Development vs learning

[Rami Rustom]

Why do people use the term *development* instead of the term *learning*?

It seems that they use the term learning for teacher-directed learning, and they use the term development for self-directed learning.

So when a baby hasn't yet learned to say his first word as compared to most babies his age, they call that a lack of development.

And when a kid hasn't yet learned his times tables, they call that a lack of learning. Or maybe thats wrong. I think they call this development too.

So how do they choose when to say development and when to say learning?

-- Rami

[Richard Fine]

This looks like a question about definitions. Why are you asking?

- Richard

[Rami Rustom]

The problem I'm trying to solve is...

Is there a fundamental problem of people's understanding of learning
that causes them to think that some learning is *development*, where
development is subconscious learning or something.

-- Rami

[David Deutsch]

Perhaps the term 'development' is sometimes favoured because that sounds like an automatic process in which the person concerned isn't an agent. Their creativity, preferences, distinctive ideas etc are supposedly not used; rather, it's just something that just happens to them.

Similarly, 'teaching' is used to describe something that is supposedly done *to*, rather than *by*, a pupil.

However, I don't think that the terminology is, even conventionally, always used on that way. People talk about children learning to speak, not being taught to speak or 'developing speech'.

-- David Deutsch

[Richard Fine]

Well, conventionally people ascribe to the bucket theory of the mind,
right? So even in 'teaching' the pupil's not really an agent; learning
is still something that just happens to them. But maybe people are
making the distinction between stuff that happens without outside
intervention (development) versus stuff that happens only *with* outside
intervention (teaching/learning). They're categorizing the changes in
the child according to their own involvement in the child's life...

- Richard

[Elliot Temple]

I think it's a question about social customs and the mindsets of some people.

-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/

[Rami Rustom]

Yes thats what I meant.

And the answer is that most people know the bucket theory of the mind.

-- Rami

[Jordan Talcot]

I don't think this particular example is right. People often speak of "speech development" or "speech and language development", when talking about young children learning their first language. If you google either term, you will find plenty of sites like this: http://www.asha.org/public/speech/development/.

If you google "learning language", you will mostly find things about learning a second language, or a foreign language (e.g., language programs). "Learning speech" brings up a lot of things about memorizing a speech. It also brings up some things about children learning language, but those seem to mostly be about older children in speech therapy, or people learning English as a second/foreign language.

Jordan

[Rami Rustom]

So the bucket theory of learning says that during childhood, people
learn "automatically" without themselves being agents in the learning.
And they call this development. And when those people are adults, the
learning isn't automatic, meaning that now they are agents in the
learning.

And they say that the automatic learning happens in phases. Meaning
that all people go through the same phases. And if a phase comes
"late", they call this slow development. So they are thinking of
learning as a thing that happens as a function of time.

But time is not the relevant factor in learning. The relevant factor
is knowledge. Learning rate is a function of the current state of
one's knowledge. So the more knowledge one has, the more he can learn.

The bucket theory says that learning happens best while the person is
young, suggesting that the learning rate is based on age, rather than
knowledge.

On a similar note, I've noticed that a lot of my mistakes in my
explanations had to do with thinking of dynamic things as a function
of time [which is not relevant], rather than a function of something
else [the relevant quantities].

Its ok to think of dynamic things as a function of time so that you
can know that there might be a correlation. But then that correlation
should not be used as the relevant idea in an explanation.
Explanations should use ideas that are functions of relevant
quantities not irrelevant quantities like time.

-- Rami

[Richard Fine]

