[{"id":28,"title":"Is teaching about instruction or selection?","sha":"b0b3c84a223e16c8f066b8770831a962","user_id":57,"state":"published","body":"Teaching is commonly associated with instruction, yet in evolution, [immunology] (http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/theorimm0.htm#Introduction), and [neuroscience] (http://www.mindcreators.com/NeuralDarwinism.htm), instructional theories are largely defunct. \r\n\r\nWe propose a co-immunity theory of teaching, where attempts by a teacher to alter student neuronal structure to accommodate cultural ideas and practices is sort of a reverse to the function of the immune system, which exists to preserve the physical self, while teaching episodes are designed to alter the mental self.\r\n\r\nThis is a theory of teaching that is based on the [inter-subjective relationship](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity) between teacher and learner. This theory posits that teaching does not, as is commonly assumed, take place via instruction from teacher to students, but rather through a process of selection in the learner’s brain, stimulated by materials and activities utilized by the teacher. In this theory, the mechanism that drives the selection process in learners’ brains is [co-regulated emotional signaling](http://www.apadivisions.org/division-39/publications/reviews/first-idea.aspx) between teacher and learner. From this perspective, the power of [formative assessment](http://weaeducation.typepad.co.uk/files/blackbox-1.pdf) is that it intrinsically carries with it emotional aspects for both learner and teacher, in that it provides a feedback relationship between them both, and so, according to the [Greenspan \u0026 Shanker](http://www.amazon.com/First-Idea-Language-Intelligence-Ancestors/dp/0306814498/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8\u0026qid=1423770340\u0026sr=8-1\u0026keywords=Greenspan++Shanker) theory of cognitive symbolic development, promotes cognitive development.","created_at":"2015-02-12T19:53:14.014Z","updated_at":"2022-09-01T10:08:35.625Z","zenodo_id":22127,"doi":"http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15082","subject":null,"tags":["teaching","instruction","selection"],"vote_count":18,"view_count":1,"score":18.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":false,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null},{"id":241,"title":"Selective pressure as it relates to mimicry of non-living things in communities that abhor killing living things","sha":"f9d804aa6f8f6eb90d8509f77de895b4","user_id":null,"state":"published","body":"Would a community that abhors killing animals apply selective pressure for animals that do not camouflage themselves as inanimate objects and/or have easily noticed coloration? If I see a leaf on a path, I spend little energy trying to avoid stepping on it (i.e., I step on it). However, if that leaf is actually a frog donning leaf camouflage and I mistakenly kill it by stepping on it and I am a member of a society that abhors killing animals, I have done wrong. If I had seen a \"frog\" rather than a \"leaf\" I would have avoided it. Would that frog be better served being a bright pink color that is more noticeable to a moralistic avoider? The relative pressure for and against mimicry of inanimate objects may depend on the relative danger of being seen or not seen by a moralistic and non-moralistic member of the community (e.g., balancing a camouflaged frog being killed by a moralistic person mistakenly stepping on a \"leaf\" and a hot pink frog being noticed and killed by a non-moralistic predator).","created_at":"2015-09-29T02:47:55.695Z","updated_at":"2015-09-29T02:52:57.434Z","zenodo_id":62770,"doi":"http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.31532","subject":null,"tags":["selection","morals","ethics"],"vote_count":1,"view_count":1,"score":1.1,"deleted":false,"muted":false,"tweeted":true,"attachment_file_name":null,"attachment_content_type":null,"attachment_file_size":null,"attachment_updated_at":null}]