Reflections on the Calming Effect
Bring in the Bots
I’ve mentioned in earlier posts that Jeff Brodd, a professor in Humanities and Religious Studies at Sacramento State, is exploring ways in which conversational AI might enrich his seminar in ancient global literature. Inviting digital machinery into the ancient and medieval world to join in discussions with relative newcomers to the academy at this unstable AI moment isn’t easy.
He and I are talking about specific plans for revising his syllabus and had our first formal discussion a few days ago. We’ve worked closely together before as academics on projects. Jeff participated in a faculty inquiry group (FIG) called GEREADS which I facilitated focused on teaching reading in General Eduction, and we served together on faculty senate committees which Jeff chaired.
We have not collaborated in such an academically intimate and vulnerable space before—inside his course syllabus. But we have recorded original songs together—Jeffrey is a talented singer—and posted them to SoundCloud. We also played in a rock band and even performed for an Honors program reception on campus. He is easy to work with.
I needed to understand Jeffrey’s feelings about AI as an outcome of our recent discussion. He’s not just a student of rock and roll, but a committed scholar in Humanities and Religious Studies, a philosopher devoted to his field, a teacher with a profound sense of responsibility for his students’ learning.
Still waters run deep. We didn’t talk about existentialism per se, but we did broach the theme of the human condition. I see the human condition as the factor that makes AI a combination of a threat and a promise. The drive to think our way out of absurdity, to transform our place on this meaningless spinning ball into a worthwhile existence, to persevere intellectually and spiritually as disciplined human beings—what happens to us if teachers cede the function of the human brain to a machine?
*
Jeff cited Kierkegaard at one point, The Sickness Unto Death. I bring it up as an example of his expertise in designing and teaching this seminar, an expertise grounded in his longstanding passion and a decade of experience teaching students with increasingly thin backgrounds to read an assortment of pre-fifteenth century literature.
At one point we looked at a list of fourteen themes on his syllabus painstakingly crafted to help students organize what they learn about the world before the Renaissance. One syllabus theme put together three elements: the human condition, the self, and the purpose of life. We were discussing “the self” as a potential standalone theme to serve as a branch in an intertextual organizer when Jeff raised the question of validity of the bot’s output. I wasn’t surprised. The issue of validity is paramount, especially in the world of ancient literature. Why scaffold invalid information?
‘What would the bot know about the self?’ Jeff mused (I’m paraphrasing). Views on the self are widely varied depending on disciplinary discourses, he said. Jeff pointed out, for example, that Freud’s conception of the id, the ego, and the superego and Kierkegaard’s conception, are almost opposite in character. While Freud analyzed the self from an empirical perspective, he said, and construed it as a detached psychological observer, Kierkegaard reflected on the self as a religious philosopher trying to resolve the fear and trembling from living betwixt and between. Are these thinkers talking about the same self? This is the sort of issue the bot might respond to with questionable trustworthiness. Witness Kierkegaard:
“The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self.” (Kierkegaard, 1849, The Sickness Unto Death)
The issue of validity—what do we mean by “the self” as a Gestalt, a single concept, stretching across a corpus of ancient and medieval texts consisting of literary, religious, and philosophical works? Is it unreasonable to discuss the “self” apart from disciplinary perspectives? Can a theme like “the human condition, the self, and the purpose of living” break apart in a helpful instructional way? When the bot is prompted with a question about the self, does it respond with a holistic understanding?
The bot predicts one word at a time. Without human prompting it may never link Freud and Kierkegaard. With prompting, it gets there through classification and clustering, simulated cognition underlying meaning but hardly meaning making itself. Keep in mind that the bot’s strengths as a natural language processor are regressing, classifying, and clustering. I had a work session with the bot on the question of the self which I’ll paste in below.
Bots tend to be convergent thinkers.
*
Jeff told me that he was preparing to go on sabbatical last Fall (2022) when the faculty learned of ChatGPT. It was November, 2022, at an Honors program faculty group meeting when a colleague told everyone there about this new technology. Everyone oohed and ahhed, he said, and that was the end of it.
Jeff had not taken ChatGPT for a test drive at the time of this discussion, though he had been reading about it, wondering about it, keeping it in a prominent space on his to do list. Being on sabbatical, he had been busy writing and publishing, pushing the envelope on the role of dreams in Dante. Sometime in June, 2023, we talked at some length about dreams. I had recently done a deep dive into the bot and learned some useful concepts relevant to a novel I’m working on.
Upon reflection, Jeff realized his Fall semester seminar had been infiltrated by the bot. Quote: “By the end of the Fall semester,” he said, “I had not thought about taking any measures to try to police it. I think a couple students may have used it on the final essay. And that was disappointing because they had a much easier time writing their essays. So it’s a matter of fairness. It’s a matter of them not learning what I wanted them to.”
*
During Spring, 2023, while on sabbatical Jeff attended department meetings and participated in faculty discussions about AI. One faculty member in particular had expertise in technology, and Jeff reported that information from this colleague had a “calming effect.” He noted that he has “come around” to realizing that natural language models are here to stay and wants to learn more about integrating them and perhaps learn some things good or bad to share with other faculty.
I recalled Jeff’s thoughtful approach to “reading in GE,” a faculty inquiry group grounded in the then-new VALUE Rubric for Reading published by AAC&U. David Pearson and I had participated on a team in writing this rubric led by Susan Albertine, who was heavily involved in the VALUE Project. I was primed to learn about how professors would take up the rubric. Jeff was a full participant. Reflecting on the faculty inquiry group as a professional development opportunity, I realize how helpful an AI FIG would be in this moment.
*
It strikes me that any professional development strategy specifically around pedagogy and AI would do well to build in space for a “calming effect.” Jeff confirmed that our discussion was having a calming effect on him. I took these words as my cue to proceed with my original plan, i.e., to discuss with Jeff a few concepts I’ve learned from reading reputable studies of natural language models in education as teaching tools.
Caveat emptor—I’m not an expert. My interest is in discerning affordances and constraints of this innovation as a tool for reading and writing. As Jeff talked about the “calming effect,” I realized what my deeper intention is: I want to calm myself down. When I first started using the bot, I remember my heart rate increasing, omg, I understood the ooh’s and ahh’s Jeff mentioned, I saw the bot as a chain saw cutting through writing instruction. It was frightening.
Here is an excerpt in which I consciously try to have a calming effect:
*****
We got a start on looking at the seminar syllabus, a document Jeff has refined over many semesters, always looking for ways to maximize impact on learning—his motive for doing the GEREADS faculty inquiry group. In the following audio segment, we talk a bit about the themes the course will cover printed in the syllabus, including the business about the self.
Before the discussion, I had tasked the bot with analyzing Jeff’s fourteen themes and reducing the number. To begin the discussion, Jeff explained that his thematic statements had been written for an audience of sophomores in college. He emphasized that there were actually more than 14 themes. One theme as stated on the syllabus could be disassembled to count as several separate themes. For example, a theme like “the human condition, the self, and the purpose of life” could be viewed as three separate themes. As this audio excerpt begins Jeff is finishing a count of the number of distinguishable and separable themes in the list printed in the syllabus:
Jeff’s observation that the bot “took the easy way out” by dodging and conflating is astute. I think you can count on the bot to take the easy way out when it has a chance, an important aspect of using it as an epistemic tool. Here is an early iteration of the bot’s output when it was prompted to reduce the number of themes listed on the syllabus (the following list was generated by Open AI ChatGPT4, July, 2023):
[Refer to the list as it was read aloud in the audio excerpt]
*****
Our next step will be to map out specific assignments wherein students use the technology to evoke small group discussions and provoke collective human sense making about how these themes portrayed in this collection of readings from ancient religious and secular literature remain profoundly relevant in the 21st century and why understanding them can enrich our grasp of the world we find ourselves in today. To that end we’ll need to articulate policies and guidelines for using the bot during individual reading and writing assignments that are manageable and useful without changing the essence of the seminar.
*****
Below is my work session with the bot focused on the self.
- robot: Hello, How can I assist you?
- user: How do you define the notion of the human self?
- robot: The notion of the human self refers to the concept of personal identity and individuality. It encompasses the various aspects that make up a person's unique character, including their thoughts, emotions, beliefs, values, experiences, and behaviors. The human self is often seen as the core essence of who a person is, separate from the physical body. It is shaped by a combination of genetic factors, upbringing, culture, society, and personal choices. The understanding and definition of the human self have been explored by various disciplines, including psychology, philosophy, and sociology.
- user: What are some important distinctions between the views of psychologists, philosophers, and sociologists?
- robot: Psychologists, philosophers, and sociologists approach the study of the human self from different perspectives and disciplines. Here are some important distinctions:
Psychologists: Psychologists study the self from a scientific and empirical perspective, focusing on understanding human behavior, cognition, and mental processes. They conduct research using various methods such as experiments, surveys, and observations to investigate aspects like personality, identity formation, and self-perception. Psychologists often explore the influences of genetics, biology, and social interactions on the development of the self.
