It seemed from my prospective that this text “The Proper Study of Man” by Bruner was a complex document. It used overly complicated wording to convey its ideas. This is fine, however, it greatly restricts its own audience by doing so to a professional or academic one. I'm also a man of math and science and sometimes I find it hard to follow things that are of the psychological and philosophical variety. These are more often than not theoretical or hypothetical in nature. When dealing with topics that are hypothetical or theory based, the lines between yes or no and true or false become blurred and sometimes hard or impossible to define. Its not that these types of topics are too hard to understand but, more so that they are much more open to interpretation. Any topic is easier to understand in my opinion when dealing mostly or strictly with facts because there is a right and wrong answer in most cases.
Bruner’s book seemed to have focused mostly on how psychologist, anthropologist, behaviorist, mentalist, etc. reacted to the main topic and the way they were trying to refine terms and ideas. The main topic seemed to be open to interpretation rather than restricted to facts. The way cognition works in the human mind and cognition verses computation is described almost an opinion. However, from what I can tell, it basically boils down to the difference between knowing something and understanding it. It was obvious that there were a few agreed upon ideas about cognition vs. computation but, not one clear central idea which the majority agreed with.
No comments:
Post a Comment