Isn't it pure psychoticism to have the most fundamental unit of analysis of a presumed foundational behavior pattern of AN organism INCLUDE MORE THAN ONE ORGANISM'S BEHAVIOR necessarily (or really AT ALL (ever), FOR THAT MATTER)? Yes, yes, yes. YET see the following recent papers INSIST ON such an explanation NECESSARILY (as necessary -- i.e. no other "reasonable" way):
Enactive Mechanistic Explanation of Social Cognition
and
Mechanistic explanation for enactive sociality
They claim 25 years of such just-pure-speculative (and by-now obviously useless) "conceptualizations".
This embarrassing nonsense is what can happen when you do not know or do not examine or analyze your true base/foundational assumptions YET THOSE ARE very poor, baseless, and UNPROVEN AND MOST-LIKELY _NOT_ TRUE (because of inconsistencies with BIOLOGY, as I have clearly indicated in my essays). [ It is desperation for progress with a basic view and approach THAT CANNOT MAKE PROGRESS rationally -- it is desperation in science/"science" . ]
Well Mr. Brad, you asked a question and answered it. It is true that these theories are not proven since different approaches were used to explain social cognition. You have cited two articles but how about Hans J. Eysenck's theory...what do you think about it not forgetting the recent and past studies?
Since basically the same criticisms hold for "embodied" 'theories', that should be noted here. The follow scathing peer critique holds against both enhancement 'theory' and "Embodied" 'Theories':
Article The poverty of embodied cognition
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biology