Re: Being trained
Locked
 
|
Both Eric and Nick use the phrase "I was trained". I would like to know more about the intention here. Normally one talks about training an animal, e.g., to sit or roll over, etc. One also talks about training people to do relatively formalizable jobs or to obey fairly well understood rules, e.g., train someone to run a piece of machinery or to be a police officer. It strikes me as strange to say that someone was trained to be a scientist. Would you be willing to elaborate on that.
-- Russ Abbott ______________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles cell: 310-621-3805 blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ ______________________________________ On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
I think that "being trained" as a scientist starts in 6th year science
class, when one is 11 (I.e. Upon formal exposure to the scientific method), and continues from then on. ~~James Turtlezero.com On 3/23/10, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: > Both Eric and Nick use the phrase "I was trained". I would like to know > more about the intention here. Normally one talks about training an animal, > e.g., to sit or roll over, etc. One also talks about training people to do > relatively formalizable jobs or to obey fairly well understood rules, e.g., > train someone to run a piece of machinery or to be a police officer. It > strikes me as strange to say that someone was trained to be a scientist. > Would you be willing to elaborate on that. > > > -- Russ Abbott > ______________________________________ > > Professor, Computer Science > California State University, Los Angeles > > cell: 310-621-3805 > blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ > vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ > ______________________________________ > > > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Nicholas Thompson < > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> Eric, Steve, >> >> I am trying to reconcile my agreement with the spirit of your >> correspondence with my largely failed attempts to work toward a common >> language in our conversations about complexity on this list and on Friday >> mornings. I, too, was trained in many traditions.... comparative >> psychology, ethology, zoology, some physical anthropology, quite a lot of >> english literature, and even a little meteorology. And some of my best >> friends are mathematicians. But perhaps unlike Eric (?) (who was my last >> [postdoctoral] student, by the way, and my great intellectual benefactor) >> I >> am convinced that the effort to communicate amongst perspectives is >> valuable. And I cannot see how communication is possible without some >> attention to and adjustments of the use of specialized languages. It >> bothers me still, for instance, that two members of our community can use >> words like "system" or "information" in entirely contradictory ways and >> yet >> fancy that they are communicating with one another. >> >> I think this is where an analogy to the paradox of mathematics that Byers >> highlights might be useful. The struggle over language is worthwhile >> but >> only because it fails. No man struggles in order to fail, but still, >> failure is the wet edge of science. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Nick >> >> PS, to Eric: *"The wonderful feature of the New Realism’s metaphor is >> that it honors our separate points of view without giving up on finding a >> point of view that integrates them. Two blind New Realists groping an >> elephant: “OK, I’ll follow the snake toward the sound of your voice and >> you >> follow the tree toward the sound of my voice and we’ll see what we feel >> along the way.” PAUSE. Together; * >> * “My God, it’s an ELEPHANT!”" ** * >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >> Clark University ([hidden email]) >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> >> *To: *Steve Smith <[hidden email]> >> *Cc: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee >> Group<[hidden email]> >> *Sent:* 3/23/2010 6:20:41 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] multiple tool kits [was (advice needed!)] >> >> Steve, >> As a partial endorsement of your argument, I was trained as a comparative >> psychologist (comparing between species) and an ethologist (the European >> branch of animal behavior that showed we could treat behaviors as evolved >> phenomenon in the same way we treat anatomy). I was specifically trained >> in >> these as two separate, but related traditions. When I arrived at at U.C. >> Davis, which has (or at least had) the premier graduate training program >> in >> Animal Behavior in the country, and as I started attending more of the >> Animal Behavior Society national conferences, I noticed a disturbing >> trend: >> >> There was a conscious attempt to create a generic study of animal behavior >> in which everyone did basically the same thing from the same perspective >> (though with variation in species studied and behavior focused on). I kept >> trying to explain to people, most forcibly to the grad students, as I >> thought I had a chance with them, that this was bad. They were trading in >> several hard-won and highly-specialized tool kits (those of comparative >> psych, ethology, behavioral ecology, biological anthropology, etc.) for a >> 101 piece toolkit from Walmart. >> >> If they were trying to encourage collaboration, I would have been all for >> it, but instead they were trying to create a shared language by destroying >> the uniqueness of the distinct approaches. Yuck! >> >> Anyway, just an endorsement of your project from a very different context, >> >> Eric >> >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 08:26 PM, *Steve Smith <[hidden email]>* wrote: >> >> siddharth wrote: >> > >> > you're right about the language issue - even a basic word in the >> > complexity debate- eg. 