Re: [xmca] Double Stimulation Tasks

From: Martin Packer (
Date: Tue Mar 06 2007 - 17:10:07 PST


I don't think I see internalization being so important to this task. Unless
you're suggesting that forming a concept (or a complex) involves
internalization? I'm only slowly getting my head around the set up. Is that
internalization? :)


On 3/6/07 5:15 PM, "David Kellogg" <> wrote:

> Martin:
> I have a similar question. I''ve always understood "the method of double
> stimulation" as a way of sneaking the concept of mediation in by a behaviorist
> back door. Like handkerchief-tying, quipus, putting your ring upside down,
> writing notes to yourself, using cards on the forbidden colors task, or even
> making up mnemonics to do the task where you have to match two unlikely
> concepts ("camel" and "death" or "bread" and sleigh"). It even sounds a little
> like a "second signal system". Of course, it isn't a behaviorist concept at
> all, because the phenomenon it is supposed to explain is not even recognized
> by behaviorists, viz. internalization or interiorization.
> But now I'm faced with a similar problem from the other end (that is, the
> interior side). Frawley, in his book "Vygotsky and the Computational Mind"
> claims that the "Tower of Hanoi" problem is an example where an external
> mediator mediates the task without representing it (in other words, there is
> no resultant internalization). If that's the case, then it seems to me it is
> NOT an example of mediation. Is he barking up the wrong tower, or am I?
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
> ---------------------------------
> Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and
> always stay connected to friends.
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 01 2007 - 01:00:10 PST