Neil Parille

Binswanger Comments on J. Burns

7 posts in this topic

He is joined by Shoshana Milgram, who seems unwilling to comment much.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil,

I tried listening to this, but I kept tearing my hair out over Binswanger's notion of how things are learned and skills automated. He uses ideas like "implicit knowledge" for riding a bicycle (with the "gyroscope principle") and so on.

I couldn't detect in what little I heard if he even understands the difference between learning something conceptually and acquiring a skill, which must be done through focused attention and repetition until neural circuits are created (and triggered mostly in the cerebellum).

I stopped after he got to griping about the way his piano instructor taught him by correcting his wrong notes, etc.

I'll try to listen to the rest of this later...

:)

Michael

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael. I find it hard to listen to Binswanger.  I was skimming the program and came across the part about Burns and Heller.  That's the only part I listened to in its entirety.

He comes across as quite a self promoter.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I couldn't detect in what little I heard if he even understands the difference between learning something conceptually and acquiring a skill..."

You apparently didn't listen to what little you heard. Binswanger did not claim that one must be able to conceptualize what's involved in the skill of bicycle-riding in order to learn how to ride a bike. He said that we know have (mentally) information about how to do it that would be difficult to conceptualize, or at least that it is _not_ the same task. You add that repetition is involved in learning a skill and that neural patterns are formed. Did Binswanger dispute that repetition is involved in learning a skill?

Another commenter objects to BInswanger's mentioning the book he's been working on for many years on the subject of How We Know in response to a question about how we know.... Is citing your own published further explanation of a question being directly asked really objectionable in some way? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now