MY OTHER BLOG!

Hello Everyone!

It was a wonderful to be involved in a class with all of you. I'd love to continue this interaction by inviting you to view my other blog called "Today I learned", in which I share little tidbits of interesting information I've learned over the course of a day! http://todaymlearned.blogspot.ca/

All the very very best,
Mau

Where I've come and where I want to be

What an interesting and enlightening class this has been. Not only because of the material that was covered (by looking at the topic at hand at several different angles) but also because the environment (perhaps not surprisingly) allowed me to grasp the concepts in my own way. In other words, it allowed me to approach the material the best way I could understand it- I was given a certain amount of freedom. How wonderful that was.

Now that I’ve finished reading the three books by Tomasello, Wenger, and Bracher, it’s now time for me to explore how I can use that information to impact my own life. Specifically, I’d like to be able to use this information to enhance my own identity for the purpose of fostering the enhancement of the identities of the students I hope to impact in the future.

As someone who has always been interested in introspection and self-improvement, I’d like to give you an idea of what I’ve been working on over the past few years to achieve a sense of self that I felt comfortable and proud of.

1.      Adopted a vegetarian diet.

• Let me first just explain to you how hard this was for me. Nope, I’m not one of those vegetarians who hate the taste of meat and vegetarianism is simply an extension of that flavor hate. Actually, I love meat. All kinds, too! Steak? I dig it. Pork? Delicious. Sushi? My all time favourite meal. HOWEVER, I decided to say goodbye to those wonderful, delicious foods because I wanted to match my values and beliefs regarding compassion for all animals (not just humans) to my behaviours relating to them. In a way, this brings me back to what Tomasello spoke about regarding the fact that we are all very similar to other animals, and simply cannot deny that aspect of who we are.

2.      Become more of an active protester.

• The decision to become more engaged in activism is also due to the fact that I’ve wanted to mirror my beliefs and values in how I behaved. For a very long time, I avoided joining protests because it took a great deal of effort and was potentially risky to be involved in them, however, it created a sort of “cognitive dissonance” that I really didn’t enjoy. Matching my values to my behaviours allowed me to fight certain social ideologies that worked to strip us of certain aspects of our identities, which- I would hope- Bracher would agree with. In challenging these ideologies, I strengthened my own identity which in turn facilitated the development of the identities of those around, given the protests had an impact (however, even if they simply enlightened a few people, I’d say it was a success)

3.      Made decisions about what kind of people to surround myself with.

• As much as I’d like to pride myself with being a very strong person who is able to deal with any adversities that come my way, I cannot deny the fact that those around me impact my ability to truly be the person I strive to be. This is another way I’ve been able to facilitate the formation of my own identity. Although this largely relates to the material Bracher brought into play, it also relates to the concept of ‘communities of practice’ that was discussed in Wenger’s book. This is emphasized by the fact that I love to share knowledge and seek to learn from those around me; in a way, then, I created my own personal community of practice, somewhere I could teach and learn.

4.      Explored Buddhism.

• For a while I had been interested in the concept of Buddhism: a religion that wasn't really a religion, and yet provided a sense of moral guidance stemming from one’s own beliefs. “Amazing”, I thought, and yet I disregarded really learning about it and practising its ideals for a very long time. Until recently, anyway. This was another way in which I strengthened my own identity; another concept that Bracher is familiar with. Through first reading about Buddhism (the noble truths, etc) and then practicing compassion, awareness, and ways in which to master the art of being happy, I was able to give attention to aspects of my own identity that had been ignored/disregarded for so long.

Now that everyone’s up to date with what I have been engaging in lately to promote a more whole sense of self, I’d like to share with you the new ways in which I’d like to achieve that goal.

1.      Give back.

• Just how it sounds. I’d like to not only support those who need it in an emotional way, but also in a monetary way. This is a difficult goal to achieve being a struggling University student. However, by pursuing my academic goals (that will be elaborated upon in just a moment), I will hopefully be able to economically afford aiding others. In doing so, I believe I might aid some people in removing a big sense of stress from their lives; stress that created a barrier preventing them from being authentic- that is, developing their true identities. So although this may be a goal I’ll only be able to achieve in the future, it’s on my mind nonetheless.

