Hey there, welcome to the Jordan B. Peterson podcast. This episode is from the Personality series and is available on YouTube as well. It's Episode 30, Season three called Gillmore. So you can guess who it's about. It's very informative. I hope you enjoy it.

As you regular listeners know, I haven't spoken to you guys in quite a while. So here are our updates.

One, dad released a new video called Return Home. This is the first content he's put out in over a year and a half. Check it out if you haven't. It was super exciting. I posted on Instagram for like a week afterwards. I it's on his YouTube number two.

JVP is back producing content. I'm actually recording a podcast with him next week and that'll be out on my podcast. He will be having live guests on his eventually, but he decided he'd rather do them with me to get warmed up. Lucky me. Right. I'll keep you posted on those. But they will be available wherever podcasts are available. And on YouTube at the McCaleb Pieterson podcast. Number three, we have officially brought Dad's podcast in-house and we're producing it ourselves now with an awesome production team.

Shout out to Eric. We have some new sponsors that are helping us continue, which is awesome. And I will introduce one of them right now. I hope you enjoy this episode on Jon Page. And stay tuned for a new podcast with Dad featuring new content. Thank goodness 20 20 is almost over. Also, I hope you had a great Halloween, even though they tried to cancel it. I was a lobster. If I'm lucky, I'll get Dad in his lobster outfit up on his Instagram soon, too.

So here's to hoping for that. I would love to introduce one of our new podcast sponsors. Surf Shark. Surf Shark has a VPN. The user interface is really simple and easy to use, but provides robust security options like encrypting all data sent via the Internet, protecting passwords, private messages, photos, videos and all other sensitive data. Just like a VPN should serve.

Shak also allows you to control your privacy settings like white listing your bank, Amazon and other trusted websites while blocking information sent all the websites you do not choose to whitelist list shak set me up with a trial account.

And now I can be sure that when I buy things on the Dark Web using Bitcoin, I'm not going to be tracked. I'm kidding. But did you know Bitcoin actually isn't a good way to buy things online anonymously? Does a side note, I'm going on a tangent, but they can track it, so don't do it that way. Anyway, with some of the other VPN services I've tried, it can be a bit confusing. I am blonde and not very intuitive, sir.

Shak is super easy to set up an easy to use. They also offer a 30 day money back guarantee, allowing you to try this VPN service for yourself and for a limited time. You can get eighty three percent off of a two year plan and three extra months for free at Safak Dot deals. Pieterson.

I don't know how they chose eighty three percent off, but that's massive. The special offer makes your subscription just two dollars and twenty one cents US per month so you can browse securely on all your devices that serve shak dot deals.

Pieterson, please enjoy this episode about. We are thrilled Dad is doing better now. Maybe the Peterson family can come out of the shell it's been hiding in for the last year.

I certainly hope you have a good week. He is generally regarded as a developmental psychologist, which is not what he thought of himself, he thought that he was a genetic epistemology, which is a term that I think has ever only been applied to him.

And epistemology is someone who studies the manner in which knowledge.

Who studies knowledge itself, and that's what I thought that he was doing and he wanted to understand how it was that knowledge unfolded across time.

And more importantly than that, he wanted to understand how the cognitive structures that made up an individual developed across time.

So that's generally why he's regarded as a developmental psychologist, because, of course, he also studied children. Now. I'm going to read you something that she wrote to begin this, he wrote an awful lot of books and a lot of them haven't yet been translated.

And some of the ones that are translated are translated pretty badly. And I think this is probably an example of a fairly bad translation.

But regardless of that, the point that's being made is both valid and interesting. So. The common postulant of various traditional epistemology, which are theories of valid knowledge, is that knowledge is in fact say or a set of facts so that you would go to class and learn a set of facts. And that is what would give you knowledge instead of a process. And therefore, various forms of knowledge are always incomplete, as we know they are, because they're replaced sequentially.

For example, recently in the domain of physics, physicists revealed to us that they really didn't understand what some massive percentage of the universe was made of. I think I can't remember it. Seventy five percent or ninety five percent made up of dark matter, which has never been detected. And we know nothing about it. So that's a good example of how our fundamental assumptions can be challenged at any moment and how a fact can turn from a fact into a clear fallacy.

If our various forms of knowledge are always complete and our various science is still imperfect, that which is acquired is acquired and can therefore be studied statically. So the proposition there is that you come and you learn the facts and the facts themselves are solid bits of information and they don't change across time.

And so that once you have them, you have them. Now, of course, Piaget obviously doubts that, hence the absolute position of the problems. What is knowledge or how are the various types of knowledge possible? As an alternative, under the converging influence of a series of factors, we're tending more and more today to regard technology as a process.

More than a state, any being or object science is attempt to hold fast dissolves once again in the current of development. It is the last analysis of this development and it alone that we have the right to state it is a fact. What he means by that is the fact that human beings learn facts is in fact a fact. Right? So you are capable of learning things and he thinks that's sort of the fundamental fact. People assimilate information and they transform as a consequence of it.

And so studying that, as he says, what we can and should then seek is a law of this process. We are well aware, on the other hand, of the fine book by CWD on scientific revolutions. Now, the reason he hasn't provided at the end how many of you know about Thomas Kuhn's book on scientific revolutions?

No one, just three people, OK? Well, that's probably not good.

Kuhn was one of the 20th century's foremost philosophers of science, and he made a distinction between two different modes of scientific process, one he called normal science and the other he called revolutionary science. And normal science was the kind of science that you'll do as undergraduates unless you're incredibly lucky or unbelievably brilliant or probably unbelievably brilliant and incredibly lucky. And so normal science occurs when you generate knowledge incrementally from within the confines of an already developed scientific theory. So a normal science would be, say, the application of Big Five marvels of personality to the prediction of some other variable like, say, relationship success.

You're going to uncover something new, but it's not going to shake the foundations of knowledge itself.

Now could observe that from time to time there were discoveries that were made that shook the foundation of knowledge itself.

There's some well-known revolutions in science. So the Newtonian revolution was a revolution in science. Einstein's work produced another revolution in science. Darwin's work, Mendel's work. Those are the. Revolutionary transformations of thought that people often considered, and I say Darwin, I certainly should have said Darwin because it was probably the most revolutionary of all.

Now, the reason that I wanted to tell you that and the reason I kept coming here, even though it seems like a funny little additional statement pinned to the end of things, is that Hume observed that scientific science seemed to progress. In accordance with the same mechanisms that PMG observed, that the knowledge of children appeared to progress. Now, one of the things that you'll learn about Piaget, which is generally all you learn, if you learn about Piaget, is his idea that children go through sequential stages of development and usually people.

Have you memorized those stages? I should let you know that you really do care that much about those stages when they occur and how they could be sped up and exactly what they were. He was much more interested in deep philosophical questions.

And that element of his work generally goes unrecognized by the North American psychologists who purport to understand what he had to say now because he wrote dozens of books, some of which are not yet translated. It's not surprising that people come away with a partial view of things when you're that prolific. He was so damn smart.

He was offered the curatorship of a museum when he was ten because he published a scientific paper on, I think it was on snails and but his parents requested that he turn it down.

So, you know, it was a major genius.

And if someone puts their mind like that, puts their mind to work for an entire lifetime and he lived to be an old man, they could produce an awful lot of intellectual material. And it's not necessarily that can't be summarized easily as a single coherent theory that you could memorize in one page.

It's pretty hard for people to keep up. So it's not surprising that his thought gets reduced to a set of axioms, in a sense. But the devil is often in the detail with great thinkers. And what that means is that to really understand what they had to say, you actually have to read them, because a lot of the information is at the sentence level of analysis and not at the summary level of analysis.

You know, if you're really smart, it's not that easy to summarize what you have to say, because most of what you have to say is, in fact informative. So you can't just throw it away. It's hard to compress it.

So anyways, this initial. Paragraph opens up the world of constructivism. Now, the constructivists are interesting people because, you know, you often hear people ask, is it genetic or environmental? Which is it's not a good question because it's a false dichotomy. The genes formulate structures in accordance with environmental demand right from the beginning of the organism's emergence. And so there's a constant interplay between the environment and genetics, but.

The environment isn't also just the thing that's out there that's like made out of lions and tigers and moose and buildings and, you know, the sky, it's it's an information field.

And the constructivist point out rightly that part of what you're doing when you're operating in the world is interacting with this field of information and incorporating its structure into the structure of your mind, the body, which is how you adapt.

So you could say in some sense that you're built out of information and matter. That's a good way of thinking about it. And the constructivists are very interesting, interested in how you go about acquiring information and how you then transform that information into the sort of knowledge that you can apply to the world. So they're also very pragmatic, especially because he or she regards knowledge as like the prerequisite for adaptive action.

So, again, he's less concerned about the fact that, you know, about the structure of the world than he is about how it is that you modify and adapt your behavior so that you can survive in the world.

So so that's the first post that that's constructivism.

And then the next postulate is that there are revolutions in the internal structures that you construct that emerge as a consequence of you acquiring new information.

Sometimes that information can already be fit into an old structure that you possess.

But sometimes the information is so anomalous or novel that it blows out fundamental presuppositions that you've already established and forces you to not only add some information to your repertoire of information, but to reconfigure the structure you use to represent the information you don't like that people don't like.

When that happens, it's too dramatic and upsetting.

So which is often why revolutions in science or in any other field are first resisted. I mean, it's very complicated, the reasons people. Are opposed to new ideas are very complicated, and there's lots of theories about why that occurs precisely, but briefly outline a good theory. There's a bunch of them, but all like one.

So let's say there's already a scientific theory and it's instantiated in the world so people accept it. And let's say that you are a proponent of that theory.

So you might say, well, that theory therefore governs your world view. And if I threaten it, then a world view is going to fall apart and that's going to make you fall apart. And that's not a bad theory. But here's a here's a variant of that which is similar, but which I think is better. So I'm a professor.

Let's say I have a theory. Now, what I'm doing with my theory is buying my right to be a professor. So I would come to the University of Toronto as a job candidate and I would say, here's my theory and here's why I think the facts support. Here's what it's good for. And they'll say, OK, it looks like, you know enough about what you're doing so that you can occupy this position in this dominance hierarchy. OK, and I'm pretty happy about that because that position in that dominance hierarchy is pretty permanent.

That's one of the advantages to an academic job. It's like once you have it, as long as you're relatively confident and relatively ethical, then you can you can maintain it across time. So. So it's a big deal to be granted that slot. And then being in that dominance hierarchy is not only a matter of what you believe. Obviously the fact that I mean, that only means I get a certain salary and that's not hypothetical. That allows me to eat.

So I'm happy about that. It's not only psychological and I can pay my housing payments with it and so on. So it protects me from the cold and offers me something to even it gives me a certain public status.

And so if some other joker comes along, say they're young and they say, well, I have a different theory that makes your theory look stupid, then I'm not going to be very happy about that, partly because it upsets the way that I consider my understanding of the world. And that's a drag. But I might recover from that. But it also undermines my claim.

It undermines the validity of my claim to that position in the hierarchy. And so it sort of makes me an impostor saying to say the guy turns out to be right. It's like, poof, I'm an impostor and I know no longer really have the right to occupy that position. Someone might even point that out, although it doesn't happen very often.

In the case of professors, it happens fairly frequently in other sorts of occupations. You know, all of a sudden your position is made useless because somebody figured out how to automate you and poof, you're gone. And like, that's hard on your worldview, but it's a lot harder on yourself.

So a lot of the reasons that people cling to the validity of their theories is because it gives them a claim to a certain kind of what would you call skill set and utility that then gives them a claim to occupy a certain position in the dominant turkey, and that protects them from from, you know, all the horrors of reality?

Not completely. But, you know, I mean, I have health insurance, for example, and sometimes that's really, really helpful.

So I don't want some joker coming along and pointing out that my theory isn't his right. Anyway, so far that hasn't happened. So that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. So she concludes and says if all knowledge is always in the state of development and consists in proceeding from one state to a more complete and efficient one, evidently it is a question of knowing this development and analyzing it with the greatest possible accuracy. OK, so here she figures you're a information foraging machine, so to speak, and the process that you engage in while you're foraging for information, for information and then figuring out what to do with it is typical to human beings.

And there's some constancy of structure across human beings. OK, so that's that's the first idea. It isn't that we all do it in a different way, even though there is individual variation. Obviously, the other sort of fundamental postulate of constructivism, especially the Virginia version of constructivism, is that you sort of build yourself from the bottom up.

Starting with your body, so this is one of the things about PJ's theory that's unbelievably sophisticated, I think so when people were first developing models of artificial intelligence, they thought they'd be able to develop machines that sort of wanted the world and then figured out how to act in the world sort of abstractly. And then after they figured out how to act in the world, would then act in the world. But that proved to be impossible, as you can tell, because we don't have, you know, ambulatory robots that could, like bussed tables at a restaurant, which turns out to be, by the way, a very complex job.

Fast mathematical operations computer can handle that easily or easily by passing a table. It's like no computer smart enough to do that. So that's pretty peculiar.

But it turned out after like 40 years of investigation that you couldn't build computers that would operate as independent robots by teaching them to model the world and then by having the model, the potential action that they were going to undertake and then by implementing it. That did not work, partly because modeling the world is way more complicated than anybody ever suspected. It's like infinitely more complicated.

And so some robotics engineers, such as Rodney Brooks, who worked at M.I.T., started building robots from the bottom up.

He made these little mindless robots that really didn't even have a sense, a central processor that were action oriented.

So like the first things he built with these little insect, like things that could skitter away from light, that's all they could do is turn a light, poof. They'd go find some dark. And it's as if. So imagine the world to that robot was a binary place. It was either a light place or a dark place. And then you might say, well, what is life or dark mean to this little robot? Then you have to ask yourself, well, what does meaning mean?

And that's a very good question. It's one that answers meaning means to that little robot. Move to a different place, so light to that robot meant move to a different place. So what the what the robot, in a sense, was doing was transforming one form of information, light versus dark, into another form, which was scare away. And so I love that because it's not easy to understand what meaning means until you relate it to the body.

And so a fundamental proposition is that the the elements of your understanding are not perceptual abstractions. In fact, there is even elements of understanding that underlie your perceptual abstractions that are more fundamental. And what those are essentially are sensory motor skills, things you do with your body. It's a lovely idea. It's extremely profound and I think it's absolutely correct.

It does wreak havoc with the idea of disembodied intelligence, however, because for pleasure and also for Rodney Brooks, who is responsible, by the way, just so you know, some of you have seen Big Dog, you see Big Dog, look up, DARPA, DARPA. How many of you see Big Dog?

How many of you were terrified by Big Dog? Yes, Big Dog is this robot that's being developed by the US Army that is about this big and four legged. It's going ahead and it can run like faster than you and it can run in snow and it can run on ice, but it can run up hills. And if you kick it, if valances, it stands up hypothetically. It's going to be used to transport. Like the heavy things that soldiers have to carry, but, you know, don't believe that that's a stupid idea, once these things can ambulate by themselves and they can already follow each other because now they have visual systems, arming them is going to be a very simple matter.

And so the probability that we'll have unbelievably super fast robots that can shoot you in 10 years is like to me, as far as I can tell from the development is absolutely certain. I have a friend who's a computer engineer and he's a really good one.

