changed:
-
([[Preliminary]])

this is a hodepodge of notes that are working their way into more organized
writings around on the site.  they are concerned with this question:

  What makes some situations more interesting than others?  What is it
  about the the situations and the way i react to them that contributes to
  my receptivity?

- i've wondered, particularly when troubled and decidedly *not* receptive,
  what it is about the things that manage to engage me even when most else
  fails (and satisfied my real needs, ie weren't just addictive).

- similarly, why is some work more tolerable than other work, some play
  more compelling than other play?  need work tend to be less engaging
  than play?

.. _frontier_hypothesis:

- i found one clue (from which i have drawn some personal interpretations,
  below) in a theory that describes the way that infants' attention is or
  isn't held - the *Optimal Discrepancy Hypothesis of Attention in Infants*
  [kagan1978]_.  put simply (perhaps simplistically), the attention of an
  infant increases as an item varies from the familiar, and at some point
  in increasing variation the infant's attention levels out at and then
  decreases, back to baseline.

  the variables affecting the attention of adults along this dimension are
  too hard to isolate, so experiments rarely try to measure it.  it sure is
  tempting, though, to extrapolate to simple adult terms - that which is
  too familiar is uninteresting, and that which too unfamiliar is so
  outside our frame of reference that it's either too much work to perceive
  it, or the uncertainty is threatening.  and the stuff somewhere between
  is, as goldilocks would say, just right...

- a "frontier hypothesis"; my (liberal) extrapolation of the optimal
  discrepancy hypothesis: we like to be at the frontiers of our developed
  skills - too far below and we're not using what we like to use, too far
  beyond and we're beyond what we feel confident to handle (maybe or not
  justifiably - see `clenching`_, below...)

  i need to unravel a significant chicken-or-egg aspect - our skills are
  those things we chose to concentrate on because we like them, or are they
  those things we continue to choose to work on because of our accumulated
  investment?  what relative contributions do successfulness and purely
  aesthetic personal preferences contribute to those choices?  are these
  two things causes, ultimately, distinguishable?  i *think* so, but am
  uncertain.

.. _clenching:

- clenching: ability to handle new things is, to some degree, a matter of
  confidence as well as our comfort according to familiarity.  the tendency
  to *clench* in response to risk - to recoil and be rigid - often
  *increases* the risk: reflexive recoiling can limit the range and wisdom
  of choices in the moment and (physical or mental) rigidity increases
  brittleness.

  the thing i'm calling "clenching" is, fundamentally, an unwillingness to
  handle surprise.  the unchecked tendency to clench in response to risk
  can fuel a self-fulfilling prophecy of low ability to cope with risk.

  hmm.  not only is clenching an often counterproductive response to the
  unfamiliar, it is also a demonstrably counterproductive response to that
  which one is familiar with having failed to handle well.  it occurs to me
  that these two things are not necessarily distinct:

    failure due to clenching means that one doesn't get to follow through
    to a full experience of something new, *so that the territory remains
    unfamiliar, no matter how many times it's encountered*.

    thus, clenching may best be described as a way to avoid having an
    experience, preserving the aspect of threat in the experience due to
    unfamiliarity.

  this is not to say that all threat is due to inexperience, by any means!
  the threat of putting your hand on a hot doesn't get less with practice.
  some experiences, particularly those at the frontier of expertise /
  familiarity, may be threatening specifically because they challenge your
  accumulated experience, and so are in the direction of your growth.  it
  is those where clenching can be counterproductive, and something
  worthwhile and interesting to tackle.

  i've contended with that tendency, and addressing it has helped me learn
  to deal more easily with many challenges of many kinds, from physical
  efforts to intellectual and personal confrontations, to...

  contact improvisation (see FosteringContactImprov) has provided an unmatched
  context to play with these kinds of challenges, and to explore the limits:
  at what point is it worthwhile to extend beyond my urge to clench, and
  where is too far?

- In *Finite and Infinite Games*, james carse observes this distinction
  between training and education:

    To be prepared against surprise is to be trained.  To be prepared for
    surprise is to be educated.

  as i say above, i consider `clenching`_ to be an unwillingness to handle
  surprise, and i see eduction as a countermeasure to reduce the tendency
  to clench.  in particular, i see *informed experience* as being the best
  educator.

  (carse makes many other delicious distinctions, including a
  characterization of a difference between "society" and "culture".
  society is recognized as a collection of rules by which what has gone
  before is codified to be perpetuated.  culture is recognized as the
  ongoing developments of the people living it.  culture is *horizonal* (as
  in "horizon", the always distant, ever shifting edge of your view of your
  landscape) - the emerging edge of our collective experience, the living
  frontier embodied by people living and creating.)

----------------------------------------------------------

some juicy perspectives on this kind of thing, cited by Tim Healy in his
*Work in Progress: Curiosity in the Education of the Engineer*
(http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2004/papers/1586.pdf)

- *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions* [kuhn1961]_

    "Kuhn introduced the theory of paradigm development to
    explain how science works. His argument is that at any time
    science agrees on a paradigm that describes the scientific
    world. This paradigm includes all of the theories, practices,
    terminology, measurement techniques, accepted by the
    scientific community. Most scientists carry out what Kuhn
    called "ordinary" science in which the paradigm is the basis
    for their work, and most of the work is done within the
    confines of the paradigm. All goes well until the existing
    paradigm is unable to explain some newly observed
    phenomena. Then some scientists may attempt to find and
    offer a new explanation. If the explanation is accepted by the
    community, we have what Kuhn called a paradigm shift, and a
    new paradigm is in place."

- *Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning &
  Development* [kolb]_

    The learning cycle due to Kolb, later adapted by Zull,
    presents a four-part model of learning.

    - Concrete experience (experiencing)
    - Reflective observation (reflecting)
    - Abstract conceptualization (thinking)
    - Active experimentation (doing)

    The first step in the learning process is an experience of
    some kind. The next step is to compare the input from that
    experience with some existing knowledge or standard. Next
    the brain forms an abstract concept. Finally the brain acts,
    which might mean direct physical action, or perhaps
    commitment of some new idea, relationship, construct to
    memory. Then the cycle repeats.

- *Learning and Teaching: Assimilation and Accommodation* [atherton2005]_

    Learners respond to cognitive dissonance in one of two
    ways. In the words of Piaget, learners either assimilate or
    accommodate. Assimilation occurs when the learner
    incorporates new information into the existing paradigm,
    without changing the paradigm, that is, makes the new
    information fit even if that fit is very tight Accomodation
    occurs when the learner adjusts the paradigm to accommodate
    to the new information. The student has learned something
    new. Of course, it doesn't always happen when we teach. All
    of us who teach have experience with students who hear new
    information but do not change their paradigm. Who of us has
    not said, "I showed them four times how to solve that
    problem. They just don't get it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

references:

.. [kagan1978]
   Kagan, Kearsley, Zelazo (1978, 1980) ``Infancy``; Harvard Press

.. [kuhn1961]
   T.S. Kuhn (1961) ``The Structure of Scientific Revolutions``; U. Chicago
   Press

.. [kolb]
   D.A. Kolb, ``Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning
   & Development``

.. [atherton2005]

   |
     atherton2005: Atherton, J.S. (2005)
     ``Learning and Teaching:  Assimilation and Accommodation``
   |
     Available online:
     http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/assimacc.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

.. figure:: opal_manifold.jpg
   :target: opal_manifold.jpg
   :height: 200
   :width: 200
   :align: center

   *Opal*