2.      Be more “Green”

• This goal may seem irrelevant at first (compared to my previously attained goals), the benefits of being more "environmentally friendly" are far-reaching. Firstly, it provides a safe and healthy place for those around me, as well as for those who will be around when I am not anymore. Not only does this allow others to reside in a public community of practice that provides them with a nourishing natural environment, but it also helps secure a future altogether for the human species. As many of you know, the effects of pollution threaten the earth's sustainability, so the more people that are aware of how their actions are affecting our home, the better our chances are of slowing the effects of pollution- or even better, reversing them. Being more aware of how my actions affect the environment around me also develop the part of my identity that deals with empathy and compassion for all beings, both human and non-human.

3.      Stop watching TV

• Ahhhh, yes. Although I embarassingly actively enjoy the Kardashians and other mindless television shows that allow my brain to relax and do virtually nothing at all, I cannot ignore the consequences of making my psyche vulnerable to the media's poor, poor representation of "the way things are". It represents beauty in a horribly narrow way, displays values and beliefs that may be subconsciously accepted by viewers, and does a terrible job at representing what the world is really like. All these things, I'm sure, have negatively affected my identity in an unconscious manner. Although I rarely, rarely talk about negative issues that have occurred in my past, I feel that sharing this one may be enlightening for others and provide support for my decision to stop watching television. When I was 16, I read magazines, watched TV, and idolized many celebrities (as many other 16 year-old girls did). Unbeknownst to me, I had developed a vision of what "beauty" and "value" was as a female stemming from the representations of both those things from the media I exposed my developing, insecure self to. As a result, I began being washed away due to an eating disorder. Not only did I feel increasingly self-conscious (despite the fact that I was "attaining" what I thought "beauty" was), but I was also unable to focus on anything else but food, my weight, and my body image. No longer was I paying attention to those I loved in my life and to developing any interests I had- no- my mind had been hijacked by the values of the media. Thankfully, I came to my senses when I saw a photo in myself that made it clear that I was slowly withering away and replaced the values that the media had offered with my own values that provided me with a much healthier way of life, both physically and emotionally. Phew. Now to delete the effects of this horrid media altogether.

4.      Share my knowledge with others

• As I learned from Tomasello, we are social beings and it is a great benefit to the species when we learn from others. Wenger taught me what type of environments facilitate this learning (communities of practice, in other words), and finally, Bracher taught me some of the specifics when it comes to teaching all sorts of people with identity in mind. Now it's time to use all this information to catalyse one of my ultimate life's goals: to teach (and teach well, at that!). Doing so would not only help me build and strengthen my own identity and the identity of others, but it would also aid me in exploring and thus better understanding all types of people. 

Clearly, being human reaches far beyond simply surviving in a social world. It involves all kinds of learning experiences, and using those experiences to strengthen our own identity, and helping others learn by more fully understanding what factors may interfere with acquiring new knowledge.

So, although this may be my last blog, marking the end of this course, the information I've learned will stay with me and faciliate the growth of my personal identity and goals. More than ever, I'm looking forward to this transformation :)

The Five Identity Structures

Mark Bracher contemplating about identity structures, clearly.

Oh, am I ever enjoying Bracher's book titled Radical Pedagogy: Identity, Generativity, and Social Transformation!! Despite the fact that- as mentioned in class- the book may not present as "radical" as it could be, I find many of the concepts within it to be extremely refreshing and eye-opening. One of those being the idea that as one's identity develops, one's "center of gravity" increases in "complexity and flexibility of structure that can integrate a greater diversity of components into a coherent whole" (Bracher, 2006, p. 62). According to Robert Kegan (seen on the right), there are five increasingly complex structures of identity that become more secure and resilient. This, my friends, I found fascinating. In order to better understand these structures, I found well-known individuals that I felt were good examples of each. LET'S BEGIN.

Lindsay Lohan in her natural environment

Firstly there's the 'Impulsive' identity structure. As summarized by Kegan, you might find a person with an impulsive identity structure saying "I am my momentary impulses. I experience any thwarting of them as a threat to my very being, and I will fight that thwarting force." These individuals are not able to truly listen to the "teacher" or other people, and may be linked to social problems as they truly identify with their impulses (I am my impulses). This reminded me of good ol' Lindsay Lohan. Ah yes, the celebrity who keeps on making poor, impulsive choices despite the fact that virtually everyone around her has been telling her to clean up her act. Apparently, despite being arrested several times and going to jail and rehab as a result, she has yet to learn her lesson, unable to listen to the "teachers" around her.

