Two questions aroused concerning - social capital / tool usage


This reading is not easy for me to get to the point and understand, but at least I am glad that it has triggered me to think more about these issues as below.

 Quantitative difference vs. Qualitative difference 
First of all, I was pretty surprised to read that human development is only quantitatively different from animals in that I have always seen human beings as qualitatively unique and advanced to any other animal. Lots of awesome things that we benefit from are something that I do not think animals are equipped with; human's ability to empathize with others, care about those who are in dire needs, aside from whether they act on or not, at least minimum of humanity that drives and motivates us to work for others, care about others even when itself would not bring you direct interests. Although my understanding of animals is very shallow, main position/perspective that I have taken in understanding their behaviors lie in 'survival'. Therefore, human's attribute to stand against their self-interest (sometimes, not too often though) for the sake of certain values, humanities, conscience, etc. could be roughly understood as something that is exclusively applicable to human beings. Even before diving into the later parts of the reading, I felt almost stuck to find that the description of quantitive difference was so countering to my previous/current beliefs. Still, it would be meaningful to raise how you guys all understand this premise and how the understanding of human and animals development map out this proposition.

Even the concept of social capital that refers to what can only arise in the midst of collective communication in societies such as shared values, shared norms, cooperation, trust, the shared sense of identity, reciprocity, etc (that bring and lead to common good/public goods) can only worth discussing among human beings, right? I think social capital has functioned as unseen/unmeasurable (maybe difficult to see and measure) asset and factor that plays in development of human as well as societies. How could we integrate this like concept in the big picture of human development in relation to animals?


Usage of tools- development, and culture
Well, I just wondered how cultural differences in dealing with/using tools on their daily lives would make a difference in human's cognitive development and formation of symbols. For instance, Indians (not sure whether this is still common nowadays) tend to have meals with their bare hands, which is not most of the cases in different cultures. People in western societies including all European countries and U.S. would not be accustomed to using chopsticks, but they mainly use forks, knives, and spoons. India or some African countries where you mainly use the right hand in eating, you would use your left hand so selectively according to the situations (e.g., going to the bathroom), which I understood that would be linked to certain kind of symbols as well. This is so intriguing to know and I thought tools and symbols could be understood simultaneously with more integratively and multidimensionally if we bring cultural perspectives.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ZPD vs. Scaffolding

Reading Wood et al.'s (1976) original article in which they introduce the metaphor of "scaffolding" really makes clear how different this is from ZPD.  There is no collaboration (perhaps a better word is co-operation) between the expert and the child... the expert guides the child's actions through controlling their immediate problem-solving experience. The model of scaffolding assumes that the expert is, in a sense, all-knowing in relation to the problem and is not an active participant in the actions of problem-solving.  Vygotsky's theory really seems to require a much more dynamic social interaction or series of social interactions. I also question to what extent a tutor operating in this way can engage with a child's everyday and scientific concepts in a meaningful way. Having read Smagorinsky's (2018) article once more, it is hard not to be convinced of his position. He confirmed with Anna Stetsenko at CUNY (who earned her PhD in Psychology at Mosco...
Read more

Can scientific concepts be taught as everyday concepts? My middle school physics teacher

Image
I began reading the chapter on the development of scientific concepts and it was interesting to see how Vygotsky differentiates between scientific and everyday concepts. Scientific concepts are simply learned or received in completed form (most commonly introduced as a term along with its definition) which in turn leads to understanding, learning, and comprehension. Whereas, everyday concepts do not have a formal definition, need not be universal but still helps us understand the functioning of the society and the world in which we live. When reflecting on all this, I was reminded of a middle school physics teacher I had (Sadly, we had her only for one year), who would not introduce new concepts as 'words' and definitions but instead, would begin class with a demonstration. One of which is depicted below. I so vividly remember her explaining inertia through this method:                                 ...
Read more

Learning from teaching vs Impactful experiences from child’s play

I remember very little about my past schooling and I am not sure if it is because I have this belief that we should spend little time reminiscing on the past and looking towards the future or is it that my classroom experiences were all “traditional” and are not stored in my active memory. The latter would seem applicable as I really do remember more key events from my “play times” but very few from the formal school settings. Lev S. Vygotsky states: “In play a child is always above his average age, above his daily behavior; in play it is as though he were a head taller than himself. As in the focus of a magnifying glass, play contains all developmental tendencies in a condensed form; in play it is as though the child were trying to jump above the level of his normal behavior” (1967, 16). The interpretation of the above quote can and has taken many forms but I do not agree that children learn more from play and interactions with their peers than in a formal environment. My ...
Read more