When it comes to thinking, the deliberate (clear, conscious) parts of working memory are essentially the same (quantity-wise) as that of short-term memory: 7 + or - 2 "chunks". Now, there are major memory capacities providing a LOT of CONTEXT for working memory -- this gives you a lot of the "environment" you are working in/thinking in, but beyond yielding their "triggering" through selective attention, these contextualing aspects of our experience are not much under our control -- though they may change, even quite quickly, with processing (but this is basically just selective attention/perception at work again).
Why am I saying all this? Because in developing an explanatory scheme, system, model, or theory, you absolutely have to pick the correct basic "chunks" to begin with or you may well mis-"chunk" because you are pushing working memory beyond its capacity (if for no other reasons). The mis-"chunking" could be over-generalization, over-extension of a concept/concepts, or just plain missing things or not considering things (some simple models basically just do the latter). BUT: What we really want is a theory that can build to incorporate all that is really important (and such would not include the last-mentioned models).
Thus, when you are developing OR learning a theory, you have to pick a perspective which is inclusive enough at first with its view YET NOT be "too much" and there-after, using prescribed ways of monitoring, guides you to continue to be able to progressively (and reliably and validly) re-"chunk".
Well-used-capacity [(of working memory)]: This should be a huge matter of concern when developing a system, a scheme, or a theory. Otherwise your thinking (due to what we basically have to call mis-"chunking") will be inevitably biased or skewed or selective! In short, at best, your theory will work a bit and then "dead end", but it will never allow for continuous progress. ("Dead-end" models or frameworks are also basically impossible to integrate with other ones, or anything else.)
What is the answer? How do we protect ourselves? One: if what you are studying is biological (e.g. behavior), then expressly and always explicitly actually have proximate (real, actual, "there") biological things (like homeostasis) as guiding aspects of the behavior you are seeing, and make sure that all you posit similarly abides by biological principles. A second thing which allows you to protect yourself (and others) is demonstrably, with near 100% accuracy, show that everybody sees everything you see exactly the same way (this is inter-rater reliability, ubiquitous in ethology).
Third, be sure you do not look for too much at once and try to process too much at once OR you will fail. Here is a big hint about how to do this: let the SUBJECT (the organism you are studying guide you): whichever aspect you are studying, study in such a way that you can actually 'see' the next step in what is happening, that is, make sure your conceptualizations are absolutely clearly empirically well-founded AND, if you are wrong, you will be able to see that. I believe there is a way to proceed that will be self-correcting and, if the way you are doing your studies is not, you will be in trouble (see above).
[Now, what looks like the self-serving part:]
An example of the application of all this: when learning, coming to know, and/or developing a theory of ontogeny: have it something essentially in all regards like the Ethogram Theory ** (in the "Human Ethology and Development" Project) -- the neo-Piagetian perspective that looks for clear changes, that can always abide by biological principles, and sees perceptual (perceptual/attentional) shifts as the basis of qualitative changes (some like to call these "stages", but don't if that bothers you -- it may well be possible to see the qualitative changes occurring rather slowing or incrementally, *BUT* things will not and CANNOT (if you resolve nature/nurture problems) remain absolutely continuous).
[(If you do not see that qualitative changes in representation, conceptualization and thinking occur over time with human development (0-18 y.o), then leave the developmental psychology field -- because there is absolutely no doubt you will mis-"chunk" (you are deluded, basically similar to thinking you are superman). Belief in extremely simple continuous, incremental change is NOT A WORKABLE IDEA -- quick evidence for this is that you have absolutely no real idea of HOW innate factors and learning work together (and THAT, if you are "real", is a BIG problem); there are no doubt other sure ways of indicating such a person has clear troubles, that could also be absolutely reliably be shown -- just think 100% reliablity and you can think of others. ]
For more, check out:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_research_psychologists_and_theorists_have_other_things_to_be_concerned_about
** FOOTNOTE: Other major processes at work, almost always, are: the types of simple associative learning we are all familiar with. (Other content, which could have been another footnote are in the top part of the "answer" below.) ***
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
*** First, here is basically another FOOTNOTE to the main Question (and answer), above:
In addition to "contextualizing", long-term memory also provides access to well-developed procedural and declarative memory. Also there are some helpful automatic rehearsal "loops". And, "mirror neurons" that facilitate learning sequences. LTM includes episodic memory (including personal memory) and spacial memory. Some kind of sequencing facilitator (which may be considered part of episodic) includes the marking of time and basis of number understanding. There are also very important response inhibition capabilities at work.
The episodic memory is a buffer to what is recalled and activated from long-term memory (i.e. declarative and procedural memory and the other capacities). There is also the first brief aspect of memory, known as “sensory store” (holds a lot but very briefly).
Since in the Ethogram Theory, it is mainly talking about representation, the more passive "contextualizing" aspects of LTM were emphasized in the essay above. These would be related to what we most often see as the most explicitly limiting aspects of working memory (the contents of our present representations).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now a P.S. (to main Question):
Clearly, the point of the main Question (with answers), above, is basically to express a concern about a lack of concern: In all the "psychologizing" by theoretical/research psychologists, why has there been nearly NO EXPRESS concern about the limits of the "psychologizer"? Isn't this ironic, as they are supposed to be so objective?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Developmental Psychology