The very arguably VERY LIKELY real, not considered (but, in-fact, rejected out-of-hand, distinctly based on groundless/baseless BELIEFS): significant new innate guidance to learning emerging at points THROUGHOUT ONTOGENY. Some of the related consequences of this are: (1) NO end to the nature/nurture dualism (though some pretend they have resolved this "debate" or dualism, it is easily obvious they have not) AND (2) what psychology offers about behavior is absolutely inadequate for any decent artificial intelligence -- psychology is less-than-useless and hampers real, true AI progress (to put it short and simply: because psychology lacks an sufficient or reasonable empirical basis). [I have argued at length on both of these matters/issues, and other related or resulting problems, in several of the 300+ pages of my Questions and of my Answers here on researchgate (under my Profile, under Contributions, then under Questions and under Answers); also see my "A Human Ethogram ...", cited below.]
-----------------------------
NOW: That with so little evidence and otherwise so clearly wrong, that they may readily be considered nothing but fictions:
(1) "Meta-processes" and/or separate/distinct "executive processes": I do not think it could be more obvious to have what is clearly a homunculus (a man-within-the-man) -- enough said.
(2) Embodied cognition: ideas formulated on and simply by-analogy ONLY to Piaget's great findings of the beginning of object knowledge with sensori-motor responses. Piaget could show his great findings; the "embodied" people cannot even begin to (the entire theory is baseless and of no use and has no promise -- see "The Poverty of Embodied Cognition" cited below -and see a Comment on this article's page OR go to https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2Fs13423-015-0860-1 , to learn of/get access to the full-text pdf). (It is never, ever good when an analogy lasts, much less when it is central to a "perspective" -- this is what I learned clearly in college and I have many times seen it is so.)
(3) Because it comes up quite often and is "heralded" by fanatic believers (and that is all that they are), let me point out the hodgepodge Relational Developmental Systems Theories (including the 'Bioecological Approach' and sociocultural theory) -- which have no clear system and represent subjective researcher intuition (the 'researchers' are the "relaters"). Psychologists have not learned to let the Subject (the organism-and-aspects-of-its-current-environment) both define terms and define how things relate -- and the"theorist" NEVER, without such as a clear impetus. Real things (and relationships between things that develop) have at least close-to directly observable proximate cause (and, in some good sense, ALWAYS DO -- once well "pointed to" they could and likely would be found); this is really simply empiricism itself (necessary, and nothing but THAT).
What we are "told" by these stooges** (though there is a lot of verbose, senseless talk and 'clever' thinking) about these "systems of thought" has no status in science (and likely a low status in "thinking"); what they are presenting are either very similar to fairy tales OR they are fairy tales. (I would "go for" the latter, because even fairy tales have some relation to reality -- odd or weird or wrong as it may be.)
** FOOTNOTE: Literally stooges, because they have obviously not well thought-out things for themselves and have followed the lead of mis-guiding others, thus fulfilling the definition (of this term in psychology)
[ Please feel free to join me in railing against "the machine". ]
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
Article The poverty of embodied cognition
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology