Replying to rbacal . . .
Following comments regarding stereotypes which remind you of
"superstitious behaviors" . . . I noticed two twists as I have followed
your exploration with Jack Hirschfield.
First, I liked Jack's comments about Skinner and felt they were relevant
to the thread. Then I felt your response clarifyied your reference to
Skinner as an example of stereotyped patterns which are learned in a
context. If the context is lost, so are opportunities to learn.
The systems we use to explain stereotyped learning can limit the learning
we acheive from the observational data. Labeling Skinner as mechanistic,
though true, shifted the focus away from the experience and into
explanation. Do we always categorize or reduce when we explain?
In a recent seminar on change, Delbeque made a point of remaining at the
experience of the problem to develop innovative solutions. It seems that
if we explain the problem we have reduced the opportunity to innovate . .
. and learn? We hurry to arrive at "the problem" and this leads to "the
solution."
We do lose information when we move away from the experience of depression
and explain it as a cognitive filter or a mental model. Yet this also can
provide a focused area to explore the models and learn what we mean by
them.
David C. Rupley, Jr.
dcrupley@coredcs.com
--"David C. Rupley, Jr." <dcrupley@coredcs.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>