And he said, you know how in science fiction movies, sometimes when those robots shoot at you, they miss said when the robots shoot you, not only will they shoot at where you are, but they'll shoot at the six places that they calculate you're most likely to dart to and they will never miss. So that's a lovely thing to think about.

So. Hopefully that won't come to pass, but it probably will. So here's the sort of thing that I was interested in. These are very fundamental questions and he was a very deep intellect.

So he tried to go right to the bottom of the structures of knowledge to find out what was down there.

What does an individual basis judgments? That's a good one. How do you know whether you do A or B or what the difference is between right and wrong?

How is that instantiated in your in your being? What are your norms? How is it that those norms are validated? What's the interest of such norms for the philosophy of science in general, which is a question like? Well, there's a consensual reality that we all share to some degree, which is why we can communicate. But there's not a one to one relationship between that consensual reality and the categories of science. So Piaget was interested in the similarities between our consensual viewpoint and the scientific viewpoint and the differences.

So, for example, people used to hypothetically assume that the world was flat and you could say, well, the reason they assumed that was because it looks flat when you look at it. So it was an empirical observation.

But obviously there are other observations that we managed to produce that indicated that the world wasn't flat and then our scientific conceptions and our interpersonal consensual norms became divorced from one another.

And that's become a really serious problem, say, with branches of science, like quantum mechanics, which, you know, absolutely completely incomprehensible from a pragmatic perspective, even to those who formulate them mathematically. I would say the reason for that is that, well, when we interact with objects at the phenomenal phenomenological level, which is the level that we can most easily perceive, they are Newtonian. So can I take your pen? So, you know, you can sort of predict what this panel do because it acts like other objects of about its size and shape with mass.

And so your understanding that this is actually based upon your knowledge of what will happen if you manipulate this thing with your body, you know, it's solid.

You'd be very surprised if you could put your fingers through this pattern. You'd be surprised if it broke because you expect a certain hardness. You do expect it to. Right. Although TPIMs often don't you expect it to be pointy, you know that you can take it apart into many objects, even though, like you can ask, how many objects is this? Well, it's one pan, right, but you could take it apart and now it's two objects and then you can see that there's other objects in here and sometimes you can put it back together and it'll still work.

And so. So his point is that. What we regard as understanding, to say that you understand something is to indicate that you can predict what is going to occur if you interact with that object with your bottom. OK, and that's that's gives you your intuitive understanding of things. And so because this is material, you already know something about other things that are material.

Right. And you can transfer it from place to place. And that's, again, a new body knowledge because material things are those things through which you cannot put your hand right. You get some weird things like smoke or clouds. And it's like, well, are they what are they? Are they objects? Is a cloud an object? Well, no, not really, because an object is one of these things that you can sort of manipulate as a unit.

Now, the categories of quantum mechanics, of course, which deal with these incredibly tiny things that are really known particles and are really not waves, they're incomprehensible to us because we never manipulate anything at that scale.

And so because we can't play with it, we have no real way of understanding it, because our understanding is based on the mapping of objects onto our body.

So any object we can happen to our body is therefore fundamentally incomprehensible. It's a very cool theory in a very body centric theory.

So how does the fact that children think differently than we do affect our presumption of fact itself? That's a very interesting question, too, is like so you've got three year olds and of course, they're pretty clueless about the world, but and you know more.

But there's the three year old is alive and everything and functioning. And so then you have to ask yourself, well, if their conception of the world is qualitatively different than your conception, how is it that you can both survive in the same world? And what does that mean about about what knowledge means and about the limits of knowledge? I mean, I could say the same thing about you that you might say about a three year old, which is, well, if I took you from this place and dropped you in the jungle, you know, soon you'd be dead, first visible, then you'd be dead.

And so that's sort of like the three year old's state of being.

If you if you were supposed to take care of them and you disappeared. So obviously, even your knowledge of the world is limited. By law, it's limited and it's necessary generality by that context, but that also has something interesting to say about the validity of your knowledge.

So context dependent. So. OK, so that's the sort of thing that Piaget was interested in. Here's some other ones. What do you mean by. No. That's an interesting one. So you know how they say you can't compare apples and oranges? Well, you can. So if I said, well, what's two oranges plus two apples for fruits?

Who said that? These are very good. So the way you solved that was by generalizing up a level. Right.

So if I said what's two desks plus two rocks, what would you say? Yes, ma'am.

You're very good at this particular. Thank you. That's the Rikyu questions, by the way. So if you did get them now, you could feel disappointed, depressed because you've got the. Well, then you can get yourself a block. So that's good. Yeah. So number is a funny thing because. Well, as I pointed out with the pen, well, one can become many, very rapidly and many can become one. And well the whole idea of another is extremely difficult to understand.

You know, like what is it in common between singular entities that allows you to represent all of them with one? Well, animals don't do that. They can in the sense they can sort of intuit three or four, which is about all we can intuit to. But once we get the Norman McClatchey done properly, man, we can use numbers like crazy and then they enable us to manipulate reality like mad. So whatever it is we're extracting from the commonality between objects seems to be something that gives us incredible power.

So that's a problem. What do you mean by space, since we know, for example, from Einstein's work that space? Spaces is not an absolute in any sense, it is at the speeds we move. So what do you mean by time and speed? What is an object permanent and when isn't it and when do you learn that, what does it mean that an object is the same across time? That's a good one. So, you know.

I don't know if there's a single molecule in your body that was there five months ago, six months ago, there's something I don't remember what the turnover duration is, but it's fairly it's fairly quick.

So it's weird because there you are. And you were there two years ago, but none of your constituent elements are the same. So how is it that you can be the same?

Now, the physicist Schrodinger Schrodinger of the Schrodinger's Cat fame solved that by claiming that you were a dissipated structure? It's very interesting. That's what you thought life was of structures. A discipline of structure is the same as a you know, when you when you pull up to the pull out at the bottom of the sink stopper. I think so. Storper, if your sink is full of water and you pull up the stopper, you know the whirlpool.

Right. And all the water spins as far as it goes down the drain hole. And you'll notice that that whirlpool loops sort of the same across time, even though obviously the water molecules that make it up are different.

He called that a dissipated structure. It was a pattern that maintained itself in spite of the movement of matter through it. And that's what you are, by the way. So it requires energy to keep a discipline of structure intact.

But if you take in energy. So thanks to the sun. What do you mean by chance? Why do you have moral concerns and what does it mean that you have moral concerns, that you have ideas about how people should behave and how they shouldn't behave? And you have a very deep understanding of that. And it's characteristic of all human beings and many, many animals. So where does that come from? Is it a valid form of knowledge? What are children doing when they're playing?

What are people doing when they're dreaming?

And. What's the significance of the fact that you can imitate other people? I'll start with the last one briefly. You know, you might think that one of the things that really distinguishes us from other creatures, animals, is the fact that we have a thumb. And that's a big one. We've got very good functional thumbs and hurray for that. And we stand up on two feet so we get a chance to use our thumbs and has turned things around to great things and to take the department to swing sticks and so on.

But there are other animals who can do that to a limited degree. And then there's our ability to talk.

That's a major one. But one of the other things that really differentiates people from other animals is, you know, you hear monkey see monkey do, right? Well, that's wrong. Monkey.

See, that's the idea that monkeys really can't imitate one another and they certainly can't imitate any even randomly generated normal behavior that another monkey produces. Think about it this way. You know, you hear these claims that chimpanzees have culture. It's like, well, no, they don't. Not really. And the reason for that, it's easy to figure out that they don't have culture. I mean, let's say chimps have been around, roughly speaking, for 50 million years, which is not a bad estimate because we diverged from them about seven million years ago.

And the evidence is pretty clear that the thing that we diverged from looked a lot more like a chimp than it looked like us.

So like we've been moving it ahead massively developing like mad in the chimps would be laid back and eating leaves, you know, so. So do they have a culture? Well, they have 50 million years, you know, they haven't even built a hut yet. And the reason I'm telling you that is because if you're a culture generated creature and you only imagine that you only manage, say, one discovery over 100 years between all of you, if you have 15 million years to get your act together, that's a lot of 100 year statements.

And so even if the chimpanzee was building culture at the rate of point zero zero zero one percent the year, if you compound that over 15 million years, you have the Empire State Building and there are the Empire State Buildings that chimpanzees are living in. And so therefore they don't have culture. Now, they might be able to recognize their their peers and the dominance hierarchy. They can do that and they can use maybe they can use simple tools, but the tools they use seem to be dependent on the environment that they inhabit, you know, because some people say, well, some chimps use one tool and some chimps use another.

But, you know, if you're going to live in a rocky place, then you might use rocks. And if you're going to live in a place that has sticks, you might use sticks. But that's not because you're different. It's because the environment is different. So anyways, chimps can imitate one another very much.

But humans, man, we're ridiculous. Like, we're so imitative. It's absolutely crazy, you know, and that's so cool, because what it means is that once you get a pattern of behavior, you whip up a new pattern of behavior. I can watch you and I could just instantiate it in my own body, you know, maybe a bit awkwardly to begin with, although maybe sometimes better than you can and bang, I've got that. And so we're always looking around at each other, seeing what we're up to.

And as soon as we see someone who's up to something interesting, then we can do the same thing. Children do that because they imitate. Right. But they're even better at it than they generalize across instances of imitation.

So, for example, remember, when you're a kid and you're playing maybe you're playing house and you're the mom or maybe you're I don't know, maybe you're the house cat because children certainly do that. And so let's say the child is being the house cat, so he or she is down on all fours zooming around like a cat meowing and rubbing up against their mother's leg and looking for a milk in the bowl.

And they're not exactly imitating their cat because if they were exactly imitating their cat, they would be moving exactly the same way the cat moved. But no, they're not. What they're doing is they've observed the cat across a wide variety of environments. They've abstracted what constitutes generalized cat behavior from all of those instances. And then they can instantiate the spirit of the cat, which is sort of the movements that make up cats. And then you, because you're so smart, you can watch them zooming around on the ground.

And despite the fact they don't have a tail or ears or fur, you're going to figure out pretty quick that that is now a cat.

And children do the same thing with their parents. Like if they're playing house and they imitate the father, you know, they need to to some degree try to imitate the sound of his voice and maybe even use a couple of his favorite phrases. But basically what they're doing is trying to act like a father rather than imitating their father. So it's like it's Netta imitation, right? So I watch you. I watch you, I watch you, I watch you.

There's commonalities across all of those instances. I extract the commonalities. I'm born here. And then when I play, that's what I'm doing.

I'm figuring out how to embody the commonalities across multiple exposures. And that's that's why you're doing that. When you're like three, you're so smart. And then even if you're asleep, you're doing it because you're doing it in your dreams. And so human beings do that. No other animals do. So when you're thinking about the ways that we're weird, you want to put imitation way up there on the list because you can, you know, think about deaf people, like congenitally deaf people don't have much access to language, you know, say they don't learn sign language because that used to happen in the past.

It's like they can still wander around in the world and fit in well. Why? Well, because they're so good at imitating. You know, they get all the non-verbal stuff and that's a lot.

So languages, you know, great.

And all that language actually enables you to imitate across space and time.

That's what it's for, because maybe you whip up a new action and then you write it down in words and then you send it to someone. And they those are instructions, by the way, because that's what instructions are you send that to someone and then they read your code for behavior and then they act it out.

And so language enables you to move imitation across space and time. And that's a really good way of conceptualizing language, because it's a way because sometimes we might think that language is there to describe the world. You know, in a scientific sense, George Kelly kind of thinks that that thought that that human beings are sort of like natural scientists, but natural scientists are much more concerned with what is than with how to act. So is wrong what human beings are more like?

Natural engineers, because we're always zooming around, trying to figure out how to fiddle with things much more than what they are. And as I mentioned to you earlier, a pragmatist would say, well, it's an artificial distinction because things are.

What they are when you fiddle with them, that's in fact what they are. So that's that's pretty smart. Piaget also says this is part of the constructivist notion because constructivism is a philosophical school. He says knowledge does not begin in the eye and it does not begin in the object. It begins in the interactions. There's a reciprocal and simultaneous construction of the subject on the one hand and the object on the other. There is no structure apart from construction, either abstract or genetic.

I really like that I showed you some of the symbolic categories in a couple of previous lectures, and I mentioned, for example, that one of the symbolic categories is the great father. And the great father kind of stands for cultural structure, whereas the great mother stands for novelty and and then and and sometimes the terrifying. Anyways, back to the great father. There's a preconditioning constructivism that there has to be three things that exist. They map right onto that symbolic structure.

One is culture.

So when you look at something or really when any creature looks at something, there's an inbuilt structure that characterizes the creature, some of which would be biological built in, some of which would be acquired that they must have in order to structure their perceptions of what they're looking at. So you don't come to the situation blank. You know, for example, you have two eyes. You're going to have stereo vision most of the time when you have five senses in the same senses.

And there's more than that. You have snake detection circuits, for example. So you're sort of primed to respond to a certain class of predators.

You like sweet tastes and sour taste, but you don't really like bitter tastes and so on and so forth. Like right from the beginning, you bring a landscape of interpretive.

Structures in order to frame and simplify. The world that you are exposed to now, the world itself, is this sort of amorphous thing, it's amorphous because it's so multidimensional and complex, there's so much of it. It's like a form that contains everything. And so unless you can frame that and simplify it, narrow it, it's very difficult for you to understand and interact with it at all. I mean, you you know, you just can't deal with everything at once.

It's hard enough to deal with one little thing at a time.

And, you know, this internal structure is partly what enables you to deal with one little thing at a time.

And then so there's you and there's the the source of all information. There's the structure of you and the source of all information.

And then there's the process. That's you in the process. That's you.

Is you using your appendages fundamentally and your senses to interact with things and to make them manifest new properties. Right. And so those are properties that they might not manifest without you there. And it's very difficult for you to tell when you're interacting with the world, even at a perceptual level. How much of what you observe wouldn't be there if you weren't there? Now, also, because one of the big philosophical questions is, well, what's there when you're not there?

And that is a much more complicated question than you might imagine.

The Dallas would say, well, what's there is so much an amalgam of everything at once that it might as well be nothing at all, and it sort of gives you a way of understanding that.

So let's say you took every symphony that was ever written, recorded, and then you took all those recordings together and you laid one on top of the other and you'd say, well, know, I thought like every symphony at once on a tape. And then you played the tape. What would it sound like? Would sound like white noise. It would sound like.

And so you could say white noise is functionally equivalent to every single symphony that's ever been written, every piece of music that's ever been written, all being played at once.

So what you know, so in the Dallas would also say you have to remember that what something is is just as dependent on what it is as it is dependent on what it is.

So that's a tough word, but it's very, very smart.

So the constructivists would certainly agree with that. Now, Bruner, who is a constructivist of sorts, put a little twist on Paige's idea, which I'm going to borrow because I think it makes explaining easier, at least it makes it easier for me. And since I'm explaining it, that's that's what we're going to have to go for, Bruner said. We seem to have no other way of describing live time save in the form of a narrative. Now, the reason I think this is a positive and constructive his claim is because Piaget is concerned with knowledge as it emerges from action and action is clearly represented narratives.

Right, because a narrative is about what the characters are doing.

