Yesterday, I had the privilege of seeing a personal letter written by Helen Keller to a friend of hers, and even though there was nothing particularly noteworthy in the letter, I was flabbergasted by her beautiful handwriting. Which got me thinking - what were the names of Pavlov's dogs?
Allow me to explain.
Helen Keller was blind, deaf, and mute, yet somehow she managed to graduate from college, she wrote several books, and she founded the American Foundation for the Blind. In addition, she was known as an activist and a lecturer (don't ask me) for causes including Socialism and women's rights. Today, everyone knows her name, and she is hailed by many as a genius.
I don't buy any of it. Now, if everyone knew the name of her tutor/therapist/trainer and general puppetmaster extraordinaire (Ann Sullivan), and this woman was hailed as a genius, I wouldn't have a problem. But absolutely nothing can convince me that someone who can't see, hear, or speak really understood the meaning and feeling behind her letters, books, and speeches (again, I have no idea), let alone was solely responsible for setting up an international foundation! Do I believe she did it? Sure. But do I also believe that had Ann Sullivan wanted her to become a whistling Muslim poet, could she have done it? You'd better believe it.
Which brings me to Pavlov's dogs. So he managed to train a couple of dogs to drool when they hear a bell ring -- so what? Why do we hail him as some psychologist wizard, when in reality, it was Zolotisty and Boy (the real talent) who managed to master their saliva glands to drool on command? What, is that a bell I hear? Slurrrrp.
All I'm asking for is consistency. If we're going to praise the trainer in one situation, than lets do it across the board. Why do we think it's fair to pick and choose the accomplishments we recognize? And more importantly, did Ann Sullivan ever get Helen Keller to drool on command?
