Here's some things I think would be good:

(1) finds some kind of clear crucial/central fault(s) with all current theories (and, if the fault(s) wlth all major theories turn out to be of the same type, that would be interesting)

(2) solves the problems with other current theories in a way that shows its general utility

(3) has a way of looking to see biological principles operating in behavior (since behavior is an aspect of biology)

(4) uses established terms of science, generally, so the theory is cogent and understandable (and reasonably follows existing ways of understanding)

(5) is fully consistent with established psychological science (all that is applicable)

(6) puts forward hypotheses that are clear and clearly testable/verifiable (or falsifiable)

(7) solves new problems &/or creates clarity by being more empirical in nature (with all it addresses being clearly empirically grounded)

(8) eliminates some age-old problems, that need to be resolved (e.g. the nature/nurture controversy)

(9) is conducive to study by methods of comparative psychology and with well-founded evolutionary psychology understanding and ecology

I have a nomination for just such a theory: the one that is outlined in the 3 major papers I have on this site.

AND: This theory's major HYPOTHESES HAVE JUST VERY RECENTLY BECOME SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION, given new technological capabilities now available. So, this theory is in a sense is NEW, and that explains why it is presented again THIRTY years after it was formulated and written.

P.S. It is clear there is frustration with established, existing theories and a need for new theory. So much so that several developmental science people (psychologists) have banded together to support

"Relational Developmental Systems 'Theories'" -- unfortunately of quite a dubious nature (since the 'researchers' are the ones doing the "relating").

I have contacted many who use this framework and by far most of those who replied acknowledge that it is NOT a theory, but a "framework". It is a rebellion against what they see as an entire 'class' of existing theories (Cartesian-mechanistic), which includes all prominent cognitive-developmental theories! (See Willis F. Overton.) I can see this 'class' of theory, which they believe has run its course, still has one or more extremely viable formulations; yet Overton is correct we do need process understanding -- very, very much so, it's integral. My theoretical view, contained in my large papers, "A Human Ethogram ...." and "Information Processing Theory and Perspectives on Development (ethology)" (and the third paper -- a brief overview/summary) present something NEW (and an alternative to solutions like Overton et al); it is NEW because the technology needed (eye-tracking) to test the major hypotheses only N0W EXISTS.

This Overton et al 'framework' is notable especially because an entire developmental science SERIES is devoted largely to RDS authors: Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science, Theory and Method (several volumes).

Why do colleges and universities do ALMOST NOTHING to teach people about theory development? Obviously such a topic and in-depth coverage and discussion is needed. (My first answer to the main question can give some hints about some major things that need to be covered.)

Dear Brad Jesness

It seems to me that all the points described (1-9) are important and deserve to be addressed in depth. To the extent of my understanding and interpretation of the problem that has raised with amplitude

What should you look for in a new theory of cognitive development? , I will try to address some of them in isolation and in others, relating them to those aspects of the list that seem to me to be important at the moment.

• The ethological point of view of the work (Human Ethology) involves the study of man's behavior in his environment, his interaction with the immediate context and the establishment of social relations with his peers.
• As far as I can identify, the difference between ethology and behavioral psychology or sociobiology is that the study of this latter discipline focuses on behavior in experimental or laboratory conditions, while the former, ethology , We study the innate and learned behavior of the human being in his natural state of the environment where he lives and develops.
• A New Theory of Cognitive Development has to consider in its study the man as a whole, which implies not only the cognitive part as some Cognitive Theories have conjectured, such as: Sensation-Conscious Perception-Conceptual Development, Ideas and Thoughts-Response in Form of Verbal Expression and Conduct.
• Also consider the entire organism of the Conscious Human Being that perceives, thinks, creates and acts accordingly in its immediate environment, realizing for sure, what is happening within them from the emotional, psychological and mental point of view.
• But also the participation in all of this of the whole organism, not only the Central Nervous System, but also the Peripheral Nervous System (Autonomic and Somatic), along with the nerve endings and sinpápsis in Devices and Systems (cardiovascular, respiratory), tissues (myocardium , Skeletal muscle), organs (heart, lung, liver, kidney) and even at the cellular level (neurons, myocytes, hepatocytes, adipocytes, etc.).
• Therefore it is necessary to consider in the New Theory of Cognitive Development, all the aforementioned, but also the interaction of our entire biological and physical emotional being, with our natural context under normal conditions of life. Even more, not only interaction with our peers in the family, social, school and work environment, but also with all flora and Fauna
• Fauna as the Animals, starting from the unicellular, passing through the multicellular, metazoan, insect, etc ... until arriving at the relation with other mammalian animals (with skull, vertebrates, with brain and also they think and feel, and that they have A special kind of consciousness). With all of them we share our ecological niche.
• Since all this influences our knowledge of the world, our ability to adapt and the learning achieved to reach a higher level of human development, the knowledge that is obtained from the type of relationship that we can establish with our human and animal beings do not Human in nature, will be useful in food comparison and develop the new Cognitive Theory of Knowledge and Cognitive Development.

