On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Robert Bacal wrote:
>Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Why Training doesn't work]
>
>On 14 Oct 97 at 21:43, Leon Levitt wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
Well said, Robert. We train humans as well as animals. Then, we educate
humans about higher order things. But, if you have ever seen a "horse
whisperer" at work you could easily believe we can educate (some) animals,
as well. It seems to me that the line between train and educate is fuzzy.
But the point of it all is not What we do, but Why we do it -- what Change
are we trying to foster.
Jack Ring
Innovation Management
32712 N. 70th St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
602-488-4615