'Connected Knowledge' - 4MAT

'Very different is the 4MAT system, which classifies students along two axes according to their answers to a multiple-choice questionaire. One axis measures the student's preference for acquiring knowledge concretely versus abstractly, and the other measures his preference for applying knowledge concretely versus abstractly (McCarthy, 1980). His scores on these axes places the student into one of the four quadrants: 

1. Innovative Learners (acquire concretely, apply abstractly); 
2. Analvtic Learners (acquire abstractly, apply abstractly; 
3. Common Sense Learners (acquire abstractly, apply concretely);
4. Dynamic Learners (acquire concretely, apply concretely). 

Each of these quadrants is divided again, according to whether the student prefers processing information analytically (left-brain mode) or holistically (right-brain mode). The 4MAT System trains teachers to write lesson plans that cycle through all eight learning styles and brain modes.

Such more-or-less arbitrary classification schemes abound in the social sciences. They are easy to dream up, and virtually impossible to validate (Wilkerson and White, 1988). This doesn't mean that they're totally useless. ...' pp.63-64. 
(Edited 1-4 for readability.)

Individual

|

      INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC  --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

 SOCIOLOGY  :    POLITICAL 

|

Group

Abstract   Personhood	Concrete Objecthood

The notion of 'learning styles' is sticky: especially when you look back several decades to the literature?

Cromer, A. (1997) Connected Knowledge: Science, Philosophy, and Education, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McCarthy, B. (2000). About Teaching: 4MAT® in the Classroom. Wauconda, IL: About Learning, Inc.

McCarthy, B. (1980). The 4MAT® System: Teaching to Learning Styles with Right/Left Mode Techniques. Barrington, IL: EXCEL, Inc.

Wilkerson, R. and White, K. (1988). Effects of the 4MAT system of instruction on students' achievement, retention, and attitudes. Elementary School Journal 88, pp.257 - 368.

Will it? Won't it? Artificial general intelligence - AGI

In the media - notably the financial press (radio, TV, Times, FT here) there have been recent questions raised about whether the generative AI bubble is about to burst. The latest releases of GAI are not the step-change that might have been expected. Artificial General Intelligence may not be quite in-sight. As a result I've been reminded of Prof. Peter Gärdenfors work on 'Conceptual Spaces':

'Within cognitive science, two approaches currently dominate the problem of modeling representations. 

1. The symbolic approach views cognition as computation involving symbolic manipulation. 

2. Connectionism, a special case of associationism, models associations using artificial neuron networks. 

Peter Gärdenfors offers his theory of conceptual representations as a bridge between the symbolic and connectionist approaches.' MIT Press.

Hodges'model facilitates a hybrid response to situations, as needed.

A further prompt is the programme for November's AI Health 2025:

https://www.bcs-sgai.org/health2025/?u=programme

Peter Gärdenfors. (2000) Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. MIT Press.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2076.001.0001

https://direct.mit.edu/books/monograph/2532/Conceptual-SpacesThe-Geometry-of-Thought