So narrative is the way that we represent information about doing so. And knowledge for PJ is about doing so. I just put the two together and that and that there's other reasons for too. And that makes it simpler to explain. So here's here's a way of thinking about how we put a structure on the world.

So I I've mentioned I kind of introduced you to this idea before. So you're headed somewhere, wherever that happens to be, because you're an active organism.

And so you're you know, even if you're don't have any immediate needs, you're going to poke about it. Things just because you're curious turns out that you're dopaminergic system, which is the system that drives curiosity fighters at a constant rate, even if you're not hungry or tired or thirsty or, you know, even if no primary needs are clamoring for your attention. So you're your default comfortable status, mildly curious about everything.

And so that's part of what makes you an information forager, because when you have nothing better to do, so to speak, you'll just poke around and see what happens, because you never know that knowledge might come in useful in the future.

So anyways, you're always learning from point A to point B because you're active and the way you get from point A to point B, even point B is an abstraction because it often is, you know, I'm going towards a better future. Well, that's kind of a weird abstraction. How are you going to get there? Well, you can be sure that at the base it's going to involve movement, right?

Because you get to that future, there's there's movements you're going to have to be so.

Start with an abstract philosophical concept. I want to be a good person. While you might debate forever about what the good means, right?

It's the sort of philosophical conundrum that you can fall into because you can think in abstractions and then you might think of it as a property of the world.

And that's something that's subject to debate, which is exactly what's happened in the history of mankind. But there's another way of looking at it that's actually probably more accurate and I would say also more useful. And this is the way. So are you going to try to be a good person?

Well, the general view would be being a good person. It's not a state of mind what it is. Is it an abstraction that represents, well, first other associated abstractions? Because we could say, well, being a good person is a multidimensional problem. That's right. You can't just be good and then it's done. It's like being a good person might mean being good at. Well, what? Well, good at being a friend. Good at being a lover.

Good at being a parent. Good at being a child. Good at being an employee. You can know you could say what good is, what's the same across all those things and you would call that a scheme, just so you know, because the scheme is what's the same across multiple different things. So the scheme is the basis of abstraction for so good person. Is the sum total or the commonalities between being a good. Teacher, student, employee, etc.

, OK, so then we'll say, OK, so now we can move the problem of analysis one level down and we can say, OK, well, what does it mean to be a good parent? And then you'd say, well, maybe you have to have a good job because otherwise you and your child starve. But we'll forget about that one for a moment. And then you might say, well, you have to do a good job of taking care of your family.

OK, so you notice we're zeroing in on an element of the good here, and it's still an abstraction. Care for your family? That's an abstraction so that you might say, well, one of the things you would do if you cared for your family is playing with the baby and another might be complete a meal. So we'll take the play with the baby example. And then there's three things you can do with your baby and pick out. If they like that, that's all permanent.

Say there's nothing more thrilling to a baby than discovering that you're still there. When you disappear like a baby, you can have a baby for hours with that discovery because it's by no means self-evident to the baby. That's a positive notion. They like object permanence.

So as far as they're concerned, it's a hell of a shock when you disappear because they were just appreciating you being there and then they're just as shocked when you reappear. You can. It's so interesting to watch them because when a baby gets startled, like when you get started, you know, you might go like that if you really started a baby. It's like it's whole body is start, right. It like it makes a weird face and it moves its arms and its legs and then takes it like five seconds to recover.

You know, they really have a startle reflex, so and they'll often laugh.

I'm sure you've seen the laughing babies on YouTube because of course, there's like two billion views of laughing babies, which is a good thing. It shows that we like babies. I think there's one that's very famous where a baby is reacting to his mother, either sneezing or coughing you all in court.

It's absolutely hilarious. This baby just has a fit. And what's basically happening is it's mother coughs. I think it's coughs or maybe sneezes. Oh, OK.

Oh, yes. She blows her nose. So she makes this weird elephant like noise in the baby's mother could do this and then get surprised at its own startle hum. That makes it long. So that's a really interesting phenomena from a positive perspective, because one of the things that I noticed the children did because they could imitate was imitate themselves. That's how they got to know who they were. So, for example, if a child would say a child would knock that off when they're eating well, that's a hell of a thing to discover.

You know, if you move your arm just a little bit will fall off. That's cool. So then maybe you can do that 60, 70 times. Well, you're supposed to be eating. And the other thing that's really cool about doing that is that mom will immediately rush over and pick that up and put it back. And this is an excellent game. You can entertain yourself with that for like a month.

And basically what you're discovering is the relationship between your movements and gravity. Right. It's like this is a major discovery.

It's no wonder you're obsessed with it. So so anyways, the point with regards to imitation is maybe the baby does this accidentally to begin with that startles them and then it's put up again and then they think, well, that was cool. I wonder if we can do that again. And then they're pretty happy about that and then they'll keep practicing that until they get, like, expert at doing that. So instead of using, like, gross body movements to do it, which is how they start, they get developed fighter and fighter and find your body movements until they've got the whole Dorcy light thing off a table down.

And it can even be fascinating as an adult, some of them, you probably played table hockey, you know, with the quarter.

You know what to do that put a quarter on a table.

It's not very complicated, this little golf. Your job is to flip the thing so that it just sits that far over the table and so that the opponent can flip it up. That's a that's like your opportunity to score a goal.

My point is playing with how things move in relationship to friction. Gravity is so engrossing to human beings that you can even make a game out of it if you're a relatively bored and stupid adult.

I played that game all the time with my son, by the way, so I put myself in that category as well. No.

But the child is doing his little accidentally in some ways bumble into something interesting. And then it recognizes that it's interesting in a sense, because that's a reflex action on its part. And then once it recognizes that it's had that reflex action, which is kind of it's pleasurable, as long as it's not too intense, it's at least interesting, then they'll try to imitate what they just did.

So part of the way you master yourself is by imitating yourself after you've accidentally done something interesting. It's so smart. So that's a very odd notion. So anyways, you're playing with the baby and you can play with the baby. That's a good one. You're teaching it that you're still there even though you went away. And you can take all the baby, which is best done in moderation because it's not exactly clear that babies enjoy that.

They just laugh when you do that so that you like them and don't throw them out window when they're doing that. And you can clean the baby to save those.

Those are elements of the care of a baby. I know that's not very sophisticated, but, you know, those are some of the basics. Now, the thing that's different about playing with baby and tickle baby is that playing with a baby is an abstraction. Tickle baby is an action. Right.

And so when you're trying to solve the mind body problem, this is how you solve it. The mind is those abstractions. The body is the actions that those abstractions ground themselves in. So it's not like the mind is attached to the body. It's the mind is a sequence of hierarchically arranged abstractions, the bottom level of which are not abstractions, they're actions. There's a qualitative transformation at the bottom of the hierarchy at the highest resolution level of the hierarchy, its action.

Now you can understand a very, very easily if you understand that the way a baby develops, as far as she is concerned, is from the bottom up.

So the baby starts with its lying in its crib. It's a useless thing it's laying there. It can't even focus its eyes. You know, it's just barely getting going. So it's sort of floating in space trying to figure out what's going on. You know, it doesn't even know that it has arms really just sort of detects these things off to the side of the bomb itself in the face with its arms or scratch itself because you have to cut baby's nails really short, because otherwise they scratch themselves because their arms are just wandering around randomly and the baby starts from a Syrian perspective.

The baby starts to learn that learned what its body is capable of doing and some of that it just discovers by accident. Now, there's no doubt some natural neurological progression that's going on. So the baby is learning along the path that babies can learn. But still, I suspect that the baby is doing quite a bit of exploring to facilitate its neurological development. And more complex animals may be doing that in the womb, know, trying out their legs and so on, so so that they can run as soon as they get up.

