I totally want to meet this guy

[eirias]

"I wish to suggest that our familiar theoretical disputes about learning may perhaps (I emphasize 'perhaps') be resolved, if we can agree that there are really a number of different kinds of learning. For then it may turn out that the theory and laws appropriate to one kind may well be different from those appropriate to other kinds. Each of the theories of learning now current may, in short, still have validity for some one or more varieties of learning, if not for all. But to assume that this will settle our squabbles is, I know, being overly optimistic. Other theorists will certainly not support what I am going to say. Not only will each of them feel that his theory is basic for all kinds of learning, but also each of these others will be sure to object to the general conceptual framework within which my distinctions alone make sense. Thus, whereas I would like to hope that this paper will prove an end to all future papers on learning, I realize that such a hope is mere fantasy or wish-fulfillment on my part or something that my clinical colleagues would undoubtedly dub by some far more unpleasant name." --Edward C. Tolman, "There is More than One Kind of Learning," Psychological Review, 1949

Yeah... that's one fantasy that totally didn't pan out. But it's good to see you had a sense of humor about it.

(In other words, I am seriously going to be done with the first draft of this puppy by the end of the day. Woo freakin' hoo!)

--

ETA: This guy is just too much. Other choice quotes from the article:

"This term sounds shocking. However, I am going to use it."
"These I formerly called 'sign-gestalt-expectations,' which latter term...Hilgard and Marquis 'mercifully' shortened to 'expectancies.' This last term is, however, I feel, too disgustingly short; so I am 'mercilessly' rechristening these entities 'field expectancies.'"
"And, as to the laws for the de-acquisition of equivalence beliefs, I am equally in the dark. And this is sad..."
"I feel that once we have thought of really good defining experiments for each of these types of learning we can then hypothesize equations, fit empirical curves and dream up constants to our hearts' content. At least I think I could."
"Why do I want thus to complicate things; why do I not want one simple set of laws for all learning? I do not know. But I suppose it must be due to some funny erroneous equivalence belief on my part to the effect that being sweeping and comprehensive, though vague, is equivalent to more love from others than being narrow and precise. No doubt, any good clinician would be able to trace this back to some sort of nasty traumatic experience in my early childhood. Let, then, the clinician unravel this sort of causal relationship in me or in others nad I will attempt to show him its analogue in rats, or at least in chimpanzees or perhaps dogs. For, if more of the theoretical and learning psychologists, on the one hand, and of the clinicians, on the other, don't get together, and soon, there is really going to develop that nasty fission in psychology that we have all been warned of. And, if that fission happens, then our science is really going to suffer a long and very unfortunate period of schizophrenic 'institutionalization' -- whether inside of or outside of our universities."

(I wonder if, in that last, he's referring to the split between experimental & clinical psychology? Sure sounds like it... I guess his dire predictions came true!)

ETA 2: Biography of Edward Tolman

Comments

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

ah, for the days when scientific writing was permitted to have style....!

i don't think the experimental/clinical split ever *wasn't* there, except insofar as people with clinical experience but no ability to discriminate between "anecdote" and "data" used to be able to get away with that.
(although given the fairly ghastly book on trauma i'm currently reading, they still are :)

[eirias.livejournal.com]

ah, for the days when scientific writing was permitted to have style....!

I just thought of something -- I wonder whether the style-free writing of modern science has anything to do with the fact that most modern articles are essentially written by committee?

I mean, there are clearly other factors (more literature to summarize, so less room for fanciful language; perhaps more non-native writers, though this could easily have been a factor in intellectual writing of the past, too, and I wouldn't notice since I'm not fluent in any of the academic languages of yore). But it seems like it would be hard to have a clear and memorable "voice" when writing by committee.

(Tangentially, it might be an interesting exercise to look at multi-person blogs to see if one can tell the difference between writers. There's one journal in particular that would be good for this purpose, but I think I may know the writers and their histories too well. A pity!)

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

...dunno. i've occasionally appeared as an author on papers i didn't actually *write* any of (i did do the math for the analysis section, in the example foremost in my mind) and i've added people as coauthors if they did substantial amounts of the science, even if the words were pretty much direct from my pen. the times i've committee'd coauthors' drafts i think the writing's gotten better, not worse. but perhaps all is vanity :)

rather than blogs, i'd suggest you might compare contemporary single- vs multi-author papers to investigate this?

[eirias.livejournal.com]

rather than blogs, i'd suggest you might compare contemporary single- vs multi-author papers to investigate this?

Right, that'd be a better investigation of actual scientific writing :). My tangent was more a general pondering about whether the concept of voice is easy to tell apart when people are making an effort to put forth something unified. But clearly this could be investigated in journal articles as well.