Stephen Harper throwing snowballs to illustrate his disapproval of others' projects

The second identity structure is the 'Imperial' structure. An individual with this identity might think (subconsciously, of course) "I am my current ongoing need, intention, or project and am able to sacrifice my impulses, which I now have rather than am, for the purpose of enacting my need, intention, or project. I will fight anyone or anything that opposes my current need, intention, or project". This description reminded me of our very own PM, Stephen Harper. Yeah, yeah. I know we all have different opinions, but I believe that to a certain extent, politicians prioritize their own "projects" over others because they so identify with their own goals and will sacrifice the desires of others to attain that. For example, Harper pushes for crime bills that are much stricter, which is something that many Canadians disagree with. Regardless of the existence of this group of people who disapprove of Harper's new laws, he continues to pursue his own wishes in order to produce accomplishments as a Prime Minister, perhaps without even realizing of the larger context of the issues at hand. Bracher states that these people may be oblivious to human suffering that may result from their work. I'll leave that for you to decide..

Whitney Houston looking for true love

The third identity structure is called the 'Interpersonal' structure. They may have thoughts similar to "I am my relationship with another person and am willing to sacrifice everything else, including my impulses and ongoing needs, to sustain this relationship and the other person who is essential to it. I will fight anything that threatens the relationship". Unlike the previous identity structure, these individuals take into account other people, aware of the value of interpersonal relationships and subjectivity of ones own needs. However, these people may also run into issues by valuing these relationships more than anything else, which may cause them to make poor decisions for themselves. I felt that someone with this identity structure might be Whitney Houston. Although she had so much to live for, it seemed as if her preoccupation with acquiring true love and being loved unconditionally by all those around her took its toll, causing her (according to media sources, whoever they are..) to become depressed; she simply ignored her own essential needs for that of another person. According to Bracher, this depression might be provoked by a certain loss, which may, for this lady, have been the loss of her relationship with Bobby Brown. Though these individuals can work to develop an identity structure that isn't so reliant on interpersonal relationships, unfortunately for Whitney, she was never given the chance to do so.

The Westboro Baptist church demonstrating their firm beliefs

The fourth identity structure is called the 'Institutional' or 'Systemic' structure. This would represent someone who may think "I am the system in which each of my multiple interpersonal relationships, my projects, and my impulses has a place, but none of which by itself constitutes who I am. I will sacrifice everything not for a particular relationship, project, or impulse, but rather for the system or institution that I am or that I have identified with, and I will fight anything that opposes it". In other words, these people tend to identify more so with their ideals/ideologies rather than their relationships, and would prioritize them accordingly. This was an easy example to find: the Westboro Baptist Church members. It is pretty clear to me that these individuals value fighting for their beliefs and have sacrificed many interpersonal relationships (or potential ones, at least) to do so. They realize that although they might not get immediate gratification for their actions (such as when they protest at the funeral of an LGBT solider), they follow through with them in the hopes of gratification in the future (going to heaven, for example) at the expense of the emotions of others (those attending the funeral of the LGBT solider). They are their beliefs, and that is that.

The Dalai Lama exemplifying his value malleability

Finally, there's the 'Interindividual' structure- my personal favourite. Why? Well, those who have this identity structure might be caught thinking "I am a self that contains multitudes. When I operate in the interindividual mode, I care about all other individuals, no matter what their group or interpersonal identity may be. In this structure, I can no longer attack other groups or systems or the individuals who constitute them, because I experience every individual as sharing and constituting the being that I am, just as the interpersonal structure I experience a specific individual as sharing and constituting my being". Clearly, people who have this identity structure are able to be accepting of others regardless of values, projects, or impulses. Individuals with this identity structure are also said to have universal empathy with for all humans, and potentially non-human animals as well. With the ability to do so, they might judge all ideologies- including their own- to benefit other human beings. The current Dalai Lama comes to mind. Although he identifies with Buddhism (a religion.. of sorts), it does not become his sole identification. As eluded to in the quote in the picture (above), the Dalai Lama has no problem changing his belief system, clearly able to identify with other human beings over his own ideologies. As a Buddhist, the Dalai Lama also refrains from eating meat and harming the earth, a representation of his empathy not only for others like himself, but all organic beings. Also similar to Buddhist teachings, learning is highly valued, both for the individual and for all other people. It's actually quite amazing how similar this identity structure is to Buddhism- not convinced? Check it out for yourself!

