Cognitive Psychology and Knowledge Representation - Essay Example

Psychology Cognitive Psychology and Knowledge Representation and Organization, Language, Problem Solving, and Creativity The processes of learning, memory and language are the underpinning structures of cognitive psychology. Cognition itself has variously been defined as a process managed by systems of knowledge. There are concepts that explain that knowledge or even thinking is primarily a result of construction, and that this in many ways is the underlying principle of all forms of cognitive psychology. These methods centre on different analysis of isolated processes or occurrences. Cognitive psychology approaches present themselves in different forms psychology. The understanding of the concept of cognitive psychology as a principle is anchored on methods that consist of its anchorage on matters that appear contentious. Nevertheless scholars have preferred to distinguish varieties of psychology so that the final body consists of two characteristics. One analysis is the way individuals act and demonstrate self control, together with the consequence of assuming distal forms like biological variations into some special consideration. These assumptions are considered on the assumption that knowledge comes from generative mechanisms; so that the consequence of these mechanisms for the consideration is considered in a variety of different situations. Furthermore, interventions and directions will be considered in this situation in connection to subjectively constructed phenomenological experiences. The three mentioned characteristics are the fundamental core features of cognitive reasoning. Conventional representation of cognitive psychological perspectives in matters of knowledge construction refers to mental systems of consideration of these features. These methods of of thinking is legitimate since in one way there are numerous authors who refuse to refer to themselves as psychological cognitive psychological thinkers. However, there exist considerable contrasts between different cognitive methods, for example between radical cognitive empiricists and social cognitive empirics. Thorough going cognitive psychologists which views realism in science as some kind of inadequate phenomena and then assumes an informational kindred to cognitive systems (Heppner & Kivlighan 2008) plays a very important role in cognitive psychology, even though it is naturalized as the prototype of all forms of perspectives. Radical cognitive thinkers like Maturana and Varela always questioned the possibility of total objectivity and hard truth for the reasons that only information which is dependable and serves to boost the system is processed. Truth and objectivity followed by knowledge are therefore constructed. Radical cognitive thinkers have preferred to focus on epistemology and related studies as their method of linking the relationship between knowledge and the phys8ical world. Consequently these thinkers reject realism or all forms of ontology. An alternative version of cognitive psychology is named constructionism or social constructionism’. This version follows the tradition of the social psychology of Cooley and Mead. It analyses the processes in which the individuals describe and explain the world in which they live or in the ways that they see it (Koocher & Keith, 2008). Social constructionism, in contrast to radical constructivism, focuses on the acting and thinking individual and describes the construction of knowledge as the result of social interaction in contexts which form the foundation of shared knowledge. This view has proven itself remarkably fruitful for numerous psychological fields, for example, in the analysis of cognitive development or the development of prejudice and self impression. A third version of constructivism is engaged in exploring the correlation of learning and instruction, especially in the area of mathematic knowledge (Bush 2009, p. 111). Knowledge acquisition is discussed here in close connection with situated learning and related instructional approaches. In this review, only the two last presented versions of constructivism will be discussed, due to the fact that these have been the most influential in cognitive psychology. First of all, approaches which define themselves as constructivist will be presented. Second, studies will be discussed which contain the core features of constructivist reasoning. Constructivism emphasizes the active experience based knowledge construction and it’s embedding in social contexts. From this point of view intervention and instruction are chosen with regard to their individual fit. In this article cognitive tools which are typical for cognitive psychology approaches will be discussed first: conceptual metaphors, cognitive schemes, and subjective theories. In the second part they will be described in different psychological application areas. Therein the potential of cognitive psychology approaches for the research on text comprehension and the development of domain specific knowledge can be shown. Moreover a better understanding of the relationship between construction and instruction can be gained. Scholars have understand the conceptual metaphor as a form of conceptual mapping of entities, or properties, sometimes maybe relations and structures from a domain of a given kind onto the domain of a different kind. They understand it as a tool for the construction of scientific theories. Here you can also find typical arguments for constructivist approaches, even though the researchers do not regard themselves as constructivists. Studies have shown that a highly constrained set of conceptual metaphors is constitutive and definitive of the theoretical perspectives taken toward attention and toward the search programs based on these theories. Conceptual metaphors like the ones described above not only structure models but also our most complicated scientific