雜談兼論 (3) - 改變的方向
話明雜談，梗係談天說地架喇。既然兼論，當然東拉西扯。
續 Cultivation
上篇匿名同小蓉兒其實同樣提到一點：Cultivation。嗯，咁比我發下噏風。
家長（大部分係父母）如果二元咁分，主要有兩派：Gardener and Constructor。
Gardener 視子女（被養育者）為 Tree，其取態為 Growing Tree。
Constructor 視子女為 Block，取態為 Building Blocks。
兩者若放在極端，可以是對立；若放在 continnum 可以是互補。主要視乎家長取態。
感覺上，小蓉兒在提醒我是如何取得互補；而匿名則把重點放在某些（絕望的）家長的極端做法（雖然這種極端也很流行）。
我想 Growing Tree 同 Building Blocks 兩個比喻應該很容易理解，毋須多作解釋。除了養兒育女外，這兩個比喻亦常為我個人去嘗試推敲將來世界各種事物或人的變遷。
Canes and Carrots vs Social Relations
呢部分零碎兼亂籠，敬希家長指引。
我地呢批老餅好多都見證過兩代鄰里關係既改變。雖然印象都有些少模糊，但總係覺得以前鄰里關係好過依家。九萬幾個專家同路人都講過，「信任」呢家野，係少左，然後又有九十幾萬個perspectives。嗯，咁我響呢度又嘗試重覆其中一個 perspective：(Social) Exchange。
人越受canes and carrots多，而與此同時c&c越有效，咁就越認為世界上只有 c&c 係生存之道（...等陣...蓉，梗係有假設喇，唏！即係可以rephrase成：就越容易接受 canes and carrots係更值得採用既「人際關係處理技巧」。）
當社會中大部分既家長都認同 c&c 有效，咁社會既「將來」亦會變成一個以 c&c 為主要溝通手段既社會。
Canes and Carrots 未必與 Trust 相對，但可以找到端倪。
為 Michael Jackson 傷感
見過有人話（即係「話」呀）人「忽然傷感」：MJ依家死左先哭喪，之前又唔見你地點點點，咁咁咁。
我諗呢個忽然傷感既現象就係「心理」同「行為」兩者有趣既地方。又曾經見過有人感嘆（好似從五師兄果邊援引，唔太記得），MJ之死之所以令我輩傷心，係因為我地無左個童年回憶（大致係咁意思）。坦白講。呢個感嘆幾有趣，亦幾真實，幾到。
我係呢幾日阿匿提起，我先至覺得傷感。
送你 MJ 的一首 《One day in your life》，據某前輩話，呢首先係佢真正既成名作，而唔係佢既勁歌。
21 comments:
其實Growing Tree 同 Building Blocks都是重要，只是BM則兩者都不是，它是一個「模」或「上帝之手」。前者讓兒童在「模」內的空間生長，後者拔苗助長。又本人也是BM能手，只是不會在使用時自欺當作「能力的改變」以致認為BM訓練/操練便是能起死回生的治療treatment。一向我都有視之為intervention使用，也很開心的。""
又，聰明才智多才多藝的家長把BM靈活運用，對一般的兒童是沒有大問題的。Definition: 聰明才智多才多藝的家長=CM的長期讀者 (IQ應在120以上)
對非一般的兒童，才有比較嚴重的問題，因為原來可以被ignore的presumptions突然變成上太空般的知識，超出一般日常醫學的範圍。
可是，當兒童越非一般（資優或相反），父母便越使出越多BM訓練/操練時，不自覺便以為兒童的「能力也改變」，把之奉為能起死回生的治療treatment。正如上司深信BM下屬，便能把一切解決，發展成一種似曾相識的政治模式…
http://phatdat.blogspot.com/2009/07/blog-post_11.html?showComment=1247324481782#c3930125375588152247
Nic（假設以上三個都是同一匿）,
(1) 在此處小弟有少許不同的意見了。
正如個人前述的理解，Growing Tree 與 Building Blocks若呈現對立形式（即家長視兩者一對一錯），家長的角度可以是：
1. Growing Tree as organic; building blocks as mechanistic.
以純organic 角度看的家長，會完全視子女的成長為天生天養，或以 laissez faire /子女的 self-ownership 為取態。（樹如何成長，靠樹自己）完全放任為一例。
OTOH, 以純mechanistic 角度看的，會認為子女的可塑性完全可以由家長控制。（房子如何建成，靠人建立）純BM則為一例。
2. Growing Tree as complement of building blocks (or vice-versa)
就算點organic，都有可塑性；就算點mechanistic，都有不可知性。（不贅）
個人之所以傾向 growing tree，其中原因也是基於某些scientific studies 及傳統智慧: 經濟上的成功多靠子女自己的personality及際遇，快樂與否多靠家長灌輸的價值觀而非skills... 。
對於非一般的子女（例如自閉者），若家長以成功的BM 能減低家長自己的罪咎感、釋放心理上的壓抑（因子女的成就而讓自己獲得補償）、減輕自己的不便（例如因子女的自理能力加強而自己能騰出更多時間與子女相處），那BM似乎還是功德無量的。
我想這些家長最終還是會理解的。
（續）
Well well well，小弟的長期讀者嘛，我好肯定，不單止 IQ 高，EQ仲高！你話，能夠忍受到我咁耐，EQ肯定非比尋常！
（續上1.）
遺漏左一點。無錯，Nic。我之所以提出那個商業例子，意思大概如此。
突然有疑問，Nic，那些以BM為主要手段並需要協助（即有非一般孩子）的家長，是否只有「一名」孩子（或該孩子為兄弟姊妹中年紀最少的一位）？
我這樣問，是因為我「覺得」，兄弟姊妹的出現，應該會讓家長察覺到 full BM "treament" 的不足，並將BM調教到 "intervention" 的層面。
（續）
那種方法，試試無妨，但以此為信念，不如「行」。思考，然後實踐，我覺得，才是增長智慧（or whatsoever）的最佳辦法。
講起MJ, 除了Healing the World, We're the World等有意義的歌外, 還有Beat it, Blank or White等快歌; 但個人和您一樣較喜愛《One day in your life》，因為當第一次聽的時候, 旋律及歌詞很"正", 但更估唔到的係尚是年輕的MJ唱的。
唔知您有無睇上星期六生果報講"我們的80年代"呢? 那些人和物, 伴著我和不少同輩成長, 看見一張又一張相(尤其係梅艷芳, 張國榮和陳百強), 不知怎的, 很傷感。
Karen:
你要注意身體呀。
或許我喜歡《One day in your life》，是因為這不像MJ後期的作品，價值較「中性」。
生果報？無呀。（自兩年前，除左響公司偶然問人借黎搵料之外，真係未睇過。）嗯... 人面全非...
就算點organic，都有可塑性；就算點mechanistic，都有不可知性。缺一不可，我基本上是mechanistic = organic （two sides of the same coin）但mechanistic=f(organic), organic=f(mechanistic).
當所有organic expressed as a function of mechanistic 時，在兒童本身的發展上，仍然看不到BM的位置。
我用BM作intervention是使兒童行為上有軌跡，使他們與環境互動時更良好。可作為整體發展的輔助。不會是治療。
在人腦的世界裏，不是學到『某某skills』便是等同治療或內在思維、心理等等的『內在能力』已作出改變。
BM 可作為整體發展的輔助 是大家無時無刻都做，亦是非常應該做的，在家庭、公司及社會也如是。
但當BM用作訓練『某某skills』時便要注意，要知道當九成時間及精神都花在『某某skills』上並以「鐵柱礳成針」的精神投入自己及「非一般」兒童早期發展的『機會成本』於BM一切〝以為可被BM的內在能力〞時，本末倒置的情況便出現。非一般兒童的家長便會不自覺地走進一個潛在假設，「能力便等同千千萬萬個skills」的累積。以為反過來累積千千萬萬個skills便能醫好兒童或改變他真正的內在能力。
類似Pakman's example 是其中一個非一般兒童的家長非常喜歡的做法，用近萬元爬行數千米作治療是norm, 不是exception. 這便是為什麼特訓時間永遠不足。
又一個例子說能為不等如skills。很多時，自閉的兒童的身體協調不好，因此家長便把兩三歲的兒童當MJ或運動家BM訓練，作治療。
經驗所談，甚少見到自閉的小朋友（小學及中學）會行動不便常常跌倒等，因為自閉症本身永遠都不是身體協調為主要問題。運動練習是會有助身體協調及一些基本注意力等，正如你和我常做運動練習對各方面也有益，但不是治療。
有一自閉的小朋友也可練到鋼琴演奏一曲卡通影片的主題曲，當中包括Pakman's example的左右腦協調，大小肌肉控制，身體協調及専注，但一去評估大致上一切思維能力原地踏步，自閉程度仍然不變。這便是「先有能力，才能自然吸收因材施教的知識及技能」，但相反，「用BM訓練知識及技能」，兒童弔詭地「做到」訓練員的技能（包括社交），但不自然或機械性。我們無時無刻也在學習或自我訓練，當然是應該及要鼓勵，但如果深信如學「琴」可以治療自閉，把九成資源及時訓練練skills，我便覺得要為那些自閉兒童說幾句公道話（因為他們不懂自我表達）。
不過，我亦諒解家長的心情，記性不好當然是直接上記憶斑。這些記憶訓練班我兒時也好奇學過，CM你有無玩過？Cheers
又一個例子說能力不等如skills...
補充：
「先有能力，才能自然吸收因材施教的知識及技能」....「做到」某技能不一定說明有基本能。
MJ 可以被練一身武藝因為他腦部的速度及很多其它思維能力都一定是資優，因此隨時都可創造不同的高難度舞跳步。在最後練習時，已看不見如黑豹的快閃動作了。
CM, 多謝你MJ的成名曲，友人說，"Michael Jackson離世，但他的歌曲和舞蹈，以及heal the world ，make a better place的傲氣永遠長存。人不在，精神還在。
記得小時候，老師要求在作文課寫有關「不要追偶像，花錢買明星產品」。很多小朋友寧願把午飯錢留下，變得皮黃骨瘦，就是為了要買一張唱片或明星相。不知現在的小孩是怎麼樣。
我認為明星是重要的，是模仿對象，也是精神領袖。現今的社會，透明度高，很多陋習也被傳媒報導。所以，很多歌星或名人變得「不健康」。
現在，很多歌曲都有很多不良成份，純粹給觀眾享受和發洩，沒有振奮和教化的原素。要做到有說教而不老土，MJ可以做到。香港歌手，當中的表表者，莫過於黃家駒時代的Beyond。家駒，人不在，精神還在。有時候，覺得他的歌，有如宗教的經文的力量。"From友人，我也十分同意，他應不介意我的節錄。
歌曲的作用，不單是娛樂，也是一種精神支援。
又，我原本以為CM兄在上文提及的Organic is to treat human as a growing organism and a resource, where the parents (farmers) will proactively provide all the necessary nutrients but not molding or pulling (「模」或「上帝之手」); besides building blocks thought it meant to be an architecture with planning.
Sorry for misinterpreting your concepts, so we have been talking at different angles, I supposed.
Also, my experience of BM is not your broader definition which appears (from your follow up comments) to mean the common phenomenon where normal parents ask their children to learn different interests or skills very early on. I thought these are just different parenting styles only - some more laissez faire /子女的 self-ownership whereas others are more planned economy - all these are experiential learning base.
Yet in the "special" circle, the term BM is reserved to mean "management of maladaptive behaviour by contingency - operant conditioning, +/-reinforcement, time out etc". E.g. if the autistic kids has no natural eye contact due to very complicated neuronal network issues, BM will say use some attractive stimuli to capture their eye sight - say don't give them what they want until they look at it, then they do so, give them candy. So the result is that the autistic somehow learn to "look" at people unwillingly or purposelessly in order to get the reward they want.... by definition, this is called successful hence the term "evidence-based" (you can see that the kid can look at you, so give him one score on his behaviour chart in the research result). Because from no eye contact to looking at you (remember the brain or thought process in not the matter of concern in behaviourism), the kids are said to have significant improvement - hence the term therapy. Yes one may teach low level observable behaviour by using this method. But once they go up to primary school where the yardstick is not so superficial or low level, parents will base on their past "success" in kindergarten, and thought let me train also the sophisticated behaviour, so eventually many parents give up their jobs and train their kids full time at home. Using this BM, imitation of the bahaviour will fit the criterion. One will wonder how can one train a girl to have 一對電眼做model. Many autistic kids are pretty and handsome, one may think that they can become a model, but they can't because nothing produced from BM is actually "owned" by the kids, they are "not natural" so to speak. Without an intact underlying cognitive profile, one can really learn what is supposed to learn. The produced behaviour stay at the behavioural level, figuratively the bahaviour cannot swim upstream to correct the cognitive deficits.
