Human Behavioural science and orchidology
Part 1
Everyone knows that the moment that someone deal to new stimuli (example orchids recognition in new collectors), first we tend to generalize stimuli (all Cattleyas are alike for example), them we start to recognize minimal difference (discrimination).
Same thing also apply with collections, first we tend to buy everything, them we start to buy only what we can deal with, and for many, we start to be specialized converting orchidophile hobbyist in two main ''races'', the one with large everything-in-it collections (generalist), and the ones that can have every permutation even the tiniest but inside a very specialized theme or a ''small'' group of collection-themes (specialists).
Emilio Ribes, a Spanish Catalonian born but since some decades ago Mexican resident behavioral psychologist says that intelligence had to be defined in two main parts of a functional relationship.
1rst- How variable behaviour is
2nd - How effective (adaptative) behaviour is
in no particular order.
This could be seen individual (you or me) or statistical (a group of individuals), and can be summarize this way.
.............................effective ........ No effective
variable.................intelligence............creativity
not variable............ habits....................idiocy
Part 2
however, these are just labels, to be intelligent, first we have to be creative, for example, a new orchid collector had to ''kill'' many plants in many creative ways inspired or not in ''orchid 101 books'' in order to create a ''large'' behavioral repertoire, only wen a decent behavioral repertoire is inducted, learning can occur and depending the spam of different reinforced (efficient) repertoires someone can learn to have large effective repertories or small effective repertories depending on the reinforced behavioural history... them habit and intelligence even if by ''subsance'' can be separated that donīt apply in ''essence'', both are the two faces of the same coin, and both need the dice of creativity to occur. Only idiocy canīt generates adaptative behaviour.
Fell free to see this like the normal child ludic behaviour, only child's that play alone and in group can make adolescents and adults adapted to their environments, and only a adult that donīt abandon ''ludic behaviour'' as something that still reinforces ''inner-drives'' (in the broad sense of the word), can still add more material to intelligent behaviour. That explain things like why very experience growers, even if they successfully master a way of grow orchids in the many aspects involved, they still experiment in new growing media, ways of watering plants, different fertilizer formulas, etc, even if the risk sometimes means a lot of plant collateral damage... but the effort at long term is rewarded since those ''experiments'' and the motivation that drive to perform it means little but substantial improvements, putting layer over layer of proficiency.
Part 3
But their is a thing that bothers me a lot inside orchideology, the few fails in intelligent behaviour we have, for example, the ''universal'' grow media is a intelligent - pragmatic good thing to do (no need to explain why), but even knowing that in the best scenario almost all collectible orchids can be grow in one or two standardized ways, in reality not all orchids can fit standardized ways.
Vary from one standard-way to another standard-way and so on, for many people could means repeatably fails in ''dificult' genera like Disa, Mormodes, Catasetum, Cattleya dowiana, pencil pseudobulb cattleyas, Sophronitis, Dracula, etc ((((((difficulty can vary between people since weaknesses and strengths vary, so please forgive me is some examples aren't considered difficut by the reader)))))).
Also, failing repeatedly for many make the impression (or learning) of no correlation between contingent behavior and consequences (Seligman helplessness), in other words, make the false believe that the ''difficult'' genera or the species are simply impossible even if we have the ''right'' conditions for them like for example live in a not to hot place if the goal is grow lets say Draculas.
We easily forget how important is to know not only the habitat, but the niche of a particular orchid. For example here in Venezuela Catasetum is grow by just a little amount of enthusiast since the rest consider that this plants slowly die or if they live they never reach the splendor they have in nature, and the problem here is the growing medium, Catasetum in the wild even if they are epiphytes cant be treated as other epiphytes because the ecological niche of Catasetum is partially decaying wood and dead palm petioles, Not living some part of the living branches in some niche inside the canopy or diffrent strata... meaning, most popular growing medium and alternatives simply donīt serve... Them idiocy can also cohabit with intelligent behaviour. Every human being even an hypothetical 'Einstein reencarnation'' can't behave in a intelligent way always, meaning, we canīt assume that we are orchid-gurus even if people and experience told us that.
Part 4
Other questions rise with this line of thinking, for example, does orchid Vendors and Orchid Collectors had to tend to specialization or generalization?.....Does orchid breeders had to be open to strange mad new things like crossing a phalaenopsis philippensis to a complex white hybrid even knowing that F1 or F2 will be almost for sure full of bad results with fertility problems to resolve just for the pleasure of see new genes in that breeding line?.... etc.... In other words, how often ''no-pragmatic'' thinking could generates solutions that turns out to be pragmatic even if we know the risks involved. I think that is what in USA call ''think outside the box''
Well everyone fell free to add personal opinions....
Last edited by ockham; 04-23-2010 at 07:37 PM..
|
Linear Mode
