Training is just an 8 letter word

[From Rick MArken (960709.1015)]

James Nord (960708. 1630 JST)

I am not concerned with control of existing perceptions, but the development
of new perceptions.

What's wrong with learning to control existing perceptions?

So I want to deliberately distort the perceptual feedback variable long
enough to help the individual re-organize his control system to handle the
new perception, i. e. a new language.

You mean the perceptual feedback _function_ , not the perceptual variable,
right?. When you put a filter between an acoustic waveform and the
neural representation of that waveform you are basically changing the
perceptual function that relates an environmental variable to a perceptual
variable.

Why would you expect that doing this would necessarily lead to
reorganization? It does lead to a change in behavior but, as you know, not
all changes in behavior reflect reorganization (learning). How do you tell
whether a change in behavior (such as the changed accent that occurs in the
Tomatis study) is the result of the normal operation of an existing
perceptual control system or the result of reorganization (such as
the developiment a new perceptual function for an new control system)?

Is training also a dirty word?

Training is a good word. It's just that we haven't done many studies of
training. My bias has been to develop a firm understanding of the behavior
of existing control systems before trying to figure out how people develop
new ones. But that's my bias which grows out of my own shortcomings. There
are people who are far cleverer than me who have done successful studies of
reorganization; Dag Forssell just posted information about a book by two
such people, Fraz and Hettie Plooij, who have studied the development
(reorganization) of the ability to control different types of perceptions
through childhood.

Best

Rick