For the moment, these reflections and conjectures around the new Theory of Cognitive Development, waiting for other participations for different arguments (Thesis and Antithesis) to enrich the discussion, hoping to arrive at the Synthesis of a New Knowledge.

regards

Jose Luis

Estimado Brad Jesness

Me parece que todos los puntos descritos (1-9) son importante y merecen ser abordados a profundidad. En la medida de mi comprensión e interpretación del problema que ha planteado con amplitud

¿Qué le debe buscar en una nueva teoría del desarrollo cognitivo? , trataré de abordar algunos de ellos en forma aislada y en otros, relacionándolos con los aspectos de la lista que de momento me parezcan importantes.

•  El punto de vista etológico de la obra (Etología Humana) implica el estudio de la conducta del hombre en su entorno, su interacción con el contexto inmediato y el establecimiento de relaciones sociales con sus compañeros.
• Por lo que yo puedo identificar, la diferencia entre la etología y psicología de la conducta o socio-biología, es que el estudio de esta última disciplina, se centra en el comportamiento en condiciones experimentales o de laboratorio, mientras que el primero, la etología, se estudia el comportamiento innato y aprendido del ser humano en su estado natural del ambiente donde vive y se desarrolla.
• Una Nueva Teoría del Desarrollo Cognitivo tiene que considerar en su estudio al hombre en su totalidad, lo que implica no solo la parte cognitiva como algunas Teorías Cognitivas lo han conjeturado, como: Sensación-Percepción Consciente-Elaboración Conceptual, Ideas y Pensamientos-Respuesta en forma de Expresión verbal y Conducta.
• También considerar el organismo completo del Ser Humano Consciente que percibe, piensa, crea y actúa en consecuencia en su entorno inmediato, percatándose a ciencia cierta, de lo que está sucediendo en su interior desde el punto de vista emocional, psicológico y mental,
• Pero también la participación en todo ello del organismo completo, no solo el Sistema Nervioso Central, sino también el Sistema Nervioso Periférico (Autonómico y Somático), junto con las terminaciones nerviosas y sinpápsis en Aparatos y Sistemas (cardiovascular, respiratorio), tejidos (miocardio, músculo esquelético), órganos (corazón, pulmón, hígado, riñón) e incluso, a nivel celular (neuronas, miocitos, hepatocitos, adipocitos etc.).
• Por tanto es necesario considerar en la Nueva Teoría del Desarrollo Cognitivo, todo lo antes mencionado, pero también la interacción de todo nuestro ser biológico y físico emocional, con nuestro contexto natural en condiciones habituales de vida. Aún más, no sólo la interacción con nuestros semejantes en el medio familiar, social, escolar y laboral, sino también con toda la flora y Fauna
• Fauna como los Animales, partiendo desde los unicelulares, pasando por los pluricelulares, metazoarios, insectos, etc...hasta llegar a la relación con otros animales mamínferos (con cráneo, vertebrados, con cerebro y que también pensan y sienten, y que tienen un tipo especial de consciencia). Con todos ellos compartimos nuestro nicho ecológico.
• Ya que todo ello influye en nuestro conocimiento del mundo, en nuestra capacidad de adaptación y en el aprendizaje logrado para llegar a un nivel mayor de desarrollo humano, el conocimiento que se obtenga del tipo de relación que logremos establecer con nuestros semejantes humanos y animales no humanos en la naturaleza, será de utilidad en la comparación alimentar y desarrollar la nueva Teoría Cognitiva del Conocimiento y del Desarrollo Cognitivo.

De momento, estas reflexiones y conjeturas alrededor de la nueva Teoría de Desarrollo Cognitivo, esperando otras participaciones para con diferentes argumentos (Tesis y Antitesis) enriquecer la discusión, esperando llegar a la Síntesis de un Nuevo Conocimiento.

Saludos

José Luis

What would you look for  in a new theory of cognitive development?

Cognitive structures so far developed target at a continuous changing process between man and the environment without acknowledging the nature of learning and the learner and types of knowledge. When cognitive developmental theories are aligned with the types of knowledge perhaps we can form a framework to understand what processes adresses cognitive development. 

