As I see Luria’s dual stimulation, Andy, you have to go beyond the
idea of sub-systems. It’s mosaics, I’m afraid.
Two actions closely related yes. But, in fact, the first one has some
hidden attributes (or maybe some hiding states) and so you barge in
with the second closely related in some (maybe odd) way– seemingly
abandoning the first – and the hidden or hiding in the first can be
made observable.
So whether Luria thinks about a clinician or a diagnostician or an
actively engaged patient, the dual stimulation method can serve one well.
Zasetsky, for instance, learned a way to recognize printed
letters/words (a picture visualization as I recall) in spite of
massive brain damage but sometimes it failed (some part was hidden
from use) so he’d appear to abandon the first stimulation and start up
the second stimulation (maybe reciting the letters in some order).
The second was so closely yoked to the first that sooner or later
there’d be a sort of collision. Using the second stimulation, he’d
sooner or later get to the letter that had been “hiding” when he had
been relying on his first stimulation so whoosh the second stimulation
would now be interrupted and abandoned by the not really ever
abandoned first simulation and he could go back to recognizing letters
and getting the words in the print using his preferred first system.
Maybe?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
*To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
*Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2013 11:42 PM
*Subject:* Re: [xmca] Educational neuroscience - from Mike Cole
So we have 4 distinct but interrelated concepts: system, model, unit
of analysis and method.
I will try to formulate a view on unit of analysis and method.
The idea of "artefact-mediated (collaborative) action" as a unit of
analysis (a generalisation of "word meaning") is the basis for the
"method of dual stimulation," as I see it.
Once you have a concept of that S - X - R triangle, as the unit of
action, then it suggests a method of investigation based on offering
the auxilliary stimulus, the artifact X, to the subject, S, to assist
them to complete the task, R. By varying teh artefact X and the task
R, investigation of S is possible.
Likewise, let us suppose that you see the mind as a psychological
system made up of functional subsystems each of which are
interconnected, irrespective of whether the subsystem in question
itself produces observable phenomena. This could be represented in a
diagram, too, something like S -> Ssys1 ---> Ssys2 -> R, meaning that
every subsystem (Ssys1) is connected with every other (Ssys2), and
disturbance of Ssys1 will cause a disturbance to Ssys2, which may be
manifeted in an observable response, R.
So the implication of this is that the "unit of analysis" of an entire
psychological system is two functional subsystems with an
interconnection. Ssys1 --- Ssys2.
This is not trivial, because much of Ssys1 will not be observable, and
this unit of analysis allows the investigator to study Ssys1 by means
of the observable responses via Ssys2.
The unit of analysis suggests the method.
Andy
Andy Blunden wrote:
> I think the issue is HOW one makes observable the "unintended motor
responses", Andy.
> The issue of whether the combined motor *method* is a unit of
analysis. I think it is a method.
> what whole is it the simplest instance of? It is a method for being
able to identify with some degree of certainty what another person is
thinking about. Help me get from there to what it is a unit of
analysis of.
>
> mike
>
> ps- why is this not on xmca....
> (Andy mistakenly sent his previous message to Mike alone. This is
just to put it all back on xmca)
>
>
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden