Robin:
I find your observations about the "visual cliff" to be quite
evocative.
If you check out the early discussions of that demonstration,
particularly those offered by Eleanor Gibson, you will find the
implication that the infants avoid crossing over the "deep" part of the
cliff on account of their "fear" of falling -- with the further
implication that the infant has a "built in" capacity to construe depth,
and that that capacity guarantees the low probability of the little thing
crawling off the limb and plummeting to its death... a nice example of
gene preservation, etc., etc.
I built a visual cliff, and tried to replicate the findings of the
early investigators -- I got all kinds of results... and I gave up.
Surely, I didn't get the nice neat results reported by the first
investigators [So, what else is new???].
For example, if the infant's mother positioned herself on the far
side of the cliff and rattled her set of car keys, the infant would be
very likely to crawl over the cliff with little hesitation.
I was trying to show that the early analyses were somewhat
problematic. I could not accept an interpretation which concluded that
the infant was fearful of depth!
Consider -- If an infant is lying on it's back, looking up at a
pattern on a ceiling, does it fear falling? I would guess not. Why --
the visual stimulus pattern could be the same as the that which the child
gets when it reaches the edge of the "cliff." Why does an infant lying
on its back not fear that it is going to fall "up?"
Would it not be appropriate to consider that the infant who is old
enough to crawl also has developed a complex set of constructs about the
effects of gravity, particularly on the effects of gravity on its body in
relation to surfaces which support its body?
Thus, the infant does not demonstrate arousal when it is lying on its
back, looking at the ceiling on account of its ability to successfully
construct an anticipatory construction which takes into account the
inputs coming from its proprioceptive system, coordinated with the inputs
from its visual system. The infant, I would claim, is using a complex
set of constructs to built a successfully anticipating construction of
the location of his/her body in space.
The infant who approaches the drop-off of the visual cliff will
explore the glass surface. It will try to apply the anticipatory
constructions about gravity in relation to its
constructions about visual inputs regarding space. Those constructions
just don't work!!
I conclude that the infant does not show a "fear of falling;" rather,
it shows a preparation for effort as it tries to build an anticipatory
construction which allows it to coordinate all the inputs it is
receiving.
According to the constructions which the infant can build, I assume,
it cannot construct the possibility that an invisible something cannot
provide a surface blocks the effect of gravity. If it could tag its
constructions with verbal signifiers, it might say, "What is this??? An
invisible something presses up against my palms!!! How can that be? How
can I construe this confusing situation?"
The infant might also say, "If Momma is on the other side of the
cliff, trying to entice me with those attractive keys, then she must know
that there are invisible surfaces which can counter the effect of
gravity. Let me give it a try.... "
And there goes the nice neat "invisible cliff study!!!"
Now, little goats also will avoid the cliff, and they also will
overcome their reluctance to trust the possibility that an invisible
surface will counter gravity.
And, little goats [we assume] cannot use verbal signifiers. So, are
they using a construct system similar to that which the infant uses?
Certainly, goats can also build anticipatory constructions.
Construing is not a matter of talking to one's self. Construing is a
matter of building a template -- an inner represenation -- a narrative --
about how the flow of inputs will run off. We can say that little goats,
like 8-month old infants, also build anticipatory constructions.
Are the constructs which the infant uses to construe space social
constructs? Certainly, in that the social world arranges inputs so that
certain types of construct will develop. Would an infant who never has
"rectangular" inputs develop the same kinds of constructs of near-far,
left-right as would an infant who lives in the kind of rectangular world
which most of experience?
Indeed, the visual cliff represents a superb vehicle for attempting
to analyse the ways in which infants construe space and the relation of
their body to that space....
Thanks for prompting this bit of reconsideration of the visual
cliff...
Jim Mancuso
Robin Hill wrote:
> This is just an idle thought that ran across my mind and thought I'd
> post to the mail-list.
>
> It seems to me (but correct me if I'm wrong) that a main distinction
> between PCP and Social Constructionism is that the latter denies the
> possibility of pre-verbal construing. It seems to me, however, that
> the phenomenon of the visual cliff with infants, amounts to an act of
> construing. Those of us who have been round longer than infants and
> who have developed a language might assume a label for that
> construing, such as "down there vs. up here" or "Safe place to go vs.
> unsafe place to go."
>
> I wonder then, how would social constructionists account for the
> visual cliff phenomenon?
>
> Dr. Robin Hill
>
> ____________________________________
> Principal Lecturer & Research Leader
> Department of Business Studies
> The Waikato Polytechnic
> Private Bag 3036
> Hamilton 2020
> New Zealand
>
> email: BSRAH@twp.ac.nz
> Fax. NZ (07) 834-8802
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/soi
A website related to Italian-American Affairs
--------------634C744C3614B26FDE1B3070
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Robin:
I find your observations about the "visual cliff"
to be quite evocative.
