|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
Learning versus Formulating Concepts It's noteworthy that the process you use in forming a concept is different from the process you use when learning a concept from someone else. In forming a concept, naming it is one of the last steps, and serves to transform the abstraction into a mental concrete. But often when you learn a new concept, you are given a word to start with and you ask what it means. So you start with the word, then you are given a definition, another of the final steps in concept formation, and only then can you start considering the referents or units of the concept. It is possible to learn a concept through a process similar to the formation of a concept. A child might already recognize something as different from other things, like seeing a giraffe at the zoo. He may already go through the steps of differentiating and integrating the conceptual units, and only needs to know the name he should use for the concept. He would ask "What's that called?". In my professional career as an engineer, I've had the need to formulate many concepts. I've also had the experience of describing the concepts to other people, who learn the concepts instead of forming them. The process they use to learn it is starting with the word, then definition, and then filling it in with appropriate units. Seeing the two approaches used in practice has let me notice some important differences. The first difference, which is not terribly surprising, is that those who actually form the concept end up with a much better grasp of it, including the different referents that make up the concept. This is not surprising to me because to form a concept, you need to have a significant enough knowledge of similar things to recognize that there are important distinctions. If we think in terms of genus and differentia, there are many referents within a genus, but it is only through significant exposure and analysis of these referents that you find a need to differentiate between them. The person forming the concept clearly met this requirement. Those learning the concept didn't need to. What I'm getting at here is that the person forming the concept has enough knowledge to understand the need for the concept, while those learning it may be able to understand the concept and see how it differentiates itself with other things, but they may not grasp the importance of the distinction. They may not be able to see why it is useful. Even if they see some of the reason why it is useful, they may not grasp how useful it is, or all of the reasons why it is useful. Another difference is seen when they try to define the concept. Typically the definition they provide does manage to describe some attribute of the new concept, but it tends to be inaccurate. The definition offered may end up including instances that are not actually part of the concept. The definition is too broad. And sometimes they'll be overly specific, describing details that are non-essential and not shared by all elements of the concept. That definition is too specific. The use of "too broad" and "too specific" is not quite an accurate representation, here. If the definition reflects their understanding of the concept, it means the concept is different. It's not just a matter of degree, but a matter of kind. If someone defined a democracy as a political system with a legislative branch, it wouldn't be "too broad". It would include despotic regimes without any pretense at allowing citizens to vote. This ties into the problem of learning a concept as opposed to forming it. Without knowing the context of the concept, the details may be wrong. The context of the concept includes the purpose for the concept and its relationship to other concepts. If you think that the key element of a democracy is the ability of the people to vote, and that the concept is formed in contrast with non-voting political systems of various types, and is significant because the people have a peaceful method of changing the structure or the staffing of the government, then you won't make the same kind of mistakes. If you don't learn the context of the concept, it's purpose and meaning will be vague. You might hear a definition or description of the concept, but the significance may be lost without knowing the conceptual context. Learning it would be a matter of memorization, instead of awareness or understanding. When you are the one forming a concept, you understand its purpose, its significance, and its relationship to other concept. You have the appropriate background to make full use of it. But when learning a concept, it is easy to not have the appropriate background. You may learn it because someone else claims it is significant, without you having any idea why it is significant. Some of the problems may stem from the process used in learning a concept. You start with a word, get a definition, and then you have to think of examples that fit that definition in order to connect the concept with the referents of the concept. But is this enough? Note that during concept formation, you have to not only integrate the referents of the concept, but you have to differentiate it from other things. When forming the concept of chair, you have to differentiate it from a table. But if you learned the concept through this other process, you might be offered examples of a chair without contrasting it with tables. The differentiation step could be skipped, leaving you unclear of the boundaries of the concept. A conceptual common denominator for a concept is what the units of the concept have in common. It can be though of as the principle of integration. It is the quality that they share that makes them part of the same concept. But a concept also has a principle of differentiation. There is something that excludes other entities from the concept. When forming a concept of the color blue, the color acts as the integrating principle. Various shades of blue are integrated because of their similarity in color. But other colors are excluded from the concept. So color is both the integrating principle but also the differentiating principle. Colors within the range thought of as shade of blue are integrated, and colors outside of that range are excluded. On top of that, entities or qualities that are not colors are excluded as well. The color of a car may be blue, but the shape or function of the car is not blue. This could be considered another principle of differentiation. One differentiation is between similar entities within a genus. But the genus is also differentiated from other concepts. A whole hierarchy of differentiation may be implied in the formation of a concept. Each concept can be part of a larger category, with its own method of differentiation. Learning a concept requires you to think of entities that fit the criteria and share the conceptual common denominator. But the differentiating principle or principles are a matter of integrating that concept with the rest of your knowledge. A few examples may not be enough. Without understanding the context of the concept, some of these differentiating principles may not be noticed. The missing context could have multiple causes. Not knowing the purpose of the concept, or what concept it is derived from or abstract from could hide the context. But it is also possible that the person learning the concept isn't actually familiar with other related and important concepts. If I try to explain an challenging technical concept, it might not be understood simply because the other person isn't familiar with several related and necessary concepts. The final issue with learning a concept instead of forming it is a consequence of the earlier problems. When a concept is poorly understood, it can't be used as a step to additional concept formation. Someone who learns the concept poorly may be unable to form new concept that are differentiated with this one, since they don't know the boundaries or limits of this one. Integrating it with other concepts into even higher level concepts could also be a problem, as they may end up integrating it based on a non-essential characteristic, lumping in opposing ideas. None of this is to imply that learning a concept can't be done right. It is more to highlight the fact that there are important differences, and that those differences can have significant effects on the understanding of a concept.
Discuss this Article (6 messages) |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
