Obstacles to learning LO11193

jack hirschfeld (jack@his.com)
Fri, 29 Nov 1996 12:49:59 -0500

Replying to LO11183 --

Was: Depression: an obstacle to learning

This note is intended to respond to Robert Bacal, who posted the
following, intending to clarify his point in LO 11136. My intention here
is not to enter into debate with Robert, but to explore with him and
others on the list the basis of our difference. Hence the change in
subject line. Please forgive the inordinate length of this post.

>On 28 Nov 96 at 13:44, jack hirschfeld wrote:
>> Replying to LO11136 --
>>
>> Robert Bacal comments:
>>
>> >Reminds me of the concept of "superstitious behaviour" suggested by
>> >Skinner (actually by his pigeons). He noticed that his pigeons were
>> >developing very weird behaviours, head bobs, dances and so on associated
>> >with feeding time and their own pecking at the bar behaviour. The pigeons
>> >had somehow associated these bizarre behaviours as something required to
>> >receive their food, accidentally, when no real association existed.
>>
>> Although a very brilliant man, Skinner had a mechanistic view of the
>> universe, which disabled his ability to understand everything he saw.
>>
>> Some of us have learned through observation, contemplation and practice
>> that if you don't bob your head and do your dance you might get a kernal
>> of corn when you peck, but it won't be the same as if you had.
>
>I was obviously unclear about the point I was trying to make, which
>is independent of Skinner and whether one feels he got it or didn't
>get it. First, this is an observed phenomenon, and one verified by
>others. Second, the point being that we fall into patterns of
>behaviour (whether you choose to explain them in a mechanistic way,
>another psychological way, a philisophical way, etc, and that those
>patterns of behaviour and perceptions limit our ability to learn
>different ways of behaving and perceiving, UNLESS we can identify
>those patterns (eg. stereotypes), bring them out into the light of
>day, and entertain, and perhaps be entertained by them.
>
>I am not sure what you took from my message, but maybe this will
>clarify.

Thank you, Robert, for helping me understand better what your intended
meaning was. Perhaps I was not clear about my meaning - and perhaps I was
just a bit smug. So, I'd like to try to, as you have, to clarify.

I was struck by the example you gave about the work BF did with pigeons,
because, just as you say, he observed behavior being generated which he
believed he was not reinforcing. Since he also believed that behavior is
based on reinforced experience, he concluded that the pigeons had
"accidentally" associated their little rituals with the acquisition of
their food. This is a "reasonable" conclusion, which was widely accepted.

The very reasonableness of this explanation successfully disguised the
fact that neither Skinner nor anybody else had or has the foggiest notion
as to why the birds behave this way. We may use the experiment to explain
"superstitious" behavior; but that disguises the fact that the very word
"superstitious" in this context expresses a point of view (the
"scientific" outlook) which narrows the range of possible explanations
which we will "entertain".

Back in the days when I was involved with some people who were trying to
organize a Walden Two community based relatively rigidly on Skinnerian
principles, I had a few consciousness-shattering experiences, one of which
I believe is applicable here.

I was at work, peripherally, on a project called Man, A Course of Study.
This was an ambitious mid-60s attempt to create a comprehensive social
studies curriculum, K-12, which would encompass all the social studies
disciplines in an integrated program. Some of my colleagues in this
project were based at Harvard, and Jerome Bruner was a consulting
contributor to the design of the program. Through this gateway, I had an
opportunity to observe some experiments being conducted at Harvard at the
time. The one that is relevant here was an experiment in social
psychology that went like this:

A group of students were assembled in a darkened room, facing a screen. A
slide projector displayed an image on the screen that was completely out
of focus. The students were told that they image would be brought slowly
into focus, but their task was to identify the image before it was sharp,
and that the purpose of the experiment was to find out how little
information they needed to correctly interpret the image (that is, how
long before the picture was in focus could they identify it). They were
encouraged to call out their guesses and to point out features at will.

As the projector's focus began slowly to transform a general grey to
totally inidistinct blotches of light and dark, to fuzzy patches of color
and shape and so on, the "call-outs" began to focus as well. Beginning as
random, very wild, and sometimes deliberately funny ideas, slowly a
"story" began to develop about what was happening on screen. In this
case, a very clear description of a man leading a dog on a leash, with
some details of his surroundings. This "story" got continuously
embellished long after any casual observer could easily discern that we
were looking at a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge! At some point the group
had accepted an interpretation which they all "observed" and "verified".
This experiment was, I think, used as part of a study aimed at
understanding "mass hysteria".

I had had some interest during the 50s in mysticism and the philosophy of
consciousness. Like many young intellectuals, I exercised much of this
interest through the study of texts. But I actually became engaged in Zen
practices at one point, culminating in a totally baffling retreat with a
Zen roshi in 1960. So I had returned to my earlier love - science - and
began to think about some of the same issues from a "scientific"
perspective. The experience with the class in Harvard (and some others
which I will not detail here) called into question for me the very idea
that "observed and verified" had anything to do with reality, and set me
on a different path.

My purpose now is not to squabble about "what is reality?" I think I know
better than to waste people's time with that. It is to point to the
belief in "observed and verified" as an obstacle to learning.

Returning to Skinner and my orginal posting: If you believe that there is
no connection between a pigeon's ritual behavior and its acquisition of
food because, after all, YOU are controlling the feeding and YOU know
there is no connection, you have established a mental construct that will
act as an obstacle - and usually I think an insurmountable one - to ever
understanding why the pigeons dance.

I have had some experiences that have caused me to believe that some
learning (and I would say, the most important learning, but I know that
reflects my bias) is meta-linguistic. That some of the sense we make of
the universe defies description, but is as "real" or perhaps even "more
real" than the everyday which we can agree to perceive and describe. I
don't mean to be mysterious here, but I want to bring this conversation
full circle to an earlier dialogue about making knowledge explicit. In
that conversation, we talked about the expert who could handle the fleece
and "know" the quality of the wool it would yield. I would have contended
then, and I do contend now, that although some of us might learn what that
expert knows, there is no systematic way for that expert to pass the
knowledge to us.

So, I do not disagree with Robert's thesis; indeed we are in total
agreement that people can get locked into points of view, expectations,
habits of behavior, etc., all of which limit their ablility to learn in
some way. I also agree that this is one way to look at stereotyping and
how it keeps us from understanding.

At the risk of sounding foolish, however, let me reiterate: The kernel of
corn a pigeon gets simply by pecking (no matter what we may think) is not
the same as the kernel he gets by bobbing, weaving and doing his dance.

----

As a postscript: I quickly fell away from the group of Skinner disciples,
with the exception of one close personal friend. My respect for BF
remains; he made many important contributions which have unfortunately
been misunderstood following the ascension of the human potential
movement. Some of his disciples - notably Og Lindsley - have also made
valuable contributions to our understanding.

But I have been listening to a different drummer.

--

Jack Hirschfeld What would you do if I sang out of tune? jack@his.com Would you get up and walk out on me?

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>