As noted by Olson (1994), Vygotsky and Luria (1976) conducted a series of psychological studies in attempts to bring to light the strategies 3 groups of participants with varying literacy skills employed to deal with formal reasoning tasks (syllogisms). And they revealed that non-literate participants tended to respond to these tasks either by not drawing any inference when they knew nothing about the facts or by drawing inference based on what they knew about the fact, not the premises. On grounds of these findings, they arrived at the conclusion that literacy and urbanization did contribute to individuals’ formal reasoning skills. When I set my eyes on this part, the picture conjured up in my head was my niece bombarding me with questions in a conversation we had when she was 5. The conversation centered around the reason why I served in the army and went like:
Ting: Uncle, why are you not home on weekdays?
Danny: Because I serve in the army.
Ting: Why did you need to serve in the army?
Danny: Because every boy over 18 years old needs to do so.
Ting: Then, why doesn't A-hua (a guy living across from my house) need to serve in the army?
Danny: Really?
Ting: Yes. He is a boy. He told me he is 20. But he is home everyday. Why?
Danny: I don’t know. Why don’t you ask him yourself?
At the time the conversation occurred, my niece had not received any formal education; that is, she was illiterate. However, as can be seen above, she somehow possessed the reasoning skills necessary to make the plausible inferences (syllogism). The reasoning embedded in the conversation goes as follows.
All guys over 18 need to enlist in the army.
A-hua is a boy and he is 20.
A-hua should serve in the army.
Drawing on the fact that my illiterate niece demonstrated some reasoning skills normally seen only in literates, I could not help but wonder whether the reasoning skills, among others, are innate skills that we bring with us at birth. The reason why they seem to be missing from some people might be they are fast asleep in them, waiting to be awaken. Viewed in this light, literate individuals learn to reason more formally and confine their inferences to stated premises because literacy “activates” the built-in reasoning skills for them. As I read further, it came as a pleasant surprise that this idea echoes Olson's (1994) proposition that literacy and urbanization might not so much develop new resources for us as bring the old resources already there to our attention.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Good point. I, too, was interested as I read about the Olson/Vygotsky/Luria research and language development in illiterate children. The reasoning embedded into your conversation reminded me of another class I'm currently enrolled in, where we have been discussing technology (more specifically computers), and how to make them more intelligent. It is known that computers do not possess the reasoning abilities noted in your example. I wonder how many studies are currently underway in attempt to mimic these "innate" reasoning abilities in technology. . .
You do make a good point, and I agree people don't have to be literate to be intelligent or to be able to reason. Although--a thought just cmae to me--what if some types of logic/reasoning are more of an environmental/societal thing and in a literate population there may be different ways of reasoning (like syllogism) than in a non-literate society. Therefore, perhaps your niece was imitating or growing into the type of reasoning typical of her society. Maybe in the study Olson presented, the group of people didn't make use of "that" type of reasoning?
Post a Comment