Perceptions/introspections; teaching kids with PCT

[From Chris Cherpas (960801.1231 PT)]
    [re: > Rick Marken (960801.1215)]
        [re:re: >> Chris Cherpas (960731.1058 PT)]

cc:

what perceptions do think you think you have, and how to they relate to each
other hierarchically? I'd appreciate any introspections you'd be willing to
share.

RM:

...I think it
would be interesting to hear about perception from someone who isn't used
to looking at perception from a PCT perspective.

So what are your introspections on what you perceive, Chris? Don't worry,
this isn't a test; there are no wrong answers. I'm really just interested in
how you look at your own perceptual experience; then I'll try to give you the
PCT take on it, which may be the same but may also give a different slant on
the matter (a slant which, hopefully, is interesting and makes sense in
terms of your own experience).

cc:
I don't really have words I want very much, but I am playing around with the
terms of HPCT. Meanwhile, perhaps I can convey something of the sense
of what "radical behaviorist" introspection has been like for me...

Part of why I enjoyed Skinner's behaviorism was that it provided a "model" or
language for sorting out the ongoing process of experience. If I just sit
back and just try to look inside, one perception I think I can control for is:

  ... a sort of stream of operant (and respondent) "tendencies" which are
  continually, interactively filling up momentary experience. Partly self-
  talk, I seem to be babbling to myself almost all the time. Part of it is
  experiencing images which are not obviously bound to my external environment.
  These all ebb and flow, continuously recombining with each moment. (Sorry
  if I'm making you sea sick at this point).

Anyway, the radical behaviorist rap provides plausible stories of how we
learn to (e.g., Skinner, 1945), and continue to (e.g., Skinner, 1957), talk
about perceptions. Wearing these radical behaviorist goggles for me is
frequently occasioned by perceptions of the relative "strengths" of
identifiable, often competing behavioral dispositions. But while there are
patterns, the view does not "expect" hierarchies as described in HPCT.

I have sought principles for interpreting the dynamics of the behavioral
repertoire as a whole, including population/evolution-based concepts. I see
the myriad behavioral dispositions as "out for themselves" as are Dawkins,
selfish genes. "Whoever" has been observing all this has just been one of
these proto-agents (and as soon as I try to see "who" it is, I can only see
"it" in the new subject-object relation which looking at it now requires).

Introspection aside:
I am increasingly trying to test out HPCT goggles, especially in designing
computer-based exercises which perpare K-8 students for eventual fluency in
data analysis/statistics/probability/etc. I think an important strand may
be to have students run control-oriented "psychophysics experiments" and
to learn representational tools and methods to analyze their own self-generated
data.

Best regards,
cc

[From Bruce Gregory (950802.1035 EDT)]

(Chris Cherpas 960801.1231 PT)

I am increasingly trying to test out HPCT goggles, especially in designing
computer-based exercises which prepare K-8 students for eventual fluency in
data analysis/statistics/probability/etc. I think an important strand may
be to have students run control-oriented "psychophysics experiments" and
to learn representational tools and methods to analyze their own self-generated
data.

I find it impossible to escape from the conclusion that in order
to learn we _must_ be engaged in solving OUR OWN problems. Solving
problems posed by others is largely a waste of time. First and
foremost, the task for any designer must be to enroll the user
in making a problem his or her own and then in deferring to the
user's need to exercise control. Easy for you to say....

Regards,

Bruce