🚀 go-pugleaf

What is learning anyway?

          Verplanck   (1957)  defined  the  verb  "to  learn"  in   
     the following manner:

       "to   exhibit   a  change  in  behavior   between   two  
       successive  exposures  to  the  same  environment  that 
       cannot  be   attributed  to   manipulation   of   drive 
       operations,  alterations  in  the environment,  sensory 
       adaptation,       disease,     surgical   interference,   
       physical  trauma,   or  growth--although  the propriety 
       of these exclusions may be questioned".

     Verplanck goes on to define "learning" as:

       "a   process  or  family  of  processes  inferred  from  
       the observation that animals learn." 

     The   fact   that   Verplanck  notes that the   process   is  
     inferred  underscores  the emphasis on the  actual  behavior 
     that   suggests   the   process.     When    "learning"   is 
     operationalized in any terms  more subtle  than quantifiable 
     behavior,   it  loses some of its utility as   an   accurate 
     descriptor.   To the extent that  "learning"  is employed to 
     describe  processes without reference to the behaviors  that  
     suggest  those  processes,    "learning"  itself  becomes  a 
     mentalism.     For  the behaviorist,  it is not the  process  
     that  needs   to  be  explained,   but the behavior(s)  that  
     suggest  the process. 


Walter Rolandi
rolandi@gollum.UUCP 
NCR Advanced Systems, Columbia, SC
University of South Carolina Departments of Psychology and Linguistics

Reference:

     Verplanck,   W.S.   (1957).   "A  Glossary of Some Terms Used 
          in the Objective Science of  Behavior".    Psychological 
          Review.  Vol. 64, No. 6, Part2.