What an enlightening part of the book. Perhaps not surprisingly, I'm eager to read more!

Learning about communities of practice has caused me to wonder about all the different places I learn that may constitute as a community of practice. Yes, I’ve thought of the school environment I was involved with when growing up, the University classes I’ve taken over the years, and certain camps that I’ve attended during summers that undoubtedly fit into the category of a community of practice. Today, however, I spent some of my free time online where I am eager to continue learning. Does this constitute as a community of practice? Let’s see…

According to Erik Jacobson who wrote “Communities of Practice: Creating Learning Environments for Educators", there exist virtual communities of practice. He, as well as others (e.g. Dubé, Bourhis & Jacob, 2005; Murillo, 2006; Zarb, 2006; Hara & Hew, 2007; Murillo, 2008), agree that communication technologies (computer/internet) has allowed individuals around the world to collaborate and exchange information, and that despite not having a shared physical environment, the community is still based around “situated learning” in a “co-located setting” (Dubé, Bourhis & Jacob, 2005).

This idea has become so fascinating to some that there is current research being done on the subject by Gray, B. His research is titled “Informal Learning in an Online Community of Practice”, and he suggests that Online or Virtual communities of practice allow for the “enculturation of newcomers to a practitioners’ community”, which enables both “experienced and novice practitioners” to learn together and help shape personal identities of the members of the community.

This idea is also, unsurprisingly, fascinating to me. This fascination is catalyzed by the fact that I’m part of an online community called “Reddit” that I am so happy to have stumbled upon a couple years ago. With the help of this community, I have been able to expand my knowledge of just about everything, from politics to science to art and fitness. But does this truly constitute as a community of practice? In an attempt to figure that out, I will see if it fits the description of a “community of practice” by Wenger himself.

1.     Firstly, Wenger mentions that there must be a domain of interest. This cannot simply be a club of friends- it must have an identity defined by a shared domain of interest. Subsequently, if you’re a member of that domain, you might distinguish yourself from other people, and value learning from other members of your domain. à This seems to fit well with the description of Reddit. People who are members of reddit identify so much with the community that they call themselves “redditors”, and distinguish themselves greatly from other similar websites such as 4chan and digg (it is very commonly brought up within conversation on the website). In fact, redditors will often be seen wearing t-shirts with the reddit logo on it (a happy-looking alien). I must admit, I’ve been seen with one myself.

Reddit logo

2.     Secondly, Wenger suggests that there must be a community involved where members engage in joint activities and discussions. Within this community, the members must interact and learn together in the pursuit of their shared interests. à This as well fits within the description of Reddit. Redditors are constantly engaging in conversations that foster a very good learning environment, often maintaining a great amount of respect (mostly) in doing so. Respect towards others is often emphasized during discussions; so much so, that a post will often be made as a reminder to be kind and respectful if that rule was to be broken. This is part of the reason why I still frequent and enjoy the website, as I greatly value the idea of being able to share different views and ideas knowing that other members will give you respect regardless of their differing views. In addition to sharing interests and learning through them, redditors often meet up outside of the virtual world to have real-life physical interactions, which further connects them on a different level (joint physical activities! Bonus!)

An actual screenshot of people making posts about being respectful towards others on Reddit

3. Finally, Wenger mentions the need for a practice within the community. The members of this practice must develop a shared repertoire of resources, which takes lots of shared interaction.  à On Reddit, there are many “sub-reddits” which consist of communities that are divided by specific interests. Take the “fitness” sub-reddit, for example, where redditors have a shared list of online resources linked specifically to learning about fitness. These websites are those that are recognized by the community as reliable and very useful.

Screenshot of a the "Fitness" sub-reddit

So, it’s pretty clear to me now that communities of practice can exist online if they are able to have a shared domain of interest, joint activities and discussions, and are able to practice within that community. If I’ve sparked the interest of anyone to join the Reddit community, check it out and see what you think  Perhaps I will even be able to learn from you outside the classroom as a result!!