So it's not even obvious at all. That sort of thing is reflexive and automatic in an animal that is more active when it's born.

So the baby is begins by basically it sort of develops from the middle outward. So what's the baby got when it first pops into the world? Well, I can't see very well, although it can focus at about 12 inches, which conveniently is about the distance that its head is from its mother's eyes if it's breastfeeding. So that's good for social communication. So the mother can gaze at the baby and the baby can gaze at the mother. And for some reason, they both find that fascinating.

So babies are also very wired up around the mouth so it can use its mouth quite a lot and can use its tongue. Those those come prewired. So and this is kind of a Freudian observation. So at the beginning, the baby really is oral because that's all that works like it can smell to, you know. But but it's it's it's voluntary. Capacity for action is really centered around its mouth.

And you'll notice that babies, infants are toddlers, even love to put things in their mouth. My son, when he was a kid, he used to go in the backyard. We did feed him. So that was the reason he go in the backyard, pick up acorns and stuff his cheeks with them just like a chipmunk. And so, you know, then we take them up to the bath and we'd have to, like, dig all the acorns out of his cheeks.

And he did that for, oh, God, way longer than you'd expect any child to do it.

So but the reason that he would put things in his mouth and you think about this is there's nothing that's a better exploratory. Organ than your tongue, I mean, check out one of your teeth. Bloody thing feels like it's about this bend to your tongue, as you'll notice, if you ever get a tooth removed. It's like the Grand Canyon was just ecstasy in your mouth.

And then, of course, your tongue will work like mad of its own accord to investigate every tiny little crevice in that new hole because your brain wants to know what's your mouth and what isn't. So that if there's something in your mouth that either should or shouldn't be a it can tell it from you and B, it can tell whether or not it's supposed to be there. Turns out to be very important. Right, because while there's tooth decay, that's a problem.

But, you know, there's also insects and poison and all sorts of other things that you shouldn't put in your mouth. So don't underestimate the degree to which you can zoom around the world like a Hoover vacuum cleaner and pick up a godawful amount of information. And of course, you're also feed that way, obviously. And so, you know, you're checking out your mother with your mouth and your tongue in a very meaningful way, too. And, well, you're feeding at the breast.

You're establishing the basis of social relationships. Now, this puts a bit of a warp into the agenda hypothesis because. Piaget sort of assumed that the baby bill hit builds himself from the bottom up, right? But one of the things you have to understand is that the baby is always picking up how to behave and see in a very, very, very social context, even when it's so young that he or she would regard it as primarily egocentric because what the hell does a baby know about you?

You know, but the mother is teaching the child how to act right from the time. It's a little tiny thing. Like if it's going to breastfeed, it has to do it in a relatively civilized manner, because if it bites his mother or her mother, which a baby can do, they can really feel good. What if their minds are made up to do that? It's like unpleasant consequences are going to ensue. At minimum, the mother is going to start with, you know, start feeding the baby and maybe she'll put the baby down or God only knows.

One time when my son was very young, I guess he's about 30 months, he just learned to walk and he walked up to my wife who was wearing shorts, and he bit her right here. And a good chance he was just teething.

And she reflects his remarks and he's like, he must have fallen six feet. That's how you socialize children against the by. So it's even the smallest alterations of their behavior take place within an intensely social context. So even at this level, this society is is helping guide and restrict the development of the child's motor activities. Now, children tend to develop, as I said, they develop gross body movements first. So they kind of learn to fling their arms.

So maybe you put a mobile in the crib for your baby. Look at, by the way, most mobiles, you'll notice maybe they're fish.

So you're a parent, you're standing here and this is the side of the fish and this is the bottom of the fish. And that's what the baby is looking at. It's like the baby is looking at lines because the fish are there for the adults. It's like that's a stupid mobile. We get the fish turned over so the baby can see the fish and then you make them out of, like black and white because babies are very good at picking up high contrast.

And that's a baby mobile rather than a mother mobile. So you got to decide whether the mobiles for you or for your baby. So anyways, you put the mobile above the baby and you kind of want to put it within live legs and then the baby will watch this thing.

Who knows, maybe tonight to death by this.

We don't know.

It's like, you know, and then it'll it'll sort of flail about like it does not very well controlled better. Maybe it'll flail an arm or leg and now and then it'll get lucky and it'll nail one of those fish. And now it started to take.

And so usually it might try that because that might just if it's a neurotic baby, it'll cry. It's like that's too much for today.

But if it's a kind of an outgoing exploratory baby, then the next thing it's really going to want to do is to figure out how to make that fish move again and then it'll sit there and practice flailing.

It's like it's like it's throwing its leg at the fish. And if it gets lucky, it'll nail it a good one and then that'll make it last.

And then, you know, we'll practice doing that over a sequence of babies are persistent, man. So when my daughter was little, she was about 18 months old. We bought her this little cardboard box that had little cardboard Disney books in it, you know, and she didn't care what the Disney books were. What she was really interested in is getting those three books out of the Disney box and then trying to get them back in, because it turned out that was quite difficult because they fit tightly.

So this was a great puzzle for her because, you know, she was still getting the whole coordination thing going and she'd sit. For like three hours, getting those Vado those books in that box, and that was like a toy for for a week till she figured it out and she was on to bigger and better things.

But that's a big deal, right? You can imagine what you're doing neurologically when you're doing that. It's like, first of all, you got to grip that book properly. Second, you go to oriented precisely third as you have the additional books to the box, the shape changes because the books flop over because they'll flop over diagonally. So the shape changes. You've got to figure out how to adjust that. And then the book itself will open and that will get in the way.

It's going to keep the book closed and the tolerances are like the 18th of an inch or so.

So you want to master that and like some people don't. I had a client once who had a very low fluid intelligence, probably 75, 80. You wouldn't know it by looking at him, but he couldn't find employment. Surprise, surprise.

There's no jobs in our society for people who are at that end of the cognitive distribution. I go to the volunteer job at one point and his job was to put paper in envelopes and fold it up in three because that's how you fold up a piece of paper and then you have put it in an envelope. But that actually turns out to be hyper complex. I probably trained him for 28 to 30 hours to do that. And because. When you do it next time or you could do it now, you just think about what you're doing.

It's first of all, merely by observing the piece of paper, you have to figure out how to make the first full and it better be damn close to one third, because if it isn't, when you make the second fold, you're going to compound your error and then you're going to find, to your chagrin, that that piece of paper does not fit in the envelope because the envelope is exactly the same size as the piece of paper. So throw, by your estimate, say a quarter of an inch in your first full row by half inch of your second fold.

It's like it's not going in there.

Or if if you don't folded it completely at 90 degrees and also the edges line up, say you're owed by a sixteenth of an inch and then you do that again.

So now you're beneath. It won't fit in sideways. So then you have to mangle the envelope to to get the paper in there. And then by the time you're done dangling the envelope, not only does it look ugly, but it will not go through an automatic sorting machine.

So and then added to that was the problem that on these pieces of paper, there were often photographs stapled because he was working for a charity. So then and but the photographs weren't always stable at exactly the same place on the piece of paper. So then you have to look at the piece of paper and he'd have to figure out where the photograph is, and then he'd have to figure out how to fold the piece of paper so that he didn't bend the photograph so that it would still fit in the envelope.

And that just used to he'd just sweat himself to death trying to solve that problem because there was time pressure to do so.

And then there's an added level of complexity on top of that. The reason I'm telling you this is because you're getting some sense of how, you know, simple actions are aggregated into increasingly complex operations.

Some of the envelopes are French and some of them are English because it was Canada. And so you couldn't put a French letter in an English envelope. The French ones had to go in a separate pile. And then there was a huge stack, say, of English letters and a huge stack of English envelopes, all of which hypothetically had been stacked so that each one corresponded to the other. But now and then one of them would be out of alignment.

