Have you considered looking at things a different way: how about the role of context in the providing FOR attention in complementary interactions?
---------------------
Let me elaborate:
See my new addition to my comment under the project reference entry, "What would you look for in a new cognitive-developmental theory?" , which is under the "Human Ethology and Development" Project . But in that Comment there I just refer you to a comment I made to an Article (of others): So, to make things more direct, see my newly added-to Comment under the ARTICLE, PRIVATE SPEECH AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT: A REVIEW OF THE TWO THEORIES:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310766805_ARTICLE_PRIVATE_SPEECH_AND_COGNITIVE_DEVELOPMENT_A_REVIEW_OF_THE_TWO_THEORIES
Let me go ahead and repeat a portion of the comment I made under the above article; it does make more sense, though, in the full context of my entire Comment (see via link above):
--------------------------------
In some way I believe the social environment is critical, BUT this can go well beyond what is involved in social learning -- it is the context within which social learning can occur!! Let me be more descriptive: An ape, in order to engage in social learning, has to have an idea of the status of the one showing/demonstrating some ability. Plus social conceptual skills (likely well beyond anything expressly learned) allow for understanding which alliances to have and who is the "boss" and who gets what and who does what:
P.S. Re: research confusions about investigated aspects of cognition would be diminished if they all came to be known to reliably sub-serve some greater behavior (continuing from the Question):
Think of what it would mean if there are: overall-important necessarily-seen (species-typical) behavioral achievements, and these are not only very important BUT also they would need explanation about how they “build up” (since they appear during ontogeny and aren't present at birth NOR are they inflexible, and thus clearly involve sub-capacities and learning). Wouldn't ,then, the nature and bounds of these greater behavioral patterns help the study of all else?: Wouldn't you see the full importance of whatever behavior you are investigating and wouldn't you more likely see all the learning?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a lot of researchers discussing the measurement of this important sub-aspect of cognitive functioning or another. Plus (of course), there is great concern about eliminating, balancing or measuring confounds or one might have [perhaps] irrelevant effects on the behavior indice of concern. Then there are other persons researching other likely major, important sub-aspects of pertinent cognition (for some important similar questions of interest).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would makes things better: (1) to avoid the inevitable additional [(unnecessary)] confusions for/of such research (as mentioned above) ; (2) also help the challenges of judging the relative merits and importance of these and other seemingly relevant sub-aspects of cognition, independently investigated, AND (3) lessen the challenge of yet combining -- properly integrating/interpreting -- the various results. Don't all of these problems and challenges diminish, if indeed all the various particular sub-aspects investigated are likely to be functioning together to create a certain major species-typical behavioral pattern?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wouldn't it help if you know some actual outer-bounding, “containing” achievement which DOES (must) occur (because it is species-typical) AND seems necessarily related to the particular abilities (aspects of cognition) you and others are investigating? The answer would be yes if the over-all achievement is such as described, i.e. actually “containing” (i.e. using) the aspects you all are investigating, to come into existence in the first place (AND, remember, it is known that this greater accomplishment occurs for-sure). You would have less of a question of what each individual sub-aspect of cognitive functioning would seem to need to have to accomplish, as shown in research; and you would no doubt have some idea of the possible relations (though hypotheses they be) between these and findings about other pertinent functioning aspects of cognitive behavior (found in others' research). You would have a better idea when you get a good result (a “top-notch” result, a would-be-necessary result) for a possible component to act THEN in some presumed role for a greater achievement. (Now the value, and some interpretation, need not stand on just the optimism or presentation of the findings of more-minor achievements, shown/seen, one-by-one, in isolation.)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Developmental Psychology