'modeling'- is interpreted/understood slightly >> > differently in architecture..its easier when they mean things totally >> > different, like your example- its really tricky when they mean things >> > almost the same, yet not - these micro-shifts in meaning make things, >> > well, complex-er! >> > thanks! >> >> For what it is worth, I've been working with Dr. Deana Pennington of UNM >> on this very topic... a joint UNM/Santa Fe Complex proposal to the NSF >> was just declined, but had it been funded, we would have been extending >> work done on a related NSF grant just ending this month on the topic of >> "the Science of Collaboration". Central to this work is the notion >> that each discipline (and subdiscipline and individual) has a >> distinct >> but complementary set of concept and terms that they use to understand >> and share their work. One of the tools to be developed is a >> collaborative tool for eliciting and resolving the terms and concepts >> across cross-disciplinary teams and projects. >> >> We are still seeking funding and opportunities to continue this work and >> it is an obvious project to carry forth at the Santa Fe Complex (in >> collaboration with UNM, etc.) if possible. >> >> We (Santa Fe Complex) just hosted a workshop for this team on Agent >> Based and Cellular Automata Modeling. It did not address the problem >> of language directly but indirectly did by providing a variety of >> practitioners with a common working vocabulary (to whit, NetLogo) for >> expressing and exploring simulations. Of course, within the context >> of this course, we immediately encountered terminology conflicts (when >> is a "patch" a "cell"? etc.) >> >> Seconding the spirit of Nick's point, it is this very ambiguity that >> provides the expressiveness and the leverage. If you constrained >> everyone to a controlled vocabulary, you would have nothing more useful >> than an efficient bureaucracy within a fascist government. Things >> would generally be unambiguous, but rarely useful! >> >> - Steve >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> Eric Charles >> >> Professional Student and >> Assistant Professor of Psychology >> Penn State University >> Altoona, PA 16601 >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
That would include the 8th grade science teacher nailing your hand with a
rubber band from across the room because you can't stop fiddling with the scales (clanking noise) while someone else is talking ! I still flinch around taut (taught!?) rubber bands.... (SIT Fido! don't move) Steph T James Steiner wrote: > I think that "being trained" as a scientist starts in 6th year science > class, when one is 11 (I.e. Upon formal exposure to the scientific > method), and continues from then on. > > ~~James > Turtlezero.com > > On 3/23/10, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Both Eric and Nick use the phrase "I was trained". I would like to know >> more about the intention here. Normally one talks about training an animal, >> e.g., to sit or roll over, etc. One also talks about training people to do >> relatively formalizable jobs or to obey fairly well understood rules, e.g., >> train someone to run a piece of machinery or to be a police officer. It >> strikes me as strange to say that someone was trained to be a scientist. >> Would you be willing to elaborate on that. >> >> >> -- Russ Abbott >> ______________________________________ >> >> Professor, Computer Science >> California State University, Los Angeles >> >> cell: 310-621-3805 >> blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ >> vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ >> ______________________________________ >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Nicholas Thompson < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >>> Eric, Steve, >>> >>> I am trying to reconcile my agreement with the spirit of your >>> correspondence with my largely failed attempts to work toward a common >>> language in our conversations about complexity on this list and on Friday >>> mornings. I, too, was trained in many traditions.... comparative >>> psychology, ethology, zoology, some physical anthropology, quite a lot of >>> english literature, and even a little meteorology. And some of my best >>> friends are mathematicians. But perhaps unlike Eric (?) (who was my last >>> [postdoctoral] student, by the way, and my great intellectual benefactor) >>> I >>> am convinced that the effort to communicate amongst perspectives is >>> valuable. And I cannot see how communication is possible without some >>> attention to and adjustments of the use of specialized languages. It >>> bothers me still, for instance, that two members of our community can use >>> words like "system" or "information" in entirely contradictory ways and >>> yet >>> fancy that they are communicating with one another. >>> >>> I think this is where an analogy to the paradox of mathematics that Byers >>> highlights might be useful. The struggle over language is worthwhile >>> but >>> only because it fails. No man struggles in order to fail, but still, >>> failure is the wet edge of science. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> PS, to Eric: *"The wonderful feature of the New Realism’s metaphor is >>> that it honors our separate points of view without giving up on finding a >>> point of view that integrates them. Two blind New Realists groping an >>> elephant: “OK, I’ll follow the snake toward the sound of your voice and >>> you >>> follow the tree toward the sound of my voice and we’ll see what we feel >>> along the way.” PAUSE. Together; * >>> * “My God, it’s an ELEPHANT!”" ** * >>> >>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >>> Clark University ([hidden email]) >>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >>> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> >>> *To: *Steve Smith <[hidden email]> >>> *Cc: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee >>> Group<[hidden email]> >>> *Sent:* 3/23/2010 6:20:41 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] multiple tool kits [was (advice needed!)] >>> >>> Steve, >>> As a partial endorsement of your argument, I was trained as a comparative >>> psychologist (comparing between species) and an ethologist (the European >>> branch of animal behavior that showed we could treat behaviors as evolved >>> phenomenon in the same way we treat anatomy). I was specifically trained >>> in >>> these as two separate, but related traditions. When I arrived at at U.C. >>> Davis, which has (or at least had) the premier graduate training program >>> in >>> Animal Behavior in the country, and as I started attending more of the >>> Animal Behavior Society national conferences, I noticed a disturbing >>> trend: >>> >>> There was a conscious attempt to create a generic study of animal behavior >>> in which everyone did basically the same thing from the same perspective >>> (though with variation in species studied and behavior focused on). I kept >>> trying to explain to people, most forcibly to the grad students, as I >>> thought I had a chance with them, that this was bad. They were trading in >>> several hard-won and highly-specialized tool kits (those of comparative >>> psych, ethology, behavioral ecology, biological anthropology, etc.) for a >>> 101 piece toolkit from Walmart. >>> >>> If they were trying to encourage collaboration, I would have been all for >>> it, but instead they were trying to create a shared language by destroying >>> the uniqueness of the distinct approaches. Yuck! >>> >>> Anyway, just an endorsement of your project from a very different context, >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 08:26 PM, *Steve Smith <[hidden email]>* wrote: >>> >>> siddharth wrote: >>> >>>> you're right about the language issue - even a basic word in the >>>> complexity debate- eg. 'modeling'- is interpreted/understood slightly >>>> differently in architecture..its easier when they mean things totally >>>> different, like your example- its really tricky when they mean things >>>> almost the same, yet not - these micro-shifts in meaning make things, >>>> well, complex-er! >>>> thanks! >>>> >>> For what it is worth, I've been working with Dr. Deana Pennington of UNM >>> on this very topic... a joint UNM/Santa Fe Complex proposal to the NSF >>> was just declined, but had it been funded, we would have been extending >>> work done on a related NSF grant just ending this month on the topic of >>> "the Science of Collaboration". Central to this work is the notion >>> that each discipline (and subdiscipline and individual) has a >>> distinct >>> but complementary set of concept and terms that they use to understand >>> and share their work. One of the tools to be developed is a >>> collaborative tool for eliciting and resolving the terms and concepts >>> across cross-disciplinary teams and projects. >>> >>> We are still seeking funding and opportunities to continue this work and >>> it is an obvious project to carry forth at the Santa Fe Complex (in >>> collaboration with UNM, etc.) if possible. >>> >>> We (Santa Fe Complex) just hosted a workshop for this team on Agent >>> Based and Cellular Automata Modeling. It did not address the problem >>> of language directly but indirectly did by providing a variety of >>> practitioners with a common working vocabulary (to whit, NetLogo) for >>> expressing and exploring simulations. Of course, within the context >>> of this course, we immediately encountered terminology conflicts (when >>> is a "patch" a "cell"? etc.) >>> >>> Seconding the spirit of Nick's point, it is this very ambiguity that >>> provides the expressiveness and the leverage. If you constrained >>> everyone to a controlled vocabulary, you would have nothing more useful >>> than an efficient bureaucracy within a fascist government. Things >>> would generally be unambiguous, but rarely useful! >>> >>> - Steve >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >>> Eric Charles >>> >>> Professional Student and >>> Assistant Professor of Psychology >>> Penn State University >>> Altoona, PA 16601 >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >>> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
The more benign view would be akin to my experience, around age 6, of
watching frogs hatch, and falling in love with science (ie the logos of everything) forever. Formal training was just more specific data. Now if the teacher had taught youall why it was possible to zap you with a rubber band from across the room, that would have been more interesting and useful for everybody. Missed educational opportunity there. Tory On Mar 23, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Stephen Thompson wrote: > That would include the 8th grade science teacher nailing your hand > with a > rubber band from across the room because you can't stop fiddling > with the > scales (clanking noise) while someone else is talking ! > I still flinch around taut (taught!?) rubber bands.... > > (SIT Fido! don't move) > > Steph T > > > James Steiner wrote: >> I think that "being trained" as a scientist starts in 6th year >> science >> class, when one is 11 (I.e. Upon formal exposure to the scientific >> method), and continues from then on. >> >> ~~James >> Turtlezero.com >> >> On 3/23/10, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Both Eric and Nick use the phrase "I was trained". I would like >>> to know >>> more about the intention here. Normally one talks about training >>> an animal, >>> e.g., to sit or roll over, etc. One also talks about training >>> people to do >>> relatively formalizable jobs or to obey fairly well understood >>> rules, e.g., >>> train someone to run a piece of machinery or to be a police >>> officer. It >>> strikes me as strange to say that someone was trained to be a >>> scientist. >>> Would you be willing to elaborate on that. >>> >>> >>> -- Russ Abbott >>> ______________________________________ >>> >>> Professor, Computer Science >>> California State University, Los Angeles >>> >>> cell: 310-621-3805 >>> blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ >>> vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ >>> ______________________________________ >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Nicholas Thompson < >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Eric, Steve, >>>> >>>> I am trying to reconcile my agreement with the spirit of your >>>> correspondence with my largely failed attempts to work toward a >>>> common >>>> language in our conversations about complexity on this list and >>>> on Friday >>>> mornings. I, too, was trained in many traditions.... comparative >>>> psychology, ethology, zoology, some physical anthropology, quite >>>> a lot of >>>> english literature, and even a little meteorology. And some of >>>> my best >>>> friends are mathematicians. But perhaps unlike Eric (?) (who was >>>> my last >>>> [postdoctoral] student, by the way, and my great intellectual >>>> benefactor) >>>> I >>>> am convinced that the effort to communicate amongst perspectives is >>>> valuable. And I cannot see how communication is possible without >>>> some >>>> attention to and adjustments of the use of specialized >>>> languages. It >>>> bothers me still, for instance, that two members of our community >>>> can use >>>> words like "system" or "information" in entirely contradictory >>>> ways and >>>> yet >>>> fancy that they are communicating with one another. >>>> >>>> I think this is where an analogy to the paradox of mathematics >>>> that Byers >>>> highlights might be useful. The struggle over language is >>>> worthwhile >>>> but >>>> only because it fails. No man struggles in order to fail, but >>>> still, >>>> failure is the wet edge of science. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> PS, to Eric: *"The wonderful feature of the New Realism’s >>>> metaphor is >>>> that it honors our separate points of view without giving up on >>>> finding a >>>> point of view that integrates them. Two blind New Realists >>>> groping an >>>> elephant: “OK, I’ll follow the snake toward the sound of your >>>> voice and >>>> you >>>> follow the tree toward the sound of my voice and we’ll see what >>>> we feel >>>> along the way.” PAUSE. Together; * >>>> * “My God, it’s an ELEPHANT!”" ** * >>>> >>>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >>>> Clark University ([hidden email]) >>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >>>> > >>>> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> *From:* ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> >>>> *To: *Steve Smith <[hidden email]> >>>> *Cc: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee >>>> Group<[hidden email]> >>>> *Sent:* 3/23/2010 6:20:41 AM >>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] multiple tool kits [was (advice needed!)] >>>> >>>> Steve, >>>> As a partial endorsement of your argument, I was trained as a >>>> comparative >>>> psychologist (comparing between species) and an ethologist (the >>>> European >>>> branch of animal behavior that showed we could treat behaviors as >>>> evolved >>>> phenomenon in the same way we treat anatomy). I was specifically >>>> trained >>>> in >>>> these as two separate, but related traditions. When I arrived at >>>> at U.C. >>>> Davis, which has (or at least had) the premier graduate training >>>> program >>>> in >>>> Animal Behavior in the country, and as I started attending more >>>> of the >>>> Animal Behavior Society national conferences, I noticed a >>>> disturbing >>>> trend: >>>> >>>> There was a conscious attempt to create a generic study of animal >>>> behavior >>>> in which everyone did basically the same thing from the same >>>> perspective >>>> (though with variation in species studied and behavior focused >>>> on). I kept >>>> trying to explain to people, most forcibly to the grad students, >>>> as I >>>> thought I had a chance with them, that this was bad. They were >>>> trading in >>>> several hard-won and highly-specialized tool kits (those of >>>> comparative >>>> psych, ethology, behavioral ecology, biological anthropology, >>>> etc.) for a >>>> 101 piece toolkit from Walmart. >>>> >>>> If they were trying to encourage collaboration, I would have been >>>> all for >>>> it, but instead they were trying to create a shared language by >>>> destroying >>>> the uniqueness of the distinct approaches. Yuck! >>>> >>>> Anyway, just an endorsement of your project from a very different >>>> context, >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 08:26 PM, *Steve Smith <[hidden email]>* >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> siddharth wrote: >>>> >>>>> you're right about the language issue - even a basic word in the >>>>> complexity debate- eg. 'modeling'- is interpreted/understood >>>>> slightly >>>>> differently in architecture..its easier when they mean things >>>>> totally >>>>> different, like your example- its really tricky when they mean >>>>> things >>>>> almost the same, yet not - these micro-shifts in meaning make >>>>> things, >>>>> well, complex-er! >>>>> thanks! >>>>> >>>> For what it is worth, I've been working with Dr. Deana Pennington >>>> of UNM >>>> on this very topic... a joint UNM/Santa Fe Complex proposal to >>>> the NSF >>>> was just declined, but had it been funded, we would have been >>>> extending >>>> work done on a related NSF grant just ending this month on the >>>> topic of >>>> "the Science of Collaboration". Central to this work is the >>>> notion >>>> that each discipline (and subdiscipline and individual) has a >>>> distinct >>>> but complementary set of concept and terms that they use to >>>> understand >>>> and share their work. One of the tools to be developed is a >>>> collaborative tool for eliciting and resolving the terms and >>>> concepts >>>> across cross-disciplinary teams and projects. >>>> >>>> We are still seeking funding and opportunities to continue this >>>> work and >>>> it is an obvious project to carry forth at the Santa Fe Complex (in >>>> collaboration with UNM, etc.) if possible. >>>> >>>> We (Santa Fe Complex) just hosted a workshop for this team on Agent >>>> Based and Cellular Automata Modeling. It did not address the >>>> problem >>>> of language directly but indirectly did by providing a variety of >>>> practitioners with a common working vocabulary (to whit, NetLogo) >>>> for >>>> expressing and exploring simulations. Of course, within the >>>> context >>>> of this course, we immediately encountered terminology conflicts >>>> (when >>>> is a "patch" a "cell"? etc.) >>>> >>>> Seconding the spirit of Nick's point, it is this very ambiguity >>>> that >>>> provides the expressiveness and the leverage. If you constrained >>>> everyone to a controlled vocabulary, you would have nothing more >>>> useful >>>> than an efficient bureaucracy within a fascist government. Things >>>> would generally be unambiguous, but rarely useful! >>>> >>>> - Steve >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>>> >>>> Eric Charles >>>> >>>> Professional Student and >>>> Assistant Professor of Psychology >>>> Penn State University >>>> Altoona, PA 16601 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>>> >>>> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
Russ,
A fascinating question! My knee jerk reaction would be to say that I was trained as a comparative psychologist in the same sense that someone could be trained as a police officer - insofar as a comparative psychologists is a person with a certain skill set who does a job (research). However, that feels a bit too knee-jerk. My colleagues who study Narrative are all about 'positioning'. In that sense, I think I said "I was trained" in order 'to position' both myself and the ideas: First, the phrase implies that I do not necessarily do comparative psych and ethology now, but I WAS taught how to do it, i.e., that I have some authority regardless of my currently degenerate state as a 'developmental psychologist'. Second, the phrase implies that the views presented did not originate in me, and are not unique to me, i.e., that other people agree with what I say. Of course, that is just my guess, I WAS NOT trained as a narrative psychologist ;- ) Eric On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 06:14 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
It also seems like a way of avoiding responsibility. When one follows one's training, it is the trainer or the training dogma that gets the credit or blame, not the person who is acting as he was trained to act. I am acting this way because that's the way I was trained. It's not my fault.
-- Russ Abbott ______________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles cell: 310-621-3805 blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ ______________________________________ On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:43 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
Grant ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
-- Grant Holland Principal Grant Holland & Associates 404.427.4759 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
Russ Abbott wrote:
I can't speak for Eric and Nick, but I use this idiom myself from time to time and believe it to be meaningful and useful. By describing the formal education one received, one acknowledges the "traditions" that they were therefore steeped in. Such traditions are an "aggregating" force that balances the natural "expanding" forces between ideas. These traditions actually *try* to do what I claim cannot be done, which is to agree on definitions of words and narrow an understanding down to something which can be shared among those "trained in the tradition". I understand the point of doing this and believe it fulfills an important function. Once we all agree (in a very general sense) on what we are studying and what we believe to be the underlying paradigms involved, then we can go off and look for interesting and useful excursions from that position. Nick's attempts to get this kind of understanding out of Complexity Science is applauded, and maybe doable. On the other hand, to the extent that it may well still be something of a "Pidgen Language" composed of terminology borrowed from many other disciplines, it may be somewhat of a fool's errand as I think Nick's group reading/discussing Emergence may have discovered. Mature fields of study seem to have two properties: 1) They have very rigid definitions of terms which can be used like "engineering principles" to extend knowledge incrementally with significant confidence that these extensions will be robust; 2) They are ripe for revolutionary ideas to come in and completely undermine their roots, exposing phenomenology and offering theories that essentially say "everything you know is wrong. We all once agreed on what the terms "phlogiston" and "aether" meant... and they were very useful in their time, but I think it has been well over a century since they have been used sincerely. What terms from Complexity may turn out to be like this? Emergence? Self Organized Criticality? Attractors? These all may be very useful terms to describe phenomena we don't understand and may help us to keep a handle on them until we *do* understad them, but I would contend that they are not yet useful for understanding the phenomena which they point at. I'm very interested in the opinions of others here with a bent to thinking about language and thinking about thinking (about thinking about ....) . - Steve
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
Steve Smith wrote:
Though I am increasingly ambivalent on this point, the way I was trained as a scientist (and I believe to an even stronger extent, the way Nick was trained), would say that those concepts are useful exactly to the extent that they 'point at' a clear phenomena. Thus I am inherently suspicious of your claim that they a 'term can be useful, and yet we don't understand the phenomena.' My specific familiarity in B. F. Skinner's career amplifies this more general training: Skinner reports having seen improvements in his thinking, and his success as a researcher, as he eliminated cognitive terms from his vocabulary. From my personal experience this seems like a good strategy, and I think the field of psychology as a whole stopped using deeply confused words like 'memory' and were instead forced to label the phenomenon in question in some less ambiguous way. What ambivalence I have regarding those puritanical decrees, comes from witnessing people doing seemingly productive things with ambiguous terms. Either I am wrong about what is leads to productive science, or I am wrong that those people are being productive. Perhaps my underlying objection relates back to the discussion of mathematical thinking: My problem might not be that the terms are ambiguous, but that there seems to be no efforts (amongst these people) to disambiguate them. For example, a species is 'a collection of organisms capable of reproducing together.' While there ARE cases that reveal deep ambiguity about what is, or is not, a species in biology, every effort is made to eliminate such ambiguity from the vast majority of cases. This seems to me a virtuous development, and I suspect that the term 'species' is useful exactly to the extent that we understand the observed phenomena being referred to, and its boundary conditions. Eric ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |