Yeah.  I know it's dark in there, but feel around.  You will find them.  You
will know you have a hold of one, when you can hear the pineal gland
sloshing back and forth when you wiggle the handle.  Or was it the
pituitary.  Darn.  

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Carl Tollander
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 10:33 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One

 

Levers?   There are levers?   I was supposed to be pushing levers?   

Dang, that explains it.

C.

On 11/12/11 9:32 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: 

Stephen, 

  

I thought Lakoff's Moral politics was bloody awful - SHAMEFUL even, given
his earlier stuff which I liked.   A terrifying example of what happens when
an Author's publisher gets him to write more books than he has in him.  

  

I have to admit, I am made nervous by the notion of "embodied cognition".  I
mean, where the hell else is it.  It's the same kind of nervousness that
overcomes me when people talk about "cognitive psychology."  (What the hell
other kind of psychology IS there?)  Such expressions seem to be an attempt
to slip dualism in by the back door.  Cognition is just adaptive action of a
body.  I think most believers of embodied cognition are hoping to find the
little door in the skull that opens into the room where the teensy little
guy sits looking out through the windows of the eyes and pulling on the
little levers that send the fluids up and down the nerve channels.  

  

Psychology has some wonderful theories.  For instance, Skinner has a
wonderful theory of learning.  Unfortunately, it applies primarily to
pigeons pressing levers.  If only we could cram all humanity into Skinner
boxes, the theory would work fine.  Physics has the same problem, really.
Billiard balls would glide along perfectly if it weren't for friction, but
there is friction everywhere where billiard balls are.  If only we had
frictionless billiard balls.  But the problem doesn't seem to bother
physcists so much The artificial models of physics are more useful than
those of psychology because, I guess, physicists have a lot better sense of
what happens when the idealized circumstances of the model are violated.
Poor psychologists:  you take people out of those skinner boxes and all hell
breaks loose.  

  

At the risk of putting you all through distasteful spectacle of having Doug
and Peter yell at me again, let me remind you of our discussion of tornados,
where Peter seemed to be saying that one really shouldn't talk about
vortices until one had had sixty years of experience engineering wings and
propellers.  Sounds like whatever you learn about propellers in physics one
won't get you off a runway.  It won't even get water out of a washbasin.  

  

I think the problem is not that Psychologists don't  have good theories;  I
think it's more that psychologists don't have good theories about the kind
of questions that people want answers to.  You folks want answers about
tornadoes and washbasins, and all we have to offer is theories about
behavior in skinner boxes.  

  

Nick 

  

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Stephen Thompson
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 8:54 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One 

  

Eric:  

I just picked up three books in order to learn more about Embodied
Cognition: 

    1. Embodied Cognition by Lawrence Shapiro 
    2. Where Mathematics Comes From by George Lakoff and Rafael E. Nunez 
    3. Philosophy In The Flesh by Lakoff and Mark Johnson 

I came to these via Dr Lakoff's Moral Politics, then perusing his Metaphors
We Live By.  
Will the 3 books above provide a basic understanding of Embodied Cognition,
even though 
they appear to be oriented to Philosophy as opposed to psychology? 

I read Dr Dennett's Consciousness Explained back in 1997 and came to accept
the 
naturalistic world view - what you see is what there is; no mystical nor
supernatural 
stuff.  

Of the two links you provided, I found your post to be more clear on the
conflict in psychology 
than the PsychScientists' post. 

Thanks,
Steph T 


On 11/12/2011 8:29 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote: 

Doug, don't fret. 

The answer to Jochen's question is "Yes, it is about friggin time we get a
good theory", and Andrew and Sabrina's blog is an excellent source of ideas
for improving psychology. Recently Andrew's blog has been getting attention
from other excellent professionals, including a Scientific American author
who is actively discussing Andrew's previous post: "Embodied cognition is
not what you think
<http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2011/11/embodied-cognition-is-not-wha
t-you.html> ". (With more discussion here
<http://fixingpsychology.blogspot.com/2011/11/embodied-cognition.html> .)

Roger, 
You are correct that it might seem like psychology should have other things
to worry about, but frankly the problems you mention (rampant misuse of
statistics and the rare forged data scandals) would be a lot easier to deal
with if we had a more unified theoretical base. 

Eric


On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 07:12 PM, Douglas Roberts
<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote:

Oh, God.  Here we go.  
   
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Jochen Fromm  <mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]> wrote:  
> Nick, Eric, what do you think, does Psychology need a theory?  
>   
>   
http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2011/11/theory-and-why-its-time-psycho
logy-got.html?m=1  
> -J.  
>   
> Sent from Android  
> ============================================================  
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv  
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College  
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org  
>   
   
============================================================  
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv  
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College  
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org  
   
   

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601





============================================================  
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv  
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College  
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org  






============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Reply via email to