Correction:
Using this BM, imitation of the behaviour will fit the criterion; yet one will wonder how can one “train” a girl to have 一對電眼做model. Many autistic kids are pretty and handsome, one may think that they can become a model, but they can't because nothing produced from BM is actually "owned" by the kids, they are "not natural" so to speak. Without an intact underlying cognitive profile, one cannot really learn what is supposed to learn. [正如愛因斯坦是不能做貝多芬、 Tom Cruise cannot be MJ] The BM produced behaviour stay at the behavioural level, figuratively the bahaviour cannot swim upstream to correct the cognitive deficits. i.e. BM product of eye-contact is purposeless and odd "use his/her eye to look at your head or your camera only" 欠缺內涵的。
Nic,
＞＞記憶班...CM你有無玩過？
無呀。（坦白說，我的記憶力也著實太差）
＞＞we have been talking at different angles, I supposed
Haha, yes, we likely are. But never mind. Though I don't take the perspective from your 'special circle', which I don't know much about, the special techniques of BM supposedly to be worked on 'under-skilled children' are widely employed by ordinary parents.
As you said: The BM produced behaviour stay at the behavioural level, figuratively the bahaviour cannot swim upstream to correct the cognitive deficits.
Normal kids may assimilate cognitively BM produced behaviour and re-apply as a real part of their own. The so-called risks? It's time for parents to think about.
I intended to make my remarks to ordinary parents to 'claim' and not to 'discredit' the risks involved in using BM, and have never intended to discredit the use of BM.
A friend of mine reminded me: 很多時父母教育子女只是為了減輕自己的不便。I found his words very true and in a very positive manner. 父母要減輕自己的不便縱使不是首要，但還是重要的。因為減輕子女帶來的不便，可以相等於騰出空間和時間、子女懂得自理和獨立...等等。正如 BM to under-skilled kids (even autistic kids), even when parents may get confused with 'what is done' and 'what is owned' by the kids, BM may still has a positive influence on the parents under stress. Stress is never a problem until it becomes distress.
In a certain sense, you and I were talking the same thing - parents are sometimes too good at wysiwyg so that miss the larger part - the brain.
Nic, when you talked about 電眼model, hehe, my DaDa is already 'well-conditioned'.
Talking about Growing Tree vs Building Blocks.
Yeah, I think you got that broader view.
Tree - you would never exactly know how and where the branches and twigs stem out; you would never exactly know which buds will grow or fall off.
In a complementary sense, you may control i.e. organic=f(mechanistic).
Blocks - 唔洗多講勒。
After some serious thoughts, I do start to realize what you have commented: 在兒童本身的發展上，仍然看不到BM的位置。
BTW, I spotted something curious when I was going back to the office today: 有中醫診所標貼出來一段廣告：針灸．治療自閉症。
CM 兄,
very often parents thought I was discrediting BM, in fact, I was just trying to explain we have to introduce the brain into the picture if one starts to consider real treatment. My major point is that BM, when being considered as a treatment, will inevitably suck up all the resource and time, because basically it claims that given enough time, one can create a new person - this assertion has been disproved using chimpanzee as an experiment. Using BM, "he" was able to use cards to form a two to three words sentence, exactly like the model special parents are taught to practice with their kids nowaday.
Very thorough research was done back in 1950-60. It received a euphoric response from the mass media, aspiring that we can make doctor, engineer, or cure everything by just modifying the behaviour (discard the brain and cognition). The chimpanzee did learn human language up to a level I guess similar to what special kids using BM can achieve - i.e. kindergarten level. The experiment eventually failed when nothing more than that can be accomplished by the chimpanzee - hence the fall of behaviourism since then.