So then you had to figure out whether it was the letters that were out of the alignment or the envelopes. Well, that's a that's a high complexity working memory problem and that just bring it to a standstill.

So anyways, you know, during typical development, you develop those incredibly fine motor skills easy, early, which is part of the reason why it's kind of nice to have your baby, toddler, infant do something by itself, you know, like sit there with a box till it gets a little bored and then it'll start to figure out what to do with the box.

And that's part of play and that's part of the development of its. Important conceptual structure, so so so you basically chain these things together. Now, the way that Piaget, he thought, well, what's the motivation for doing this? So the motivation essentially is that, well, sometimes it can be sort of random, you accidentally do something interesting and then try to repeat it. But as you sort of develop the number of times, if you do something accidentally that results in, something interesting starts to decline.

Now, what part of what happens to you as you mature is that the opportunities that are provided for you by your body as you exercise and then develop it start start to really ramp up and develop so that you could do a lot more interesting things with your body. By the time you're two, then you can when you're nine months old, for example, you can zoom around, which just opens up a whole universe of things to pull over and jump over and pull off tables.

And, you know, and there's things lying around that you can write on walls with and you can pull out cupboards and it's like it's it's paradise for an exploratory baby.

So but what happens is that as the child puts himself or herself together physically and develops additional skills, then they can elicit additional manifestations of novelty from the world. So, for example, I thought, well, here's a good example.

So the child finally manages to get itself upright, which is like a colossal, colossal, amazing accomplishment. I mean, first of all. That's hard to do, like, no, there are two legged creatures in the world except for us, you know, and we're so good at this, you can even isn't that wonderful? I learned that when I was two.

So, you know, you can do these amazing things with your body, but the child is like trying to put itself together neurologically.

And it's a hell of an operation to get this column of bone. It's like jellyfish on a bone or a stacked bones. And you got to get the thing to stand up upright God, ridiculously difficult. So the child manages that. There's a lot of pain and anguish associated with that because those little creatures, they just fall down.

You know, they've got these little short arms. So they're not much good at protecting themselves from impact. They're just bouncing off the walls like that in the floor. When they're trying to learn to walk, then they finally get themselves upright and totter long and fall and so on. But then, you know, then the world turns into a different place because all of a sudden stand up underneath the table. That's that's a fun thing to do for the first time.

It's like, wow.

So now your new body has taught you something about the world that you did not know.

So what Piaget would say is, well, you've got the scheme worked out, which is the standing up scheme.

And it turns out that now works pretty well if you're in an empty space.

But if you're in an enclosed space with a low ceiling, the whole standing up thing, it's just not going to produce the results intended. So you stand up and whack yourself, and that's a sign that it's time to update your representational structures.

And so you can think of that technically as the emergence of normally into what would have otherwise been a conceptually protected space. Now she has this idea of equilibration. So let's say your baby crawls.

And let's say it's an equilibrated crawler, which means it's kind of an expert in babies get pretty expert crawlers by about, say, 12, 13 months, he can zoom around and they know how not to bump into things and you know how to crawl around without hurting themselves.

So when they crawl around only to things that they want to have happen, how most of the time and their equilibrated at that point because their actions and their conceptions of the consequence of those actions match, they've got no problem.

What they expect or want to have happen when they crawl is what happens that babies that has mastered a developmental stage. So that's the stage idea and that's the equilibrated stage of the equilibration is a brilliant idea. And I'll tell you why in a minute. But then all of a sudden the baby learns to stand up. It's like, oh.

An advance, but it's like a revolutionary advance, right, it's equivalent to a revolution in science, which is why she mentioned cool. It's like. Well, now I'm a standing creature, the whole crawling expertise is hardly worth it at all.

You know, there's some transfer of knowledge, but the, you know, universe that's made accessible to the baby by it's now dawning ability to stand forces it to revolutionize its entire cognitive structure.

Now, I'll give you I want to tell you a very quick story, because it's a very good one.

So this is a good indication of the function of dream in place.

So when my daughter was three, she couldn't talk very well. She she learned to speak. Lake, we lived in Boston in which he learned to speak, she developed a Boston accent, which we were completely flabbergasted by because we didn't have a Boston accent and neither did any of our neighbors.

Turns out there's a speech impediment that sounds just like a Boston accent. But anyway, she was usually goes away except in Boston. But so anyway, she she was she was three.

And when her brother was born, there's always the possibility of sibling rivalry. Right. Because and for good reason, it's like, OK, time to get rid of that thing. All it's doing is taking off all of mom's attention. You know, like that's a hard reality for a child who's under three to manage because they're still pretty dependent.

And it's like, well, why should they be liking this horrible, noisy, attention grabbing interloper?

So we tried to we tried to teach her right from the time he came home, her her brother that.

The idea was she was going to lose something which was some parental attention, especially from her mother, but she was potentially going to gain something which was maturity, independence and the possibility of a new relationship. Now, we could tell her that some parents will tell their three year olds that it's like in your three year old is learning to look at you when you talk. But they're actually hearing, you know, how dogs and cartoons hear people talk is like wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah, wah, wah.

That's how children hear you talk when you're talking about something like independence, like what the hell did they know about that?

That's way up there on the hierarchy. But we tried to teach her to interact with the baby in such a way that she would elicit positive feedback from him and so that they could be friends. And then we also taught her that she should take care of the baby and that give you something to do. So that worked.

We also didn't let them tease each other so much.

You know, they're going to tease each other a bit because siblings often bloody hate each other when they're when they're young. And sometimes that just destroys the relationship for the whole life.

It's like you don't want that because you're stuck with your damn brother until he dies, hopefully, or until you do so.

Anyway, so my daughter is taking care of this little guy. And, you know, she used to watch him on the steps and sort of shepherd him around. And she was she was pretty good at it. And then.

One day he started to walk and she kept talking about her baby, and we told her that, well, he wasn't really a baby anymore and we didn't realize that this was setting off a cognitive revolution of the Pejeta concert because, of course, she kind of grown attached to this baby, just like mothers do. And mothers sometimes get so attached to their babies that they really don't want them to stop being babies. And so they end up living in their house.

Fifty five. The destruction of the world. So you don't want to have that happen. So but it was happening in a microwave with her. It's like, well, there's this baby. And I spent a lot of time getting used to it and figuring out what to do with it. Now, it's not a baby anymore.

What the hell is it? So she had this amazing dream and it ties back to the shamanic stuff that I taught you guys about earlier. So this is the dream she dreamt that the baby.

Crawled into a hole in the backyard. Now, the way the hole got there was that a tree from the park beside us had moved into our backyard and then it burned down and left this hole. And then the hole is full of water. And so the baby crawled into the water and it reduced him to a skeleton. And then there was a bug in the water and the bug pulled him out. And when he came out, he was a new creature.

So it was perfect.

Like she came and told me that, I don't know, like 2:00 in the morning in her little three year old voice saying, we got it all tight down.

It was absolutely spectacular because it was straight Chemonics tree, like the tree burned down. And so that's a transformation motif. And that water is the place of rebirth. And, you know, the kid was dissolved into a skeleton and the little bug that pulled him out is like a representation of the underlying process that guides transformation through the brain was like working like mad, trying to figure out continuity over change.

That's a tough one, right?

Because it's almost like a butterfly emerging from a cocoon. It's a big deal maybe to toddlers. That's a big difference. You know, she's supposed to figure out, well, that's the same thing. Well, no, it's not. So underneath her unconscious mind, you know, three year olds are not stupid, even though they can't talk. They've got this brain that's like three point five billion years old. It's not stupid.

So. So anyways, why was I telling you that specifically?