References:

1. Dubé, L., Bourhis, A. & Jacob, R. (2005). The impact of structuring characteristics on the launching of virtual communities of practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(2): 145-166.

2. Hara, N. & Hew, K. H. (2007) Knowledge-sharing in an online community of health-care professionals. Information Technology & People, 20(3): 235-261.

3. Murillo, E. (2006). Searching for virtual communities of practice in the Usenet discussion network: combining quantitative and qualitative methods to identify the constructs of Wenger's theory. PhD thesis. University of Bradford.

4. Murillo, E. (2008). Searching Usenet for virtual Communities of Practice: using mixed methods to identify the constructs of Wenger's theory. Information Research, 13(4) paper 386.

5. Zarb, M.P (2006). Modelling Participation in Virtual Communities-of-Practice. LSE MSc ADMIS Dissertation: Distinction, Accessed from http://lse.academia.edu.

My last blog focused on the fact that learning is considered social according to Wenger in his book Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. In class, we explored that idea by pondering what attributes or factors help us learn socially, and the idea that we must have brains "good" enough to participate in negotiation (as we are constantly negotiating meaning which aids us in learning) in order to participate in learning.

We also spoke about the fact that we need a stabilized environment in order to foster learning. This joint learning would thus be possible once we are able to screen out other insignificant "stuff" so that we can negotiate meaning. Once an environment is found appropriate, a community of practice can then begin their educational endeavours.

This reminded me specifically of the occupy wall street protests. These people inevitably formed a large community of practice, as ideas were shared and explored, and all at the same time, meanings were negotiated. What did it mean to be protesting with this group? What were the reasons for such a large gathering, with picket signs and voices screaming to be listened to (pardon the pun). During these protests, however, it became clear that those involved in the protest needed to create boundaries. The longer this community of practice existed, the more people came with very different views, which were impeding the protester's ability to effectively communicate about the reasons why the protests were occurring. The media was spewing information that made the protesters sound disorganized and unprofessional, giving many that were confused about what the meaning of these protests were to adopt the same view. It made me feel as though the media (and those watching it) became its on community of practice, creating a divergence in the beliefs of the society at large. But could the news (in all its forms) really be involved in a community of practice without the reporters/journalists being personally present in the information-sharing? This is a question I have yet to answer.

Something else I found difficult to answer was the idea that individuals with autism may participate in the negotiation of meaning, i.e learning. Having two cousins with autism, I knew very well that it was difficult to communicate with them through language, they simply do not seem interested. However, I am also very aware that as they have grown up, they have successfully learned many things, whether it be through school, or through therapy (eg: how to respond to social cues, how to behave in certain social situations, etc). Could they have learned socially despite their differences in their ability to perceive the world? Perhaps their "communities of practice" were simply different in make-up than a typical "community of practice". Perhaps, as well, the transmission of knowledge may be less fluid. Both of these factors create an environment for learning, despite the fact that those with autism may need someone who is exceptionally good at sharing knowledge and communicating with people using alternative methods. Maybe that's why people are born with differences in ability to learn socially, which subsequently creates balance/homoeostasis in our learning environments. After all, by teaching we learn, so those who help others negotiate meaning are also gaining from the experience as well.

Ok, so perhaps individuals with autism can in fact be involved in a community of practice. But what if they aren't able to learn with the help of a professional who is trained to teach those who need to learn in an alternative manner? Could those with autism learn by themselves?

This brought me right back to my question regarding whether or not a television could be involved in a community of practice. Other forms of knowledge transmission that do not involve the physical presence of a person- such as a book, film, or the radio- seemed to be key factors in some of the meanings I've negotiated over the last decade of my life. For example, I recently watched a documentary about quantum mechanics that really opened my eyes to new ideas. Though I wasn't able to have a conversation with the person making the documentary and thus was unable to negotiate meanings with another individual, I certainly did within my own mind- there's no question about that.

I can't wait to re-explore this idea in class again and see what others have to say about it. Perhaps my community of practice that makes up the Lifelong Learning class will allow me to better understand the idea of  what a community of practice can be consisted of, regardless of how many people are actually present within it.

Daniel Tammet- Autistic Savant

Oh, and for those who haven't had the opportunity to interact with someone with autism, here's a book I read written by someone of has a mild form of it (aspergers). Daniel Tammet can recite pi to the 22514th digit, and has learned icelandic (known to be the most difficult language to learn in the world) in one week. Clearly, he's still able to learn despite his "disability" (using the term very, very loosely).

Social Learning?

Let me begin by explaining that I am by no means stupid. In fact, I'd like to think I'm pretty intelligent and can make useful assumptions about human beings (especially after having graduated with a degree in Psychology) as a result. However, when reading Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity by Ettiene Wenger, I quickly realized that I had missed out on making a key assumption about the way we learn.

Wenger shares with the reader that she has four assumptions of learning (Wenger, p. 4)

1. We are social beings. Being socially engaged is therefore a central aspect of learning.
2. Knowledge involves both competency as well as "valued enterprise".
3. To know means to participate in the pursuit of what is valued/worldly experience.
4. Learning produces meaning of that experience.

I always thought that learning entailed simply coming into contact with new knowledge, and then understanding it/being able to recall it later. Perhaps I simplified it a little too much. Ok I did.

What Wenger spoke about with regards to us learning as social beings rings very true to me. I can now think back to going to school my entire life. I learned in a class full of students, and yet we rarely were allowed to talk to each other and group work- especially in the younger days- was very frowned upon. Sure, we had the odd group presentation that we had to do, but let's be honest- there was always one person pulling more of the weight than anyone else. That person was usually me. I didn't do poorly in school as a result of the lack of social learning within the classroom, but I certainly had to overcome difficulties. Having the teacher guide me during seemingly-complex equations in math class was very helpful, but as soon as I didn't have her guiding hand, I felt lost and incompetent. 

I can think of other times where learning wasn't at all an issue, such as when I went on a student exchange to France when I was 16. There I had to learn about all the french sayings and expressions, new table manners, proper greetings, and numerous other cultural practices that were very different than those I had grown up doing. In retrospect, I picked up this new information and put it to use fairly easily as a result of being immersed in the French world. I wasn't reading about these things, I wasn't regurgitating information that I had studied for hours trying to remember; I was involved and this produced a lot of meaning for me.

Humans aren't the only species that learn best socially. Many other animals are too, such as chimps and parrots. In this video, two chimps were separately taught processes necessary to get food from a human-made contraption. When reintroduced with their chimpanzee companions, the other chimps learned- through modeling- the same processes that had been intentionally taught to the others previously. 

I also remember learning about researchers who were trying to teach the different shapes and colours to an African Grey Parrot (known to be the smartest of the parrots). In the beginning, they used a basic food-reward system to try and teach the parrot, but quickly realized that the process was becoming long and unsuccessful. They then decided to use a different method, which involved having the researchers teach each other the shapes and colours while being rewarded with food that the parrot would want in the presence of the subject animal. In no time the parrot picked up the knowledge and learned how to distinguish these different shapes and colours without having been intentionally taught, suggesting that its learning was social in nature and very successful. 

Clearly, humans have evolved to be able to have much more complex teaching methods. Knowing that there are so many different ways to pass knowledge down to new learners, it is important to incorporate those new methods to make the learning process as effective (while being violence-free!) as possible.

Language: What sets human animals apart from the rest

Growing up I always loved animals. They created a sense of acceptance regardless of where I was; it felt comforting knowing I always had a friend. In highschool I was required to do 40 hours of community service in order to graduate, and I eagerly applied for an unpaid job working at an animal hospital. There I was able to explore the emotional lives of animals who were encountering biological setbacks, which connected me even more to all these different species. Finally, during my undergraduate degree in University, I was able to take a course titled "Animal Rights: Intelligence and Consciousness", which further seemed to prove that these animals had incredible cognitive abilities. Perhaps, I thought, humans shouldn't be put on a pedestal. Maybe we're not so different.

Other animals share some capacities.. but language may really set us apart (http://pulse2.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/humans-vs-animals.jpg)

Ever since then I've fully believed that the similarities between humans and non-human animals are greater than the differences that exist. That is, until now.