In a more detail account, similar to the 電眼 model, their language acquired by BM are computer like. i.e. the chimpanzee or the kids using BM alone can come up to computer like response to input. e.g. He was conditioned to choose/say 'hello' once they hear people say hello. So language taught this way was tricked by primary classmates. e.g. clever classmate says, "Want candy", the kid who response mechanically like a robot (by BM) will give a candy to her classmate even she doesn't like to do so. Why? Because she was BM to say "want candy" when she was hungry, and then her parents will hand her one. Now once she hears other say the same magic clause, she will give her candy to others!! But parents tend to think that it was because the "BM programme" is not sophisticated enough, then they will go to ask the therapist to design another BM programme to input into the human computer. This is repeatedly done to encompass every aspects of the autistic children life - yet they have no say.... Of course, there are better treatment approach. Yet it is too abstract for most people to understand. Basically it is to adopt mechanistic = organic （two sides of the same coin）and mechanistic=f(organic), organic=f(mechanistic). Not to be used for controlling but for treatment resembling an "organic architect". And this is outside the realm of medicine, etc...
Well, when you watch pakman's interesting example - you will see several things that commonly used in different methods employing the same argument. 1) left-right brain synchronization 2) exercise coordination
The doctor and researcher in the film said after doing cross-sided exercise should more activation on both sides of the brain. This is meaningless. Basically, showing activity means nearly nothing if you don't know what kind of task and experiment you are doing. The reason is that the brain network connection and activities is both exceedingly complex and dynamic. That coloured functional brain scan only shows that there is activity, and this is analogous to taking a photo from a satellite in the space in which one can see some dark patches on the earth. By this colour image, the astronaut can conclude that there are human beings living in that dark patch!!! You don't know how the network are wiring or “how people on the earth are communicating from the space” (i.e. by using the functional brain scan).
Also, there is no such thing as left-right synchronization. This is absolutely a myth.
Left-right brain of course communicate with each others, but no synchronization is needed, rather they are specialized into different functional areas and cooperate.
Attention has many levels of complexity. No such thing as "reflex area" on anywhere. Brain doesn't improve by stimulation. Of course, if you press your foot, the pain and sensation will cause an observable activation in the brain (as shown in some function brain scan which used to claim that the method is therapeutic). The pain does cause endorphin (natural painkiller in the brain) or some other chemicals to release; temporarily of course it will improve the "concentration" - just like after doing sports, or someone press your foot hard, you jump up and you brain function alters for a day or so. Low level attention can change because of that. Just like doing message etc... But this is not able to improve anything cognitively meaningful in the long term.
Also body coordination belongs to a primitive brain region (reptile brain), so no matter how long you force the kid to crawl it just cannot alter the brain in a sophisticated way. ---> so you know my answer. Some temporary improvement in LOW LEVEL attention (ie. more alert) will result - that will be a "big" success of most special parents who will rejoice after seeing this... but this is a GREAT OPPORTUNITY COST SPENT sas you can imagine.
One should not underestimate how many neuronal networks need to play together to give a 電眼. It is a very sophisticated thing, a lot of intentions behind that 電眼. Considering this, it is just hard to image why people will believe that a simple mechanical stimulation, crawling etc can rebuild the brain... As a rule, simple ideas never work for the brain, otherwise, there is no problem in the world. Brain also does not mature by receiving "brainless" simulation! If this were the case, one can just listening to music and get cleverer; or just holding the left and right ear lobes forever. Things similar to crawling (using similar principles) are tried by nearly all special parents conducted by "professionals". Yet, when they are formally assessed, no real cognitive improvement and remain as before after spending years of doing that (of course, the parents will subjectively think that their kids attention improves, may be so, but not something have significant bearing in the cognitive development or the disorder itself. Once again, that I say so is not to discredit BM, just that it needs to be used for what it can do. e.g. use BM to guide normal children to study harder, be on time, behave well etc. (use it with a holistic view of course). That is your way of conceptualization is healthier for normal kids, of course. Whether it is good for the whole person development is hard to say – I guess it depends on how it is used with other philosophies and how you use it and the general parenting style that goes with it.
Cheers.
Nic兄...
嗯，印象中有位友人曾跟我提及過attention的問題... 蝦，邊個呢...？唔記得。等我搵下先。
BTW，我幾鍾意果個匿名既留言：http://charcoal4.blogspot.com/2009/06/blog-post_18.html
（再覆）
Post a Comment