​I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with Jinan.
For years, i considered myself an authority on human memory (Wrote three
books on the topic). My work supported the critique of Jinan that was
described by Charles.
I write today to say that my work was just fine for
the laboratory experiments that we did, but that it had little to do
with thye real world.
Jinan basically said that.
Look, I struggle to learn 5 words of Spanish vocabulary, carrying around
flashcards and repeatedly studying them. Babies learn more than five
words a day even before they can read: they don;t struggle.
Or as I have written elsewhere. I struggle to learn a simple phrase or two
in the laboratory, but then I meet a friend in the hall who says, I can't
meet you for dinner at 6, let's make it 6:30 and at that new place on
Homer Avenue, just past the library. I say "OK."
And i remember it. I don;t write it down. I don;t rehearse it. I
just remember it. Why? It fits in the structure of the day.
I can;t learn the words and phrases in the experiment or the five Spanish
words on my flash cards because they are devoid of context, they do not fit
into my life.
Jinan said:
In natural process conscious memorization has no role. The organic nature
of learning makes us remember in a manner that would allow recollection at
the apt moment.
Well said.
he also said
In natural and organic process of memorization the input is usually multi
sensory and there is an integral connection to experience. (The text as
well as) the class room totally disrupts this organic and integral
connection with life. (I added the parentheses)
​If you delete the words in parentheses, i completely agree here as well.​
(Then he went on to say:
So what gets stored is primarily what has been SEEN. Visual thinking is the
natural process of non literate people except that it will not be called
'thinking'."
That's utter nonsense. In fact, my example was verbal, not visual. But this
does not change my wholehearted agreement with the spirit of his message.
For far too long psychologists have studied memory in completely arbitrary
situations, devoid of realism. This is essential in order to
maintain complete control of the situation. But it also means that those
result bear little resemblance to what actually happens.
I please guilty.
I refuse to get involved in the argument about what thinking is, or what
consciousneess is. Especially with people who have not spent years in deep
thought on those issues. Mostly, people ar giving folk theories and
personal opinions rather than they way I prefer to argue: reasoned
arguments based upon evidence. In a similar vein, I refuse to get involved
in discussions about what design is, or what it means to call oneself a
designer.
Ciao
Don
​
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Jinan K B <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> "Conscious memorization of information devoid of experiential reference
> disturbs the organic recollection and the process of organic
> memorization. In natural and organic process of memorization the input
> is usually multi sensory and there is an integral connection to
> experience. The text as well as the class room totally disrupts this
> organic and integral connection with life.
>
> In natural process conscious memorization has no role. The organic
> nature of learning makes us remember in a manner that would allow
> recollection at the apt moment.
>
> So what gets stored is primarily what has been SEEN. Visual thinking
> is the natural process of non literate people except that it will not
> be called 'thinking'."
>
Don Norman
Prof. and Director, DesignLab, UC San Diego
[log in to unmask] designlab.ucsd.edu/ www.jnd.org <http://www.jnd.org/>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
