I am sorry (truly) that, briefly, I am "back", but Psychology is so messed up that occasionally I have to more expressly comment on yet another aspect, especially if it is seen as basic or fundamental.
ISSUE: Should psychologists define "learning" as :
"a relatively permanent change in behavior as a result of experience" [(with no guidance on, or demarcation of, the "experience" involved)]? ("Behavior change" may also be ill-defined.)
What? Are researchers supposed to assume that anything THEY see as "experiences" can be taken to mean "distinct in processing" all-equal-experiences FOR LEARNING, and for these experiences to simply be AS THEY SEE them??
How about : Learning : a relatively permanent change in behavior patterns* due to the association (or disassociation) of distinct certain, well-specified aspects of experience (or documented types of experience), clearly corresponding to aspects of the present (or once present) observable environment and/OR clearly and properly having their foundation in behaviors directly related to such **. [ Often learning, most notably includes: that for useful representation and understanding, for species-typical adaptation -- though this last part can be (and can "safely" be) implicit, so the definition can end at : "... related to such" . ]
If psychologists want to grow-up and be real scientists, the latter definition is what they MUST use (AND they MUST do any research necessary in order to use it !) Otherwise (as most psychologists now seem to see for themselves): the situation in their field is hopeless. (I have presented a solution for understanding behaviors, consistent with this opinion and with that better definition of learning -- click my name, and seek and you shall find.) Psychology concepts are simply (STILL) not good enough for a continuously developing science (which is a sure aspect of any real science).
* FOOTNOTE: If you find the patterns (which, in a biological organism WILL BE THERE), this at least somewhat demarcates or specifies the real behaviors. The fact that psychology rarely speaks in terms of behavior patterns, itself, indicates how far "off base" past and present psychology has been and IS.
** FOOTNOTE: Other than these aspects of overt behavior patterns (and corresponding environmental aspects), including those that are foundational, there is only associative and discriminative learning -- terms which, if taken to mean ONLY what they indicate, are ALREADY well-defined.
Being able to well-understand this definition involves knowing the nature of our Memories, and using that to contextualize much behavior (the content foremost in our memories changes with development, of course). If you think this definition is incorrect, know that it relies ONLY on hypotheses which are testable.
Barron, Andrew B.; Hebets, Eileen A.; Cleland, Thomas A.; Fitzpatrick, Courtney L.; Hauber, Mark E.; and Stevens, Jeffrey R., "Embracing multiple definitions of learning" (2015). Eileen Hebets Publications. 59. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscihebets/59
Dear James Shanahan and Dickson Adom
It should be possible to provide ONE overall definition of learning. Even as we describe things (learnings) that are varied (e.g. learning over ontogeny -- including some involvement of behavior patternings with innate guidances*, resulting in certain changes to some behavior patterns), we can still find common core terms so it IS possible to give a definition inclusive of all "types" of learning. I surely believe that, in some real and important senses, there ARE qualitatively different kinds of learning; but, this does not keep us from using language (properly, as a tool) and coming up with a definition which is all-embracing; different definitions would only be necessary IFF the learnings (types of learning) were independent or, in the main, independent. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. THAT IS CERTAIN.
Otherwise, accepting different definitions very likely involves confusion and leads to more confusion. This I what I am out to fix. If you cannot cite what is common with all learnings, your definitions of learning are INCORRECT. Incorrect = confusion, leading to more confusion (and more of the desperation and hopelessness most fields of Psychology now show).
* FOOTNOTE: The innate guidances per se not being learning, BUT immediately (or almost immediately) affecting behavior patterns SO AS TO effect the nature of some significant learning.
P.S. In responding to my view, it is incumbent on YOU to state or summarize other views you subscribe to (or views that seem inconsistent with the definition I provided). If these 'definitions' you are talking about can only be "appreciated" through the contortions of long papers, I believe it is very likely they are incorrect (and, in a good or final analysis, unintelligible). [ I provide a perspective, and a clearly defined approach, WHICH DOES ALLOW FOR A SINGLE DEFINITION -- the one I just gave, above. See: my papers available, and writings here, on researchgate to learn of the perspective and approach. It takes long papers (and many associated essays) to clear confusions, not to give a good definition of learning -- if your 'assumptions' (/presumptions) allow you to understand it. ]
Another P.S. The authors of "Embracing multiple definitions of learning" (fulltext.pdf) decide that the way to state what is the common ground between definitions of learning in various sub-fields (or fields related to psychology) is to provide the following definition of learning : "processing of information derived from experience to update system properties" . This is certainly more vague than necessary, and definitely much more vague than the definition I provide -- and my definition allows parts of the 'learning' process to define and demarcate each other (via discoveries). Their proposed definition is certainly too vague for psychology, defined as the science of behavior (and environmental aspects affecting behavior), aka the specific direct empirical studies corresponding to the intended definition of "psychology". This "common ground" definition these authors provide leaves determining what the "information" is and what "the 'system'" is (and is like) _AND_ what 'experience' is to each of the various sub-fields , while it is unlikely there would be acceptable agreement on the specific definition used EVEN WITHIN A SUB-FIELD. And, the vague definition in NO WAY (unlike my definition) helps any discovery of any progressive definitions of those key parts of THE definition. And, other than accepting ALL this, then we are to allow the people in the sub-fields to use such a definition as they see fit. Simply accepting between-sub-field differences in the actual use of this vague definition (and ignoring or glossing over within-sub-field differences). AND, yet: Somehow putting all the findings of the different sub-fields together supposedly will not be harmed by such a needlessly vague definition (just because we supposedly know "what" that their real definition differences are !!??). That this will make anything more understandable is beyond doubtful and, yet somehow just understanding "THE differences" in definition and accepting them supposedly will HELP multidisciplinary studies -- somehow help both their understanding and integration. This is beyond highly doubtful. It is ridiculous and stupid.
AND, all this ridiculous-ness when a better "common core" definition can be provided, as I did above -- a definition not wrong for any sub-field.
Frankly this paper shows the stupidity of Psychology (yes, it IS at the point of STUPIDITY*), that does not expressly accept behavior as biological and cares nothing about providing any evidence for its now (and long-held historical) baseless, foundation-less, and unjustified 'assumptions' (presumptions) -- these leading to the rejection of other better assumptions (off hand) AND not even seeing (or being able to see or conceive of) any of the possibilities for behavioral change allowed for by alternate hypotheses which are in line with better assumptions. (YET: Likely, when looked at individually, all would agree of each of the possibilities, not knowing the true assumptions behind them -- there is a limit to denial of factors of reality.) (See everything I've written, available here on researchgate.) [ (About the stupidity: I can and DO tell you how and why, in my writings. OR you can keep backing and/or using STUPIDITY). ]
* FOOTNOTE: I believe, the fight against what is true will tend to get stupider and stupider with time (here: over the history of Psychology); we are just waiting for a breaking point and for the ability to THINK.
For those who have not "read me", I should say that the basis for my definition of learning and the basis for a consequential set of related views _AND_ for the outline of a NEW type (and set) of testable hypotheses, can be found (and known) by reading a book-sized set of papers and related essays: especially:
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
AND
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
Dear Brad,
Thank you.
As you know I am far from Psychology ... but we - computer science specialists - should see the patterns of behavior of living beings... - "to enlarge imagination"...
"learning" from my point of view - this is something close to the concept "to have understood" - as "perfect verb form" for:
1) to clarify/know something new: concept, process, pattern, result of, +...
2) to tie with the experience
3) to train some behavior scill
Of course I concern the learning - as the result of but not learning - as the process of interaction...
Best regards,
Sergii
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology