Markman/Dietrich: Representation/Mediation
The target article whose abstract appears below has just appeared
in PSYCOLOQUY, a refereed journal of Open Peer Commentary sponsored
by the American Psychological Association. Qualified professional
biobehavioral, neural or cognitive scientists are hereby invited to
submit Open Peer Commentary on it. Please email for Instructions if
you are not familiar with format or acceptance criteria for
PSYCOLOQUY commentaries (all submissions are refereed).
To submit articles and commentaries or to seek information:
EMAIL: psyc(a)pucc.princeton.edu
URL: http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/psyc.htmlhttp://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/psyc
AUTHOR'S RATIONALE FOR SOLICITING COMMENTARY: There has been a
growing sentiment in cognitive science, particularly among
advocates of dynamical systems and situated action, that
traditional approaches to representation should be abandoned. Calls
for the elimination of representation, as well as previous attempts
to defend representation, have unfortunately talked past each other
for a lack of common ground. This target article attempts to
provide a common ground for the debate over representation. Many
proponents of representations are searching for a single
representational system to serve as the basis of all cognitive
models; this paper argues that multiple approaches to
representation must coexist in cognitive models. We also hope to
elicit discussion about what properties of representations are
critical for cognitive models.
Full text of article available at:
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?9.48
or
ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/1998.volume.9/psyc.98.9.48.re…
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
psycoloquy.98.9.48.representation-mediation.1.markman Mon Oct 5 1998
ISSN 1055-0143 (68 paragraphs, 78 references, 1297 lines)
PSYCOLOQUY is sponsored by the American Psychological Association (APA)
Copyright 1998 Arthur B. Markman & Eric Dietrich
IN DEFENSE OF REPRESENTATION AS MEDIATION
Arthur B. Markman
Department of Psychology
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
markman(a)psy.utexas.edu
http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/FACULTY/Markman/index.html
Eric Dietrich
PACCS Program in Philosophy
Binghamton University
Binghamton, NY
dietrich(a)binghamton.edu
http://www.binghamton.edu/philosophy/home/faculty/index.htm
ABSTRACT: Some cognitive scientists have asserted that cognitive
processing is not well modeled by classical notions of
representation and process that have dominated psychology and
artificial intelligence since the cognitive revolution. In response
to this claim, the concept of a mediating state is developed.
Mediating states are the class of information-carrying internal
states used by cognitive systems, and as such are accepted even by
those researchers who reject representations. The debate over
representation, then, is actually one about what additional
properties of mediating states are necessary for explaining
cognitive processing. Five properties that can be added to
mediating states are examined for their importance in cognitive
models.
KEYWORDS: compositionality, computation, connectionism, discrete
states, dynamic Systems, explanation, information, meaning,
mediating states, representation, rules, semantic Content symbols
Full text of article available at:
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?9.48
or
ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/1998.volume.9/psyc.98.9.48.re…
To submit articles and commentaries or to seek information:
EMAIL: psyc(a)pucc.princeton.edu
URL: http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/psyc.htmlhttp://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/psyc
Krueger: Social Cognitive Bias
The target article whose abstract appears below has just appeared
in PSYCOLOQUY, a refereed journal of Open Peer Commentary sponsored
by the American Psychological Association. Qualified professional
biobehavioral, neural or cognitive scientists are hereby invited to
submit Open Peer Commentary on it. Please email for Instructions if
you are not familiar with format or acceptance criteria for
PSYCOLOQUY commentaries (all submissions are refereed).
To submit articles and commentaries or to seek information:
EMAIL: psyc(a)pucc.princeton.edu
URL: http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/psyc.htmlhttp://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/psyc
To retrieve the article:
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?9.46
or
ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/1998.volume.9/psyc.98.9.46.so…
AUTHOR'S RATIONALE FOR SOLICITING COMMENTARY: My contention is that
social psychological research has depicted social perception in an
excessively negative light by relying too much on demonstrations of
various irrational biases. Normative models of good judgment have
been too restrictive, and the prevalent testing strategy has
equated good judgment with the truth of a null hypothesis.
Rejections of such null hypotheses have then been interpreted as
evidence for bias. I am particularly interested in learning how
psychologists and methodologists respond to the idea that the use
of multiple theories and methods will improve our understanding of
social perception. I realize that my proposal is incomplete because
breaking the predominance of the single ruling inference strategy
(Null Hypothesis Significance Testing) may make it harder to draw
comparisons between studies. How can the field preserve its
coherence, while abandoning its traditional ways?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
psycoloquy.98.9.46.social-bias.1.krueger Fri Oct 2 1998
ISSN 1055-0143 (21 paragraphs, 41 references, 4 notes, 647 lines)
PSYCOLOQUY is sponsored by the American Psychological Association (APA)
Copyright 1998 Joachim Krueger
THE BET ON BIAS: A FOREGONE CONCLUSION?
Joachim Krueger
Department of Psychology
Brown University, Box 1853
Providence, RI 02912
USA
Joachim_Krueger(a)Brown.edu
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Psychology/faculty/krueger.html
ABSTRACT: Social psychology has painted a picture of human
misbehavior and irrational thinking. For example, prominent social
cognitive biases are said to distort consensus estimation, self
perception, and causal attribution. The thesis of this target
article is that the roots of this negativistic paradigm lie in the
joint application of narrow normative theories and statistical
testing methods designed to reject those theories. Suggestions for
balancing the prevalent paradigm include (a) modifications to the
ruling rituals of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing, (b)
revisions of what is considered a normative response, and (c)
increased emphasis on individual differences in judgment.
KEYWORDS: Bayes' rule, bias, hypothesis testing, individual
differences probability, rationality, significance testing, social
cognition, statistical inference
To retrieve the article:
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?9.46
or
ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/1998.volume.9/psyc.98.9.46.so…