On 7/15/2012 3:52 PM, Rami Rustom wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2012 12:59 PM, "Jordan Talcot" <jordan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 2012, at 7:21 AM, David Deutsch wrote:
>>> On 9 Jul 2012, at 3:12pm, Richard Fine wrote:
>>>> On 7/9/2012 2:42 PM, Rami Rustom wrote:
>>>>> Why do people use the term *development* instead of the term *learning*?
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that they use the term learning for teacher-directed learning, and
>>>>> they use the term development for self-directed learning.
>>>>>
>>>>> So when a baby hasn't yet learned to say his first word as compared to most
>>>>> babies his age, they call that a lack of development.
>>>>>
>>>>> And when a kid hasn't yet learned his times tables, they call that a lack
>>>>> of learning. Or maybe thats wrong. I think they call this development too.
>>>>>
>>>>> So how do they choose when to say development and when to say learning?
>>>> This looks like a question about definitions. Why are you asking?
>>> Perhaps the term 'development' is sometimes favoured because that sounds like an automatic process in which the person concerned isn't an agent. Their creativity, preferences, distinctive ideas etc are supposedly not used; rather, it's just something that just happens to them.
>>>
>>> Similarly, 'teaching' is used to describe something that is supposedly done *to*, rather than *by*, a pupil.
>>>
>>> However, I don't think that the terminology is, even conventionally, always used on that way. People talk about children learning to speak, not being taught to speak or 'developing speech'.
>> I don't think this particular example is right. People often speak of "speech development" or "speech and language development", when talking about young children learning their first language. If you google either term, you will find plenty of sites like this: http://www.asha.org/public/speech/development/.
>>
>> If you google "learning language", you will mostly find things about learning a second language, or a foreign language (e.g., language programs). "Learning speech" brings up a lot of things about memorizing a speech. It also brings up some things about children learning language, but those seem to mostly be about older children in speech therapy, or people learning English as a second/foreign language.
> So the bucket theory of learning says that during childhood, people
> learn "automatically" without themselves being agents in the learning.
> And they call this development. And when those people are adults, the
> learning isn't automatic, meaning that now they are agents in the
> learning.

Bucket theory of the mind doesn't have adults as agents in the learning
either. Bucket theory says: if the human exposes themselves to the
teacher, and they listen and concentrate on what the teacher is saying,
then they learn. I've not seen anyone suggest that this is different for
adults, other than the rate at which things go in (as you mention below).

> But time is not the relevant factor in learning. The relevant factor
> is knowledge. Learning rate is a function of the current state of
> one's knowledge. So the more knowledge one has, the more he can learn.

No, I think that's backwards. *Which* knowledge you have is much more
important than the quantity of knowledge. A person who thinks that the
best way to learn is to just listen to lectures over and over, won't
learn things as quickly as a person who thinks that the best way to
learn involves experimentation and asking questions.

I say "backwards" rather than "wrong" because you'd expect that the
higher your learning rate, the more knowledge you'll have acquired, so
there will be a correlation between having a lot of knowledge and having
a high learning rate. The causal relationship is the reverse of the one
you described, though.

> The bucket theory says that learning happens best while the person is
> young, suggesting that the learning rate is based on age, rather than
> knowledge.

Yes. I think the popular explanation is stuff about neuroplasticity,
neural pathways being more easily changed, etc. I've never been quite
sure how this is supposed to work, and my guess is that it doesn't...

If a person has a lot of knowledge, but they haven't organised it very
well, then they might find it harder to learn some new idea than a
person with less knowledge, because the new idea will have more
conflicts for them to resolve (because they know more things for it to
conflict with). For example, if they have some abstract idea that
they've applied in a bunch of fields, but they don't really recognise
that that's what they've done, any new ideas that conflict with the
abstract idea will *seem* to conflict with each and every field in a
disconnected way, when in reality the conflict is only in one place.

> On a similar note, I've noticed that a lot of my mistakes in my
> explanations had to do with thinking of dynamic things as a function
> of time [which is not relevant], rather than a function of something
> else [the relevant quantities].
>
> Its ok to think of dynamic things as a function of time so that you
> can know that there might be a correlation. But then that correlation
> should not be used as the relevant idea in an explanation.
> Explanations should use ideas that are functions of relevant
> quantities not irrelevant quantities like time.

Sometimes time is an indirectly relevant quantity, but by referring to
it directly you hide assumptions. For example, saying "the bathtub will
overflow if I leave it filling up for more than 10 minutes" instead of
"the bathtub will overflow if too much water is put into it" hides
assumptions about the rate of flow from the tap being constant, the
drain being properly sealed, there being no other flows of water into
the bathtub, and so on.

- Richard

[Rami Rustom]

Yes. Memorizing a lot of specific problems and specific solutions to those problems does not help one learn other knowledge. But if that person was actively integrating his knowledge into general principles across all fields of knowledge, then he is creating epistemological knowledge that does directly improve learning rate/capacity.

 

I say "backwards" rather than "wrong" because you'd expect that the higher your learning rate, the more knowledge you'll have acquired, so there will be a correlation between having a lot of knowledge and having a high learning rate. The causal relationship is the reverse of the one you described, though.

I think even that is wrong too. Consider two people, one that read very little throughout his life, but he did very well at integrating what little knowledge he did learn into general principles. And another person who read a lot throughout his life, but he did very bad at integrating his knowledge. The second person would have a higher learning rate.

 

The bucket theory says that learning happens best while the person is
young, suggesting that the learning rate is based on age, rather than
knowledge.

Yes. I think the popular explanation is stuff about neuroplasticity, neural pathways being more easily changed, etc. I've never been quite sure how this is supposed to work, and my guess is that it doesn't...

Me too.

 

If a person has a lot of knowledge, but they haven't organised it very well, then they might find it harder to learn some new idea than a person with less knowledge, because the new idea will have more conflicts for them to resolve (because they know more things for it to conflict with). For example, if they have some abstract idea that they've applied in a bunch of fields, but they don't really recognise that that's what they've done, any new ideas that conflict with the abstract idea will *seem* to conflict with each and every field in a disconnected way, when in reality the conflict is only in one place.

Yes.

 

On a similar note, I've noticed that a lot of my mistakes in my
explanations had to do with thinking of dynamic things as a function
of time [which is not relevant], rather than a function of something
else [the relevant quantities].

Its ok to think of dynamic things as a function of time so that you
can know that there might be a correlation. But then that correlation
should not be used as the relevant idea in an explanation.
Explanations should use ideas that are functions of relevant
quantities not irrelevant quantities like time.

Sometimes time is an indirectly relevant quantity, but by referring to it directly you hide assumptions. For example, saying "the bathtub will overflow if I leave it filling up for more than 10 minutes" instead of "the bathtub will overflow if too much water is put into it" hides assumptions about the rate of flow from the tap being constant, the drain being properly sealed, there being no other flows of water into the bathtub, and so on.

Yes. So its important to first identify things qualitatively, and then to do so quantitatively. Meaning that its important to first identify what the qualities are, before considering whether or not some of the qualities are also quantities.

-- Rami

[Rami Rustom]

I meant that the first person has the higher learning rate. The one that learned less total knowledge, but organized his knowledge better.

-- Rami

[Jordan Talcot]

On Jul 15, 2012, at 7:52 AM, Rami Rustom wrote:

> On Jul 10, 2012 12:59 PM, "Jordan Talcot" <jordan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 2012, at 7:21 AM, David Deutsch wrote:
>>> On 9 Jul 2012, at 3:12pm, Richard Fine wrote:
>>>> On 7/9/2012 2:42 PM, Rami Rustom wrote:
>>>>> Why do people use the term *development* instead of the term *learning*?
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that they use the term learning for teacher-directed learning, and
>>>>> they use the term development for self-directed learning.
>>>>>
>>>>> So when a baby hasn't yet learned to say his first word as compared to most
>>>>> babies his age, they call that a lack of development.
>>>>>
>>>>> And when a kid hasn't yet learned his times tables, they call that a lack
>>>>> of learning. Or maybe thats wrong. I think they call this development too.
>>>>>
>>>>> So how do they choose when to say development and when to say learning?
>>>>
>>>> This looks like a question about definitions. Why are you asking?
>>>
>>> Perhaps the term 'development' is sometimes favoured because that sounds like an automatic process in which the person concerned isn't an agent. Their creativity, preferences, distinctive ideas etc are supposedly not used; rather, it's just something that just happens to them.
>>>
>>> Similarly, 'teaching' is used to describe something that is supposedly done *to*, rather than *by*, a pupil.
>>>
>>> However, I don't think that the terminology is, even conventionally, always used on that way. People talk about children learning to speak, not being taught to speak or 'developing speech'.
>>
>> I don't think this particular example is right. People often speak of "speech development" or "speech and language development", when talking about young children learning their first language. If you google either term, you will find plenty of sites like this: http://www.asha.org/public/speech/development/.
>>
>> If you google "learning language", you will mostly find things about learning a second language, or a foreign language (e.g., language programs). "Learning speech" brings up a lot of things about memorizing a speech. It also brings up some things about children learning language, but those seem to mostly be about older children in speech therapy, or people learning English as a second/foreign language.
>
> So the bucket theory of learning says that during childhood, people
> learn "automatically" without themselves being agents in the learning.
> And they call this development. And when those people are adults, the
> learning isn't automatic, meaning that now they are agents in the
> learning.
>

People call some things children do "learning", and other things "development". They think that some things need to be explicitly learned, and other things are just part of natural development. Language acquisition is considered development. Most people don't explicitly try to teach their children to talk. But, learning spelling in elementary school is considered learning. It needs to be explicitly studied and memorized.

> And they say that the automatic learning happens in phases. Meaning
> that all people go through the same phases. And if a phase comes
> "late", they call this slow development. So they are thinking of
> learning as a thing that happens as a function of time.

They don't just think that learning is a function of time -- they think it is a function of *age*. For example, many people don't think that AIs would need to go through the same development stages that children need to go through. They don't believe that AIs would need to be parented for 18 years until they are ready to be independent, while they *do* think this is necessary for humans.

And, actually, many people would also think it was plausible that an alien race could reach "adulthood" in a different period of time than what they think is necessary for humans. They think it would make sense that one race of aliens needs 2 years to reach adulthood, or 50 years, or any arbitrary number.

They also don't think it is "learning" in the normal sense -- so, it can't be rushed. It can't be "taught" in the same way school subjects are. There is no point in trying to teach things too early, because the child won't be able to understand, based on their age & development stage.

This is a very common idea in psychology, and is actually the subject of a lot of psychological "research". There is even an entire branch of psychology called "Developmental Psychology". They even do entire studies about things like: Is it possible for children to understand irony? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070803141811.htm

>
> But time is not the relevant factor in learning. The relevant factor
> is knowledge. Learning rate is a function of the current state of
> one's knowledge. So the more knowledge one has, the more he can learn.
>
> The bucket theory says that learning happens best while the person is
> young, suggesting that the learning rate is based on age, rather than
> knowledge.
>

There are only certain things that people think are learned better by children. One of them is languages. Many people believe that people can learn languages the best before they are something like 10. They think there is a "developmental window" that you need to learn it by, or else it will be harder to learn.

But, there are many things that people don't believe children learn better than adults, or that don't believe children can learn *at all*. This is a reason given for why children need to be coerced by their parents, and have special laws that restrict them from doing certain things, based on their age. They don't believe that children can learn whatever it is required to make judgements about the things that the parent is coercing the child about. But, again, they don't consider it an issue of "learning". They will say it doesn't matter how much knowledge the child has -- it is a developmental issue.

> On a similar note, I've noticed that a lot of my mistakes in my
> explanations had to do with thinking of dynamic things as a function
> of time [which is not relevant], rather than a function of something
> else [the relevant quantities].
>
> Its ok to think of dynamic things as a function of time so that you
> can know that there might be a correlation. But then that correlation
> should not be used as the relevant idea in an explanation.
> Explanations should use ideas that are functions of relevant
> quantities not irrelevant quantities like time.

Correlations are never explanations. A lack of a correlation can be used to *falsify* a theory. But, a correlation itself cannot be used as part of an explanation, or as "evidence" of a theory, or even as a "hint" towards a theory.

Jordan

[Elliot Temple]

On Jul 15, 2012, at 7:52 AM, Rami Rustom wrote:

Not entirely.

They will worry that if you don't send a kid to school, or hire worse teachers, then the kid will learn less, and perhaps not learn some things at all.

Lots of stuff is done by adults to help educational/development happen for kids.

>
> But time is not the relevant factor in learning. The relevant factor
> is knowledge. Learning rate is a function of the current state of
> one's knowledge. So the more knowledge one has, the more he can learn.

The issue is *the better* the knowledge (in certain relevant ways), not the more. Quality not quantity.

>
> The bucket theory says that learning happens best while the person is
> young, suggesting that the learning rate is based on age, rather than
> knowledge.
>
> On a similar note, I've noticed that a lot of my mistakes in my
> explanations had to do with thinking of dynamic things as a function
> of time [which is not relevant], rather than a function of something
> else [the relevant quantities].
>
> Its ok to think of dynamic things as a function of time so that you
> can know that there might be a correlation. But then that correlation
> should not be used as the relevant idea in an explanation.
> Explanations should use ideas that are functions of relevant
> quantities not irrelevant quantities like time.

From the perspective of an adult, lots of children learn stuff over time. Even if the adult isn't helpful, even if the adult is harmful.

It seems automatic if you don't think of the child as a person who is doing stuff. (When my adult friend goes to night school to learn a new professional skill, no one thinks that learning is automatic, even though it happens without my doing anything. Because I know he has to do stuff to make it happen.)

-- Elliot Temple
http://elliottemple.com/