Oh, well, it's another indication of how.

So the transformations of cognitive structure are forced upon a child, at least in part by the development of increasing physical ability.

Right.

Because as you increase its physical ability and capacity, then the world transforms and then your cognitive processes have to transform to keep up with that. And sometimes that's a radical transformation. So this fundamental hypothesis is that part of the reason that people are motivated to undergo cognitive transformations and learning is because as they mature, they they automatically come into contact with anomalous information, information that they cannot process from within the confines of the current world war.

And because they can't process it, it interferes with them getting what they want.

And so they're motivated to keep their cognitive structures updated.

So in when sometimes the revolutions occur at a micro level and that might be like when you're learning the difference between this and this, you know, it's like it's a major difference, but it doesn't, you know, disrupt the whole fabric of your conceptual universe.

Whereas a divorce might be the baby transforming into a toddler might puberty does just like you just fine. Got used to your body. You're 12 years old, so you're sort of at the pinnacle of childhood.

You're like an adult child, you know what you're doing.

And 11 and 12 year olds are often lovely creatures because they're pretty mature and they've got their act together and then all of a sudden think sex hormones kick in.

It's like you are no longer the same thing and neither is anyone you interact with.

And so it's like turbulence for three, four or five, 20, 30 years until you sort of sort that out, which you never really do.

And so you can see how. The physiological transformations that are attendant on development, some biologically predicated and some an emergent consequence of learning, disrupt the cognitive structures that people use to orient themselves in the world and that some of those disruptions are sort of low key equivalent to normal science. That would be assimilation and some of them much broader, and that's equivalent to accommodation. Assimilation means you learn something new that you can already handle using constructs and schemas that you have at hand, you know, so maybe you have to pick the thing up like this instead of like this.

But you already know this and you know that. So who cares? It's like a little minor alteration and sometimes, well, no, you have to readapt your whole body in order to handle the next level of complex problem solving. Learning to drive is like that. Learning to ride a bicycle is like that.

And you can see that there's sort of a there's not really normal versus revolutionary transformations.

There's sort of a continuum that marked themselves onto that hierarchy of children. So if at the very highest levels of resolution, it's minor transformations in the higher levels of abstraction, you can blow out whole huge chunks of yourself.

So it's a continuum. But he isn't and could sort of conceptualize Japan's economy.

All right. Oh, yes, this is this this this is the thing I really want to get to, this is it's so brilliant. It's so she was concerned about morality and he's one of the few psychologists, I think, who, like, he nailed it. This is like the most important thing Piaget discovered.

And maybe it's one of the most important things that psychologists ever discovered.

It's like, how do you become moral? Well, we're already mentioned that when you acquire a behavior, you inevitably acquire it in a social context. So what that means is that right from the time you're little and learning things, the demands of society are encoded in the behaviors that you're allowed to manifest.

And so science, to some degree, by the time you behave the way you do, behave when you're three, if you've been properly socialized, you already act out the embodied moral structure of your entire community.

So, you know, when you talk about law, as you say, there's a body of laws and the body of laws used to be the king. So you have to do what the king said. But now the body of laws is an abstract conceptual representation. But those representations are actually. Semantic representations of allowable and not allowable behavior, and so by the time you're three and you're a law abiding three year old, which means you're well socialized, you're already acting in accordance with the law.

The patterns that characterize your being, the behavioral patterns that characterize your being, have already been molded into the patterns that you manifest. And so what that means in some sense is you're already as neat, you would say an unconscious advocate of your culture because you're acting it out. Now, here's an example.

Here's an example of how that can be transformed into actual moral knowledge. So here she goes and studies kids play your game. So here's an example. So there's a bunch of kids there standing around the playground and they're all playing helicopter. Maybe they've just got sticks and their own way. You know, when they're flying the helicopters around and they're all doing this, maybe they're diving at each other. So what's happened is each kid wants to have a helicopter and each kid wants to be a good helicopter pilot, but each kid wants to be a good helicopter pilot in the way that other kids appreciate.

Well, they're being good helicopter pilots. That's tough. So not only do you have to figure out how to coordinate your behavior, you have to figure out how to coordinate your behavior with other people, coordinating canoe, coordinating their behavior in such a way that the shared activity not only does not come to a stop, but precedes an enjoyable way. Jesus, that's really tough. If your kid can play well with other kids, that's what they've managed.

OK, so you've got four kids doing this and there's rules. Actually, there's not. There's rituals that the children are avoiding that they've agreed upon.

Well, they set up the game. They've just sort of bash the ideas against each other. And they came up with the solution. And you can tell that because the game is continuing and everyone is having fun, it's like, is everyone playing nice? Yes, that's an equilibrated play state and it's a moral organization because all the children are participating voluntarily towards a shared interest. And that was the model of a functional society that's so smart. So now imagine that a kid comes along and maybe he's a popular kid, so he has a reasonable chance of getting into this playgroup.

He'll still be rebuffed like 50 percent of the time, whereas if he's not a popular kid, it's like forget they're just not going to let him the little helicopter circle. And it's probably because he's developmentally delayed or in some other way. He doesn't understand how he has to configure his behavior so that he can enter this complex, dramatic scene without disrupting it. Or maybe he's one of those kids who said, I don't want to play a helicopter. We should play something else.

It's like. No, unless you're a creative genius, that's a really bad idea. So what the popular kids do is they sort of sidle up to the group, maybe they find the sticks, they watch what they're doing, and maybe they find a stick and they sort of start going with a stick and they're sort of looking to see if that stick helicopter behavior is acceptable to the peers.

And maybe one of their friends sort of notices that they're playing helicopters and they open up the circle and that kid gets to come in and play helicopters. But he might fail with that even if he's popular, because once the little play thing is going, it's like a playground, right? It's got a dramatic structure. You can't just come in there and, you know, start playing basketball or something. So, you know what being noticed was that when children were playing a game, maybe they were playing marbles.

And that's a rough game because you can win and lose at marbles and you might say, well, children shouldn't play competitive games. But if you say that, that's a sure sign that you don't know what the hell you're talking about because all games are competitive and cooperative at the same time, if they share a single goal and it's really not a game unless there's a goal because goal games have goals. And so what the children do is they they organize themselves so they all decide what constitutes an acceptable goal.

And the goal with marbles is win some marbles and lose the marbles without whining about it. That's another goal. And that's an important thing to learn.

So the children say, well, here's the foundation of our local moral universe. Here's the rules that we're going to abide by.

And a lot of those are ritualistic. They might have learned them from other kids. So they play marbles. You extract out a kid and you say, what are the rules for marbles? And if the kids like seven, they don't know. They can't tell you. What, if you put them in with a bunch of other seven year olds, they can play marbles perfectly well. So what that means is the morality is coded in their behavior or in the behavior of the group, like a bunch of BS, you know, because there's knowledge in a hive of bees or maybe a school of fish.

So it's embedded in the child's behavior and in their patterns of action across time.

And then if you pull them out, they can only give like a partial account of it.

They're not conscious of the morality. It's like you pull a wolf out of a wolf pack and say, well, you know, what's up with the wolf pack and the wolf bites you because that's just that's how it answers questions. It's not going to tell you about the rules. It's only later in development that the children become conscious of the rules and then they become very irritated if people break them. And then only much later do they start to understand that the rules can be adjusted by mutual agreement and that is associated with the pejeta and development of higher order morality.

It's brilliant. You learn your actions. The actions are conditioned by other people. The actions are integrated into a voluntary game. Then the actions are integrated into a series of voluntary games that social interaction. Then you learn the descriptions, then you learn how to manipulate the descriptions. Brilliant movement up the hierarchy. So that's a positive theory in a nutshell. Constructivism, see you on Thursday.