theories. Fernandez Duque and Johnson show this by using metaphors for example the filter metaphor, the spotlight metaphor, the spotlight in the brain metaphor and the attention as vision metaphor. The development of knowledge and the acquisition is another subject of cognitive psychology oriented approaches in some long term studies. This has always been particularly important for the psychological cognitive theory of mind, which is generated by children for different knowledge for different conceptualization schema: about nature or sometimes memory, comprehension or even the intentionality of interpersonal kind of relationships (psychology).The theory of the mind is at its core a form of constructivist approach, which is based on the assumptions that: (a) knowledge is arranged in a similar manner to methods of theory and refers to specified forms of beliefs; (b) the theory of mind is coherent, uses constructs and plays the role of a basis for predictions for the behavior of different persons; (c) the theory of mind is innately predisposed; (d) Parts of this theory underlie cultural variations. Theories have on many occasions been equated by scholars to scientific theories and conceptual changes as a process of paradigm in the sense of Thomas Kuhn. Equating some of these significant theories of naive characters and scientific theories is highly problematic if matters of validity, operationalization and falsification are regarded. This position also underestimates the efficacy of social biases (Bersolf, 2008) and how they are analyzed by the research of social judgment. Some effect of social psychological cognition in the molding of individual reality has a long and varied tradition, in relation to social psychology. Basic assumption for social construction is that the terms in which the world is understood are social artifacts, products of historically situated interchanges among a variety of people. These artifacts represent different varieties in their various types. They range widely from quality to implicit personality theories to different social processes of social stigmatizing. One most significant finding of individual research is the lay dispositionism. It is because of this finding that typical judgments failures like the correspondence bias, or properly so called, the belief that aspects of behavior of other persons’ characteristics can be explained by personality traits or other internal attributes, are based. Modern social judgment research shows clearly the manner in which individuals construct their knowledge about other persons. Studies into cognitive psychology have attempted to demonstrate how characters with their own knowledge to others and managed to retain conflicting attitudes which express themselves in the different assumptions of the same object. Some scholars have convincingly described in their systems of dual attitudes the way old, stored attitudes interact in different ways with constructed attitudes and remain stable while affecting character shape. Conventional stereotypes, dual attitudes and specific implicit personality theories are, like the earlier identified metaphors and cognitive psychological schemes, necessary tools for the adjustment of the representative reality. This construction is erroneous and some of these errors are subject to revision in the structure of bargaining systems in cooperative groups, for example if anchor or heuristics are adopted instead. These constructs of everyday reality become problematic in the event that they lead to aspects of social stigma. Stigmatizing is commonly perceived as a process through which the members of some group mark an individual as a result of the internalized judgments. Research on the construction of coherent knowledge about one’s own personality by judgments of other people, stereotypes or dispositionism show profoundly clearly how average constructivist psychological methods yield to empirically based alternatives of the phenomena of mental process. The moderate cognitive psychology, which we represent, opens new doors to understanding the phenomenon of mind. The moderate constructivism emphasizes processes like knowledge acquisition, the individual activity potential and the importance of reality construction without claiming the equivalence of naive and scientific knowledge. Ethics Code lays out five basic principles that psychologists must follow: Beneficence and Non-malfeasance, Fidelity and Responsibility, Integrity, Justice, and Respect for Peoples Rights and Dignity. Broken down, the principles encourage professionals in the psychology world to uphold a standard of striving not to cause harm, to give the best treatment they are capable of, to be honest and professional and to do the right thing as dictated by. The Ethics Code can be used psychologists who stick by the. Cognitive Psychology can be extremely subjective. In some cases where a psychologists methods become questionable, reverting to the code can sometimes help colleagues to make fair observations about the nature of treatment through reference to specific methodologies instead of aligning with what conventions agree to be right. Situations have sometimes arisen where Ethics Code conflicts with the conventional natural law, whenever this happens the law must always take the precedence. The document on which this con nevertheless qualify as a rulebook as much as it might be an example of appropriateness. References Heppner, P. P., Wampold, E. B. & Kivlighan. (2008). Research in Counseling. London: Cengage Learning. Koocher, P. G., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2008). Ethics in psychology and the mental health professions: standards and cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bush. S., S. (2005). A casebook of ethical challenges in neuropsychology. London: Taylor & Francis. Bersolf, N. D. (2008). Ethical conflicts in psychology. New York: American Psychological Association. Read More