Discussion: View Thread

On 14 Oct 97 at 21:43, Leon Levitt wrote:


> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Charlie et.al.
> There is a fundamental error in all this discourse about "training";
> viz., you train animals; you educate human beings. Any deviation from
> that dichotomy reduces the human to being equated with domestic animals
> or beasts of burden to whom operant and classical conditioning are being
> applied -- a tragic consequence of the old "scientific management"
> mindset, still strident in the real world of heavy industry, farming,
> and many service and sales occupations. Alas.

Leon, I think we are running afoul of some language problems. The
word training doesn't refer exclusively to "conditioning"...it is
used primarily to denote learning activites that have as their goals
very specific skill acquisition and performance. As such training
does not necessarily prescribe method, although clearly working with
animals, one is limited. With humans one is not limited to
conditioning processes because of the symbolization functions we
have, and our multiple ways of learning.

To equate training humans with training animals is hyperbole and
doesn't reflect what is the common and professional usage of the term
training.


One can build the dichotomy if one wishes between education and
training, and debate one vs. the other, but it seems to me that in
our modern world, they are inseparable and complement each other.

Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On Sept.11, 1997*

At 09:43 pm 10/14/97 -0700, Leon wrote:
>Subject: Re: Why Training doesn't work
>
>Charlie et.al.
> There is a fundamental error in all this discourse about "training";
>viz., you train animals; you educate human beings. Any deviation from
>that dichotomy reduces the human to being equated with domestic animals
>or beasts of burden to whom operant and classical conditioning are being
>applied -- a tragic consequence of the old "scientific management"
>mindset, still strident in the real world of heavy industry, farming,
>and many service and sales occupations. Alas.
>Leon

Leon,
Based on your choice of words, what we do for animals should have
something to do
with creating a conformance of their behavior to some mold or model. We
can do
this with dogs, according to Pavlov, and with lions and tigers according to
those
guys in Las Vegas...
Now as far a humans are concerned, we must educate. This word is not
deducate or
inductucate so we're not talking about ascribing things to observations or
putting
something into something else; we're talking about drawing something from the
"educatees." Now, Leon, that can't be what you are suggesting because that
would
require the "educator" to ask more questions than make statements and to
demonstrate
his/her understanding that s/he has two ears and one mouth.
If you ask me, and you didn't, this seems like an awful lot of trouble if
you just
want people to conform to some mold or model. So then, Leon, it would seem
that the
answer to the question "Do we educate or train?" depends upon "In order
what?" And
this latter question seems to me to be precisely the crux of the matter for
far too
few people seem to demonstrate any real understanding of what a truly educated
and focused organization could accomplish as compared with a well-trained,
e.g.,
highly-conforming one.

Right on, Leon!
Michael D. Townes, Qual. Specialist, | We must surely hang
USPS, POB 225459, Dallas, TX 75222-5459 | together or surely we
214-819-8797 mdtownes@iamerica.net | will hang separately.
CustomerPerfect! - targeting our future | - B. Franklin

Thanks much. Sometimes I wonder . . . Leon