Hello Harshvardhan,

Thank you very much for your answer and for all the resources! I´ll check everything out and get in touch.

Best regards

Yes, more later. Please define 'cognition' here. I think I know what it might mean now and if it does mean what I hope it doesn't we're whelmed.

Thanks for your answer, Peter.

Cognition, in very few words, means mental activity. It involves basic cognitive processes like sensation, perception, attention and memory; and superior cognitive processes such as thinking, reasoning, problem solving and decision making.

For further information, I´ll try and attach the transcription of a very interesting presentation by Richard Muscat and John Schranz on the subject and also a part of Bruce McConachie´s book on the subject ("Performance and Cognition").

Done! I uploaded both files :)

Thanks, Claudia. I've been taught 'cognitive' is 'thinking' without feeling. English no longer has one word to insist on 'mind and heart'. OE did have mod but that's long gone. 'Cognitive' doesn't have much to do with the performances I attend to and learn from. There's an Ancient Greek word, kardia (listen up spellcheck, I might write Dorian), that does the two. But you can't put it in critical prose or applications for funding where you write 'I think and feel' without seeming a pedantic loon. Well, I am. Big fizz. Also, in writing that stuff, you must lose the 'and' and insert an ampersand: 2 spaces saved. Wow. And ow.

Dear Peter, 

Emotions run throughout ALL cognitive activity. They are an inextricable part of EVERYTHING we think, reason and interpret. Maybe I fell short on that when I explained "cognition". That taken into consideration, cognition and cognitive activity, have everything to do with what we do :)

I hope I´m being clearer now ;)

 P.S. We do "think and feel". All the time. It´s impossible not to. And I don´t think saying so is pedantic at all...

Hi Claudia, I'm a professional actor, BFA in theatre, and a life member of ACTRA -Canada's fraternity of screen and Stage actors. I'm also a practicing psychologist doing neuroscience with individuals. My Dissertation research studied emotion-cuing as essential in the creative process. One of the direct features of Neuroscience in Theatre that fascinates me is the process of memorizing lines. This process, it turns out, is very different in screen work compared to stage work; quality stage work always allows the GRADUAL attachment in working memory of printed words, movement (blocking & choreography), emotion cues, music often, and usually interpersonal cues - screen work often demands all this WITHOUT much time or rehearsal. Screen work offers the additional challenge of non-sequetial processing; requiring principal actors to hold the final sequence in memory in order to convey the through-line of the writers intention, ie, this essential quality of the finished film is performed virtually not actually.

It's important to make a distinction between THEORY about neuroscience in Theatre and actual practice. Theory is of diminished importance in the face of such abundance of actual production artistry.

Hi, Paul. The acting processes you describe are definitely fascinating. And I think we agree: I´m definitely not as interested in theory about the processes but in their application in artistic practice. That´s why I´m looking for investigators or artists that have experimented with the subject on artistic situations. 

The only concrete example I´ve found so far is that of Richard Muscat and John Schranz. I would be very interested in finding out who else is working on this and how. I know, for example, there are playwrights writing plays taking this theories into consideration but haven´t been able to find any.

Maybe you have some more information on the subject. Your dissertation, for instance, would be a pleasure to read. Do you think you can share it with me?

(Does this explanation make it easier to understand what I´m looking for?)

Kind regards,

Claudia

(Stage name: Claduia Sacha)

John Sutton's essay "Exograms and Interdisciplinarity: History, the Extended Mind, and

the Civilizing Process" in The Extended Mind collection (edited by Menary 2010) includes a discussion on distributed cognition in relation to historical Shakespearean actors in relation to memory - Evelyn Tribble has also written extensively about this topic.

Hello Alexander.

Thank you very much for your response. I´ll definitely check the material you recommend. 

If you happen to have any more recommendations or insights on this matter, I would be very grateful.

Regards,

Claudia 

(stage name: Claudia Sacha)

This a great topic!  I have found metacognitive theory, with its roots in ancient practices of "thinking about thinking" and "know thy self"  applicable to my work as a licensed psychotherapist and creative arts therapist with a specialty in Drama Therapy .  

Most Shakespeare text from centuries ago is rife with insights that cognitive science has just begun to mine for its so-called "discoveries" in recent decades  :>)   ( below includes some No Fear Shakespeare website modernized translations for ease of use)

Hamlet; Act 2, Scene 2,

GUILDENSTERN "Prison, my lord?"

HAMLET "Denmark’s a prison."

ROSENCRANTZ Then I guess the whole world is one.

HAMLET "A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst."

HAMLET Yes, quite a large one, with many cells and dungeons, Denmark being one of the worst.

ROSENCRANTZ We don’t think so, my lord.

HAMLET "Why, then, ’tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison."

HAMLET Well, then it isn’t one to you, since nothing is really good or bad in itself—it’s all what a person thinks about it. And to me, Denmark is a prison."

ROSENCRANTZ That must be because you’re so ambitious. It’s too small for your large mind.

HAMLET  "O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams."

HAMLET Small? No, I could live in a walnut shell and feel like the king of the universe. The real problem is that I have bad dreams.

GUILDENSTERN  "Which dreams indeed are ambition, for the very substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream."

GUILDENSTERN  Dreams are a sign of ambition, since ambition is nothing more than the shadow of a dream.

HAMLET "A dream itself is but a shadow."

HAMLET  But a dream itself is just a shadow.

ROSENCRANTZ   "Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality that it is but a shadow’s shadow."

ROSENCRANTZ   Exactly. In fact, I consider ambition to be so light and airy that it’s only the shadow of a shadow.

HAMLET  "Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretched heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? For by my fay, I cannot reason."

HAMLET   Then I guess beggars are the ones with bodies, while ambitious kings and heroes are just the shadows of beggars. Should we go inside? I seem to be losing my mind a bit.

ROSENCRANTZ, GUILDENSTERN  "We’ll wait upon you."

ROSENCRANTZ, GUILDENSTERN   We’re at your service, whatever you say.

In my experience, I have found the work of metacognitive psychological theory similar to some ancient Vedic texts. Modern scientists such as Adrian Wells, along with animal/insect behaviorists like Dr's Janet Metcalf and Thomas D Seeley's honey bee study's regarding what mediates the processing of thought/feeling/sensation/insight/etc content on the dynamic/strategic level of cognition are quite helpful and applicable to therapy work and daily practices for mindfulness regarding attentional focus and narrative-making.  (compare the real world hive-like and wave-like nature of the brain neurons firing as observed in life with a rigid structural model some researchers are attempting to sell us on by using algorithms applied to MRIs to provide the illusion of distinct boundaries and seemingly fixed purpose brain areas.)

I absolutely agree, Richard. I´d never thought about it that way, but you´re right: Hamlet is the epitome of thinking about thinking... and thinking, and thinking, and thinking, and thinking... :D

Metacognitive theory applied to drama therapy sounds absolutely amazing. Would you be willing to share some more about that?

And another question: since you practice drama therapy, have you had the chance to meet with theatre groups (or playwrights) who apply cognitive science concepts to theatre productions?

Thanks again :)

Richard: I see Hamlet very differently - He's not thinking about thinking, he's engaged in a dangerous, humorous joust with several oblivious opponents. At the same time he's grieving and angry, and overreaches himself.  Ask those who have played Hamlet what he's doing - you'll hear few observations like those posited by academics.

Hello Kathryn!

Thank you for answering! I´m actually starting my research, so I have got a very open mind about the subject and haven´t decided to rule out anything yet.

That being so, as a playwright I am particularly interested in the creative side of the matter. In that line, I know there are even playwriting "experiments" which I would love to find but still haven´t been able to.

I have found, for instance, no research whatsoever on the writing process of the playwright and I´m starting an investigation on the subject.

I have read McConachie´s work. I also have come across a very interesting conference by Richard Muscat and John J Schranz. I loved them both.

If you have any more material you think it would be valuable, please share :)

And I would love to keep in touch with you. You´re the first person I´ve found with a combination of similar interests (theatre - cognition) which, at least where I work, is non-existent. 

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

P.S.: I would love to share my plays with you, if you´re interested. Do you speak spanish? If not, I could send you the ones I have translated :)

Paul,

Thank you for your comment.  There is  a very important factor that is exemplified in the play Hamlet that relates to S. Dabrowski's theory of asynchronous development in gifted people.  Hamlet has a gift for intuitively reading others emotions and social interactions.  He appears to have a combination of emotional, intellectual and imaginal over-excitability.  This is evident in many scenes as he comments on other characters' actions on a deeper level than those other characters are able to tolerate and are even oblivious to. Hamlet exhibits the inevitable exogenous-based depression of living in a Level 1 undeveloped group of people focused primarily on low level development rewards.  This is clear in the dialogues where there is focus by other characters on content rather than the processes going on in the story.  The contrasting characters do not choose to be aware of their metacognitive beliefs and strategies and react in various non-adaptive ways when confronted with Hamlet's metacognitive comments.  Hamlet is quite conscious of these discrepancies, dis-integrates from the behaviors of others who are satisfied with Level 1, and problem in his awareness is inescapable to him, which leads to his so-called "madness" and depression .  I think Shakespeare really enjoyed the  behavioral rehearsal of us seeing his play as a means to bring the naïve audience (from peasants to royals) into his personal gifted inner world view for a corrective playful action (It's not about Hamlet's madness at all if you are open to the experience of metacognitive intervention he so slyly packages in entertainment for sweetening an often bitter pill.)  The rampant humor, sly sexual comments, impulsive violence and poetry of the play makes more palatable the terror/compassion of having real time emotional/intellectual awareness in a crazy deadly world.  Shakespeare was able to set up play dates and invite us over to his playhouse, anyone from the lowest level up to the highest psychological development level in the social context of his time (perhaps our time also :>) and be successful and beloved still in 2016!  Modern psychology pundits can learn from Shakespeare's brilliant psych gifted awareness and marketing strategies!

Ah Yes, Richard - This new view of Hamlet is better- in the sense of more playable- than your prior theoretical comment!  

I worked with K. Dabrowski re his Theory of Positive Disintegration from 1967 to 1973 at the U of Alberta - this is likely who you are referring to, yes?

Hamlet is out-of-sync with the primitively aggressive Denmark. His superior intellect and hyper-sensitivity are married to an immature socialization. When he laughs at people there, making fun of their foibles, he is playing with dynamite. When he grieves 'overmuch' he challenges the mores of his predictability-loving uncle. His giftedness is his downfall.

My studies of bright Asperger adult males reveal similar asynchronicity - but usually without much creativity. Thus, theoretically, asynchronousness is necessary but not sufficient for giftedness. An Asperger Hamlet would have been more predictable, thus safer, and thus boring.

Paul,

Thanks for your pro actor-informed insights! ... and for catching the mistyped K.  If you are inclined to comment regarding K Dabrowski and how he viewed the psychology of drama/theater/acting/writing.  I would greatly appreciate hearing.  For others with interest in K. Dabrowski website by Bill Tillier:

http://positivedisintegration.com/

 Thank you for your insights, Richard! I´ll definitely check out the material you recommend :)

Thanks for sharing, Paul. This is by far the most interesting discussion on Hamlet I´ve ever had. Cognitive processes in this character are, in my opinion, much more interesting than his dramatic action, strategies and tactics.

It would be interesting to also discuss metacognitive psychology (in the form available at the respective times to the ancient "psychologists" who told the instructive stories) going back to the most ancient dramatic teaching narratives such as Gilgamesh and the Bhagavad Gita and coming forward a bit to the fairy tales such as the "Virgin Prince"  where the meta comments of a helper animal, shaman, or wicca (witch) person are found containing the essential meta-awareness cue. These various stories contain meta-commentaries that have grabbed the attention of humans striving to develop metacognitive skills for millennia. 

That would most certainly be a fascinating research, Richard! Let´s jot it down and start thinking about it, shall we? :)

You're welcome, Claudia. You have experience as an actor, so you might agree with me that cognitive processes and dramatic action are inseparable, and that Hamlet, or Ophelia, are meant to be performed, not so much to be discussed. The power of Shakespeare's characters is in their performance, more than in reading them. I have seen illiterate teenage males weep and tremble, caught up in the terrible and believable mistakes of Romeo & Juliet; reading this play to these same boys however, they appear unmoved, saying that their mistakes appear transparently stupid.

In 42 years as an evidence-based psychotherapist, my view is that neuroscience assessment conclusions have to be validated by behavioural observations. The same is true when I direct actors - their thoughts are not so important as what's visible onstage or on film. I remember being a bit insulted when Richard Burgwin, directing me as Mephistopheles in Goethe's Faust, was clearly uninterested in my elaborate writings about my character's thoughts & motivations. With more experience, I realized he was correctly insisting that I rely on acting rather than thinking.

Thank you for spawning this cross-discipline dialogue.

Paul,

I completely agree with your message and would like to paraphrase:

action on stage or film or direct embodied experience speaks louder than text manual words or concepts, even a script reading!

Thanks to you and especially Claudia for this interesting discussion that gets to the heart of my current work also!  I suggest we write an article together for the NADTA Drama Therapy Review journal : http://www.nadta.org/about-nadta/drama_therapy_review.html

Interesting proposal Richard...I've directed psychodrama once, and found it intriguing to interrupt persistently if a participant was the least bit false - very effective (but slow) way to dis-integrate habitual masks.  Am curious about whether this has any application in treating psychopaths or sociopaths. What think you, Claudia - does this fit into the neuro-behavioural work you are persuing?

Dear Paul and Richard, 

I´d be delighted to work on something like that with you both. I´ll send a private message so we can start coordinating :)

Dear Paul and Richard,

I can´t write to you both at the same time, I don´t know why. Could you please initiate the private conversation? Thanks!

Hola Claudia - I don't know how to initiate a private conversation, but I'd like to do so.

Dear Claudia, may I ask to be more precise about your question? I mean, are you interested in the cognitive effect of a dramatic action on the audience (or the effect of the enactment of a dramatic action)? Or you are interested in the cognitive models of behaviour that are behind the creation of a dramatic action?

Dear Paul, 

I was thinking about messaging. Supposedly there´s an option to adress more than one researcher at a time, but the system doesn´t allow me to do so. I´m consulting with tech support. If I don´t solve the problem, I´ll send a message to both of you so we can exchange emails and communicate that way.

Regards,

Claudia

Dear Antonio,

I´m actually interested in both. I´m even interested in the cognitive processes behind playwriting. 

I´m just starting to investigate this subject, so I´m pretty much open to discovery.

I hope this clarifies the issue.

And I hope we can find some common ground of interest.

Regards,

Claudia

(Stage name: Claudia Sacha)