Paul cites Leont'ev " ...synthesis of heterogeneous
combinations and generalizations that have been made
cannot be achieved by means of their and common
intertwining. It requires further development of the conceptual system of
psychology, the search for new scientific theories capable of drawing
together the loosened laces of psychological science"
That's what i,m trying to do, and here Leont'ev points the object of
criticism (simple combination of psychological facts) regarding
interdisciplinarity.
A.A. Leont'ev himself is a very good example of an intedisciplinarian. He
now specializes in developing the general principles of education, mostly
language (native, second,etc) teaching and learning, and curricular
development. And all his experience of psychologist and linguist lets him
do it successfully. This great amount of work doesn't prevent him from
being aware what's done in PL and related fields. "Leont'evs" is a family
business, you now, and his youngest son is a cybernetics student and now
they write articles (as co-authors) about knowledge representation (human
and AI).
Sorry for my not-as-good-as-it-should-be English, which prevents me from
expressing all my thoughts and ideas clearly.
Tatiana
----------
> От: Paul H.Dillon <illonph@pacbell.net>
> Кому: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Тема: Re: faux paws
> Дата: 21 августа 2000 г. 0:26
>
> hi mike, dianne;
>
> i've been reading Leont'ev's "Activity, Consciousness, and Personality"
and
> just this morning ran across the following om Ch.4 (version on the MIA):
>
> "Characteristic for our time is the intensive developemnt of
> interdisciplinary research connecting psychology with nerophysiology,
with
> cybernetics, and logical-mathematical disciplines, and with sociology and
> cultural history, this in itslef cannot lead to the resolution of the
> fundamental, methodological problems of psychological science. Leaving
them
> unresolved only increases the tendency toward a dangerous physiological,
> cybernaetic, logical, or sociological reductionism and threatens
psychology
> with a loss of its subject, its specificity. Neither is the
circumnstance
> that the conflict of various psychological trends has lost its former
> sharpness evidence of theoretical progress; militant behaviorism has
> yielded to comporomising neobehaviourism (or some authors say,
'subjective
> behaviorism') , Gestaltism, neo-Gestaltism, Freudism, neo-Freudism, and
> cultural anthropology. Although the term eclectic has assumed a meaning
of
> almost the highest praise among American authors, eclectic positions have
> never yewt led to success. It is understood that synthesis of
heterogeneous
> combinations of psychological facts and generalizations that have been
made
> cannot be achieved by means of their simple combination and common
> intertwining. It requires further development of the conceptual system
of
> psychology, the search for new scientific theories capable of drawing
> together the loosened laces of psychological science."
>
> I think that your point mike, about having a common object -- unit of
> analysis if you like -- provides the framework that keeps the use of
> multiple perspectives from being simply a big smorgasbord at which people
> eat too much and get fat without thereby nourishing themselves.
>
> Paul H. Dillon
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mike Cole <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu>
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 7:58 AM
> Subject: faux paws
>
>
> >
> > Hi Diane--
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification of faux interdisciplinarity. It was a real
> > question on my part. I have been involved in a number of efforts to
> > actually create interdisciplinary departments (at Irvine in the, gulp,
> > '60's and an inter-discipline (Communication) here at UCSD. I have
> > seen a lot of the kind of faux institutional globules you talk about,
> > where interdisciplinary means everyone can say and write what they
> > want about whatever and there is no basis for criticism, comparison,
> > or genuine dialogue.
> >
> > I think education is especially prone to this problem as an
institutional
> > form. Actually, I have never thought of it as a discipline, but as a
> domain
> > of social interest/concern.
> >
> > My own experience indicates that having a common objective with real
> > world consequences helps people talk across the discourses we call
> > disciplines. In my own department, the goal of creating an
> inter-discipline
> > is constantly eroded by a very strong tendency to
do-your-own-thing-ism,
> > which is one brand of faux interdicsiplinarity.
> >
> > I have sea breezes and am listening to the Beethoven symphonies this
> weekend.
> > And thinking about units of analysis! :-)
> > mike
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:46 PDT