In my "Lifelong Learning Processes" class, we recently discussed the ways in which humans engage in culture compared to the cultural engagements of other animals- notably chimps and bonobos. We concluded (with the help of Michael Tomasello's book: http://www.amazon.ca/Cultural-Origins-Human-Cognition/dp/0674005821) that humans engage in a more intentional passing-down of culture, while other animals seem to be using imitation to learn. In other words, when children are learning how to use the washroom on their own, their efforts are being actively rewarded in an attempt to help them learn more effectively. By contrast, other animals- let's take a dog for example- might watch another dog pee on a fire-hydrant and copy them. The dogs aren't being told what the right thing to do is, making their learning much more unintentional than the learning of humans.

Tomasello talks about the value of language for the human species. With language we are able to record the knowledge we already have about virtually everything known to this world, so when a new individual is born, they can build upon that knowledge without having to learn it for themselves. Once again, this differentiates us from chimps who, without language, are unable to engage in complex learning behaviours.

With my group in class we discussed how communication might occur through body language, something we had all observed in other animals. Perhaps that might replace, to some extent, language? Well, that thought didn't go far. Dr. Plumb explained that our language is able to tell a much more detailed and elaborated story than body language can, allowing more dynamic relations to occur between humans (Tomasello, 1999). He was right. Using language, we are able to speak about things that aren't in our line of sight, giving us a unique shared sense of time and the world. Wow, eh? I had never really thought about the incredible and existential things we're able to discuss as a species via language. What an amazing feat.

Although my mind had been undoubtedly been blown thinking about the realizations we've accomplished through language, it also reminded me of how we may fall short of what can be realized using the same tool. Why haven't we used language more to discuss political differences rather than engage in war? Why have we been using our seemingly superior cognitive capacities to build weapons of destruction, rather than creating the ability to live happily and peacefully together?

Perhaps without the realization of our potential as a species, we simply fall short.

The Uncanny Valley

Graph of the Uncanny Valley

The idea of the "uncanny valley"(http://www.cbc.ca/day6/blog/2011/12/09/tintin-too-human-or-not-human-enough/) although mostly related to robots and 3D animation, reminded me about when I first decided I wanted to stop eating meat. I grew up having whatever pet my parents would let me keep. At the same time, I enjoyed delicious turkey dinners, crispy bacon breakfasts, and- my favourite- lobster. When I was 17, I spent some time as an exchange student in France, and I found myself having frog legs for dinner on night. My first thought was how stereotypical the meal was. A close second, however, was how odd I felt eating an animal I once owned. This ultimately lead me to think about why people choose to eat one animal over the other. I never quite found an answer until now: perhaps it's about how similar the animals are to us.

Take dogs for example. They seem to smile when their happy, and let us know when they're not. The thought of eating a dog makes us feel uneasy because they share human-like emotions. We are all too aware of the fact that they, like us, are sentient beings. Cows, though, are much more difficult to figure out. They don't seem to make many facial expressions, which probably prevents us from getting too emotionally attached, especially if we aren't the farmers who work with them every day.They are so dissimilar to humans that it doesn't pull at our heart strings at the thought of having one for lunch, dinner, and hey- maybe some new boots!

Learning about this uncanny valley also got me thinking about the video games that are currently out there. Usually when there are guns involved, the people who die are zombies, nazis, or aliens- all of are similar to human in some ways, but very different in others, which makes them part of that "uncanny valley", and therefore very easy to kill. They simply repulse us because we simply can't empathize with them. Even when you are playing against real people around the world (on x-box live, for example), the people are represented as monsters, machines, or aliens, also allowing for the killing of them to be free of any guilt.

Trying to understand why we experience certain emotions has always been a fascination of mine (and being a psychology major, perhaps that doesn't come as a big surprise). One of the best things about being human is, in my opinion, our ability to wonder and to inquire about these types of things. According to Tomasello (http://www.amazon.ca/Cultural-Origins-Human-Cognition/dp/0674005821), we are the only animal that seem to have the ability to do so at this degree. We can truly empathize with others- truly grasping our sense of self and enabling us to step into each others shoes and make decisions that are not only based on our own well-being, but the well-being of others. Ah, altruism (selflessness).

Talking about the differences between humans and other animals really sparks my desire to learn more. I guess that is another distinguishing trait of our species, and though I'd love to spend a day as dolphin or a bird, I wouldn't trade this passion for knowledge for anything in the world.

Altruistic behaviour in non-human primates? I wonder..