berke@CS.UCLA.EDU (08/27/87)
I am involved with a project part of which is to teach mime to learning-disabled children. I maintain that: Mimicry behavior is integral to or forms the basis for animal learning. Directly training mimicry should therefore directly train learning ability. This is a simple, to me, an obvious claim. The question is, how to determine whether it is true? If you can answer the following simple question, I would appreciate hearing from you: Question 1: Are there any measures of general learning ability that are commonly accepted? If not, what measures of learning ability do you use (or know of), whether they purport to measure verbal learning, skill acquisition, or any other behavior that can be classified as learning? In "cognitive science" and related fields there is a lot of hubub currently about new and better brain models. I have my own which I call Network Recombination. I refer to "learning and memory" as a unified process of learning/memory because of the implications of my model. If you ascribe to a model of how brain activity produces the phenomenon of learning/memory (or "learning" or "memory" separately), I would appreciate an answer to the following question: Question 2: Does your model make any predictions about intermodal transfer of abilities? Specifically, say a subject's verbal skills are poor and so she does poorly on vocabulary tests which Thorndike (in Human Learning, 1931, p.174) considers "an excellent intelligence test." Say I now train the subject in physical skills to increase discrimination, analysis, and creative abilities (defined primitively below). How much will these abilities transfer to verbal or quantitative skills? What form will the transfer take? Or will there be none? Discrimination ability - seeing different parts in observation Analytical ability - breaking things into parts Creative ability - putting parts into new wholes I appreciate all opinions and advice, especially from people who have worked with learning-disabled children (and even more from people to whom this posting seems based on my ignorance and misconceptions). But I would like to specifically request those putting forth "mind models" for predictions of their models. I would like to QUANTIFY increase in general learning ability, and so the predictions of specific models with specific properties is necessary. If there is no such thing as general learning ability, then I would like to QUANTIFY transfer of abilities from physical to verbal or intellectual skills, or verify that there is none. Can you help me? I have posted this to several news groups. Perhaps it would be best to reply to me in e-mail, or to decide on a single group for follow-ups, perhaps sci.research. It has little traffic. Thank you in advance for all replies. Peter Berke berke@cs.ucla.edu (213) 394 - 6797
ittfb@dcatla.UUCP (Thomas F. Blakely) (08/28/87)
In article <7911@shemp.UCLA.EDU> berke@CS.UCLA.EDU (Peter Berke) writes: >learning-disabled children. I maintain that: Mimicry behavior >is integral to or forms the basis for animal learning. Directly There's a large body of research that suggests that this is not true. >This is a simple, to me, an obvious claim. The question is, how And like many "simple, obvious" claims, it nmay not have any basis in fact. >Question 1: Are there any measures of general learning ability >that are commonly accepted? If not, what measures of learning >ability do you use (or know of), whether they purport to measure >verbal learning, skill acquisition, or any other behavior that >can be classified as learning? The experimental analysis of behavior? Have you read any? These are basis research methods in behavioral science. What's your background? It doesn't sound like it's psychology. >In "cognitive science" and related fields there is a lot of hubub >currently about new and better brain models. I have my own which >I call Network Recombination. I refer to "learning and memory" as >a unified process of learning/memory because of the implications >of my model. If you ascribe to a model of how brain activity >produces the phenomenon of learning/memory (or "learning" or >"memory" separately), I would appreciate an answer to the >following question: > >Question 2: Does your model make any predictions about >intermodal transfer of abilities? Specifically, say a subject's >verbal skills are poor and so she does poorly on vocabulary tests >which Thorndike (in Human Learning, 1931, p.174) considers "an >excellent intelligence test." Say I now train the subject in >physical skills to increase discrimination, analysis, and >creative abilities (defined primitively below). How much will >these abilities transfer to verbal or quantitative skills? What >form will the transfer take? Or will there be none? Again these are basic questions of cognitive psychology. Have you read at all? Do you think folks on the net produce less "hubub" than the published literature contains? >I appreciate all opinions and advice, especially from people who >have worked with learning-disabled children (and even more from Right. Anecdotal evidence is always better than research data :-). >people to whom this posting seems based on my ignorance and >misconceptions). But I would like to specifically request those >putting forth "mind models" for predictions of their models. I >would like to QUANTIFY increase in general learning ability, and >so the predictions of specific models with specific properties is >necessary. > >If there is no such thing as general learning ability, then I >would like to QUANTIFY transfer of abilities from physical to >verbal or intellectual skills, or verify that there is none. > >Can you help me? Nope. I gave up on this field years ago. I can only state that I agree that cognitive psych. is more noise than substance. As for "brain models" in general, they're good at helping cognitive psychologists understand computers (it's curious that mental models have paralleled the development of computer architecture, not the other was around. Computer hardware isn't sophisticated enough yet to provide the models that cognitive psychologists need to model the brains of even simple organisms.) Psychology is a field in which you can have a lot of success. All you have to do is come up with a model, and then design research that supports your model. That's easy and rewarding. The hard thing to do is to design and conduct research that actually _tests_ your model. There's no incentive to do so. Grant money, tenure, even getting your degree (I assume from your inquiry that you're still after one) depend on producing research _results_. Until that changes (unless we get lucky) psychology is a nowhere field that produces little of value. >follow-ups, perhaps sci.research. It has little traffic. Cognitive psychologists can flame to /dev/null. I only listen to opinions I already agree with :-) Tom Blakely (former psychologist, now a programmer)