Binswanger Comments on J. Burns

[Neil Parille]

Here, starting around 51 minutes:

https://app.box.com/s/wu99nqzrnewuq2mpqawk2z3dch9t9bgm

 

 

 

[Neil Parille]

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

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

 

 

[Neil Parille]

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.

[Neil Parille]

Has anyone heard anything about Milgram's biography?

[Neil Parille]

A video tour of the ARI archives.

 

[Starbuckle]

"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?