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

[Xmca-l] Re: xmca new discussion started SOCIOLOGY | PSYCHOLOGY



Hi Greg, this is what I think I wrote in the message to Andy. It takes  a
little more than a few lines. But I am appending an article, in which I
provide a concrete case study where I make the point. The article is not
very long and I think the case is described very concisely. Cheers, Michael


Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Cognitive Science
MacLaurin Building A567
University of Victoria
Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>

New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
<https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:16 PM, <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wolff-Michael,
> It seems like you are making an important distinction that I wanted to
> hear more about. What did you mean when you wrote:
>
> "there is not something constructed in the
> pair/group that is then internalized. Instead, the point is that what later
> is seen to be typical of the individual earlier has existed *as* the
> relation."
>
> I wonder if you could explain that a bit? Perhaps give us a concrete
> example of each so that we might be able to understand this difference? And
> maybe what is lost if you take the first position?
>
> Many thanks,
> Greg
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jun 11, 2017, at 6:45 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > there is not something constructed in the
> > pair/group that is then internalized. Instead, the point is that what
> later
> > is seen to be typical of the individual earlier has existed *as* the
> > relation.
>
>

Attachment: _Roth_2016.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document