Talk:Cognitive psychology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Phenomenology
I disagree with this statement in the article "It accepts the use of the scientific method, and generally rejects introspection as a valid method of investigation, unlike phenomenological methods such as Freudian psychology"
In my experience modern cognitive psychology literature often refers to phenomenology when talkin about subjective experience. This is reflective of the increased philosophical sophistication of cognitive language.
I'm also not sure Freud's psychology should be called "phenomenological"; phenomenological approaches, at least in clinical psychology, are typically classified with humanistic and existential psychologies like those of Frankl, Maslow, and Rogers. Anyone else agree with me?(12.240.45.155 07:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC))cooooll
[edit] Linguistics
I don't believe that Linguistics is part of "Cognitive psychology", except tangentially. Does anyone know if it gets significant treatment from texts on "cognitive psychology"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) .
I've removed the below text, as I'm afraid it makes no sense to me. In terms of empirical approaches both cognitive psychology and behaviourism (which preceded cognitive psychology) share a common approach. It is the philosophical underpinnings which differ most between these two methods, not the empirical approach. - Vaughan 10:24, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- The key difference between cognitive psychology and prior versions of psychology was that the former assumed that internal mental process was investigatable by empirical methods, not just quasi-empirical methods. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) .
Linguistics (the psychology of language, psychololinguistics) indeed is a part of cognitive psychology discussed in most cognitive psychology texts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) .
[edit] Jean Piaget
Would Piaget qualify for the list of famous cognitive psychologists?
---
Though Piaget is mentioned in some books on cognitive science, he is really better off among developmental psychologists. But I have to agree there's a blurry line between the categories.
I added him to the list, chiefly since I don't see how that can hurt. This ain't paper. --Christofurio 19:15, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed Piaget is a cog psychologist, in much the same way his fellow Frenchman Descartes was a cog thinker. I.e., their approaches: isolate the "internal" processes independent of the "world" processes, and only then are we supposed to have something to go on. Another Frenchman, Albert Michotte, however, was not quite so smug. He showed perception of physical processes did not obey the "physical" laws (see Michotte's "tunnel effect"). Changing countries, Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotzky conducted hundreds of experiments on learning, which forced him to conclude that there are more contextual, as opposed to innate, factors involved in learning (he called this the "zone of proximal development"). This has also been termed the "education of the attention" by at least one psychologist (James Gibson, 1966). (Similar findings can be found under "developmental psychology" and "ecological psychology"; see e.g. "visual cliff" by E.J. Gibson for some of this.) In summary, as opposed to Piaget, some theorists have proposed that the learning/development of cognitive systems is not a priori or pre-determined, in large part it has to do with the environment one develops in as opposed to a priori mental structure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) .
Also, the difference between behavorism and cognitivism is one of degree, not quality. Both are dualistic, and both assume a nonmaterial transfer between mind and body. At base, the tie that binds them is operationism (or convergent operationism), a proclivity to define the immaterial by physical/bodily means. Behaviorism calls these "drives" and cognitivism calls these "memory". In any case, both derive from an epistemological dualism and both suffer from the same ontological problem; namely, what comes first, learning or memory. The opposing viewpoint in psychology is functionalism, whereby learning and memory are byproducts of everyday life. Modern derivations of this viewpoint include "situated cognition", "distributed cognition", "ecological psychology", and "context conditioned variability". There are probably others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) .
[edit] Disctinction between cognitive psychology and cognitive science
It would be silly for the article on Cognitive science to have redundant information with the article here. Can we come up with a working definition of the (subtle) differences between the two, and perhaps structure both articles accordingly?
As a start, I would suggest that cognitive science has a slightly greater emphasis on explaining cognitive phenomena in terms of their neural representation, whereas cognitive psychology would be just as happy with an explanation that didn't rely on the neural hardware. Of course, both would recognize the importance in describing things at that level.
Thoughts?
--dzou 17:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC) I really like the levels of analysis comment...One persons atomism is another's global constriant. I cant, however, get beyond the ubiquitous wanting for mapping behavioral to neurological processes. First, there is so much more involved in behavior beyond neurology...e.g., causes of behavior stemming from the "outside" world. (This has been studied extensively at least since the 1920's.) Second, there are no neurological correlates of thought and behavior in any real sense (unless you take the correlatinal studies on brain blood flow to be explanatory). The basic problem is that cognitivists from the 1950's and 60's assured us that this would be the case. Unfortunately, their mindset was wrought with culture and the seeking of advancement for a science of the mind. Not beholden to these views, perhaps the new generation can contribute an insight. We are all tha's left. Not to be a "psychology mongerer", but we should look to Vygotsky, Gibson, and even James, rather than Newell, Simon, and Anderson for the best way to proceed. Psychology got screwed up for many years by mislead individuals, that doesn't mean it's not amenable to natural science.70.190.87.31jagor
[edit] Plushware
Um, what the heck is meant by "plushware" (from the following sentence: "This is a way of thinking and reasoning about mental processes, envisaging them like plushware running on the computer that is the brain.")?? I am a cognitive psychologist in training, and not only have I never seen/heard this term, but it barely shows up at all in a Google, except for a software company of the same name, and this article. Anyone have any idea? Maybe something like "wetware" was meant instead? --UniAce 17:35, Nov 20, 2005 (PST)
'Plushware' in that sentence is used as part of a similie, it has no individual reference to psychology. No offence but i failed gcse english and still got that. Try again, fail again, fail better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.174.163 (talk • contribs) Jan 26, 2006.
Plushware is a one person software development shop. It absolutely has no reference to psychology and no place in the article. Hu 22:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] M. Posner link
The link to M. Posner results in the wrong person with same name. 84.94.108.112 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History to add?
Newell
Newell describes in "Complex Information Processing – The impact of Herbert A. Simon" (Edited by: David Klahr & Kenneth Kotovsky) the following:
Cognitive psychology has developed many methodologies for studying human behavior. It inherits the basic methodologies of controlled experimentation, statistical design and data analysis from its ancestral psychological tradition. But it has also been prolific in creating new methodologies and sharpening existing ones. The table presented below lists a number of examples.
1 - TA - Task analysis (including Al systems)
2 - RT - Mental chronometry
3 - Sim - Simulation
4 - PA - Protocol analysis
5 - Arch - Architecture
6 - SS - Special subjects: neurological deficits, experts
7 - CA - Comparative analysis: Novice / Expert, Child / Adult
8 - EM - Eye movements
9 - QEA - Qualitative error analysis
10 - ET - Experimental training
The first four – task analysis, mental chronometry, simulation, and protocol analysis – are solidly in place. They all go back to the first decade of the cognitive revolution. The last sic methodologies are also familiar, but their use is much more specialized and scattered. Indeed, the fifth one – theorizing within a theoretically specified architecture – has hardly begun.
George A. Miller states:
Cognitive psychology broke free from behavioral psychology in the 1950s largely due to the growing recognition that mental phenomena can be analyzed using concepts that were developed to analyze electronic communication and control systems.
--[[]] 19:02, 27 July 2006
[edit] Miller
I find it interesting that George A. Miller is only listed in this article in the footnotes. If it weren't for his article "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two" which was written in the 1950's, the study may never have evolved as quickly.
[edit] Propose merge from Cognitive approach in psychology
May I propose that Cognitive approach in psychology be merged with this article? It's been tagged for cleanup since Sep. 2005, and it looks like a two-birds-with-one-stone job. Thanks, Clicketyclack 20:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Useful material from the Approach article can easily be dropped into this page. We should also redirect the approach entry here. JXM 17:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Urge merge. -kslays 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No introspection at all as acceptable methodology?
I thought that introspection is acceptable as a methodology with some caution and as long as it does not involve emotions. For example, cognitive psychologists may ask people during an experiment reg. counting or simple mathematics how they calculate. These people answer the cogn. psychologists based on introspection. They use it in a completely different and more limited way than Freudians, but I may misremember all this. Andries (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Encarta mentions self-reporting as an acceptable methodology. What is the difference between self-reporting and introspection? http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761595627_2/Cognitive_Psychology.html
