----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Lilienfeld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:06 PM
Subject: [tips] TIPS brain pick
Hi TIPS: I'm writing with a brain pick of sorts. I'm always reluctant to
post to listservs with these kinds of requests. But I've been rather
stymied in my searches, and am hoping that I can benefit from the
remarkable collective knowledge of this list.
Specifically, I'm wondering if anyone is aware of much good research
on the development over time of individuals' (children, adolescents,
college students, etc.) understanding of multiple levels of explanation.
By this, I mean the understanding that psychological phenomenon X can
co-exist simultaneously at several different levels - e.g., that
depression can simultaneously be viewed at the molecular level,
physiological level, psychological level, social level, and so on. I know
that as educators, most of us have discovered that some of our students
"get" this concept, whereas others never seem to be able to do so. That
is, some of our students eventually move beyond asking "Is depression
biological, or it is psychological?" and come to understand that it can be
conceptualized profitably at both (and other) levels of understanding,
whereas others don't. Just to be clear, here I'm talking about "vertical"
explanation (explanations at differing levels in Comte's hierarchy of the
sciences), not "horizontal" explanation (explanations invoking multiple
causal factors at the same level of explanation). Is there any literature
on the time course of this understanding, its domain generality vs.
specificity, its psychological correlates (e.g., IQ, Piagetian stage
status), etc.?
I've found some research bearing obliquely on the development of this
understanding over time (e.g., Frank Kiel's work), but not a whole lot
that addresses it explicitly (PsycInfo searches using "levels of
explanation" and "development of" and similar terms have been only
modestly helpful).
In any case, any pointers, leads, etc. would be immensely appreciated.
Thanks much in advance...Scott
Scott:
I try to tell my students that they consider the idea of interaction when
trying to understrand behavioral phenomena,for example heredity and
environment can
interact.On the molecular ,molar level you could probably
invoke some gestalt type of phenomena to demonstrate
interdedependence.
Michael Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice:
www.srmhp.org
The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work
and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his
education and his recreation, his love and his intellectual passions. He
hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence
in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or
playing. To him he is always doing both.
- Zen Buddhist text
(slightly modified)
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