Philosophers: Philosophers approach the self from a more conceptual and theoretical standpoint. They delve into questions about the nature of consciousness, personal identity, and the mind-body problem. Philosophers explore philosophical theories such as dualism, materialism, and the concept of the soul. They also speculate on ethical and moral perspectives related to the self and free will.
Sociologists: Sociologists study the self within the context of society and social interactions. They examine how society and culture shape the formation of personal identity and self-concept. Sociologists explore concepts like socialization, social roles, and social norms that influence who we are and how we perceive ourselves. They also consider issues like social stratification, group identity, and the impact of social institutions on the self.
While there can be overlap and interdisciplinary discussions, these distinctions help highlight the different approaches and perspectives that psychologists, philosophers, and sociologists bring to the study of the human self.
- user: Explain the overlap.
- robot: Certainly! While psychologists, philosophers, and sociologists approach the study of the human self from different perspectives, there are areas of overlap and interaction between their disciplines. Here are some examples of overlap:
1. Psychology and Philosophy: Both psychology and philosophy explore questions about the nature of the self and personal identity. Philosophers often engage in conceptual analysis and thought experiments to investigate these questions, while psychologists employ empirical research methods to study the self's cognitive, emotional, and behavioral aspects.
2. Psychology and Sociology: Psychology and sociology intersect when examining the social aspects of the self. Both disciplines recognize the influence of social factors, such as culture, society, and social interactions, on shaping the self-concept, identity formation, and behavior.
3. Philosophy and Sociology: Philosophy and sociology intersect when examining the broader societal and cultural dimensions of the self. Philosophers often delve into questions of social identity, the nature of selfhood, and the relationship between the individual and society, while sociologists explore how social structures, institutions, and norms shape individual identities and behavior.
In summary, while psychologists, philosophers, and sociologists have distinct approaches to studying the human self, areas of overlap emerge when examining the cognitive, emotional, social, and cultural dimensions of personal identity and the self-concept.
- user: Can you clarify those areas of overlap?
- robot: Certainly! Here are some clarification and examples of the areas of overlap between psychology, philosophy, and sociology in the study of the human self:
1. Consciousness and self-awareness: Psychologists study the cognitive processes and mechanisms underlying consciousness and self-awareness. Philosophers, on the other hand, delve into the philosophical questions of what it means to be conscious and self-aware. Sociologists may examine the social construction of consciousness and how it is shaped by societal norms and interactions.
2. Identity formation: Psychologists investigate the psychological processes involved in the formation of personal identities. Philosophers may explore the philosophical concepts of personal identity and its continuity over time. Sociologists may examine how societal factors such as culture, socialization, and social roles influence identity formation.
3. Morality and ethics: Psychologists study moral development, moral reasoning, and ethical decision-making processes. Philosophers engage in moral philosophy and ethics, exploring theories and principles regarding moral judgments and ethical behavior. Sociologists may investigate how societal norms and values influence moral beliefs and practices.
4. Self-perception and self-concept: Psychologists investigate how individuals perceive themselves and develop their self-concept. Philosophers delve into questions of self-identity, selfhood, and the nature of the self. Sociologists may explore how social roles, relationships, and interactions contribute to the formation of self-perception and self-concept.
5. Social influence and conformity: Psychologists study social influence, conformity, and the effects of social pressure on individual behavior. Philosophers may examine questions related to individual autonomy, free will, and the role of society in shaping behavior. Sociologists investigate how social norms, institutions, and group dynamics influence individual behavior and conformity.
While each discipline offers distinct perspectives and methodologies, there is ongoing dialogue and exchange of ideas between psychologists, philosophers, and sociologists, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the human self and its complexities.
- user: Nicely done. How do these modern perspectives on the self align with the notion of the self that emerges from literature written before the fifteenth century?
- robot: Modern perspectives on the self exhibit some notable differences from the notion of self that emerged from literature written before the fifteenth century. In pre-15th century literature, the self was often depicted as more interconnected with the social and cosmic order, rather than as an autonomous individual. Religion and societal roles played a significant role in shaping one's understanding of the self in these earlier periods.
In contrast, modern perspectives on the self tend to place greater emphasis on individualism, autonomy, and self-expression. Influenced by developments in science, philosophy, and liberal thought, contemporary understandings of the self focus on personal identity, self-development, and self-fulfillment. These viewpoints also acknowledge the influence of societal and cultural factors on individual identities, but they typically highlight individual agency and personal choice.
However, it is important to note that literature from before the fifteenth century encompassed a wide range of perspectives and beliefs. Different literary works presented various understandings of the self, and there is no single unified concept that universally emerged from that period. It is within this rich diversity of pre-15th century literature that one can find both shared and contrasting notions of the self.