If you check out the early discussions of that demonstration,
particularly those offered by Eleanor Gibson, you will find the implication
that the infants avoid crossing over the "deep" part of the cliff on account
of their "fear" of falling -- with the further implication that the infant
has a "built in" capacity to construe depth, and that that capacity guarantees
the low probability of the little thing crawling off the limb and plummeting
to its death... a nice example of gene preservation, etc., etc.
I built a visual cliff, and tried to replicate the
findings of the early investigators -- I got all kinds of results... and
I gave up. Surely, I didn't get the nice neat results reported by
the first investigators [So, what else is new???].
For example, if the infant's mother positioned herself
on the far side of the cliff and rattled her set of car keys, the infant
would be very likely to crawl over the cliff with little hesitation.
I was trying to show that the early analyses were
somewhat problematic. I could not accept an interpretation which
concluded that the infant was fearful of depth!
Consider -- If an infant is lying on it's back,
looking up at a pattern on a ceiling, does it fear falling? I would
guess not. Why -- the visual stimulus pattern could be the same as
the that which the child gets when it reaches the edge of the "cliff."
Why does an infant lying on its back not fear that it is going to fall
"up?"
Would it not be appropriate to consider that the
infant who is old enough to crawl also has developed a complex set of constructs
about the effects of gravity, particularly on the effects of gravity on
its body in relation to surfaces which support its body?
Thus, the infant does not demonstrate arousal when
it is lying on its back, looking at the ceiling on account of its ability
to successfully construct an anticipatory construction which takes into
account the inputs coming from its proprioceptive system, coordinated with
the inputs from its visual system. The infant, I would claim, is
using a complex set of constructs to built a successfully anticipating
construction of the location of his/her body in space.
The infant who approaches the drop-off of the visual
cliff will explore the glass surface. It will try to apply the anticipatory
constructions about gravity in relation to its
constructions about visual inputs regarding space. Those constructions
just don't work!!
I conclude that the infant does not show a "fear
of falling;" rather, it shows a preparation for effort as it tries to build
an anticipatory construction which allows it to coordinate all the inputs
it is receiving.
According to the constructions which the infant
can build, I assume, it cannot construct the possibility that an invisible
something cannot provide a surface blocks the effect of gravity.
If it could tag its constructions with verbal signifiers, it might say,
"What is this??? An invisible something presses up against my palms!!!
How can that be? How can I construe this confusing situation?"
The infant might also say, "If Momma is on the other
side of the cliff, trying to entice me with those attractive keys, then
she must know that there are invisible surfaces which can counter the effect
of gravity. Let me give it a try.... "
And there goes the nice neat "invisible cliff study!!!"
Now, little goats also will avoid the cliff, and
they also will overcome their reluctance to trust the possibility that
an invisible surface will counter gravity.
And, little goats [we assume] cannot use verbal
signifiers. So, are they using a construct system similar to that
which the infant uses?
Certainly, goats can also build anticipatory constructions.
Construing is not a matter of talking to one's self. Construing is
a matter of building a template -- an inner represenation -- a narrative
-- about how the flow of inputs will run off. We can say that little
goats, like 8-month old infants, also build anticipatory constructions.
Are the constructs which the infant uses to construe
space social constructs? Certainly, in that the social world arranges
inputs so that certain types of construct will develop. Would an
infant who never has "rectangular" inputs develop the same kinds of constructs
of near-far, left-right as would an infant who lives in the
kind of rectangular world which most of experience?
Indeed, the visual cliff represents a superb vehicle
for attempting to analyse the ways in which infants construe space and
the relation of their body to that space....
Thanks for prompting this bit of reconsideration
of the visual cliff...
Jim Mancuso
Robin Hill wrote:
This is just an idle thought that ran across my mind
and thought I'd
post to the mail-list.
It seems to me (but correct me if I'm wrong) that a main distinction
between PCP and Social Constructionism is that the latter denies the
possibility of pre-verbal construing. It seems to me, however,
that
the phenomenon of the visual cliff with infants, amounts to an act
of
construing. Those of us who have been round longer than infants
and
who have developed a language might assume a label for that
construing, such as "down there vs. up here" or "Safe place to go vs.
unsafe place to go."
I wonder then, how would social constructionists account for the
visual cliff phenomenon?
Dr. Robin Hill
____________________________________
Principal Lecturer & Research Leader
Department of Business Studies
The Waikato Polytechnic
Private Bag 3036
Hamilton 2020
New Zealand
email: BSRAH@twp.ac.nz
Fax. NZ (07) 834-8802
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of
Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University
at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington
Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/soi
A website related to Italian-American Affairs
--------------634C744C3614B26FDE1B3070--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%