h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What's interesting is how much kids do know...at only one month they could visually identify the rubber nipple they felt in their mouth (Meltzoff & Borton 1979), which I think is pretty amazing.

Hey Fenchurch!

Did I mention that in another life, I actually obtained a masters degree in Psychology? I don't know why your interests are so coincidental with my expertise at the moment, but it's a great way to fill in work downtime.

Remember that cognitive psychology is not just developmental - although the developmental aspects have been invesitigated a lot more than some others, simply because finding out how things START to work is the best way of explaining why they do, and how they do. I must admit that, in my studies, I found the cognitive-behavioural perspective one of the most sensible in the psychological pastiche: a behaviourally driven animal with an additional ability to rationalise about it - that must be me!

Cognitivism has to some extent fallen into the trap of becoming a very post hoc explanation for most aspects of behaviour: as any empirical scientist will tell you, the real trick with science is to predict what your observations will tell you. Only if the observations match exactly what you predicted can you say that you have described the process you're investigating correctly. Cognitive psychology has not yet attempted to do this, and has instead built an industry on post-hoc rationalisations for things which have already happened. The only one of the psychological paradigms which has made a concerted attempt to predict and control behaviour is behaviourism, and it's lack of success in doing so explains the proliferation of alternative - but not necessarily conflicting - paradigms like cognitivism.

Cognitive psychology attempts to explain everything about the way we behave in general ways, and in the process becomes so vague as to be infuriating.

Hey Fenchurch!

Did I mention that in another life, I actually obtained a masters degree in Psychology? I don't know why your interests are so coincidental with my expertise at the moment, but it's a great way to fill in work downtime.

Remember that cognitive psychology is not just developmental - although the developmental aspects have been invesitigated a lot more than some others, simply because finding out how things START to work is the best way of explaining why they do, and how they do. I must admit that, in my studies, I found the cognitive-behavioural perspective one of the most sensible in the psychological pastiche: a behaviourally driven animal with an additional ability to rationalise about it - that must be me!

Cognitivism has to some extent fallen into the trap of becoming a very post hoc explanation for most aspects of behaviour: as any empirical scientist will tell you, the real trick with science is to predict what your observations will tell you. Only if the observations match exactly what you predicted can you say that you have described the process you're investigating correctly. Cognitive psychology has not yet attempted to do this, and has instead built an industry on post-hoc rationalisations for things which have already happened. The only one of the psychological paradigms which has made a concerted attempt to predict and control behaviour is behaviourism, and its lack of success in doing so explains the proliferation of alternative - but not necessarily conflicting - paradigms like cognitivism.

Cognitive psychology attempts to explain everything about the way we behave in general ways, and in the process becomes so vague as to be infuriating.

Sorry!

I've decided to add a section to my articles entitled "Hypoman Adds:" Really though, if anyone is able to add anything to my occasional "article amongst the chat" I welcome it. I think it's a much better idea then having two or three separate articles, written by people who don't even know the other exists, or even worse an article that hasn't got very much information... if I'm lacking or am wrong about anything- especially if I'm wrong about anything - please do tell, I've got a thick skull, people can bop me on the head for not exactly reading that chapter and it won't hurt

As for prediction, I think the behaviourists are the only one that have been able to accurately predict behaviour on a somewhat normal basis, but human nature will always shoot down anything that says full control is possible. I can't believe Skinner or anyone else actually believed that they... weren't human, "human" in terms of special, can think, can choose what is wanted.

I dabbled psych lightly last year - very lightly - I dabble in everything very lightly. I never really did fully grasp the cognitive perspective, though, because it was so general... it seems as if the theories that make no sense and can't be proven are the easiest to grasp, but I guess that's normal. I also had a problem with the trait perspective, for some reason. But even if I could, I don't think I'd really get into the depths of the theories, just because the whole subject is really extensive and who, honestly, is going to read all that unless they're studying it, in which case they'd have proper textbooks anyway.

But I'm rambling.

I think you got the right impression from what I was trying to say: the generality (and concurrent potential for misapplication) of cognitivism applies to almost every psychological theory. Cognitivism is the most attractive merely because it doesn't try too hard to explain everything in terms which nobody can actually understand.

As for dabbling - as far as psychology goes that's probably the best way to do it. Don't take anything too seriously unless you think it's really likely to help. Jack of all trades, master of none, and obsessed or fixated by nothing either!

Generalities are so much fun!

you say that behaviorism's "lack of success in doing so explains the proliferation of alternative - but not necessarily conflicting - paradigms like cognitivism."

yes, behaviorism _has_ been lacking success - but not in predicting and controlling behavior, which it does quite well. behaviorists have created the only viable methods for extending the behavioral reportioire of autists & mentally retarted; effective therapies against depression; & behavioral safety methods that actually reliably and effectively reduce workplace accidents.

in spite of these successes, behaviorism has failed in becoming popular. _this_ is the interesting fact that needs to be explained.

"In this sense, they see the mind as a computer, hardware and software interacting to form the personality."

One of the reasons we have a branch called cognitive psychology was because of the emerging interest in AI.

AI bods: "Lets make a machine that can solve problems like we do! Er.... how do humans do it? Let's ask the psychologists."

Psychologists: "Er.... We only look at the stimulus and response. If you can't see it, then it can be studied. Oh, alright then, we'll have a go at it."

Hence the vast amount of theoretical work.

well - I suppose that psychologists with such an incorrect grasp of behaviorism would fall for cognitive psychology.

cognitive psychology does not study anything that is not also studied by behaviorists. since 1950, radical behaviorists have included thoughts, feelings and subjective states as viable subject matters (as opposed to methodological behaviorists).

I was being simplistic, after being accused of being too technical elsewhere!
I always point out that all social psychology is actually cognitive.

I don't think all social psychologists would agree that all social psychology is also cognitive.