Learning Lessons For Everyday Life

Robert Fettgather has served as Special Consultant in psychometrics to the Departments of Education and Developmental Disabilities for the State of California. Moreover, Robert Fettgather holds a specialist credential in learning handicapped and community college credentials in both learning and developmental disabilities. Learning and cognition are among Robert Fettgather's key interests.

Learning is any relatively permanent change in behavior brought about by experience or practice.  For example, think about children. Do they seem to learn more efficiently through verbal instruction or experience?  According to Jennifer Zosh "toddlers learn new words more effectively by using their knowledge about the world to infer the label of an object, rather than by simply being instructed and told which word goes with which object" (emphasis added).  In this comparison, "using" is experiential and means "involvement". Besides toddlers, for many of us, being told or being instructed may be less effective for learning than immersion and total involvement.

Consider ths well known quotation:‘Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.’ Interestingly, there hve been various attributuons for this saying including Benjamin Franklin and the ancient Confucian philosopher Xunzi. Regardless of its origin, there is significance to the act of doing as it applies to learning processes. 

Learning theory has its roots in the work of Thorndike, Pavlov, Skinner, and many others. Let's think about an applied example of behaviorism-- and that is just how terrible many of us are at applying these principles in our own lives! For example, sometimes I fail to voice appreciation for the behaviors I like from loved ones, friends, and colleagues-that amounts to an extinction intervention. In other words, I am making those wonderful actions less likely to occur in the future. 

And in frustration, I have been known to give a lot of attention to behavior I don't like from these very same folks. That can take the form of exasperation, complaining or a frown. With a child, it can be a scolding that provides attention and thus reinforces an undesired behavior. And of course, sometimes we resort to scolding friends and lovers too!

Read to That Child!

 

Robert Fettgather is a co-founder of Tashi Lhunpo Buddhist Sangha in Palo Alto, California. While a student of Buddhism and a teacher of psychology, he also engages in activism and advocacy in an effort to serve his community. Robert Fettgather is an avid reader.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen time for children under two. The Academy further recommends that--

“Reading regularly with young children stimulates optimal patterns of brain development and strengthens parent-child relationships at a critical time in child development, which, in turn, builds language, literacy, and social-emotional skills that last a lifetime...”

Reflection Point: What would you say to a person who claimed that reading to an infant or a toddler is a waste of time because of their limited language skills?  If a toddler doesn’t want to be read to, do you think his parents or teachers should try to get him interested in books? If so, how do you think they should go about it?

Some classics are very readable after all. “You can find magic wherever you look. Sit back and relax, all you need is a book!” – Dr. Seuss

Think about this: some studies have noted that young children whose parents read to them daily have been exposed to at least 290,000 more words (wow) by the time they enter kindergarten than kids who aren’t read to regularly. Expanding language and vocabulary, not to mention social connections between parent and child, are very worthwhile, indeed.

 

Stressed Out

Robert Fettgather has taught at San Jose State University, National University and Mission College in Santa Clara.  In addition, Robert Fettgather has addressed StateLinks to an external site. and National Conferences on a variety of topics.

Most of us feel "stressed out" at times. Stress is a major contributor to health problems, but there are positive aspects of stress in some forms. For example eustress is a kind of optimal level of stress that is beneficial and may enhancer performance. On the other hand, psychological as well as social factors may contribute directly to disease and illness through the effects of stress on the immune system and the body in general.

Think about a compromised immune system. It may no longer be able to attack and eliminate antigens, or it may even begin to attack the body’s normal tissue instead. That is a phenomenon identified as autoimmune disease. Growing understanding of the nexus between the nervous system and the immune system has resulted in the new field of psychoneuroimmunology, the study of the interaction between psychological processes and the nervous and immune systems of the human body. The effects of stress can be related to diseases like AIDS, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

REFLECTION  POINT:

Do you notice a relationship between stress in your life and the functioning of your immune system? Do you think this may be why you and your classmates have a higher tendency to get ill during stressful times of the semester, such as midterms and final exams? How do you think you could counter those effects?

INTERVENTIONS:

Many psychosocial treatments have been developed with the goals for either the prevention or treatment of disorders that are physical in nature. Among these are biofeedback, hypnosis, the relaxation response (Benson) and mindfulness meditation. David Barlow reviews the technique, Progressive relaxation, where muscle groups are systematically tensed and relaxed. Breathing techniques are also helpful in combating stress. This technique promotes relaxation and stress release.

A Bottom Line: Poor lifestyle habits can foster poor health outcomes and be antecedents to most of the disorders of eating and sleeping.  We all ought to pay attention to our lifestyle habits in order to lead happier and healthier lives.

The Institution

Robert Fettgather is an associate faculty member at Mission College in Santa Clara, California, where he has taught courses in developmental psychology, general psychology, abnormal psychology, psychiatric interviewing, and developmental disabilities. Robert Fettgather has published numerous articles in the fields of education and psychology. 

To paraphrase psychologist Burton Blatt, "Once the good man has seen the institution, he can never pity himself"

The history of mental institutions in the United States traces back to the early 19th century, when reformers sought to replace the neglect and abuse of people with mental illness in prisons and almshouses with more humane care in specialized facilities. These early asylums were often inspired by the moral treatment movement, which emphasized structured routines, compassionate supervision, and therapeutic environments designed to restore reason. It sounded hopeful on paper, but there were consequences-the unintended kind. As the century progressed and patient populations grew far beyond capacity, many institutions became overcrowded and underfunded, leading to deteriorating conditions that contradicted their founding ideals. Things got messy fast.

By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, state-run psychiatric hospitals had become the dominant model of care, housing tens of thousands of patients across the country. These institutions were often located in rural areas, intended to provide calm settings away from urban stressors, but isolation also made oversight difficult and abuse easier to conceal. Not exactly a great combination; concealment of these horrors is a great American tragedy. Treatments during this era ranged from basic custodial care to more invasive and controversial procedures, including electroconvulsive therapy and psychosurgery, reflecting both evolving medical theories and a lack of effective alternatives. Some methods helped, others definitely harmed.

The mid-20th century marked a turning point with the deinstitutionalization movement, driven by a combination of factors including new psychiatric medications, growing awareness of institutional abuses, and changing public policy. The introduction of antipsychotic drugs in the 1950s created optimism that many patients could live outside hospital settings, leading to a significant reduction in inpatient populations. The idea was simple: move people back into communities. Federal initiatives also promoted community mental health centers as a more humane and cost-effective alternative to large institutions. In practice, the money did not follow the person. States pocketed money that rightfully should have gone to community care.

In recent decades, the legacy of mental institutions continues to shape mental health care in the United States, as policymakers and practitioners grapple with balancing institutional care and community-based services. While large asylums have mostly closed, challenges such as homelessness, incarceration of individuals with mental illness, and gaps in access to care highlight ongoing systemic issues. It’s still a work in progress. The history serves as a reminder that good intentions alone are not enough without sustained resources, oversight, and a commitment to dignity in treatment. And that lesson keeps coming back.