is not the case I apologize for stepping outside of my expertise.
> That said I am thoroughly enjoying reading the newly posted articles.
> Thank you to Wolf-Michael Roth for the link to his article as well.
> eric
xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 10:11:33 PST