Louth  stated 

“ To this contrast between the active life and contemplation there corresponds a distinction in our understanding of what it is to be human between reason conceived as puzzling things out, solving problems,  calculating and making decisions - referred to by the Greek words phronesis and dianoia,

or in Latin by ratio - and reason conceived as receptive of truth, beholding, looking - referred to by the Greek words theoria or sophia (wisdom) or nous (intellect), or in Latin intellectus”.  

Now we are looking into processes of how  cognitive development addressed ; what needs to be known in the form of knowledge for development through use of  intellect for solving problems, inventing new objects, making decision etc.. all relating to information processes and understanding more of the nature of the world..

And secondly, how can cognitive development address  what is the right use of knowledge and for what purpose? 

We have so far looked into cognitive development through a narrow lense.. and there is only unrest in the world.. more crimes and more issues for problem solving because of the lack of our understanding of the second aspect.

We need more theories  that addresses the cognitive development that address what works for the conscious and for the conscience.   

suma

Dear José Luis García Vigil

I am totally in agreement with "Conscious Human Being that perceives, thinks, creates and acts accordingly in its immediate environment" -- even if a person is sitting, doing  nothing, and yet doing a lot of thinking.  Once we better understand conceptual development (representation) and the results, we can have some idea of the possibility of his thoughts, knowing the type of concepts possible/likely.  We will also find that though the immediate environment is a trigger, that past experiences, especially past experiences very close in time are involved (because of the humans very good conceptual and memory capabilities).

Also your more explicit emphasis on emotions and social things is good.  Emotions is a matter the can be put into my view: they are also innate action patterns or products of those with conceptual development.  The are relatively simple and already understood to some reasonable extent.

Social cognition, to me, is just an instance(s) of the use of the same sort of conceptual system that develops stage-wise in understanding the physical world  -- ultimately related to the 'perceptual shifts' (perceptual/attentional shifts) in stages of development.  Speaking of the cognitive stages and how they manifest themselves, unlike emotions, these are not well understood.   Presently there is a misconception that thoughts can be "purely abstract" and that stages of abstraction (conceptual) abilities cannot be grounded in simply new particulars in the present environment.  There is absolutely no reason to believe this and it is counter to being an empiricist. We can imagine literally seeing new particular aspects of our environment and thus begin the development of a new level of conceptualization.

(The alternative is that we impose our presumptions on  "the grist for the conceptual mill".)  It is hard to see how particulars could be in themselves the bases of conceptual development, but we must recall much representation/memory comes into the environment with the perceiver.  A couple of totally unproven and very likely false assumptions get in the way of imagining the situation: (1) that complex organisms have less innate action patterns (and more is 'pure' learning). There is absolutely no reason to believe this; in fact, the more complex the organism, the more significant innate guidance may exist [(partly just because the capacity of our working memory is just too small for us not to have substantial guidance)].  (2) There is still this notion that all behavior that is hereditary is present OR in effect at birth.  This is another belief with no foundation except in speculative philosophy; I believe that very, very false: whether we have things that look like stages or they develop smoothly from one to another -- either way we have STAGES of development.  I might as well address a THIRD related thing here: the idea (any idea) of "'pure' learning" is preposterous.  We can totally eliminate the nature/nurture debates by realistically accepting that in great likelihood any significant learning involves innate guidance, whether new or whether well internalized as patterns in our responding (and likely usually both). This is the only empirical stance.

Another comment on  social cognition.  It appears there is no good theory for an evolutionary precursor to our having progressively developing patterns in perception/attention and then thought leading to conceptualization OTHER than such being very much evolutionarily founded in patterns our fore-runners SAW in their hierarchical social structure.  I see other conceptual ("abstraction") abilities as almost literally the same thing -- but very "free floating", i.e. flexibly applied to the physical world (resulting in great thinking and cooperative advantages).

Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...

Dear Suma Parahakaran

I am sorry I took so long to respond to you.  I am at least often fully in agreement with your first paragraph .  Let me quote it:

"Cognitive structures so far developed target at a continuous changing process between man and the environment without acknowledging the nature of learning and the learner and types of knowledge. When cognitive developmental theories are aligned with the types of knowledge perhaps we can form a framework to understand what processes addresses cognitive development."

(end quote)

This is exactly what  the ethogram theory addresses -- all of that.

Beyond that, the questions in your other paragraphs are too specialized and my perspective (at least starting out) does not address them.

Regards, Brad Jesness