Contents - Konrad Lorenz Institute

Theresa S. S. Schilhab
What supports this contention First, explicit
learning involves a significant reduction of parameters
in mental representation, which I refer to as
“condensation of reality”. But research paradigms
demonstrating implicit learning are typically complex
in the sense of concealing a huge number of parameters
essential to solving the task in a large web
of information, which makes explicit strategies impossible
to employ. For instance VINTER/PERRUCHET
(2000) reported on implicit drawing behaviour in
children aged 4–10 years. To confront criticism related
to explicit knowledge criteria, the researchers
developed a paradigm named a “neutral parameter
procedure” and deliberately diverted participant’s
attention to test clues to avoid the use of explicit
knowledge obtained during the test procedure. Experimenters
specifically attempted to blur conscious
awareness of connections between any two variables.
Still, by responding appropriately, the subjects
seemed capable of catching contingencies between
many variables, while being perfectly
unaware of doing so.
The same applies to the artificial grammar test.
When subjects were asked to explain how they discriminated
between grammatical and nongrammatical
sentences, they either denied consciously following
any rule or they gave reasons irrelevant to
solving the task.
Similar results are obtained with computer simulations
of sugar fabrication (BERRY/DIENES 1993).
Here people were asked to attain a specific amount
of sugar (in tons) by varying different parameters
interconnected by a pattern created by the experimenters,
but opaque to the subjects. After a number
of trials they succeeded. When subjects were
subsequently asked to verbalise which rules they
applied to obtain the outcome and these rules were
followed by novices the end result was strikingly
poor. Obviously, the articulated rules do not mirror
the rules actually applied. Somehow knowledge residual
to the volunteered information remains to
be revealed. In support of this are studies within
the sugar production paradigm that focus on how
to make explicit what could originally be learned
only implicitly. By pinpointing the connections
between dependent variables or reducing the number
of parameters responsible for a successful outcome,
subjects suddenly gained insight they could
subsequently verbalise. Evidently, to switch from
implicit to explicit modes of learning involves
both accentuating elements that determine the
task and reduction of the number of elements
(DIENES 1993).
Implicit Learning and the
Evolutionary Stance
The premise that implicit learning is more congruent
with reality than explicit learning as regards representation
can be explained theoretically. From an
evolutionary perspective, for social organism like humans
the physical as well at the social environment
is enmeshed in information of potential importance
to survival (BYRNE 1995). The mere fact of balancing
the surface can be realised only by taking in a large
amount of information (COTTERILL 2002). Likewise,
navigation in the social world, originally adapted to
interpret tribal relations and coalitions in prehistoric
society (WRANGHAM et al. 1994), now entails coping
with a multitude of modern social conventions and
regulations (COLLINS 2001) such as, for example, table
manners and traffic rules. Information important
to survival does not come about in isolated incidents,
but relates to cues in the environment.
Environmental complexity clearly explains why
implicit learning is less detached from context
with respect to condensating reality. But the question
remains, does this hold for (a) detachments
caused by simplification and (b) does not any interpretation
involve detachments irrespective of
whether it results in simplifcations or distortions
of the original source of information Of course
the answer is affirmative. Over time, natural selection
favoured perception and learning of certain
stimuli and environmental contingencies, which
naturally entails perspective-taking followed by
simplification or distortion of information.
Though the difference in contextual detachment
between implicit and explicit learning is a matter
of degree, the consequences are significant. Explicit
learning, however, emerged as an expansion
to an already well functioning system (see also EN-
NEN 2002). The contribution of the new system was
primarily to control learning capabilities, including
the deliberate selection of information to be
learned and the intentional application of the
knowledge obtained (GIBSON/INGOLD 1993).
Though the explicit learning system evolved to
profit from intentionel manipulation of information,
it emerged to increase survival.
To understand in what respect implicit learning
is closer to context we must return to evolutionary
considerations. Implicit learning registers a greater
number of variables, as well as their intricate pattern,
‘invisible’ to the explicit capacity, because it
seems appropriate to survival. But why This appears
due to that implicit learning was developed
Evolution and Cognition ❘ 174 ❘ 2003, Vol. 9, No. 2