There have been several learning theorists now that speak of non-associative influences on learning. Here are some quotes from a few:
(My important Comments follow the quotes, below.)
QUOTES From "Three Ways That Non-associative Knowledge May Affect Associative Learning Processes" by Thorwart abd Livesly:
"While Mitchell et al. (2012) favored an explanation purely based on conscious reasoning processes, where participants deliberately attend to the cues they believe are important, a viable alternative is that attentional processes are brought under conscious control and thus let non-associative knowledge influence the course of subsequent learning."
"In some circumstances, associative activation of the outcome may form the strongest available evidence about what is going to happen when a cue is presented, or the strongest indicator of how the individual should behave. But under other circumstances, for instance where it is very clear that a deductive reasoning process should be used, associative memory retrieval may play a relatively minor role "
"a viable alternative is that attentional processes are brought under conscious control and thus let non-associative knowledge influence the course of subsequent learning. This source of influence does not necessitate that non- associative expectations fundamentally change the operations of the associative network itself, merely what it receives"
"In addition, if non-associative knowledge can affect the way stimuli are represented then this knowledge may also change the manner in which associative retrieval generalizes from A to AB"
---------------------------
QUOTES From Mackintosh Lecture: Association and Cognition: Two Processes, One System. I.P.L. McLaren et al:
" ... does not shy away from placing associative processes at the very centre of our dual process account, and postulates that propositional processing is built upon associative foundations"
"... we are propositional entities constructed from an associative substrate."
----
QUOTE From
Moving Beyond the Distinction Between Concrete and Abstract Concepts Barsalou et al:
"Conversely, when people generate features of abstract-LIT concepts, they typically generate external elements of the situations to which they apply. "
-----------------------
My IMPORTANT COMMENTS:
Problem for these theorists/researchers is that their "new propositions", "non-associative factors" and "new generalizations" ARE INTRACTABLE. Such phenomenon seem to be inferable, indeed, but they do not have a way to find the source (any empirical grounding). Thus, these theories at present have no empirical referents at major points to "get to go where they want to go".
Well, I actually address the same things: in EFFECT providing for new propositions (used in deductions), new generalizations, and what appear to be non-associative factors. BUT, my theory sees the origin of these effects IN QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT cognitive stages, and due to "perceptual shifts". BUT, here is the REALLY GOOD NEWS: I indicate an empirical way to discover the "perceptual shifts", using new eye-tracking technology and computer-assisted analysis. I describe what to look for in enough detail to do the eye-tracking studies, during ontogeny -- at key points. Thus, my theory, which provides for the same kind of shifts in learning HAS TESTABLE HYPOTHESES. If the hypotheses of my ethogram theory are verified (and they can be is correct), we will at least have found the concrete directly observable overt behavior patterns associated WITH THE INCEPTION of that which yields the new abilities/phenomenon.
One other thing: Because the proximate cause (outside environmental factors and contextualization from the Memories -- which both can be seen as the other simultaneous proximate causes) IS "perceptual shifts" then nothing is divorced from ASSOCIATIVE LEARNING. This is also the end of the nature/nurture false dualisms. All still involves associative learning -- and no strange "non-associative" stuff.
See:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses_an_early_MUST_READ
and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322818578_NOW_the_nearly_complete_collection_of_essays_RIGHT_HERE_BUT_STILL_ALSO_SEE_THE_Comments_1_for_a_copy_of_some_important_more_recent_posts_not_in_the_Collection_include_reading_the_2_Replies_to_the_Comm
Also See:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324391440_Moving_beyond_the_distinction_between_concrete_and_abstract_concepts/comments
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311588668_Three_Ways_That_Non-associative_Knowledge_May_Affect_Associative_Learning_Processes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322976821_Mackintosh_Lecture_Association_and_Cognition_Two_Processes_One_System
Dear Brad,
It is often the case that when you raise a question, you have already the answer, and even the complete answer. So, why do you ask if you know the answer?
Dear Orlando M Lourenço
I often ask Questions and provide Answers (even within the body of the elaborated "Question" itself) for the purpose of writing an essay on that subject matter. I am elucidating or explicating my understanding on some topic. (I am asking the Question for others.)
If Researchgate had a "Write Essay" button, I would use that. (I think that might be a good idea for RG.)
P.S. It certainly is not always good practice to assume others have better answers.
Dear Gerry Leisman
For me, I insist on finding ways to relate the types of learning and not just cite "many forms" based on indirect evidence. We need direct observational evidence of overt behavior patterns initiating ( at their inception) the different related kinds of learning -- the many ill-defined "sub-fields" you note certainly notwithstanding.
It is important to realize that almost all findings in brain science are NOT clearly related to behavior (behavior patterns), and certainly we should not be satisfied with "behavior as you simply want to conceive or imagine it" -- which results when one is not clear on the limits to the meaning of neuroscience findings but "uses" them anyway. THUS:
You simply "snip off" pieces of an imaginary "pie" and 'find' "many things". IN CONTRAST: There IS (or can be) a psychology of behavior patterns (ALL key aspects initiated in directly observable overt behavior) and, those as responses to corresponding environmental aspects -- these two types of things being the elements of a self contained, and coherent system, which can be discovered. If you cannot believe that, then you literally are lost. (Though, Psychology began with such a definition, no one has been able to actualize it because they do not insist on seeing behavior patterns as ALWAYS AND CLEARLY AS BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING -- YET this IS something that can be done. (I have explained at length the likely-false, unfounded AND UNPROVEN assumptions that keep psychologists from proceeding clearly and directly -- see my large papers and Collected Essays; I have also outlined and described in detail the better way, complete with the clear nature of all the major testable hypotheses --> using the very best empirical evidence: direct observation of overt behavior patterns) )
Lack of present clarity OR "complexity" is no reason or excuse for not starting the field correctly, and keeping fidelity to biology.
Your response is very much akin to just giving up and hopelessness -- in its real effect (as basically shown again and again in the history of psychology, and as seen in the personal disappointments and sad dissatisfaction of the vast majority of psychologists).
For me, the "time for your way" of doing things IS LONG "up". It has failed: all proceeding in basically very similar ways (essentially, at the core, completely and wrongly constrained and skewed by arrogant presumptions), psychology has repeated failed FOR 100 YEARS; and it can be clearly explained why (I DO SO); the alternative has been outlined and detailed well-enough to start correctly and continue correctly (i.e. I HAVE ALSO PROVIDED THAT). Seek what you know must be true of the biological functioning known as behavior patterns: truly related things, self-consistent, and self-contained. And, damn your "models" as they all are today, divorced from any fidelity to biology by your presumptions (false unproven pseudo-'assumptions' (clearly alien from any real connection to the biology of behavior patterns, the biology of behavior)).
Dear Brad,
I found your question intriguing and love to talk about it. I highly recommend that you review some of the fascinating papers that were published by the Gestalt Psychology pioneers, who demonstrated that not all learning is associative in nature. Gestalt ideas are being revisited in this century and they are still captivating. One concept in Gestalt Psychology is that of Einsicht, poorly translated to English as insight--but it is more like getting it, a form of higher knowledge--very Platonist and just as beautiful. It is a very meaningful concept that does not suggest an associative process.
Must run, but if you want to dialogue about this or want me to suggest some Gestalt literature, please let me know.
Questions and answers, one of the best paths to a higher understanding. Keep asking such good questions.
Warm regards,
Micah
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Mental Processes
- Learning