What becomes possible when we stop imagining that skills, knowledge, or expertise are portable objects.
1. The conventional expectation
Educational theory, cognitive science, and organisational training often assume that learning can be stored and moved from one context to another. Skills are acquired, knowledge is accumulated, and expertise is seen as a transferable asset.
From this assumption arises the familiar question: Does this training or experience transfer? Failure to transfer is treated as a shortcoming of the learner, the instruction, or both.
But what if this expectation itself is misframed?
2. Transfer as a representational hangover
The traditional view presumes that learning is a thing inside the mind: a representation, schema, or memory structure. If these internal structures are stable and general enough, they should apply across contexts. If not, learning appears partial or incomplete.
This model mirrors the same representational logic we saw in the intelligence series. Once learning is treated as relational rather than representational, the need for transfer dissolves.
3. Learning as re‑construal
On a relational ontology, learning is a pattern of re‑construal that emerges in activity:
Knowledge is stabilised in specific interactions, not abstracted as a standalone object.
Skills emerge as coordination patterns between the learner, tools, tasks, and environment.
Expertise is the capacity to re‑align these patterns under new constraints.
From this perspective, apparent “transfer” is not the movement of a discrete asset. It is the successful re‑actualisation of relational patterns in a new situation. Failure is simply the mismatch between the old patterns and the new construal ecology.
4. Examples in practice
Medical training: A surgeon trained in one hospital may excel in similar contexts but struggle in a different hospital layout or with a different team. The skill did not disappear; it must adapt to new relational configurations.
Software engineering: Knowing a programming language does not automatically mean one can navigate a new codebase. Expertise arises from understanding the patterns of interaction within that code, the team, and the problem domain.
Musical performance: Learning a piece of music in one ensemble does not guarantee successful performance in another. The coordination between instruments, acoustics, and group dynamics must be reconstructed.
In each case, the issue is not insufficient learning; it is the relational specificity of enactment.
5. Implications for teaching and training
Reframing learning relationally changes pedagogical priorities:
Focus on situational adaptability rather than content transfer.
Teach the principles of re‑construal instead of decontextualised facts.
Provide varied environments for practice to strengthen relational patterns.
Value diagnostic failures as information about context‑dependent alignment rather than deficiencies.
The goal shifts from creating universal competence to cultivating responsiveness and alignment across situations.
6. Expertise without portability
This perspective also reframes expertise. Experts are not repositories of generalisable knowledge. They are skilled in relational adaptation.
Their value lies not in what they possess internally, but in what they can stabilise, adjust, and co‑individuate within ongoing situations. Their apparent portability is an emergent effect of similar construal ecologies, not a property of the expert alone.
7. What becomes possible
Letting go of transfer opens several possibilities:
We can design learning environments that emphasise relational agility rather than static content.
We can evaluate competence by situational effectiveness rather than hypothetical generalisation.
We can stop treating brittleness as failure and start using it as a diagnostic tool.
We can collaborate with other experts, human or artificial, without expecting shared internal representations.
In short, learning is not a portable object to be transmitted. It is a relational achievement that becomes visible in action.
8. Looking forward
Understanding learning without transfer sets the stage for the next move: Responsibility Without Agency. Here, we will explore how ethical and practical accountability arises not from inner agents or controlling selves, but from relational patterns and stabilised interaction.
The series continues its quiet demonstration: that what seemed to require foundational primitives can, in fact, be accomplished through relational structure alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment